The second regular session of the 132nd Maine Legislature got underway last Wednesday and it was, by all accounts, a rocky start. Our politics reporters used the word “inauspicious” to characterize the “partisan bickering” that dominated the day’s proceedings.

Over the general din of disorder and critical contributions to that afternoon’s press conferences, one troubling legislative proposal stood out: LD 1911, An Act to Automatically Seal Criminal History Record Information for Certain Crimes.

The title alone sets it out clearly enough. LD 1911, first introduced in Augusta by Portland Sen. Rachel Talbot Ross last May, proposes a time limit of five years for many misdemeanor convictions and 10 years for many felony convictions, after which they will all be removed from view. 911, indeed — at least as far as we’re concerned.

Before we lay out our rationale for opposing a proposal we find to be too broad by some distance, it is important to point out that “clean slate” initiatives are well-intentioned and have individuals’ best interests at their heart.

The primary argument in favor of wiping a slate clean is to reduce unnecessary hardship in the life of people with criminal records who have already served their time. That a criminal record may be the source of continued and varied punishment, well after time is served or debt repaid, is a hard reality that a conscientious society would take meaningful steps to soften.

Any criminal record can interfere with job prospects, rental agreements, access to education, access to credit and more. The belief in the value of the “fresh start,” which underpins legislative efforts like LD 1911, is a noble and benevolent one.

Expanding on that simple idea, proponents also cite studies that suggest that a life more easily and better lived, where records are sealed, is a life less likely to be given to recidivism, repeat criminal activity. In recent years, major employers have come out in support of similar laws, which they hoped might pave the way for easier hiring in labor shortages. Such an outcome can be said to be beneficial to the public as well as to the person.

It’s that public/private balancing act upon which, for us journalists, this proposal ultimately fails.

A criminal conviction is, among other things, a government record and a matter of public record. These records show the public the work of the criminal justice system. Automatically sealing records after a fixed period of time elapses would remove those records from view, interfering with oversight and eliminating any opportunity of public engagement with that information.

“Having access to records is not, as some people think, just a way to guarantee somebody’s bad record follows them around,” Judy Meyer, president of the Maine Freedom of Information Coalition and former executive editor of the Sun Journal, told the Maine Monitor last year.

“It’s a way to guarantee that our courts and our prosecutors and our law enforcement agencies are charging and prosecuting and convicting people fairly, regardless of race, poverty or who their defense counsel is.”

The goals of proposals like LD 1911 aren’t hard to understand; many U.S. states have enacted laws along similar lines (generally going back to the drawing board more than once) and there’s a reason that much of the national polling in the last 10 years has identified robust support for this type of legislation.

The trade-off of what is outlined for Maine in this instance, however, would be too great. The sponsors owe it to the spirit of their proposal to investigate and develop less civically costly means of assisting Maine’s criminal offenders in what is sometimes termed “reentry.”

There are many other steps our state can and should take to reduce the burden on people who feel the details of their past deprives them of opportunity.

The existing process of sealing records by application, providing certain conditions are met and a satisfactory case is made at a hearing, could be liberalized. It could also be properly promoted and encouraged; fewer than 15 applications to seal records were filed in Maine in 2023.

Legislation that would direct the state to help people to apply to seal their criminal records, making it more fair and improving the mechanism’s chances of being used, should be firmly back on the table.

That the blanket rule of LD 1911 would be less financially costly to the state than something like this is in no doubt. Its ultimate cost to the public, however, while harder to quantify, would be too much to bear.