The Maine Legislature’s Office of Policy and Legal Analysis (OPLA) plays a crucial role in the legislative process by providing non-partisan research and analysis to legislators. When drafting legislation, understanding the proper citation of existing Maine statutes is paramount to ensure clarity, accuracy, and legal enforceability. Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA) is the official compilation of Maine’s public laws. Proper citation involves identifying the correct title, chapter, and section number. For instance, a citation might appear as 35-A MRSA § 2301. The title number represents a broad subject area, such as Title 35-A which pertains to Public Utilities. The chapter number further categorizes the subject within that title, and the section number pinpoints the specific statutory provision. Accurately referencing these components ensures that the drafted legislation correctly amends, repeals, or enacts law, and that future legal interpretations can easily locate the referenced statutory text. Incorrect or incomplete citations can lead to ambiguity, misinterpretation, and potential legal challenges, undermining the effectiveness of the legislation. Therefore, legislative drafters must be meticulous in their citation practices, adhering to established conventions for MRSA references.

The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA) Title 1, Section 202, outlines the process for amending existing statutes. When a bill proposes to amend a section of the MRSA, the drafting process requires precise identification of the section to be changed and the specific language to be added, deleted, or modified. The principle of “strike everything after the enacting clause” is a legislative drafting technique where a bill is amended to completely replace the original text with new provisions, effectively gutting the original bill’s substance. In Maine, this technique is often used to introduce entirely new legislation under the guise of amending an existing, often minor, statute. The legislative intent behind using this technique is to leverage the legislative process, potentially to expedite the passage of significant new policy or to consolidate multiple related concepts into a single legislative vehicle. Understanding the implications of this technique is crucial for drafters to ensure clarity, avoid unintended consequences, and maintain the integrity of the statutory code. It involves careful consideration of how the proposed new language interacts with other sections of the MRSA and existing state law, ensuring that the amendment, though drastic in its replacement of content, ultimately serves a coherent legislative purpose.

The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA) Title 1, Chapter 1, Section 7 outlines the rules for statutory construction, particularly concerning the effective dates of legislation. When a bill is enacted without a specific effective date, it is presumed to take effect 90 days after the adjournment of the legislative session in which it was enacted, unless the Legislature specifically provides otherwise. This 90-day period is a default mechanism to allow for public notice and implementation. For example, if a legislative session adjourns on June 15th, a bill without an explicit effective date would generally become law on September 13th (June 15th + 90 days). This principle is fundamental for understanding when new laws, such as those impacting municipal ordinances or state agency regulations in Maine, become legally binding. The Legislature can, and often does, specify an earlier or later effective date to manage the transition of new legal requirements. This ensures that stakeholders have adequate time to prepare for changes.

The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA) Title 1, Section 202, outlines the process for amending existing statutes. When a bill proposes to amend a section of the MRSA, the drafting practice dictates that the amendment should clearly indicate which part of the existing language is being altered. This is typically achieved by striking through language that is to be deleted and italicizing new language that is to be inserted. This visual cue is crucial for legislative clarity, allowing legislators to quickly identify the specific changes being made to the law. Furthermore, MRSA Title 1, Section 202, mandates that amendments must be specific in their reference to the statute being modified, including the Title, Chapter, and Section number. The purpose of this specificity is to prevent unintended consequences and ensure that the amendment applies only to the intended provision. The bill drafter’s responsibility is to accurately reflect the legislative intent through precise language and formatting that adheres to these statutory requirements, ensuring that the amended statute is unambiguous and legally sound. The question tests the understanding of the visual and textual conventions used in Maine legislative drafting to signify amendments to existing statutes, as governed by Title 1, Section 202 of the MRSA.

