If you were disappointed or simply confused by the results of the Nov. 7 initiated referendum votes, you’re not alone.
Aside from Question 3 that would have turned over Central Maine Power and Versant to an ill-defined new entity — overwhelmingly rejected — none of the questions addressed matters of real importance.
Something is wrong with Maine’s referendum process, and it’s up to all of us to ensure that this unusual exercise in direct democracy — in New England, only Massachusetts has a similar system — is restored to its original purpose.
Both initiatives and people’s vetoes were included in a 1908 constitutional amendment — the former a law proposed directly by voters, the latter a rejection of statutes enacted by the Legislature.
Early on, rejecting legislation was where the action was. During two decades after the first people’s veto attempts in 1909, 19 were considered.
By contrast, the initiative was used rarely, though the first, in 1911, was important. It established direct primary elections to replace party caucuses that then made nominations for state and federal offices.
The people’s veto then faded out, and initiatives remained rare. There were none between 1948 and 1970.
In 1971, everything changed. Business groups proposed repealing the then-new income tax, which backfired when voters supported the tax by an amazing 3-1 margin.
Still, initiatives became common, with six voted on during the 1970s. From 1980-2020, there were an average of 15 a decade, and we’re not slowing down.
The basic purpose changed, too. More and more, referendums try to substitute for the legislative process, rather than correct its errors or propose bold action lawmakers shied away from.
Even worse, both vetoes and initiatives are used increasingly by legislators themselves. Democrats passed a “tax reform” measure in 2009 to lower income tax rates and expand sales taxes. Republicans convinced voters to repeal in 2010.
The parties also traded people’s veto salvoes. In 2008, Republicans zeroed out the ill-advised “Dirigo taxes” supporting a public insurance program that already had alternative funding.
Democrats returned the favor by pouncing on repeal of Election Day voter registration by a newly Republican legislature in 2011. In both instances, the parties rode those successes to sweeping victories in subsequent elections.
This year, former Rep. Seth Berry spearheaded the Pine Tree Power initiative (Question 3) while Sen. Rick Bennett was instrumental in banning “foreign contributions” (Question 2.) Truly, it’s not their job.
In recent years, Maine has been troubled by questions partly or entirely unconstitutional. In 2016, a ranked-choice system for counting votes was enacted, but can’t apply to the governor’s race, the one people really care about.
The original “stop the Hydro Quebec power line” question in 2020 was ruled off the ballot by the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC). Its 2021 successor, though enacted, was finally found unconstitutional by a Business Court jury 18 months later.
We’re voting more often, but getting a lot less out of it, even when questions are adopted.
Two steps are essential to make referendum campaigns, often long and extremely expensive, worth the effort going into them.
First, Maine must require mandatory pre-voting review by the SJC, something Massachusetts already has. It would likely take a constitutional amendment, but one should be proposed immediately.
Second, there should be more restraint in filing questions, something only the groups involved can accomplish. Not every popular-sounding idea, or one designed to create electoral advantage for one party, needs to be on the ballot.
The disappointing results of recent referendums could eventually act as a deterrent. Consider: In 2016, voters approved surcharges on incomes above $200,000, but for the first time a valid question was repealed through a budget deal accepted by a Democratic House speaker.
Progressive taxation is fundamental to the modern Democratic Party, yet Maine’s top rate has only gone down, not up.
During the King and Baldacci administrations, Republican-aligned groups proposed numerous tax-limitation questions; none of them passed but they still had a chilling effect. Despite Democrats’ long-term success, Maine’s tax system is based far less on ability to pay than half a century ago.
Republicans also proposed many bills to make it tougher to get questions on the ballot, which misses the point. Well-funded interest groups can easily organize campaigns, while true grassroots groups — if any are still out there — have a tough time even with existing signature requirements.
Constitutional review and better common sense about what needs statewide attention will be a recipe difficult to accomplish, but without them voters may just lose interest.
The last thing we need is citizens reading a long ballot and concluding, “What’s the point?”
Send questions/comments to the editors.
Success. Please wait for the page to reload. If the page does not reload within 5 seconds, please refresh the page.
Enter your email and password to access comments.
Hi, to comment on stories you must . This profile is in addition to your subscription and website login.
Already have a commenting profile? .
Invalid username/password.
Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.
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.