{"id":2082042,"date":"2023-10-28T06:28:02","date_gmt":"2023-10-28T10:28:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/november-to-remember-maine-ballot-questions-highlight-constitutional-rulings-and-state-infighting\/"},"modified":"2023-10-28T06:36:15","modified_gmt":"2023-10-28T10:36:15","slug":"november-to-remember-maine-ballot-questions-highlight-constitutional-rulings-and-state-infighting","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/november-to-remember-maine-ballot-questions-highlight-constitutional-rulings-and-state-infighting\/","title":{"rendered":"Maine ballot questions expose constitutional rulings and state infighting in November."},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"float:left\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">22<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fnovember-to-remember-maine-ballot-questions-highlight-constitutional-rulings-and-state-infighting%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2082042&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><h2>The 2023 Elections: \u2062A November\u200b to Remember<\/h2>\n<p>The 2023 elections\u200d may\u200d not have the \u200bfireworks of 2024, but there is still plenty up for grabs.\u200d In this &#8220;off-year,&#8221; most\u2063 of which\u2062 takes place on Nov. 7, Virginia\u2063 will be keenly watched, particularly by followers of Gov. Glenn\u2062 Youngkin and whether he can springboard \u2062Republican success into \u200cnational aspirations. Meanwhile, the governor&#8217;s mansion is up for grabs in Kentucky and Mississippi. New Jersey&#8217;s Republicans \u2062believe they have a real shot at\u200b turning\u2062 the state red in legislative elections, while there are also fierce mayoral \u2063and\u2064 district\u200d attorney battles throughout the \u200dUnited States. Voters \u2062will also decide several fascinating referendums, particularly in\u200c Ohio, Maine, and Texas. This Washington \u200cExaminer series, <strong>November to Remember<\/strong>, \u2064will dive\u2064 into\u2063 all of these and more over the following two weeks. Part seven will \u2063deal with Maine\u2019s ballot questions.<\/p>\n<h3>Maine&#8217;s Ballot Questions: A Battle of Ideas<\/h3>\n<p>While there are no leadership positions up for election in\u2062 Maine this November, voters will cast\u2064 their ballot on several\u2062 questions that are the product of in-fighting and the \u2064result of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/november-to-remember-maine-ballot-questions-highlight-constitutional-rulings-and-state-infighting\/\" title=\"Maine ballot questions expose constitutional rulings and state infighting in November.\">court cases ruling previous \u2062laws unconstitutional<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>Nov. 7 marks \u2062a referendum election for the Pine Tree State,\u200d so none of the \u200dseats in the state legislature or\u200d the governor\u2019s mansion \u200cwill \u200dface reelection\u2062 this fall. \u200cEight ballot\u200d questions,\u2062 four of which are \u200cconstitutional amendments \u2064and four that are citizens&#8217; initiatives,\u2062 will have an effect on how elections are run in Maine and settle a debate over\u200c the fate of one of the state\u2019s \u200dbiggest \u200cutilities.<\/p>\n<h3>Question\u2063 1\u2064 and Question 3: A \u200bClash \u2064of Interests<\/h3>\n<p>Questions 1 and 3 are two ballot questions created in opposition to\u200b one another. No.1 seeks to cap the spending of No. 3\u2019s utility consolidation plan. \u200bQuestion\u2063 3 is considered\u2064 to be\u2062 the most \u2062contentious referendum on the ballot\u2063 this fall.<\/p>\n<p>If \u200dapproved, Question \u200c1 would <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/california-democrats-fail-to-pass-single-payer-health-care-bill\/\" title=\"California Democrats Fail to Pass Single-payer Health Care Bill\">require voter approval<\/a>\u200b in a general election for certain \u2062state utility\u200d entities, municipal electric \u2064districts, and other consumer-owned utilities to incur a debt that exceeds $1 billion. Under this\u200d initiative, certain entities would not be able to borrow money, incur debt, and issue bonds that \u2062would cause the company\u2019s\u200c debt to exceed that amount.<\/p>\n<p>Question 3 seeks to establish the Pine \u200cTree Power Company, a consumer-owned\u2064 utility, \u200cthrough a forced buyout of \u2063Central Maine Power and Versant Power, two investor-owned utilities\u2062 that provide\u2063 97% of the \u200dstate\u2019s electricity.