The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA) Title 1, Chapter 1, Section 101-A governs the construction of statutes. Specifically, subsection 1 states that “Words and phrases shall be construed according to the common meaning of the language, unless the construction is plainly repugnant to the intent of the Legislature or inconsistent with the manifest object of the statute.” This principle emphasizes that statutory interpretation begins with the plain meaning of the words used. However, it also acknowledges that context, legislative intent, and the overall purpose of the statute are paramount and can override a literal interpretation if that interpretation would lead to an absurd or unintended outcome. When drafting legislation, a drafter must consider how existing statutory construction principles in Maine, such as those found in Title 1, MRSA, will apply to the language they choose. The goal is to ensure clarity and predictability in the law, meaning the drafted language should, ideally, be susceptible to a plain meaning interpretation that aligns with the intended legislative purpose. If ambiguity exists, the drafter should strive to resolve it through precise language or by referencing established interpretive canons. The principle of statutory construction in Maine, as in many jurisdictions, prioritizes an interpretation that gives effect to the legislative intent, which is often discerned from the plain language, legislative history, and the overall structure and purpose of the act.

The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA) Title 1, Chapter 5, Section 105, governs the structure and style of legislative bills. Specifically, it mandates that a bill must clearly state its purpose and the sections of existing law it intends to amend or repeal. When drafting a bill to amend an existing statute, such as a provision within the Maine Criminal Code, a drafter must precisely identify the statute number and subsection being modified. For instance, if a bill aims to alter the penalty for a specific misdemeanor defined in MRSA Title 17-A, Section 401, subsection 1, paragraph (a), the bill’s text must explicitly reference “Section 401, subsection 1, paragraph (a) of Title 17-A” and then clearly articulate the proposed change to that specific language. This precision ensures that the amendment is unambiguous and targets the intended legal provision. Failure to accurately identify the statute being amended can lead to unintended consequences, rendering the amendment ineffective or creating conflicting legal provisions. The principle of legislative clarity requires that amendments are surgically precise, leaving no room for interpretation regarding which law is being altered.

The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA), Title 1, Section 202, governs the construction of statutes and outlines rules for interpreting legislative intent. Specifically, it addresses how to interpret words and phrases used in enacted laws. When a statute is silent on a particular term, the common law meaning or the meaning derived from other statutes within the same jurisdiction, if consistent and applicable, can be used. However, the primary directive is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature. This intent is best understood through the plain meaning of the words used in the statute itself, and if ambiguity persists, through legislative history, committee reports, and the overall purpose of the legislation. The principle of *expressio unius est exclusio alterius* (the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another) is a canon of construction that can be applied when specific items are enumerated, implying that unlisted items are intentionally excluded. However, this principle is not absolute and can be overridden by clear legislative intent to the contrary. In this scenario, the absence of a definition for “essential services” in the proposed bill, coupled with its common understanding in public discourse and regulatory frameworks concerning public safety and welfare, necessitates an approach that prioritizes legislative intent as expressed through the bill’s purpose and context, rather than relying solely on a strict *expressio unius* interpretation which might lead to an unintended exclusion of critical functions. The most robust approach for a legislative drafter in Maine, when faced with an undefined, crucial term like “essential services” in a bill intended to address public health crises, is to seek clarity through the legislative process itself, such as by proposing an amendment to define the term, or by consulting legislative research services for guidance on established interpretations within Maine law or similar legislative contexts. If the bill is to be enacted without a definition, the drafter must consider how a court might interpret the term based on the bill’s purpose and existing legal principles, prioritizing the likely intent of the Maine Legislature.

The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA), Title 1, Section 252, outlines the process for amending existing statutes. When a bill proposes to amend a section of the MRSA, the drafting practice dictates that the entire section being amended must be presented, with the proposed changes clearly indicated. Specifically, new material is typically shown in bold or underlined text, and deleted material is shown in strikethrough or bracketed text. The question asks about the correct method for presenting a bill that amends a specific section of the MRSA. The correct approach involves reprinting the entire section with the precise indications of additions and deletions. This ensures clarity for legislators and the public regarding the exact nature of the proposed statutory change. For instance, if a bill sought to change the phrase “shall be no more than” to “must not exceed” in a section of the MRSA, the amended section would be reprinted with “shall be no more than” struck through and “must not exceed” in bold or underlined text. This method preserves the context of the surrounding statutory language while highlighting the specific alteration. It is crucial for legislative drafting to maintain the integrity and readability of the entire statutory provision being modified.

