Maine
How SCOTUS could overhaul elections – and what that means for Maine
Within the span of some weeks, the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court docket has upended long-standing legal guidelines and constitutional precedents on abortion, weapons, environmental regulation and taxpayer help for non secular faculties.
Are elections subsequent?
That’s the query elections officers and authorized observers throughout the nation – together with right here in Maine – have been asking since final week when the justices agreed to evaluation a case out of North Carolina with doubtlessly huge nationwide implications.
“What this is able to do is it might place the only authority for redistricting, for federal election legal guidelines and for selecting of presidential electors with the state legislators. And that’s terribly regarding from the attitude of democracy and our Republic,” stated Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat.
Relying on how the court docket guidelines, the case may additionally have an effect on Maine’s use of ranked-choice voting in addition to election practices which can be included within the Maine Structure however not the U.S. Structure.
The case, Moore v. Harper, is ostensibly about Republican gerrymandering in North Carolina the place the state Supreme Court docket blocked implementation of reconfigured congressional district maps. Put forth by the Republican-controlled Legislature, the maps have been drawn in such a option to possible give the GOP a disproportionate variety of seats within the U.S. Home.
However the case is much greater and extra consequential as a result of it revolves round a constitutional interpretation – generally known as the “unbiased state legislature idea” or doctrine – that solely state legislatures have the authority to set the “occasions, locations and method” of federal elections.
In such a state of affairs, state supreme courts may not function a “test” on the legislative department in terms of voter rights, election procedures or partisan redistricting maps.
Underscoring the consequential nature of this debate, President Trump’s political and authorized groups repeatedly invoked the “unbiased state legislature idea” of their failed makes an attempt to overturn the outcomes of the 2020 election. In a single such instance, Trump’s supporters cited the speculation as they tried to toss out President Biden’s electors in Arizona.
Richard Hasen, a professor of regulation at UCLA College of Legislation, not too long ago known as the unbiased state legislature idea the “800-pound gorilla brooding within the background of election regulation instances working their manner up from state courts.”
“In its most excessive type, it might not solely rework the stability of energy in defending voting rights in states from state supreme courts and govt companies to state legislatures,” Hasen instructed The New York Occasions. “It will additionally give the Supreme Court docket a possible excuse to intrude with presidential election outcomes any time a state court docket or company has relied on a state structure to present voters extra protections than these afforded by the U.S. Structure.”
Others have dismissed such predictions, saying it’s extraordinarily unlikely that the Supreme Court docket would give state legislatures absolute and unchecked energy in terms of federal elections.
Bellows is among the many ranks of the involved.
A former Democratic lawmaker who beforehand headed the ACLU of Maine, Bellows pointed to the Supreme Court docket’s latest string of precedent-shattering rulings on Roe v. Wade, Miranda rights and different points as cause for fear.
Bellows known as it “absurd” that state legislatures ought to have sole authority over redistricting and federal elections. That authority to elect presidents, or members of Congress, rests with the voters, she stated.
“The concept that legislators ought to substitute their selection for president, in lieu of what the individuals have voted, ought to be alarming and upsetting to everybody,” Bellows stated. “As a result of if the one votes that matter are the legislature’s votes, nicely that isn’t democracy, that’s not a democratic republic.”
Redistricting has been much less of a partisan problem right here in Maine.
Not like in North Carolina and plenty of different states, Maine has a bipartisan fee to hold out the once-per-decade job of redrawing congressional district maps (in addition to State Home districts) primarily based on up to date Census knowledge.
Membership of that Apportionment Fee is break up evenly between Democrats and Republicans, with an unbiased serving as chairman. The ensuing plan is then despatched to the Legislature and the governor for approval. Within the occasion the varied sides fail to achieve settlement, the duty of redistricting falls to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court docket.
Maine’s Legislature is at present managed by Democrats. However Republicans managed it a decade in the past, and the state Senate has flip-flopped between the 2 events in recent times. So Bellows predicts that, relying on who controls the Legislature, Maine may see vital shifts in voting insurance policies if SCOTUS endorses the unbiased state legislature idea.
As an illustration, faculty college students who set up residency in Maine in addition to imprisoned people are allowed to vote underneath long-standing state court docket rulings primarily based on Maine’s Structure. However these state-level constitutional protections may disappear if the Legislature is given full management over elections and voter entry points, Bellow stated.
