Voters cast their ballots at the Quimby School gymnasium in Bingham, Maine on Tuesday, November 5, 2024. (Photo by Michael G. Seamans/ Maine Morning Star)
Republican lawmakers in Maine proposed eliminating the state’s voter-approved ranked-choice voting system as well as adding an amendment to explicitly ban noncitizen voting, which is already illegal under the state constitution.
The Legislature’s Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee heard testimony on Monday on these plans and other proposals to change state voting laws, including candidate communications at the polls and absentee voting.
While testimony got into the minutia of each proposal, concerns about these various plans fueling misinformation dominated discussion.
Those who want to get rid of ranked-choice voting, which allows voters to rank candidates by preference, claimed it is confusing for voters and silences the voice of parts of the electorate. Those opposed to eliminating the system, which Maine voters initially passed in 2016, pointed to surveys that have found the opposite, that voters find the system to be easy and empowering, allowing for election outcomes that are more representative of a majority of voters.
During the discussion about the constitutional amendment, those on both sides of the issue agreed that the state constitution already prohibits noncitizen voting. However, proponents argued there’s no harm in making that more clear while opponents said doing so would give credence to unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud and spread anti-immigrant fervor.
Ranked-choice voting
A group of eight Republican legislators led by Rep. Dick Campbell of Orrington introduced a bill to eliminate ranked-choice voting, arguing constituents find it confusing and that it violates the premise of “one person, one vote.”
Those who testified in opposition to the bill — including the secretary of state, democracy groups and voters — called the bill an attempt to undermine the will of Maine voters who passed the law in the first place and objected to claims about the system causing confusion, pointing to surveys that demonstrate the opposite.
LD 234 would repeal all current laws that permit this voting system in the state, which includes general elections for president, general and special elections for the offices of U.S. Senate and House, and primary elections for president, U.S. Senate and House, the governor and state legislators.
In November 2016, Maine voters approved ranked-choice voting for statewide elections for governor, state legislature and Congress, becoming the first state to do so. The Maine Legislature later expanded the system to include presidential elections, and after the Maine Republican Party attempted a “people’s veto” referendum aimed to reject the state law, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court concluded the Republican Party failed to reach the threshold of signatures needed to do so.
Alaska now also uses RCV for statewide elections, as do major U.S. localities such as New York City and San Francisco for certain elections. However, voters in several other states this fall rejected the voting system, clouding the future of an idea that had seen strong momentum in recent years.
Campbell said he submitted the proposal after hearing from constituents that they found the system confusing, a view echoed by others who testified in support. Mary Lou Daxland of Newcastle, who unsuccessfully ran for the Maine House in November, said because Maine is the oldest state in the nation, more people may have difficulty accessing information about the system online.
Ranked choice voting faces cloudy future after election setbacks
The youngest member of the public to testify, Alex Wu, a Scarborough high school senior, said she found it difficult to believe that RCV was hard to explain but said any such confusion is not reason to go back to old systems.
“We are leaders,” Wu said. “We are Maine. We pioneer change. Please don’t let other states dictate the way we do things.”
Al Cleveland, advocacy director for the League of Women Voters, pointed to voter surveys that have found otherwise when testifying in opposition to the bill.
A SurveyUSA poll commissioned by FairVote in partnership with the Bangor Daily News found that 82% of voters in Maine’s 2nd Congressional District found ranked-choice voting “easy” or “very easy.” Another report by the think tank R Street found that by and large voters were not disenfranchised due to confusion over RCV in Maine.
Regarding the latest 2nd District race, which was determined through a ranked-choice runoff due to a declared write-in candidate entering the race, former state Rep. Edward Polewarcyzk (R-Wiscasset) claimed that 11,000 ballots were disregarded in this process — an accusation rebutted by Secretary of State Shenna Bellows.
“That is simply not accurate,” Bellows said. “They were exhausted after the first round, which means that they did in fact vote for the write-in candidate or for none of the above. Now, we frequently see none of the above checked on different races, even in plurality races as well, so I don’t think there’s any suggestion that those 11,000 exhausted ballots indicated voter confusion, rather voter disdain, contempt, disappointment.”
If no candidate receives more than 50% of the votes on election night, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and their votes get reassigned to whomever their voters ranked second. This process is repeated until one candidate wins a majority of votes.
Bellows, who was a member of the committee to pass RCV before assuming the position of secretary of state, said the system “allows voters to vote their heart, without stress and worry that voting for their favorite candidate may end up helping their least favorite candidate win.”
Mary Anne Royal from Winterport called the bill an attempt to interfere with the will of Mainers.
“To repeal the current law in this manner is a flagrant abuse of power,” Royal said.
When lawmakers on the committee asked Campbell whether he’d object to the question again being put to the voters, he said he would not.
Noncitizen voting
When Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn) introduced her proposed amendment to explicitly ban noncitizens from voting, LD 175, she cited an article from the right-wing media outlet the MaineWire this fall that alleged a handful of noncitizens were registered and voted in Maine by comparing voter rolls against self-reported status on medical records, which the website refused to turn over to the state’s constitutional officers.
Unsubstantiated allegations of noncitizen voting in the lead up to the 2024 election occurred across the country.
Libby told the committee the amendment was “absolutely critical to upholding the integrity of our electoral system and reaffirming a fundamental principle of American democracy that voting is a right and a privilege, reserved only and exclusively for U.S. citizens.”
After much back-and-forth between lawmakers and the public about the merit of thus far unsubstantiated noncitizen voting claims in Maine, Libby said answering that question is ultimately not relevant to her bill.
Bellows says unsubstantiated noncitizen voting claims ‘lay groundwork to challenge results’
“There are clearly folks who don’t think that this is a necessary amendment. There are some that think that this is a necessary amendment,” Libby said. “If it is unnecessary, then where is the harm in passing the amendment that then can go to Maine people so that they can make their voices heard on this issue?”
