What Happened When I Questioned the Constitutionality of HP 1489

NO "free-standing right" to "ask an opinion" of the AG, except that is what the statute instructs "a party" to do!

Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

Yesterday, Following the instructions in Rule 5.1. Constitutional Challenge to a Statute I submitted a question challenging the constitutionality of HP 1489

This is the response from the Assistant Attorney General of Maine

Thank you for your response.  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1 is intended to require notice when a federal lawsuit has been filed challenging the constitutionality of a state law.  The purpose of the notice requirement is to give the Maine Attorney General the opportunity to intervene in the lawsuit, typically to defend the law’s constitutionality.  The rule does not create a freestanding right to request an Attorney General opinion on the constitutionality of a statute.  I would suggest that you consult with a private attorney if you are considering a legal challenge to the statute you reference.

I think he is talking about 28 U.S. Code § 2403 - Intervention by United States or a State; constitutional question

Rule 5.1. Constitutional Challenge to a Statute. refers to an earlier stage.

The link above from Cornell Law School refers to the party questioning the constitutionality of a law as “a party” and does not say that only the federal government can file notice. It states:

a) Notice by a Party. A party that files a pleading, written motion, or other paper drawing into question the constitutionality of a federal or state statute must promptly: …….(emphasis mine)

The notice of constitutional question will ensure that the attorney general is notified of constitutional challenges and has an opportunity to exercise the statutory right to intervene at the earliest possible point in the litigation. The court's certification obligation remains, and is the only notice when the constitutionality of a federal or state statute is drawn in question by means other than a party's pleading, written motion, or other paper.(emphasis mine)

The earliest possible point would be before submitting the question to the court which is covered in 28 U.S. Code § 2403 - Intervention by United States or a State; constitutional question representing a later point in the process, after it has been submitted to the court. That is the meaning of The court's certification obligation remains.

“The freestanding right” is codified in Rule 5.1. Constitutional Challenge to a Statute. The Maine Assistant Attorney General says it does not exist.

If I am understanding correctly, 28 U.S. Code § 2403 - Intervention by United States or a State; constitutional question says that if the question is submitted to the court, the court then notifies the federal government and that the court also notifies the State Attorney General who has another option of intervening.

What it means “to intervene” is not explained in the statute but Rule 5.1. Constitutional Challenge to a Statute is addressing the earliest stage in the process. The Assistant Attorney General claims that intervening “typically means” defending the law’s constitutionality”, which is the role of a litigant opposing the party raising the question. The Maine Attorney General Secretary of State recently defended the constitutionality of a law in response to citizens protesting Donald Trump being on the ballot but the citizens were not questioning the constitutionality of the state law.

If the Attorney General were to intervene on the side opposing the constitutional question at the earliest possible stage, then that would be interference with the process of justice with the AG acting as the court rather than a litigant as the stage described in Rule 5.! is before the court sends notice to the federal government, which then sends notice to the state AG. Intervening against the constitutional question, at the earliest stage would be to stop the system of justice from unfolding. Therefore I interpret intervening to mean the option to join the litigation on the side of the constitutional question and that by choosing not to intervene the AG is choosing to act as a litigant opposing the constitutional question. When the federal government takes up the case and sends notice to the state AG, the State AG is a litigant supporting the constitutionality of the law. By intervening at the earliest possible stage, the AG chooses the side challenging the constitutionality of the state law and probably assists with filing the question in the court.

I interpret Rule 5.1 as defining the earliest possible stage in the litigation process where the State AG is given the opportunity to decide which side it is on. I asked about the electronic submission option because an electronic submission permits one to submit a document with active links. I was told I could send it by email to the Assistant AG, but to ensure compliance with Ruke 5.1 I should also submit a certified or registered notice directly to the AG.

The information I have been able to find does not identify how "a party" can notify the court. The term "a party" is a general term. The first law says "a party" can notify the State Attorney General, which I did and the Assistant State Attorney General indicates that the State does not want to join the suit on the side of my questions and so it is parsed as “There is "no free-standing right" to ask the AG "for an opinion" A choice selection of words- Kind of like “Who do you think you are to petition your government?”, a common response in Maine government!

The point of “a party” notifying the State Attorney Generals in Rule 5.1. Constitutional Challenge to a Statute is the give the Attorney General’s office the opportunity to take up the cause. Then the AG would probably notify the court. If the AG does not join the suit, you are on your own. I have to figure out what the process is to notify the court. A lawyer would be welcome but “a party” should be able to do that on their own. Why not?

What I submitted to the Attorney General