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

Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.