Maine Supreme Judicial Court has ruled in favor of the Community School District (CSD). The court released the decision Feb. 10, ruling against each of the plaintiffs' issues around the $30 million referendum for renovations to Boothbay Region Elementary School.   

The ruling is the latest, and possibly last, move in a legal dispute around the 2024 referendum to bond renovations at the school. In June 2024, eight petitioners filed a lawsuit against the CSD and Board of Trustees, arguing their rights were violated when the district rejected a petition for a new referendum.    

The petition called for reconsidering and repealing a vote that approved a $30 million BRES renovation. A second article asked if voters supported a plan to update and renovate BRES in a project not to exceed $10,250,300.      

The plaintiffs requested the court declare the petition valid and that the district hold a new vote. In an independent claim, they argued their First Amendment rights were violated. After Lincoln County Superior Court denied the plaintiffs' requests in December 2024, each side made its case before the Supreme Court in October 2025.   

In the new ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed earlier judgments, finding no error with the trustees' denial of the petition and the Superior Court’s dismissal of independent claims.   

“The Board (of Trustees) did not abuse its discretion or commit an error of law in declining to submit the articles in the petition to voters in a referendum pursuant to section 1504. The Superior Court’s affirmance of the Board’s decision is therefore affirmed,” the ruling concludes.    

Section 1504 provides the procedure for reconsidering votes taken at a regional school unit referendum.    

The court said the petition did not request reconsideration as defined by the statute. Because the first article included the language “and repeal,” it sought not only a reconsideration referendum but also a request to repeal the result of that vote, according to the ruling.    

“Plainly, this is not what ‘reconsideration’ means,” the ruling said, affirming the Superior Court ruling that a proper 1504 reconsideration does not propose a different initiative.    

The ruling further said the second article is “unquestionably not a question on reconsideration.” It said the article asks the voters to approve a distinct replacement initiative, not simply revisit a previous matter.    

In their argument, the petitioners claimed the board could have severed the two articles, to be handled separately. However, the court did not agree and said it has previously warned against joining multiple issues in referendums, due to the confusion it can cause. The court said the trustees properly concluded that the articles could not be severed, and the reconsideration petition could not be submitted to referendum.   

“Neither the Board nor the court can speculate upon the signatories’ motive or intent in signing the two-article petition or whether they would have signed the petition had it contained only a single article,” the ruling said.   

Despite the ruling, lead plaintiff Patty Minerich said the CSD should keep in mind those who were part of the petition as the project moves forward.  

“It is unfortunate that the petition was thrown out on a technicality, but it should still be clear to the CSD Board of Trustees and School Board that an expensive rebuilding proposal is not popular with a large portion of residents,” she said. “The low-turnout vote from 2024 might stand as a matter of law, but the Boards would be wise to present the question back to the voters, with updated pricing and scope of work, before acquiring this much debt on behalf of taxpayers.” 

The Register also reached out to the CSD for comment.