An Act to Restore Balanced Emergency Powers
LD 551, titled “An Act to Restore Balanced Emergency Powers,” would significantly limit how state and local officials in Maine may use emergency authority to regulate the public. The bill requires emergency orders that bind, curtail, or infringe on private parties’ rights to be narrowly tailored to a compelling public health or safety purpose, limited in duration, scope, and applicability, and subject to judicial review. It also states that only the Governor may issue an emergency order that infringes constitutional rights, including rights related to travel, work, assembly, speech, religion, property, contracts, searches and seizures, and firearms.
The bill further changes the rules for states of emergency. A declared state of emergency could not continue beyond 30 days unless renewed with approval by a two-thirds vote of each legislative chamber. If the Legislature rejects renewal, the Governor must end the emergency within 24 hours. The bill also bars the Governor from reissuing or renewing substantially similar emergency proclamations, or declaring a new similar emergency for 30 days, without legislative approval. In addition, it prohibits state agencies from adopting emergency rules unless the Governor has issued an emergency proclamation.
If enacted, the bill would amend Maine law governing emergency proclamations, emergency rules, and the scope of executive and municipal emergency powers. It would create a stronger legislative check on emergency declarations, require expedited court review of emergency orders, and constrain state agencies’ ability to use emergency rulemaking absent a gubernatorial proclamation. The measure would affect the Governor, executive agencies, municipal officials, and private parties subject to emergency restrictions, while also creating a new legal standard for courts to evaluate whether emergency orders are sufficiently narrow and justified.
The available voting history suggests the bill was controversial and faced substantial opposition. The Senate and House votes on related reports were close but ultimately favored ought-not-to-pass reports, indicating that a majority of legislators were not willing to advance the measure despite significant support. The bill’s title and structure suggest it was promoted as a reform to restore balance and protect individual liberties, but the recorded votes show the proposal did not command broad consensus.
The main point of contention is the bill’s restriction of executive and local emergency authority, especially the requirement for legislative approval to extend emergencies beyond 30 days and the prohibition on reissuing similar emergency proclamations. Supporters appear to view these limits as necessary to protect constitutional rights and prevent overbroad emergency actions, while opponents likely object to reduced executive flexibility during public health or safety crises. Another likely flashpoint is the bill’s explicit inclusion of rights such as firearms possession and its provision allowing courts to invalidate emergency orders based on unequal impacts on analogous groups, which could be seen as inviting litigation and constraining emergency response.