Thanks to hard and ongoing work by democracy advocates, Maine has some of the best election laws and some of the best voter turnout in the country. In the 2022 midterm election, Maine ranked first in the country, with 61.8% voter participation.

Nationally, recent elections have had record turnout: In 2018, 50.1% of eligible voters participated (turnout slipped back down to 45.9% in 2022.) The presidential election turnout in 2020 was 66%, reflecting efforts during the pandemic to make voting easier and more accessible. Even so, the U.S. has long ranked toward the bottom half of developed democracies in voting participation; and some are working to make voting less accessible. Six states passed laws restricting voting access in 2024, continuing a trend from 2021.

Maine is no exception. Right now, a far-right PAC is trying to put voter ID requirements on the ballot. This will make it much more difficult for many Mainers to vote, with the greatest impact falling on Black, native, young, low-income, rural and elderly voters. These pushes are wrong for the country, and wrong for Maine.

There is a clear path for doing far better. It is time for the U.S. to consider an approach already proven in some two dozen democracies, including Belgium, Australia and most countries in Latin America: Universal voting. Universal voting redefines voting as not only a right but a duty. With universal voting in place, we could see several major advantages.

First, universal voting dramatically and immediately increases participation, and the voting electorate more fully reflects our population.

There are now major gaps in voting levels between wealthier and poorer voters; voters with more and less education; white voters and Black and Latino voters; and, most dramatically, between the young and the old. Lawmakers listen and respond to the constituencies who turn out. What if that was everyone?

Second, with the expectation that everyone will vote, all institutions – government, business, educational, civil society – elevate their activities to ensure the law is followed. For instance, if school superintendents knew that every graduating senior was required to vote, would they make civic education a higher priority? I think so. Evidence also shows that individuals who are required to vote do, in fact, make sure they know how to do so and pay more attention to the campaign.

Third, the incentive structure for campaigns changes. Instead of parties and candidates ginning up their base and trying to depress the turnout of opponents’ voters (seen any negative ads lately?), they have to talk to everyone, with persuasive messages, because everyone is listening and will vote. Universal voting also reduces polarization. Messages that demonize opponents and excite a party’s base will be less effective with a broader electorate.

The public discussion of universal voting is just beginning. But there are reasons to think this idea can gain traction.

Universal voting would not require a constitutional amendment, and it needs to be stressed that neither party would gain any automatic or permanent advantage. Some groups whose participation would be enhanced by universal voting lean Democratic, but other groups lean Republican. Many people who would be brought into the system are less ideological, which would force both left and right to address the concerns of voters who are not firmly in either camp.

Universal voting is not a cure-all for the challenges American democracy faces. But it would make our system more inclusive, more genuinely democratic and more responsive to more Americans. It’s a practical innovation that has proven its worth.

Maine has been a leader in advancing the vote, and has results to prove it. Instead of going backward and making voting more difficult, Maine can be a leader again in moving even further toward a fully inclusive democracy.