The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA) Title 1, Section 202 outlines the process for amending existing statutes. When a bill proposes to amend a section of the MRSA, the drafting convention requires that the entire section be reprinted, with the amendments clearly indicated. Specifically, new matter is typically shown in capital letters, and deleted matter is indicated by enclosing it in brackets or using strikeout formatting, though the latter is less common in the actual text of a bill. The purpose of this precise reprinting is to ensure clarity and avoid ambiguity regarding the exact changes being made to the law. It allows legislators and the public to easily understand the operative effect of the proposed amendment without having to mentally reconstruct the changes. Therefore, if a bill seeks to modify a phrase within a statute, the entire statute section containing that phrase must be presented, with the specific phrase to be altered presented in a manner that signifies deletion and insertion. This meticulous approach is fundamental to the legislative drafting process in Maine, ensuring that the intended legal effect is accurately conveyed and understood.

When drafting legislation in Maine, particularly concerning procedural matters or the application of existing statutes, a legislative drafter must consider the effective date of a bill and how it interacts with other laws. Maine Revised Statutes Title 1, Section 3, subsection 1, states that “Public laws, unless otherwise provided, take effect on the thirtieth day after the adjournment of the session of the Legislature in which they are enacted.” However, legislative intent can override this default. If a bill explicitly states a different effective date, that date governs. For instance, a bill might specify “This Act takes effect January 1, 2025” or “This Act takes effect immediately upon approval by the Governor.” The drafter’s role is to ensure clarity and consistency with legislative intent. In this scenario, the proposed amendment to 30-A M.R.S. § 2001 explicitly states an effective date of “July 1, 2024.” This specific provision overrides the general rule found in 1 M.R.S. § 3(1). Therefore, the amendment to section 2001 will become law on July 1, 2024, irrespective of when the legislative session adjourns, provided the bill is enacted. The drafter must ensure this explicit effective date is correctly placed within the bill’s language to achieve the intended legal effect.

The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA) Title 1, Section 202, outlines the process for amending existing statutes. Specifically, it mandates that any bill proposing to amend a statute must clearly identify the statute to be amended by its chapter and section number. Furthermore, the bill must indicate the proposed changes by using specific formatting conventions: deletions are shown by enclosing the text to be deleted in brackets, and additions are shown by enclosing the new text in italic type. This ensures clarity and precision in legislative intent, allowing for unambiguous understanding of the proposed changes to Maine law. For instance, if a bill sought to alter the language within MRSA Title 17, Chapter 5, Section 123, the amendment would explicitly reference “MRSA Title 17, Chapter 5, Section 123” and present the changes using the prescribed bracket and italic formatting. This method is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the legislative record and facilitating accurate codification. The purpose of this strict formatting is to prevent ambiguity and ensure that all legislators and stakeholders can readily discern the exact modifications being proposed to the existing statutory framework of Maine.

In Maine, legislative drafting requires adherence to specific formatting and structural conventions to ensure clarity, consistency, and legal efficacy. A bill’s structure typically includes a title, an enacting clause, sections, and potentially an effective date. The enacting clause, mandated by Maine law, serves as the formal declaration that the Legislature intends to enact the proposed legislation. This clause is critical for the bill’s validity. When drafting amendments to existing statutes, particularly those that repeal and replace sections, the drafter must ensure that the new language is precisely integrated and that any repealed portions are clearly identified as such. The principle of clarity dictates that amendments should not introduce ambiguity or conflict with existing law. The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA) provides the framework for statutory law, and amendments must correctly reference the specific chapters and sections being modified. For instance, if a bill proposes to alter a provision within Title 30-A of the MRSA, the drafting must accurately cite the relevant section number and its corresponding chapter. The process of amendment also involves careful consideration of the bill’s placement within the legislative process, including committee review and floor debates, which can lead to further modifications. The ultimate goal is to produce legislation that is both legally sound and readily understandable to the public and the judiciary.

The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA), Title 1, Section 202, outlines the process for amending existing statutes. When a bill proposes to amend a section of the MRSA, the amendment must clearly indicate the specific section being altered and the precise changes to be made. This typically involves using strike-through text for deletions and underlined text for additions. Furthermore, Title 1, Section 202, mandates that the bill must state the intention to amend a particular statute. For instance, if a bill intends to modify Title 17-A, Section 1151 of the MRSA concerning assault, it would preface the amended text with a clear statement like “Section 1151 of Title 17-A is amended to read as follows:”. The legislative drafting process in Maine prioritizes clarity and precision to ensure that the intent of the Legislature is accurately reflected in the enacted law. The bill’s title also plays a crucial role in summarizing its purpose, which aids in understanding the scope of the amendment. The structure of the amendment itself, showing the original text with modifications, is a fundamental aspect of legislative drafting to avoid ambiguity.

