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.

Copy the Story Link

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.

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.