“We do use ranked-choice voting for federal elections, so it’s unclear what the implications can be,” Bellows stated. “What is obvious is that if they transfer ahead with unbiased state legislature idea, what you’re going to see is volatility and chaos.”
At this level, it’s mere hypothesis about what SCOTUS could or could not do with the North Carolina case. However 4 of the six conservative justices on the nine-person court docket have indicated help for revisiting the problem of the unbiased state legislature idea.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, as an example, made that place clear in a 2020 resolution overturning a Wisconsin state court docket’s extension of voting by mail.
“The Structure supplies that state legislatures — not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not different state officers — bear main duty for setting election guidelines,” Gorsuch wrote.
Mills’ strikes to guard abortion seekers, suppliers
Abortion-rights advocates and Democratic lawmakers have been fast to applaud Gov. Janet Mills’ govt order this week that’s designed to guard girls in different states from lawsuits or legal prosecution in the event that they receive the process right here.
Republicans, together with Mills’ re-election opponent former Gov. Paul LePage, had little to say about it.
The GOP reticence to have interaction on the abortion problem has been the blue- and purple-state playbook ever because the U.S. Supreme Court docket overturned the almost 50-year-old landmark ruling Roe vs. Wade that prevented states from prohibiting abortion. Democrats in these states, together with Mills, proceed to press the talk, highlighting the Maine GOP’s platform to guard “the sanctity of human life – from conception to pure dying.”
On the identical time, some Republicans in deep crimson states like Missouri and Oklahoma are pursuing legal guidelines that wouldn’t simply ban abortion of their house states, but in addition bar individuals from looking for abortion elsewhere. Mills’ order — which may very well be reversed if LePage turns into governor — seeks to guard individuals from such states who would possibly receive an abortion right here, in addition to the Maine clinicians who would possibly present it.
Mills’ order successfully bars state companies from cooperating in one other state’s investigation into individuals, teams or well being care suppliers over abortions or different reproductive well being care offered in Maine. Different Democratic governors have taken comparable steps, as have Republican governors in blue or purple states. Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican, was among the many first governors who moved to protect abortion suppliers and sufferers from extradition or authorized motion by states looking for to criminalize the process.
One of many causes for taking the step in Maine is that abortion suppliers count on to see a rise in demand from girls who dwell in states the place abortion is more likely to change into unlawful or extraordinarily restricted.
“A girl’s proper to decide on is simply that – a lady’s, not a politician’s,” Mills, a Democrat, stated in an announcement Tuesday night. “This Government Order makes clear that entry to reproductive well being care, and the well being care suppliers who supply it, shall be protected by my Administration.”
The chief order additionally states that Mills will train her discretion, as governor, to say no to arrest or extradite individuals who have been charged in one other state for his or her involvement in reproductive well being care that’s in any other case authorized in Maine.
Mills’ transfer may have been provocative to Maine Republicans. The GOP right here has change into more and more anti-abortion over the previous decade or so. Whereas former Republican Gov. John McKernan is partially chargeable for pushing a 1993 regulation that enshrines abortion entry, the social gathering has tacked additional towards the pursuits of the non secular proper. The Christian Civic League of Maine is an influential drive within the Maine GOP and the group is actively seeking volunteers to help “pro-life” legislative candidates.
This week the Maine Democratic Social gathering used that relationship to attempt to forecast what is going to occur if Republicans win legislative majorities and LePage captures the governor’s workplace. The video, “freely giving the sport,” intersperses LePage dodging reporters’ questions on his abortion attentions with footage of GOP legislative candidates declaring their opposition to abortion. Among the footage options interviews with Christian Civic League workers.
The video obtained an enthusiastic response from Dems on social media. Republicans, in the meantime, proceed to argue that abortion is a distinct segment problem and that voters are extra targeted on the economic system and inflation.
Nation’s governors descend on Portland
Portland subsequent week will host its first Nationwide Governors Affiliation assembly in almost 20 years and Mills is predicted to play a number one position as host.
The NGA’s annual summer season assembly was initially scheduled for the summer season of 2020, however a worldwide pandemic had different concepts and the occasion was delayed till this yr. It is going to be the primary time that NGA has gathered in-person because the summer season of 2019.
The group is understood for its bipartisan bent, which is why the preliminary agenda options subjects like laptop science training, tourism restoration and a digital look by Dolly Parton, who will talk about childhood literacy.
