Maine House Democrats made a mistake by censuring Rep. Laurel Libby, R-Auburn. It is not only playing right into her desire for national attention and has greatly aided her fundraising ability, it is disenfranchising her constituents.

Libby’s posting of a photograph of a transgender student on social media was a despicable act that needed to be called out. But prohibiting her from voting on matters before the Legislature to which she was elected by a majority of voters in her district is counterproductive and disenfranchises her constituents. Yet, it may well be exactly what she was hoping for.

Readers may recall that the Tennessee House of Representatives expelled two members of their body for conducting a peaceful protest in the House chamber. It was wrong and was especially heinous since the two expelled members were Black and a third member who participated in the protest and was not expelled was white.

There is no significant difference between the action of the Tennessee House and that of the Maine House, albeit the action in Maine is without a racial component. Both actions effectively took away the representation of the voters of their districts.

Rep. Libby has gone to federal court to overturn the decision of Maine House Democrats. If Rep. Libby ultimately loses her case, Democrats may come to realize winning was a pyrrhic victory.  Assume the matter goes to the U.S. Supreme Court and the Democrats win. That will serve as a legal precedent that state legislatures everywhere can censure or expel members as the legislature “deems appropriate,” including for exercising their First Amendment rights. But it is not too late for House Democrats to avoid such an unfortunate precedent.

The resolution adopted by the Maine House (HR 1) cites two bases for its decision:

(1) Article IV, Part Third, Section 4 of the Constitution of Maine, which states that each House may “punish its members for disorderly behavior,” and

(2) Section 561, subsection 1 of Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure, which states that “A legislative body has the right to regulate the conduct of its members and may discipline a member as it deems appropriate, including reprimand, censure or expulsion.”

It seems clear that the House has some latitude in what discipline it chooses to employ. It has chosen censure, but there is nothing to prevent it from now revising its discipline to a reprimand, an action that Rep. Libby fully deserves, or simply ending the censure now that the House has made clear its disapproval of Rep. Libby’s despicable action in exposing a high school student to potential abuse and intimidation.

Censure has given Rep. Libby a national media and fundraising platform. She already has the financial backing of far-right billionaire Leonard Leo, who greatly aided Donald Trump in packing the U.S. Supreme Court with his favored justices. Her campaign war chest reportedly has more than $100,000 in it, an especially large sum in an off-election year.

The debate over transgender athletes is red-hot. As Gov. Mills has said, the question of whether to permit transgender students to participate in athletics is “worthy of debate.” She did not endorse the idea, contrary to what many people seem to believe, but instead took the appropriate position of abiding by current state law. The Legislature has the opportunity to change the law or not.

I strongly object to Rep. Libby’s reckless act even though I have misgivings about the current law. Regardless of whether the law is changed, Democrats would do well to lower the heat by revising their discipline of Rep. Libby and avoid giving legislatures in red (or blue) states a legal basis for punishing their members for speech they don’t like.