<\/p>\n<p><strong>No Blank Checks<\/strong> and <strong>Maine Affordable \u2063Energy<\/strong> are leading the campaign for Question 1. \u2062The two groups collectively reported\u2064 $23 million in contributions and $21.6 million \u200din expenditures, according to Maine <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/cbs-slammed-for-smearing-ron-desantis-on-60-minutes-one-of-the-more-blatant-political-hatchet-jobs\/\" title=\"CBS Slammed For Smearing Ron DeSantis On \u201860 Minutes\u2019: \u2018One Of The More Blatant Political Hatchet Jobs\u2019\">campaign finance records<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;We did it because we \u200bgot very frustrated\u200c with the proponents of \u2062Pine Tree Power\u2062 trying to play the shell game with what it was going \u2062to cost to seize the utilities,\u201d Willy Ritch, executive director of Maine Affordable Energy, \u200bsaid of Question \u20641 in \u200ban interview with\u200d local outlet WMTW. \u201cThey \u2064wouldn&#8217;t say, and \u2062they still don&#8217;t say, what it&#8217;s going to cost.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><strong>Our Power<\/strong>, the\u2063 organization behind Question 3, estimates the \u2064Versant-Central Maine takeover would cost $9.9 billion, while No \u2062Blank Checks\u200d puts the bill at $13.5 billion.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Question 1 is another way\u200c that the utilities\u2062 are trying to scare\u200b people from \u200bthe possibilities and savings of Pine Tree Power,&#8221; Al Cleveland, campaign manager for Our Power, said to WMTW. &#8220;Those\u2062 numbers that CMP \u200cand\u2063 Versant are telling voters it&#8217;s\u200c going \u200cto\u2064 cost aren&#8217;t based in any independent economic analysis, are \u200bnot\u2064 based\u200b on any nonpartisan\u2062 information.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Gov. Janet Mills (D-ME) is\u2063 asking Maine residents to vote \u2063\u201cno\u201d on \u200cQuestion 3, stating that the creation\u200d of Pine Tree Power through a \u201chostile takeover\u201d\u2064 is a \u201cgamble\u201d on Maine\u2019s future, saying that&#8217;s the \u201clast thing we need.\u201d \u200dShe vetoed\u200b legislation two years\u2062 ago \u200dthat was similar to\u2063 Question 3 for similar\u200c reasons.<\/p>\n<h3>Question 2: Closing the Loophole<\/h3>\n<p>Question 2 follows a similar trend in states that\u200c are looking to \u200dprohibit \u200cforeign electioneering in campaigns. A \u201cyes\u201d vote \u200bwould close a loophole in the state law and ban foreign governments, and entities of which they own at least 5%, from\u200c making\u2063 campaign contributions or financing communications against candidates or ballot questions.<\/p>\n<p>The question grew out of multiple \u2062attempts \u2063to scuttle a $1 billion electricity project \u2064in\u200c western Maine. In 2019, \u2063opponents to the project sought\u200c to place \u2062a ballot referendum halting the project. Hydro-Quebec, wholly owned \u200cby the Quebec government, spent\u2064 money on \u2063advertising\u200c to convince\u200c Maine voters to support the\u2062 project.<\/p>\n<p>Current Maine election laws do not \u2062allow foreign nationals to contribute to candidate campaigns. However, the rules are \u2062vague on the issue of\u200c foreign electioneering in state \u2063referendums.<\/p>\n<p>An interesting wrinkle \u200babout Question 2 is that, \u2064if this legislation\u200b had\u2064 been in effect this year, \u200dit would have affected Question 3 fundraisers. Canadian corporation ENMAX, a\u200b supporter of Versant \u2063Power, has spent $2.5 million against Question 3, according to campaign finance records.<\/p>\n<p>Polling from Maine Public Radio suggests that \u2062Question 2\u2019s \u2064concept has strong public support, but it raises \u200dconstitutionality \u200bquestions about free speech and the \u201cdue diligence\u201d of\u200d news outlets\u2063 having to determine whether political ads run on their \u200csites are paid for by foreign actors.<\/p>\n<p>Some critics think that Question \u20642 violates the Supreme Court ruling in 2010 Citizens United v.\u200d FEC\u200d that the First Amendment\u2062 prohibits the\u2064 government from <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/how-a-new-wave-of-woke-district-attorneys-are-allowing-criminals-to-flourish\/\" title=\"How A New Wave Of Woke District Attorneys Are Allowing Criminals To Flourish\">restricting independent expenditures<\/a> for political campaigns from corporations. Supporters of Maine\u2019s Question 2 said it seeks to blunt the\u200c substantial wave of\u2064 spending that this 2010 ruling unleashed.