AUGUSTA, Maine — A bill that seeks to give courts more authority to scrutinize certain regulatory rulings by state agencies could be headed for a quiet death.
LD 1546, sponsored by Sen. Debra Plowman, R-Hampden, was voted down 18-16 on Monday without debate by the Senate.
It now faces a vote in the House where its fate is uncertain. Either way, it still would go back to the Senate for final disposition.
The bill addresses departmental rulings on things such as permits and enforcement of insurance laws. For instance, if the Maine Department of Environmental Protection denies an applicant a building permit and that decision is appealed, the state courts in most cases defer to the DEP’s determination of what’s required.
LD 1546 would require judges to review the appeal without that level of deference.
Supporters of the bill, including the governor’s office, said it gives anyone challenging agency rules more of a fair chance and helps guard against institutional bias.
During initial debate on the bill late last week, Sen. David Hastings, R-Fryeburg, said current law instructs courts to give “great deference” to agencies on regulatory rulings. The theory is that those agencies know their rules best, but some feel it gives them too much power.
“As we know, agencies develop agendas over time,” Hastings said.
Opponents are concerned the bill dramatically would slow down the appeal process. They fear it could lead to more lawsuits that would halt important economic development projects.
Sen. Seth Goodall, D-Richmond, said last week that he didn’t understand the need for the bill. In nearly all cases, he said, agencies that issue land-use permits approve about 98 percent of the applications.
“We’re trying to be less regulatory burdensome,” he said.
An analysis by the attorney general’s office earlier this year showed that Maine is one of 15 states with laws that give agencies strong deference.
Before the Judiciary Committee vote, the state’s attorney general expressed concerns about the bill because it might lead to inconsistent interpretation of regulations due to judges reviewing appeals on a case-by-case basis.
There also were questions raised about whether the bill would jeopardize the separation of powers outlined in the state constitution.
Follow BDN reporter Eric Russell on Twitter @BDNPolitics.
”
Supporters of the bill, including the governor’s office, said it gives anyone challenging agency rules more of a fair chance”
More of a fair chance at what? Ignoring state laws, because the judges wouldn’t have to base their decisions on the rules approved by the legislature?
The bill does not say that. State agencies have been given such arbitrary, discretionary power that businesses and individuals are being crushed by non-objective law under bureaucratic tyranny in a civil rights nightmare. Judges are biased towards agency discretion, which has led to the pattern of “the agency must know what it is doing and has the power to decide for itself”, leaving no recourse to the victims. This is the case across the board, from DEP to MRS. The legislature should be taking the responsibility to reform Maine law to specify objectively what the “rules” are and justify why instead of abdicating responsibility to bureaucrats to interpret sweeping authority under badly written law to make up their own rules as they go along. Allowing for more judicial review is not enough.
Rules are rules and judges need to support the law not cronies!
A “rules are rules” mentality without regard to what they are, why they are being imposed and by whom is a statist mentality. Respect for the law does not mean submission to arbitrary bureaucratic power. When government force is turned against innocent people, perverting “the rule of law and not of men”, it undermines respect for law.
You won’t be satisfied until there are no rules at all. The legislators and judges have no detailed knowledge of the various specialized areas that are regulated. The people who have worked at the agencies and who have been hired because of their particular expertise are the ones with the knowledge needed to craft and enforce rules. The rules they write must be approved by the legislature before they are enacted, and if they are too onerous the legislature sends them back to be fixed. That’s not good enough for you, though. The only rules you want are rules that let you do whatever you want and keep anyone else from having input, regardless of the damage you choose to do.
Stop misrepresenting what I write in your stream of smears and personal hostility.
Laws are required to protect the rights of every individual, not provide “rules” for those who want to rule others.
Objective laws are required so we know in advance what we cannot do.
A bureaucracy that makes up its own interpretations on the fly for progressively growing rules in a system in which we need their “permission” for a progressively growing list of normal activities and which no one can keep track of is tyranny. So is a government in which appeals are not allowed or impractical because of cost, bureaucracy or a judicial mindset that the bureaucrats “must know what they are doing” and civil rights are not relevant.
Maine laws are sweeping and ambiguous in the discretionary authority they grant to bureaucrats. There is no excuse for this. The typical progressive elitist appeal to a supposed special expertise of bureaucrats who know best to tell us what we can do in our own lives is a prescription for dictatorship. That is what we are getting and is why there is a revolt.
Debra accomplished what she set out to do – a headline and photo in the paper.
Another waste of time by the GOP controlled Maine Legislature with captain Penguin at the helm…November’s calling!
Eliminate the system of CHECKS & BALANCES and you pave the way to totalitarian government run by bureaucrats and a faux messiah.
Courts have long had a role in taking over failed and corrupt branches of government and managing them until they can operate them in accordance with the laws as interpreted by the legislature and the courts.
Three notable examples….the court run Kansas City schools; the court decision in Denver’s schools, and the ‘take over’ of N. Carolina schools.
A ‘wussy’ Senate is not what Maine needs now; since powerful legislators are enabled in their quest to influence dept. decisions in favor of their clients or the clients of partners and associates.
I agree, except that if you allow judges to decide anything other than the constitutionality of a law, you are short circuiting the checks and balances.
If a legislature passes a law that is constitutionaly valid, that is where the court jurisdiction ends. If the legislature thinks that a committee or panel, duly constituted, can decide a matter, what right do the courts have to decide otherwise? The law is made by the legislature. Presumably they will appoint experts on these panels. Judges are experts at few matters, except presumably, the law.
Lots of dictatorships work with judges who follow the will of the tyrants and decide things the way the tyrants want. This way, a few people can rule the rest. Allowing this to happen results in mob rule by those who claim that only they have all the answers.
Having a stronger appeals process might help a few people gain regulatory approval but it would also allow anyone who opposes the 98% of projects that get approved to file lengthy and expensive appeals.
Lepage is either brain dead on this issue or he is working on one particular project for his friends and he doesn’t care about any collateral damage his policies would cause Maine businesses.
a lot of it is the brain dead part.
>>>>>
I agree with the senate. It’s sort of like asking a judge to determine the legitimacy of forensic science without establishing trust with, and the expertise and guidance of a forensic scientist.
In Maine it’s asking a judge not to interfere in violations of civil rights by bureaucratic oppression because activist power seekers in the bureaucracy are confused with scientists.