Douglas Rooks has been a Maine editor, columnist and reporter for 40 years. The author of four books, his new study of the Ken Curtis administration is due next year.  He welcomes comment at [email protected].

Maine voters on Tuesday delivered definitive results on two referendums — votes that should serve as reminders and guides to future policy once a new governor and Legislature are elected next year.

Nationally, voters delivered a strong rebuke to the president and the Republican Party, with Virginia Democrats sweeping the executive and legislative races, mostly by wide margins, and New York City electing a Democratic socialist mayor, something unthinkable even a decade ago.

Democracy itself was a big winner, with a high turnout, orderly voting and virtually no controversy. Donald Trump blamed his party’s setbacks in part on the federal shutdown, which suggests he may want to take some active part in getting the government he heads back into operation again.

In Maine, the votes on Questions 1 and 2 were almost mirror images, even though the campaigns for them showed striking differences. Some 60% voted “No” on 1 and “Yes” on 2.

Question 1 would have required showing approved photo IDs at the polls, plus numerous other changes that would have effectively made absentee voting more difficult. The Democratic Party went all-in on opposing the measure, heavily outspending proponents.

The Republicans who proposed this, led by Rep. Laurel Libby, seem to have forgotten the results 14 years ago, when the GOP controlled the Legislature and tried to abolish same-day registration  — a move soundly rejected by the voters. Maine elections are already safe and secure. Voters need to provide proof of residency, and they don’t believe any further restrictions are necessary.

Question 1 represents overreach by those who sow distrust over whether our elections are free and fair — they are — and whose leader accepts results only when he wins. This is a poison in our political dialogue that the verdict on Question 1 should help dispel.

Question 2’s supporters focused only on the question itself; the Democratic Party stayed out. Yet the results were equally decisive. In Lewiston, where the massacre that Mainers are still grieving occurred on Oct. 25, 2023, residents voted for gun safety by 2-1.

The question’s approval rectifies a failure by our elected officials to heed the popular will. Some 21 other states already had a “red flag” law on the books when the Legislature convened in 2024, yet such a law never even came to a vote.

Gov. Janet Mills insisted the unique “yellow flag” law she herself designed in 2019 was adequate, even though it signally failed on Oct. 25. And she continued to campaign against the “red flag” referendum, even though it would simply amend the “yellow flag” and not replace it.

As proponents put it, the red flag law, which adds to the Extreme Risk Protection Order language already in effect for domestic violence, is another “tool in the toolbox” to temporarily disarm those found by a court likely to harm themselves or others.

This can — no, this will save lives. While Maine has a reputation as a low-crime state, too many lives are lost by suicide and preventable shootings. Early intervention is the key, and those concerned about Second Amendment rights must understand that no right is absolute.

In another sense, the vote was historic. Maine considered an initiative in 2016 to require expanded background checks that had been put on the ballot largely through the efforts of billionaire New Yorker Michael Bloomberg, and rejected it. Earlier campaigns to ban moose hunting and bear baiting also failed.

Question 2 was different. The Maine Gun Safety Coalition is home-grown, and made its arguments clearly, cogently and effectively, providing a model for future referendum campaigns.

It was not controlled by outside interests, not put on the ballot by either party, and thus fulfilled the original purpose of the century-old constitutional amendment that provides ready access to the ballot — which should be used with more care and discernment than it has been in recent years.

I have written more editorials and columns about guns and violence over the decades than I care to count. Many Mainers care passionately about their right to hunt with firearms, and I’ve never seen any need to restrict that right. The vast majority of those who hunt do so legally and responsibly.

Once we look elsewhere, though, the picture changes. Allowing schoolchildren to feel safe in the classroom, responding to family members trying to head off violence, the sheer pleasure of being able to walk down any street in Maine without worry — these are rights we haven’t done enough to defend.

Question 2 represents one small, but important step in that direction.