<\/p>\n<h3>Question 4: The &#8220;Right \u2062to\u200d Repair&#8221;<\/h3>\n<p>Question 4 is the \u201cright to repair\u201d initiative, which is favored\u2062 by small auto repair shops that will struggle \u200cto fix new cars, particularly electric\u2062 vehicles, in the future.<\/p>\n<p>The\u2063 ballot measure\u2063 would require vehicle manufacturers\u2064 to standardize diagnostic systems and \u2062share the same information\u200c with repair shops as\u200c is shared with dealers. The\u2064 goal is to give consumers the choice to\u2064 fix their car outside of a dealership\u2062 if \u2062that\u2019s what they prefer.<\/p>\n<p>Opponents \u200cto \u2064Question 4 say \u200bthe groups in \u200bfavor of the\u200b measure are after customer data to market directly to consumers.\u2062 They also believe that small repair shops\u2062 already have the information they\u200d need to \u2062make repairs.<\/p>\n<p>Campaign finance reports show the \u200cMaine Automotive Right to \u2064Repair Committee has received nearly $4.4 million to push for \u200bpassage of the ballot question. \u200dThe opposition,\u200b which represents most of the manufacturers who produce Ford, General Motors,\u2064 and Toyota vehicles, has only contributed $110,000.<\/p>\n<h3>Question\u200c 5: Extending \u2064Validation \u200dPeriods<\/h3>\n<p>Question 5 asks whether voters favor giving\u2062 election officials \u2064more time to validate\u200d petitions around major elections. Under the\u200b current constitution, election officials have 30\u200d calendar days to verify signatures on \u200bpetitions. If they do not verify the\u2064 petition or they \u200bbelieve it was\u200b verified in error, petitioners can\u2064 sue.<\/p>\n<p>Question 5 \u2063would create a \u2063\u201cblackout period\u201d 30 days before \u2063and 30 days after \u200da November general \u200celection on even\u200d years. If citizens bring\u200d a petition during \u2063that window, it would allow\u2062 officials to accept the petition but set it aside \u2063for 30 days after \u2064the \u2063election. Once the window ends, the \u201cclock starts up,\u201d and officials would \u2063have 30 calendar\u200b days\u200b to verify \u200dthe petition.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIt wouldn&#8217;t change when the petitions go on the\u200b ballot. It \u200dwouldn&#8217;t change the validity of the petitions in any way. It \u200bwould simply let election officials concentrate on\u200b major elections for governor or for president,\u201d \u200bstate Secretary \u200dof State Shenna Bellows said in \u200dan interview \u2064with the Washington Examiner. \u201cKeep in mind, those years we&#8217;re also electing our congressional races, and\u200d all \u2064of our state legislators races are up \u200bevery\u2063 two \u200dyears. So, those are big \u200belections.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Bellows said the first \u2062two questions on the Nov. 7 ballot were presented to election staff the week prior to the governor\u2019s race in 2022. The secretary of state said staff worked weekends and Veterans Day \u2063and canceled\u2063 Thanksgiving vacation\u200d plans to \u2062verify \u2063signatures.<\/p>\n<h3>Question 6: Inclusion in the Constitution<\/h3>\n<p>Voters will decide on whether \u200dto amend the\u2063 state \u2064constitution to require\u2063 all \u2064provisions \u200bof \u2064the constitution to be included in the printed copies of the document.<\/p>\n<p>In the 1800s, a constitutional convention ruled that\u2063 printed copies of \u2064the constitution \u200bcould not include the\u2064 articles of separation \u200cfrom Massachusetts when Maine became a state, Bellows said. However,\u200b included in\u2062 those articles were treaty obligations to the Wabanaki nations, so\u200c Speaker Rachel Talbot Ross advocated bringing the constitutional\u200c amendment forward, Bellows said.<\/p>\n<p>Question 6 would have no legal effect,\u2064 Bellows\u2063 said, because \u201cregardless of whether they \u200care printed or not, \u2063they exist.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cOur perspective \u200bon that is that we want Maine citizens to \u2063be \u200bable to review the \u2063constitution and understand all of their rights \u200dand responsibilities and all of the contents of the constitution,\u201d the\u2062 secretary of \u200cstate \u2062said. \u201cWe don&#8217;t believe there should be secret provisions of the constitution.\u201d<\/p>\n<h3>Question 7: \u200cChanging\u200c the Rules for Petition Circulators<\/h3>\n<p>Question \u200c7\u2019s inception dates back to an old \u2064law that prohibited out-of-state petition circulators from \u200dcollecting signatures.