AUGUSTA – Without debate, the Maine House and Senate agreed Monday to ask the Maine Supreme Judicial Court for an advisory opinion on the constitutionality of a controversial tax cap proposal.

House Speaker Patrick Colwell, D-Gardiner, hopes the court will respond to the Legislature’s request within a week since lawmakers are hoping to adjourn the session by April 21. James C. Chute, clerk of the Law Court, said the speaker’s expectations were not necessarily overly optimistic.

“It’s possible, and historically, there probably have been questions when a week has elapsed between question and answer – some probably sooner,” Chute said. “These things generally arise in a situation where everybody knows it’s an empty exercise unless the answer is pretty quick.”

The joint order requesting an advisory opinion – known as a solemn occasion – was sought after Maine Attorney General G. Steven Rowe expressed concerns about the constitutionality of some aspects of the citizens initiative that placed a 1 percent tax cap plan on this year’s statewide ballot.

Promoted by the Maine Taxpayers Action Network and tax activist Carol Palesky, the proposal would cap property taxes at 1 percent of local valuation as it existed in 1997 and also would require each taxpayer to assume an equal share of any existing debt incurred by the community of residence. For property constructed, sold or transferred after the 1997 assessment, the base value would be the appraised value at the time of construction or acquisition. The proposal also would limit assessment increases to 2 percent a year while the property’s ownership remains in a family.

Rowe told members of the Legislature’s Taxation Committee that the cap’s effect of lowering property taxes on one class of homeowners, while raising them for those who purchase homes after the initiative becomes effective, was contrary to the Maine Constitution, which states that all taxes on real estate and personal property shall be “apportioned and assessed equally.” He also questioned whether remaining portions of the cap could survive if the court found that one or more of its provisions did not meet constitutional muster.

Those same issues were raised in the request to the state’s high court by legislative leaders who want to know whether the calculation of property taxes based on appraised value violated the “apportioned and assessed equally” tax standard. They also probed the issue of “severability” arising from the attorney general’s uncertainty over the legality of the entire cap law should any aspect of it be declared unconstitutional.

While it appeared likely the high court would respond expeditiously to the legislative request, Colwell acknowledged that the legislative appeal for help does not oblige the justices to issue an opinion.

“Historically, mostly they have not [entertained legislative requests for opinions], but they have on issues related to municipal spending,” Colwell said, adding that the chances the court will decline might be increased by the fact that the question is already slated to appear on this year’s ballot. “But I think the attorney general believes that, based on the monetary and budgetary implications for communities [under the cap], he thought there was a very good chance the court would rule on it.”

Members of the Maine Municipal Association, which has its own tax relief proposal on the June primary ballot, maintain the MTAN cap would deplete municipal resources by more than 50 percent of current property tax revenue. The cap is scheduled to be on the Nov. 2 ballot, but legislative leaders are exploring the possibility of pursuing a special order, sending the question out to the voters during the June 8 primary.