The awesome power of state initiative-and-referendum questions was on display this week via two rulings released by the Florida Supreme Court on the same day.

In response to a six-week abortion ban enacted by the Legislature, as requested by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, the seven-member court — all appointed by DeSantis — ruled 6-1 the state constitution’s privacy clause doesn’t protect abortion rights.

The actual case involved a 15-week ban, the previously “moderate” position on abortion after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision removed any federal constitutional rights. But the court made clear it would also cover the six-week ban, a point where many women don’t know they’re pregnant.

In 1989, the same court found abortion was protected under the clause, which reads, “Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person’s private life.”

The constitution hasn’t changed, but the judges have.

Yet this isn’t the last word. The justices also ruled, 4-3, that a referendum to protect abortion rights in the state constitution can appear on the November ballot. If 60% of Floridians agree, this right will be placed beyond the reach of any Florida court or legislature.

Some 26 states allow initative-and-referendum; some permit only constitutional amendments. Others, like Maine, authorize statutory changes or “people’s veto,” while still others — mostly Western — use all three.

In the Northeast, only Maine and Massachusetts allow citizen referendums, though their processes differ significantly.

Maine has considered no recent referendum questions as consequential as the Florida abortion amendment. In fact, one could argue our whole process has become ineffective, even trivialized by flaws apparent only in recent years.

Massachusetts has a more deliberative law, requiring three annual legislative votes before questions can go on the ballot. Advocates must plan for the long term.

And, crucially, Massachusetts — like Florida — requires its Supreme Judicial Court to review questions before they appear, for consistency with existing law and its constitutionality, about which Maine’s law is silent.

Here’s a pertinent example. In Massachusetts, advocates worked to add a new top bracket to the flat 5% income tax the Bay State has had since the 1920s.

Their first attempt in 2018 was invalidated because it violated the “one question” provision by raising the tax and prescribing how it should be spent, on education.

The new question in 2022 proposed solely a 9% “millionaires tax” on high incomes. It was allowed, enacted, and is now in effect.

Massachusetts’ new rate is significantly higher than Maine’s at 7.15% — cut several times since its peak of 10%.

Maine had its own income tax surcharge referendum; voters approved it in 2016. Proposed and largely financed by the Maine Education Association, it came under heavy criticism at the Legislature.

Opponents charged the $200,000 threshold was too low — half the $400,000 level established by President Obama, and endorsed by President Biden, as the point below which “no new taxes” should be imposed.

A Democratic House speaker agreed to repeal the enacted referendum in a 2017 budget deal. There’s been no serious attempt to raise income taxes since.

More recently, Maine has grappled with partly or wholly unconstitutional referendums that its Supreme Judicial Court considers only after enactment, not before.

The first ranked-choice voting referendum couldn’t apply to gubernatorial elections because of a clear constitutional prohibition — the only contest with significant three-way splits in recent decades.

A 2021 question to overrule regulatory approval of a line to Canada carrying hydropower to New England was found entirely unconstitutional — but only after the project was halted. It hasn’t yet resumed.

Last year, voters overwhelmingly enacted two more dubious questions. One, banning “foreign entities” from funding referendum campaigns was aimed directly at Hydro-Quebec, which was defending its legal project.

Because of its sweeping provisions, that referendum is tied up in federal court, and likely to be struck down.

The other question, a “right to repair” supposedly between car manufacturers and “independent” repair shops, appears nothing more than a trade dispute between large corporations.

The “independents” largely funding the campaign were NAPA and O’Reilly’s, the region’s largest auto parts franchises — hardly small businesses.

Two points are clear: Maine has become subject to referendum-shopping by national interests. Its easy access and relatively low costs makes us the equivalent of a cheap date.

Second, finding out that referendums are unconstitutional only after the fact makes for a confusing and seemingly futile process. Voters think they’re achieving a certain aim only to have it snatched away.

The situation cries out for reform, and legislation for constitutional amendment must be considered in 2025.

It won’t be a popular bill. But it is a necessary one.

Copy the Story Link

« Previous

Travis Mills: Veterans’ right to choose care must be carefully protected

Next »

Maine Compass: In gun control debate, we should put children’s safety first