The occasion will happen July 13-15 with new management elections on Friday.
An entire agenda has not been made public but, however Mills is predicted to welcome the governors after they arrive and make different appearances all through the three-day occasion.
An estimated 600 attendees are anticipated and presumably most of them shall be at Fort Williams in Cape Elizabeth for a five-hour lobster bake that begins at 5 p.m.
Maine’s Political Pulse was written this week political correspondents Kevin Miller and Steve Mistler produced by digital reporter Esta Pratt-Kielley. Learn previous editions or hearken to the Political Pulse podcast at mainepublic.org/pulse.
Maine
Maine’s highest court proposes barring justices from disciplining peers
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court has proposed new rules governing judicial conduct complaints that would keep members of the high court from having to discipline their peers.
The proposed rules would establish a panel of eight judges — the four most senior active Superior Court justices and the four most senior active District Court judges who are available to serve — to weigh complaints against a justice of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. Members of the high court would not participate.
The rule changes come just weeks after the Committee on Judicial Conduct recommended the first sanction against a justice on the Maine Supreme Judicial Court in state history.
The committee said Justice Catherine Connors should be publicly reprimanded, the lowest level of sanction, for failing to recuse herself in two foreclosure cases last year that weakened protections for homeowners in Maine, despite a history of representing banks that created a possible conflict of interest. Connors represented or filed on behalf of banks in two precedent-setting cases that were overturned by the 2024 decisions.
In Maine, it’s up to the Supreme Judicial Court to decide the outcome of judicial disciplinary cases. But because in this case one of the high court’s justices is accused of wrongdoing, the committee recommended following the lead of several other states by bringing in a panel of outside judges, either from other levels of the court or from out of state.
Connors, however, believes the case should be heard by her colleagues on the court, according to a response filed late last month by her attorney, James Bowie.
Bowie argued that the outcome of the case will ultimately provide guidance for the lower courts — a power that belongs exclusively to the state supreme court.
It should not, he wrote, be delegated “to some other ad hoc grouping of inferior judicial officers.”
The court is accepting comments on the proposal until Jan. 23. The changes, if adopted, would be effective immediately and would apply to pending matters, including the Connors complaint.
Maine
Maine’s marine resources chief has profane exchange with lobstermen
Maine Department of Marine Resources Commissioner Patrick Keliher said “f— you” to a man during a Thursday meeting at which fishermen assailed him for a state plan to raise the size limit for lobster.
The heated exchange came on the same day that Keliher withdrew the proposal, which came in response to limits from regional regulators concerned with data showing a 35 percent decrease in lobster population in the state’s biggest fishing area.
It comes on the heels of fights between the storied fishery and the federal government over proposed restrictions on fishing gear that are intended to preserve the population of endangered whales off the East Coast. It was alleviated by a six-year pause on new whale rules negotiated in 2022 by Gov. Janet Mills and the state’s congressional delegation.
“I think this is the right thing to do because the future of the industry is at stake for a lot of different reasons,” Keliher told the fishermen of his now-withdrawn change at a meeting in Augusta on Thursday evening, according to a video posted on Facebook.
After crosstalk from the crowd, Keliher implored them to listen to him. Then, a man yelled that they don’t have to listen to him because the commission “sold out” to federal regulators and Canada.
“F— you, I sold out,” Keliher yelled, prompting an angry response from the fishermen.
“That’s nice. Foul language in the meeting. Good for you. That’s our commissioner,” a man shouted back.
Keliher apologized to the crowd shortly after making the remark and will try to talk with the man he directed the profanity to, department spokesperson Jeff Nichols said. The commissioner issued a Friday statement saying the remarks came as a result of his passion for the industry and criticisms of his motives that he deemed unfair, he said.
“I remain dedicated to working in support of this industry and will continue to strengthen the relationships and build the trust necessary to address the difficult and complex tasks that lay ahead,” Keliher said.
Spokespeople for Gov. Janet Mills did not immediately respond to a request for comment on whether she has spoken to Keliher about his remarks.
Lobstermen pushed back in recent meetings against the state’s plan, challenging the underlying data. Now, fishermen can keep lobsters that measure 3.25 inches from eye socket to tail. The proposal would have raised that limit by 1/16 of an inch and would have been the first time the limit was raised in decades.
The department pulled the limit pending a new stock survey, a move that U.S. Rep. Jared Golden, a Democrat from Maine’s 2nd District, hailed in a news release that called the initial proposal “an unnecessary overreaction to questionable stock data.”
