AGO 2012-01.

Case DateFebruary 09, 2012
CourtMaine
Maine Attorney General Opinions 2012. AGO 2012-01. February 9, 20122012-01Beth L. Ashcroft, DirectorOffice of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability 82 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0082Dear Ms. Ashcroft: On behalf of the Government Oversight Committee, you have asked for an update of the opinion issued by the Attorney General on September 4, 1996 (Op. Me. Att'y Gen. 96-11, hereafter "Op. 96-11," attached) concerning the legality of using Highway Fund money to support certain costs of the Maine State Ferry Service. That opinion concluded that the Highway Fund "may be used for the support of ferries whose principal purpose is the transportation of motor vehicles." Subject to the ambiguities and uncertainties discussed below, I believe that opinion remains defensible. The Maine Constitution and the Highway Fund Section 19, in its entirety, reads:
All revenues derived from fees, excises and license taxes relating to registration, operation and use of vehicles on public highways, and to fuels used for propulsion of such vehicles shall be expended solely for cost of administration, statutory refunds and adjustments, payment of debts and liabilities incurred in construction and reconstruction of highways and bridges, the cost of construction, reconstj-uction, maintenance and repair of public highways and bridges under the direction and supervision of a state department having jurisdiction over such highways and bridges and expense for state enforcement of traffic laws and shall not be divertedfor any purpose provided that these limitations shall not apply to revenue from an excise tax on motor vehicles imposed in lieu of personal property tax.
Me. Const, art. 9, § 19 (emphasis added). The legislative history of this provision is clearly summarized in this passage from the Law Court's decision in Portland Pipe Line Corp. v. Environmental Imp. Com'n, 307 A.2d 1 (Me. 1973):
In 1934 Congress became convinced that it was unfair to tax motor vehicle transportation unless the revenues thus derived were applied to the construction and maintenance of highways. To farther this end, Congress passed what is now 23 U.S.C. § 126, which provided that federal highway funds would be withheld from any state which did not apply gasoline taxes and other taxes on motor vehicle owners and operators to highway purposes.
The Maine Legislature responded in 1936 by reserving for highway purposes the taxes derived from the 'tax imposed on internal combustion fuel.' The Legislature, shortly thereafter, amended the statute to allow these funds to be used for other than highway purposes pending the collection of general revenues. The constitutional provision now in question was adopted by the people in 1943.(fn1) The Legislative Record does not indicate that the anti-diversion amendment was to be any broader in scope than the-1936 statute. The Legislature and the people had been accustomed since 1923 to the 'gasoline tax,' a tax imposed on highway users. It was this revenue that was protected from diversion to non-highway uses.
307 A.2datl3.(fn2) In Portland Pipe Line the Court also noted the approach to be used in interpreting constitutional provisions:
The fundamental rule of construction of statutory and of constitutional provisions is that the language shall be interpreted in accordance with the intention with which it was used, if that result may be accomplished by giving words their ordinary and usual significance... It is proper in construing constitutional language to
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT