Mainers making their way through the lengthy Nov. 7 statewide ballot may come to a surprising conclusion: that the four constitutional amendments they’ll consider are considerably more interesting than the four rather tedious initiated referendum questions that precede them.

Question 3, which envisions scrapping Maine’s century-old private but publicly regulated electric companies, Central Maine Power and Versant, and replacing them with a “privately operated, nonprofit, consumer-owned utility” has understandably gotten most of the ink.

It is, as detailed here last week, more of an optimistic outline than a well-developed plan capable of achieving its lofty ambitions.

Question 1, requiring voters to approve borrowing in excess of $1 billion — Pine Tree Power would cost much more — is really just a spoiler measure added by CMP, and a sideshow to Question 3’s main event.

Questions 2 and 4 appear headed for approval, but their impact is likely to be minimal. Who could be against barring “foreign governments and entities” from contributing to referendum campaigns, or establishing a “right to repair” your car?

The first proposition was spawned by the now-nullified Question 1 from 2021. The “foreign government” was Canada, a key source of existing cross-border energy exchanges. The spending was because proponents were trying to cancel a new and much larger contract to buttress New England’s power supply.

Without Question 1, there’s no “foreign” spending. And like Question 1, there are questions whether the new question’s sweeping terms can pass constitutional muster.

The “right to repair” is a trade dispute between manufacturers and independent repair shops. Given the enormous complexity of the contemporary automobile, few Mainers will be exercising their “right to repair” personally.

Massachusetts passed a similar measure; it’s been tied up in court ever since, as Maine’s would be too. It’s a national issue not resolvable at the state level.

The constitutional amendments, however, offer much more scope for judgment and, lacking campaigns for or against, it will be for voters to figure out themselves.

Question 5 is a housekeeping measure extending deadlines for judicial review of petitions — deadlines that shouldn’t have been in the Constitution in the first place, but covered by statute.

Sen. Craig Hickman, D-Winthrop, sponsored a bill, L.D. 1824, earlier this year to take on the egregious clutter we’ve accumulated over the years, but it failed. Two other Hickman proposals did gain approval: Questions 7 and 8 on the ballot.

Question 7 would align state law with federal court decisions overturning laws, like Maine’s, that require petition circulators to live here. It’s tempting to protest against the hijacking of Maine’s initiative process by out-of-state interests — “right to repair” is only the latest example — even though the existing law is unenforceable.

Question 8 would allow Mainers under guardianship for mental illness to vote. This has aroused concerns about election integrity, but the constitution has no provisions concerning those with dementia or other mental infirmities, and a blanket prohibition on guardianships seems outdated and unjust.

We should understand that the Legislature can establish conditions to ensure informed voting; we often neglect lawmakers’ important role in establishing the law even if constitutional prohibitions no longer apply.

By far the most intriguing item is Question 6, requiring the state constitution to be printed in full. It involves a curious 1875 legislative decision, ratified by voters, to amend the Constitution to scrap obsolete sections dating from Maine’s separation from Massachusetts in 1821 — the only state ever colonized by another state — while preserving the state’s obligations to Indian tribes.

There’s isn’t much doubt the primary relation of the tribes is to the federal government, except as provided by the now-notorious 1980 Land Claims Settlement Act providing millions of federal dollars to the tribes but depriving them of the benefits of all subsequent federal laws absent state approval — which has never been given.

The tribes and their supporters believe printing the relevant sections would make it clear the state does have continuing obligations, even though the specific provisions may be preempted by federal law.

Gov. Janet Mills, who’s vetoed most substantive changes sought by the tribes, opposes printing the section, with her legal counsel saying it might “confuse” the public.

It’s more likely to create renewed interest in the often vexed relationship between state and tribes; suppressing the printing of these texts is hard to justify. Those Mainers who chose to read the whole Constitution — it’s a lengthy document — will probably appreciate that opportunity.

Transparency in government is often vowed, less often achieved. Here’s a chance to shed a little light on the past that we all share, however contested that past will always be.

Copy the Story Link