|
||
HIGH COURT VACATES RULING In July, 2005, Mark Haskell was cited by the Maine Warden Service for violating Maine law by operating a personal watercraft on Lake St. George in Liberty, a lake where jet skis had been banned under Maine law 12 M.R.S. 13071-A(4)(A)(33). At the time, Mr. Haskell stated that he had purchased the craft with the intention of challenging the statute which authorizes local citizens to regulate surface use on a great pond within their jurisdiction by majority vote if the legislature and commissioner of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife approve. When Mr. Haskell’s case came before the District Court, the Judge hearing the case agreed with Mr. Haskell’s assertion that the statute was unconstitutional because it violated Mr. Haskell’s “fundamental right” to operate a personal watercraft on a great pond. Mr. Haskell was found not to have committed a civil violation, therefore, and the constitutionality of the law came into question.
Even more significantly, the Supreme Court found the District Court mistaken in finding that the right to use any form of boating on great ponds is a fundamental right. Instead, the State asserts that the public’s rights are inherently subject to regulation, and that such regulations are entitled to great deference. Because there is no fundamental right at issue, the constitutionality of the original law is presumed. Title 12 M.R.S. was enacted for the general welfare of the people of Maine, the means chosen are appropriate because the regulations reduce safety and environmental risks and hazards, and the statute is not arbitrary or capricious. This most recent episode in the Haskell jet ski case affirms Home Rule by upholding the constitutionality of a law empowering local taxpayers to introduce surface use regulations on a great pond where they have jurisdiction. In so doing, it reaffirms the right of taxpayers to influence circumstances which affect an economic resource on which their town’s tax base, local businesses and traditional ways of life depend. This is appropriate because local stakeholders have the most to lose if a lake loses its recreational appeal.
|
In a recent action, Maine’s Supreme Judicial Court has now vacated the District Court Ruling. The Supreme Court reviewed the validity of the statute and found that Mr. Haskell had not demonstrated the complete absence of facts to support enactment of the statute. To the contrary, the high court found that the statute in question met due process requirements: that police powers be exercised to provide for the public welfare; that the legislative means employed be appropriate to achieve the ends sought, and that the manner of exercising the power not be unduly arbitrary or capricious.