I write to disagree with Douglas Rooks’ May 25 column about ranked-choice voting, “Rejection may be opportunity.”

First, Rooks wrote that ranked-choice voting “leaders pushed ahead … despite clear evidence that it violated the Constitution.” A law does not violate the Constitution until a court says it does. Absent a recent Maine ruling on the same or an analogous issue, there is room for argument about constitutional issues.

Two, the Maine court could have viewed the constitutional requirement as a “floor” that requires a plurality but does not prohibit the voters from imposing a more stringent standard through legislation. The court chose not to take this approach. But it could have.

Three, supporters of ranked-choice voting are not necessarily supporters of Eliot Cutler. I support ranked choice as a tool to open a more productive political dialogue, not because of or despite a particular political candidate.

Four, I see little evidence that the two major parties are renewing themselves by moving away from “mindless partisanship” and big money.

Finally, although it was more difficult to require a runoff in the 1879 gubernatorial race that gave rise to the plurality clause, there is no such impediment today. Whether through ranked-choice voting or actual run-off elections, Maine people voted for majority rule. It is now up to the Legislature to give us that option by supporting a constitutional amendment.

June Zellers

West Gardiner