Keliher is Maine’s longest-serving commissioner. He has held his job since former Gov. Paul LePage hired him in 2012. Mills, a Democrat, reappointed the Gardiner native after she took office in 2019. Before that, he was a hunting guide, charter boat captain and ran the Coastal Conservation Association of Maine and the Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission.
Maine
Opinion: Voter ID referendum is unnecessary, expensive, and harmful to Maine voters
The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set news policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com
Anna Kellar is the executive director of the League of Women Voters of Maine.
This past November, my 98-year-old grandmother was determined that she wasn’t going to miss out on voting for president. She was worried that her ballot wouldn’t arrive in the mail in time. Fortunately, her daughter — my aunt — was able to pick up a ballot for her, bring it to her to fill out, and then return it to the municipal office.
Thousands of Maine people, including elderly and disabled people like my grandmother, rely on third-party ballot delivery to be able to vote. What they don’t know is that a referendum heading to voters this year wants to take away that ability and install other barriers to our constitutional right to vote.
The “Voter ID for Maine” citizen’s initiative campaign delivered their signatures to the Secretary of State this week, solidifying the prospect of a November referendum. The League of Women Voters of Maine (LWVME) opposes this ballot initiative. We know it is a form of voter suppression.
The voter ID requirement proposed by this campaign would be one of the most restrictive anywhere in the county. It would require photo ID to vote and to vote absentee, and it would exclude a number of currently accepted IDs.
But that’s not all. The legislation behind the referendum is also an attack on absentee voting. It will repeal ongoing absentee voting, where a voter can sign up to have an absentee ballot mailed to them automatically for each election cycle, and it limits the use and number of absentee ballot dropboxes to the point where some towns may find it impractical to offer them. It makes it impossible for voters to request an absentee ballot over the phone. It prevents an authorized third party from delivering an absentee ballot, a service that many elderly and disabled Mainers rely on.
Absentee voting is safe and secure and a popular way to vote for many Mainers. We should be looking for ways to make it more convenient for Maine voters to cast their ballots, not putting obstacles in their way.
Make no mistake: This campaign is a broad attack on voting rights that, if implemented, would disenfranchise many Maine people. It’s disappointing to see Mainers try to impose these barriers on their fellow Mainers’ right to vote when this state is justly proud of its high voter participation rates. These restrictions can and will harm every type of voter, with senior and rural voters experiencing the worst of the disenfranchisement. It will be costly, too. Taxpayers will be on the hook to pay for a new system that is unnecessary, expensive, and harmful to Maine voters.
All of the evidence suggests that voter IDs don’t prevent voter fraud. Maine has safeguards in place to prevent fraud, cyber attacks, and other kinds of foul play that would attempt to subvert our elections. This proposal is being imported to Maine from an out-of-state playbook (see the latest Ohio voter suppression law) that just doesn’t fit Maine. The “Voter ID for Maine” campaign will likely mislead Mainers into thinking that requiring an ID isn’t a big deal, but it will have immediate impacts on eligible voters. Unfortunately, that may be the whole point, and that’s what the proponents of this measure will likely refuse to admit.
This is not a well-intentioned nonpartisan effort. And we should call this campaign what it is: a broad attack on voting rights in order to suppress voters.
Maine has strong voting rights. We are a leader in the nation. Our small, rural, working-class state has one of the highest voter turnout rates in the country. That’s something to be proud of. We rank this high because of our secure elections, same-day voter registration, no-excuse absentee ballots, and no photo ID laws required to vote. Let’s keep it this way and oppose this voter suppression initiative.
-
Business1 week ago
These are the top 7 issues facing the struggling restaurant industry in 2025
-
Culture1 week ago
The 25 worst losses in college football history, including Baylor’s 2024 entry at Colorado
-
Sports1 week ago
The top out-of-contract players available as free transfers: Kimmich, De Bruyne, Van Dijk…
-
Politics1 week ago
New Orleans attacker had 'remote detonator' for explosives in French Quarter, Biden says
-
Politics1 week ago
Carter's judicial picks reshaped the federal bench across the country
-
Politics6 days ago
Who Are the Recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom?
-
Health5 days ago
Ozempic ‘microdosing’ is the new weight-loss trend: Should you try it?
-
World1 week ago
Ivory Coast says French troops to leave country after decades