The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA), Title 1, Chapter 1, Section 8, outlines the general rules for statutory construction. Specifically, it addresses the interpretation of “person” within the statutes. The statute states that “Person” includes an individual, a corporation, a partnership, an unincorporated association, or any other legal or commercial entity. This definition is broad and encompasses various forms of collective or individual existence recognized by law. When drafting legislation, understanding these foundational definitions is crucial for ensuring clarity and consistent application of the law across different entities. For instance, if a new law imposes a duty or grants a right to a “person,” this definition ensures that the scope of that law extends to all entities fitting the statutory description, thereby preventing ambiguity and potential loopholes. The principle of inclusiveness in statutory definitions aims to promote comprehensive legal coverage.

The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA), Title 1, Section 202, governs the construction of statutes. This section specifies that words and phrases are to be construed according to the common meaning of the language unless they are defined in the statute or a specific context dictates otherwise. When a term is defined within a statute, that definition controls its meaning within that particular statutory scheme. Furthermore, MRSA Title 1, Section 202, mandates that when interpreting statutes, the primary goal is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the Legislature. This intent is to be determined from the statute itself, considering its structure, language, and purpose. If the language is plain and unambiguous, it is generally presumed to express the legislative intent directly. However, if ambiguity exists, extrinsic aids such as legislative history, committee reports, and prior interpretations may be consulted to clarify the intended meaning. The principle of pari materia, which suggests interpreting statutes dealing with the same subject matter together, is also a key interpretive tool in Maine. The concept of legislative intent is paramount, guiding the interpreter to understand what the lawmakers intended to achieve with the legislation. This involves not just the literal wording but also the underlying policy and objectives.

The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA) Title 1, Chapter 5, Section 103, outlines the requirements for the effective date of legislation. Generally, an act becomes effective 90 days after the adjournment of the legislative session in which it was enacted, unless a different effective date is specified within the act itself. This 90-day period is a standard provision designed to allow for public notice and for governmental agencies to prepare for implementation. However, emergency clauses, as permitted by the Maine Constitution, Article IV, Part Third, Section 16, can allow for an earlier effective date. An emergency clause must be explicitly stated in the bill and requires a two-thirds vote of the members elected to each branch of the Legislature for passage. Without such a clause and vote, the default 90-day period applies. Therefore, if a bill does not contain an emergency clause and is not vetoed, it will become law 90 days after the legislative session adjourns.

The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA), Title 1, Section 252, governs the construction of statutes. Specifically, it addresses the effect of amendments on existing laws. When a new act amends a statute, it is understood to modify the existing law as if the amended provisions were repealed and reenacted with the new wording. However, this general rule is subject to the specific intent of the legislature as expressed in the amendatory act itself. If the amendatory act contains a clear statement indicating that the amendment does not affect certain existing rights, obligations, or proceedings, that specific legislative intent will prevail over the general rule of repeal and reenactment. This principle ensures that legislative intent is paramount in statutory interpretation, particularly when amendments are enacted. The purpose of this is to provide clarity and predictability in the application of laws, ensuring that changes to statutes are implemented in a manner consistent with the legislature’s objectives, without inadvertently disrupting established legal relationships or ongoing legal processes unless explicitly intended.

The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA) Title 1, Chapter 5, Section 105 governs the process of legislative review of administrative rules. This section outlines the requirements for agencies to submit proposed rules and amendments to the Legislature for review. Specifically, it details the timeline for submission, the format of the submission, and the responsibilities of the joint standing committee to which the rule is referred. The statute mandates that proposed rules be submitted to the Legislative Council for review and then to the appropriate joint standing committee of the Legislature. The committee then has a specified period, typically 30 days, to review the rule and may hold public hearings. If the committee approves the rule, it is then filed with the Secretary of State. If the committee disapproves the rule, it must submit a report to the Legislature outlining its objections. The core principle is legislative oversight of the administrative rulemaking process to ensure that agency actions align with legislative intent and public policy. Understanding this statutory framework is crucial for drafters to ensure compliance and proper procedure when drafting legislation that impacts or is impacted by administrative rules in Maine. The question tests the understanding of the procedural steps and statutory basis for legislative review of administrative rules in Maine, emphasizing the role of the Legislative Council and the joint standing committee.