Bellows cited the $408,000 price tag for what she deemed a redundant referendum ballot question, as noncitizens are already barred from voting in the Maine constitution and state law.
“I’d be pretty upset about that waste of tax resources,” Bellows said. “I’d be further upset about the demonization of immigrants and the suggestion, the lie that they are somehow manipulating our system when it simply is not happening.”
Those implications were of personal interest to Wu, an American citizen born in Massachusetts to parents who are naturalized American citizens from China. Wu said the issue is not just policy but messaging.
“This is a resolution of hate, a resolution that insults the capability of our democratic institutions,” Wu said. “This resolution would confirm falsified fears and endanger many of my community members. Your decisions as policy makers have broad reaching implications, if you decide even to bring this bill to the floor amended or otherwise, the Maine public will hear you.”
Others who testified against the bill raised concern about possible impacts of the specific wording change proposed. The amendment would strike “every” in the state constitution and replace it with “only,” to read: “only a citizen of the United States of the age of 18 years and upwards” can vote.
Cleveland said that switch could inadvertently have implications for the voting rights of citizens.
“Our constitution would no longer be as protective of voting rights for citizens as it is today, while having no practical effect on the voting rights of noncitizens,” Cleveland said.
The bill would also add “in any election” to the state constitution, which currently states this voting right applies to electors for governor, senators and representatives. A small number of localities in certain states, such as Maryland and Vermont, permit certain noncitizens to vote in some local elections.
Your decisions as policy makers have broad reaching implications, if you decide even to bring this bill to the floor amended or otherwise, the Maine public will hear you.
– Alex Wu, a senior at Scarborough High School
Alicia Melnick, an attorney at Bernstein Sher who testified in opposition on behalf of the ACLU of Maine, said the Legislature shouldn’t create a constitutional barrier if towns and cities in Maine wish to amend their charters and state law to give their residents a voice in local elections.
“The committee should not give in to the urge to stigmatize and devalue noncitizens and should instead turn its attention to proactive legislation that expands rights and freedoms,” Melnick said.
Candidate communications at the polls
Three Republican lawmakers want to loosen restrictions around what candidates are able to tell voters outside polling places. Voters, democracy groups and the secretary of state pushed back.
Led by Sen. James Libby (R-Cumberland), LD 199 would allow a candidate to tell voters at the polls what office they are seeking and their party designation, “as long as the candidate does not attempt to influence their vote.”
“I’ve always felt like it was kind of a gag order from the state,” James Libby said of current Maine law, which only allows candidates to tell voters their name. “… If that’s all I say, that I’m running for Senate District 22, that’s not an influence of the voter.”
Those who opposed the bill argued that would be electioneering.
Bellows argued such statements cross into campaigning. Citing her previous service in the Maine Legislature, Bellows said she is personally aware that it can be awkward to field questions from voters who ask what office you’re running for at polling sites.
“What I used to say is, ‘Under state law, I can’t try to persuade you one way or another, but you’ll see it on the ballot,’” Bellows said. “The awkwardness that the candidate feels is not the issue on Election Day. Election Day is about the voters.”
Bellows added that this change would also be challenging from a practical perspective, as poll workers would need to police the semantics of candidate speech to determine whether their statements express advocacy.
David Sowers from Friendship said he would prefer candidates to not be able to do anything at the polls on Election Day but vote themselves.
“I’m a voter and I object to any politicians campaigning anywhere near the lines of voters,” Sowers said.
Cleveland from the League of Women Voters said the group’s non-partisan election observers commonly hear complaints like that shared by Sowers, that voters already feel uncomfortable with candidates approaching them at polling places.
“We believe that the current law strikes a reasonable balance between the First Amendment rights and voter intimidation,” Cleveland said.
Patty Dubois from the Maine Town City Clerks Association also said the group is against this change, with members concerned that it would only increase complaints from voters and congestion at the polls.
Absentee voting
Current statute requires that absentee voting be available at least 30 days before an election, but municipalities must begin absentee voting once they’ve received ballots, which means some are able to start earlier.
Rep. Wayne Parry (R-Arundel) and a group of Republican co-sponsors filed a bill, LD 158, that would direct the secretary of state to establish a date each year for the start of absentee voting. Such a change would not impact regulations for overseas or military ballots.
“I just believe all voting for everyone should start on the same day,” Parry said.
Due to the volume of ballots, varied shipping times to different parts of the state, and varied days and hours municipal offices are open, ballots are shipped on a rolling basis in the days leading up to the 30-day deadline, said Emily Cook, deputy secretary of state. Cook said this past November officers in the enforcement services division had to deliver some ballots themselves due to changes in package delivery schedules to more rural areas of the state.
While explaining these challenges, Cook testified neither for nor against the bill and instead said a more surgical adjustment to the current statute would be preferred to provide consistency year-to-year, “without placing an additional mandate from the secretary of state each year to define the terms of the absentee voting period, which could lead to potential abuse or politicization of the process.”
Cleveland testified in support, citing questions the League of Women Voters often fields from their election hotline about why someone’s relative in another county was able to vote before them. However, Cleveland also advocated for setting a date that remains the same year to year.
On behalf of the Maine Municipal Association’s Legislative Policy Committee, Rebecca Lambert testified against the bill, stating that while the association appreciates the effort for more consistency, the group feels the change “adds an unnecessary restriction and is similar to a solution in search of a problem.”
The Maine Towns and City Clerks Association is also opposed. The group’s legislative policy committee chair, Patti Dubois, said the association is concerned such a change would result in its members being in violation of the law for matters outside their control, such as shipping delays.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.