When drafting legislation in Maine, understanding the principles of statutory construction is paramount. One key principle is that statutes in pari materia, meaning statutes relating to the same subject matter, should be construed together as if they were one continuous act. This approach aims to harmonize potentially conflicting provisions and give effect to the overall legislative intent. For instance, if Maine enacts a new law regarding environmental protection that touches upon aspects already covered by existing statutes concerning water quality, a legislator would interpret the new law in conjunction with the prior water quality laws. This ensures consistency and avoids creating unintended loopholes or contradictions. The goal is to ascertain the legislative purpose and apply it uniformly across related statutes. This interpretive method is a fundamental tool for ensuring that laws are coherent, predictable, and effectively implement the legislative will. It is not about simply picking the most recent or specific statute, but about understanding how all relevant laws work together to achieve a broader policy objective. This holistic view is essential for drafting clear and effective legislation that can be applied consistently in practice.

The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA) Title 1, Section 202, outlines the requirements for the effective date of legislation. Generally, unless a specific bill designates a different effective date, public laws enacted by the Maine Legislature become effective 90 days after the adjournment of the legislative session in which they were enacted. This 90-day period is a crucial element in legislative drafting, ensuring that stakeholders have adequate time to understand and prepare for new legal requirements. The adjournment date itself is a significant point of reference. If the Legislature adjourns sine die on a particular date, the count of 90 days begins from that date. For instance, if the Legislature adjourns on June 15th, the 90-day period would conclude on September 13th. This mechanism provides a standard, predictable timeline for the implementation of new laws, unless the enacting clause of the bill specifies an alternative date, such as upon passage or a specific future date. Understanding this default provision is fundamental for drafters to accurately advise on when a proposed bill will take legal effect.

The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA), Title 1, Section 202, outlines the general rules for the construction of statutes. Specifically, it addresses the interpretation of “person” within legislative enactments. Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the term “person” is defined to include individuals, corporations, associations, partnerships, and other legal entities. This broad definition ensures that legal rights and responsibilities can be applied consistently across various forms of organization. When drafting legislation, understanding these definitional statutes is crucial to avoid ambiguity and ensure the intended scope of the law. For instance, if a new bill proposes a tax on “persons” engaging in a particular activity, without further clarification, the MRSA definition would automatically encompass all these entities. Therefore, a legislative drafter must consider whether the bill’s intent is to apply to natural persons only, or to include artificial entities as well. If the latter is intended, the existing definition is sufficient. If the former is intended, the bill must explicitly state “natural person” or “individual” to limit its application, or provide a specific exclusion for certain types of entities. This principle of statutory construction, often referred to as the “plain meaning rule” or “ordinary meaning rule,” is fundamental to ensuring legislative intent is accurately reflected in the enacted law. The careful selection of terminology, informed by existing statutory definitions, prevents unintended consequences and promotes legal certainty.

The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA) Title 1, Section 202 governs the construction of statutes. Specifically, it outlines that when a statute refers to a specific day, calendar day, or date, it means that day as observed in the state of Maine. If a statute mandates an action to be completed on a specific day, and that day falls on a weekend or a legal holiday, the action is due on the next succeeding day that is not a weekend or legal holiday. This principle is crucial for legislative drafters to ensure clarity and adherence to statutory deadlines, preventing ambiguity in when obligations must be met. For instance, if a bill requires a report to be submitted by January 15th, and January 15th, 2025, is a Wednesday, the report is due on that Wednesday. However, if January 15th, 2026, falls on a Saturday, the report would be due on Monday, January 17th, 2026, assuming no other intervening legal holidays. This rule ensures that legislative and administrative processes continue without interruption or undue burden caused by non-business days. Understanding these construction rules is fundamental for drafting legislation that is both precise and practical in its application within Maine’s legal framework.

The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA), Title 1, Section 252, governs the effective dates of laws. It specifies that if a public law does not contain a specific effective date, it takes effect on the 90th day after the legislative session in which it was enacted adjourns sine die. Sine die adjournment marks the end of a legislative session. Therefore, if a bill is enacted during a legislative session that adjourns sine die on June 15, 2024, the 90-day period would commence on June 16, 2024. Counting 90 days from June 16, 2024, leads to the effective date. June has 30 days. Days remaining in June after the 15th: \(30 – 15 = 15\) days. Days needed in July: \(90 – 15 = 75\) days. July has 31 days. Days remaining after July: \(75 – 31 = 44\) days. Days needed in August: \(44\) days. August has 31 days. Days remaining after August: \(44 – 31 = 13\) days. Days needed in September: \(13\) days. Therefore, the 90th day falls on September 13, 2024. This principle ensures a predictable timeframe for the implementation of legislation that lacks an explicit effective date, allowing for public awareness and administrative preparation. Understanding the statutory default effective date is crucial for legislative drafters to accurately advise on the timing of new laws and to ensure that enacted legislation becomes operative as intended by the Legislature. The concept of sine die adjournment is fundamental to this calculation, representing the official conclusion of the legislative body’s work for that particular session.

In Maine, the process of amending existing statutes is governed by specific constitutional and legislative rules. When a bill proposes to amend a section of the Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA), the drafting must clearly indicate the changes. This is typically achieved through the use of specific typographical conventions. The standard practice is to enclose new material added to a statute in boldface type and to indicate material deleted from a statute by enclosing it in brackets and striking it through with a hyphen. For instance, if a statute currently reads “The Governor shall appoint a commission,” and a bill proposes to change it to “The Governor shall appoint a five-member commission,” the amended language would be drafted as “The Governor shall appoint [strike-through with hyphen] a five-member commission.” This convention ensures that both the legislative body and the public can easily identify precisely what is being added to or removed from the existing law. This method of indicating amendments is crucial for transparency and to prevent unintended alterations to statutory language. The goal is to make the legislative intent clear and unambiguous in the proposed changes to the Maine Revised Statutes Annotated.

The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA) Title 1, Section 105 governs the construction of statutes, particularly concerning the effect of amendments. When a statute is amended, the amendment generally applies to all transactions and proceedings that occur after its effective date. However, the critical aspect for legislative drafters is understanding how amendments interact with existing rights and obligations, especially when a statute is repealed and reenacted. In such cases, the reenactment often implies a continuation of the prior law, unless the new enactment clearly indicates a different intent. Specifically, MRSA Title 1, Section 105(1) states that “when a statute is repealed and all or part of it is reenacted, the reenacted part is considered a continuation of the former statute, and not a new enactment.” This principle is crucial for ensuring continuity and predictability in the legal framework. A drafter must be mindful that if a legislative amendment intends to alter substantive rights that have already vested under the prior version of the law, this intent must be explicitly stated within the amendment itself. Without such explicit language, the presumption of continuation under Section 105(1) prevails, meaning the amendment’s provisions will primarily govern future conduct and interpretations, rather than retroactively invalidating past actions or vested rights that were compliant with the prior law. Therefore, a drafter must consider the precise wording of an amendment to determine its temporal reach and its impact on pre-existing legal relationships, ensuring that any intended retroactive effect is clearly articulated to overcome the statutory presumption of continuity.

The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA) Title 1, Chapter 1, Section 2, defines “ordinance” as a regulation enacted by a municipality. Title 30-A MRSA, Chapter 101, Subchapter 1, Section 2001, grants municipalities the authority to adopt and enforce ordinances. However, this authority is not absolute and is subject to state preemption and constitutional limitations. When a municipal ordinance conflicts with a state statute on the same subject matter, the state statute generally prevails due to the principle of state preemption, which reserves certain powers to the state government. The Maine Constitution, particularly Article IV, Part First, Section 1, vests legislative power in the Legislature. Municipalities derive their powers from the state, and their ordinances cannot contravene state law. Therefore, an ordinance prohibiting all forms of commercial drone operation within a municipality, when state law (e.g., MRSA Title 6, Chapter 33, concerning aviation) permits and regulates such operations, would likely be considered invalid as it conflicts with and attempts to preempt state authority in an area already occupied by state legislation. The proper approach for a municipality seeking to regulate commercial drone use would be to enact ordinances that supplement, rather than contradict, existing state regulations, focusing on local zoning, nuisance, or privacy concerns that are not explicitly preempted by state law.

The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA) Title 1, Section 202, subsection 3 outlines the process for amending existing statutes. When a bill proposes to amend a section of the MRSA, the drafting convention requires that the entire section be reprinted with the proposed changes clearly indicated. Specifically, new matter is typically shown in bold text, and deleted matter is shown in stricken-through text. However, if the amendment involves substantial revisions or the deletion of a significant portion of the existing text, the statute might require a more comprehensive approach to ensure clarity and avoid confusion for both legislators and the public. The principle behind this is to provide a complete and understandable version of the law as it will read after the amendment. This ensures that anyone consulting the statute can readily identify the current law and the specific changes being made, thereby promoting transparency and legal certainty. The Maine Legislative Drafting Manual further elaborates on these conventions, emphasizing the importance of precise language and clear presentation of amendments to maintain the integrity of the legislative code. The objective is to make the amended section self-contained and easily comprehensible without requiring the reader to cross-reference extensively with the prior version of the law. This practice is crucial for the effective operation of the legislative process and the administration of justice in Maine.

The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA), Title 1, Section 252, governs the construction of statutes. Specifically, it states that “words and phrases are to be construed according to the common meaning of the language used, unless the construction is plainly repugnant to the intent of the Legislature or is inconsistent with the context.” When a term is defined within a statute, that definition supersedes the common meaning for the purposes of that statute. If a term is not defined within the specific statute but is defined in Title 1, Chapter 11 (General Provisions), that definition generally applies unless the specific statute indicates otherwise. However, the primary principle is to ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent. This intent is often derived from the plain language of the statute, its legislative history, and the overall purpose of the enactment. In cases of ambiguity, courts may look to these sources to interpret the meaning of statutory language. The MRSA, Title 1, Section 251, also emphasizes that statutes are to be construed to promote their underlying purposes and to harmonize them with other statutes. Therefore, when drafting, a legislative drafter must be mindful of these construction rules to ensure clarity and avoid unintended consequences. The concept of “plain meaning” is a foundational principle, but it is not absolute and must be applied in conjunction with the overarching goal of effectuating legislative intent.

The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA) Title 1, Section 202, outlines the process for the effective date of legislative acts. Specifically, it addresses acts that contain a specific effective date provision and those that do not. If an act explicitly states an effective date, that date governs. However, if an act does not specify an effective date, MRSA Title 1, Section 202, dictates that it becomes effective on the 90th day after the adjournment of the legislative session in which it was enacted. This 90-day period is a standard legislative practice in many states, including Maine, to allow for public review and administrative preparation before a new law takes effect. The adjournment date is crucial for determining the effective date of unenacted legislation. Understanding this default mechanism is fundamental for legislative drafters to ensure clarity and predictability in the application of new statutes.

In Maine, the legislative drafting process requires adherence to specific statutory frameworks and procedural rules to ensure the clarity, legality, and enforceability of proposed legislation. When drafting a bill that proposes to amend an existing statute, a key principle is to clearly indicate which parts of the current law are being altered. This is typically achieved through the use of specific textual conventions. For instance, material to be inserted is often underlined, and material to be deleted is enclosed in brackets or struck through. The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA) and the Legislative Drafting Manual provide detailed guidance on these conventions. The objective is to create a clean, readable version of the amended statute while simultaneously preserving the legislative intent by showing the precise changes made from the original text. This transparency is crucial for legislative deliberation, public understanding, and judicial interpretation. A draft that fails to clearly demarcate deletions and insertions can lead to ambiguity, unintended consequences, and challenges to the law’s validity. Therefore, the correct method involves employing the established typographical conventions for indicating deletions and insertions, ensuring that the bill text itself visually represents the proposed modifications to the MRSA.