<\/p>\n<p>Democratic state Rep. \u2064David Boyer, one of the co-sponsors for Question 7, said\u2064 no one had ever \u201ccared enough\u201d to bring a lawsuit to change the law. Many groups found a loophole, he said, by\u2064 having a local Maine resident witness the signatures \u200cwhile out-of-state petitioners collected \u200bthem.<\/p>\n<p>However, campaigns began to notice \u2063they would \u2063need to pay Mainers \u200bmore per signature \u2064than out-of-state circulators, so a group led \u2064by state Rep. Billy\u200b Bob Faulkingham \u200cchallenged \u2064the law.<\/p>\n<p>A district judge in We \u200cThe People PAC v. Bellows in\u2064 2022, as well as a court of\u200d appeals, \u200bsided in Faulkingham\u2019s favor, ruling that \u200dout-of-state circulators have the right to come into Maine and petition people under the First Amendment, so the\u2063 state law was unconstitutional.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI think the idea with the\u200b court is, just because somebody from away circulated it doesn&#8217;t, you know, \u2063shouldn&#8217;t take\u2064 away the voice and\u200d the speech of the voters that are signing and putting their name to this ballot initiative, and that&#8217;s not a compelling reason to stifle that that act of democracy,\u201d Boyer said.<\/p>\n<p>Bellows \u2062said \u200cshe disagreed \u201cstrongly\u201d with the ruling.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI\u200d really think that petitions that\u200d are\u2062 going to \u200bchange the law should be\u2063 circulated and signed by Maine voters and Maine citizens. But that wasn&#8217;t the \u200bruling of the court,\u201d Bellows said.<\/p>\n<p>The secretary of state said despite her personal\u200c feelings, she believes the constitution \u201cas our source document should be \u2062accurate.\u201d Similar to Questions 6 and 8, Question 7 will \u2063also have no legal effect, Bellows\u200c said.<\/p>\n<h3>Question \u20648: Ensuring Voting Rights<\/h3>\n<p>Question 8 also stems from a court case in 2020 \u200din which three Maine women who were under guardianship for mental illness\u2063 could not vote in that\u2063 year\u2019s presidential election under state law.<\/p>\n<p>Following appeals, the \u200ccourts agreed that denying a Mainer \u2063in this\u200c scenario the right\u200b to vote violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment, as\u2063 well as the Americans with \u2063Disabilities Act.<\/p>\n<p>Bellows said she\u2063 found the \u2062language discriminatory\u2064 and \u2063agreed with the courts\u2019 ruling.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cSince 2000,\u2062 every Maine citizen has had the \u200dright to vote. One of my concerns about the existence \u200cof this discriminatory, antiquated\u2064 language \u2064is, again, Mainers should be able\u200d to read the\u200c Constitution \u2063and \u200bunderstand what their rights are,\u201d Bellows said. \u201cIf you&#8217;re reading the Constitution,\u200d you \u2062might think that you couldn&#8217;t vote\u200c if you were \u2063under guardianship for reason of \u200cmental illness, or a guardian might \u200bthink that the person in their care did not have the right to vote, and that is simply not accurate.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p> <\/p>\n<h2> What is the significance \u200cof aligning Maine with other states that have taken\u200c steps to prohibit foreign government interference in elections through the passage of Question 2<\/h2>\n<p><span>  Mpaigns, but they do not specifically \u200daddress contributions from foreign governments or entities. Question 2 \u2064aims to close this loophole\u2064 and ensure that only individuals\u200d and organizations within the United States\u200b have influence over Maine elections.<\/p>\n<p>Supporters of Question 2 argue that \u200bforeign interference in elections is a serious threat to democracy\u2064 and that Maine should take measures to protect its electoral process. They believe that foreign governments should \u200cnot have the ability to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/republican-debate-goes-off-the-rails-as-gop-gangs-up-on-vivek-ramaswamy\/\" title=\"Republican debate derails as GOP targets Vivek Ramaswamy.\">sway public \u200copinion<\/a> or influence the outcome of elections through financial contributions.<\/p>\n<p>Opponents of Question 2 argue that it is unnecessary and could\u200c hinder legitimate campaign activities. They believe that\u2063 existing laws already\u2062 prohibit\u200d foreign nationals from contributing, and that extending this prohibition to foreign governments would be an overreach.<\/p>\n<p>The passage of Question 2 would align Maine \u2064with other states that have taken steps to prohibit foreign government interference in\u2064 elections. It\u200d would send a strong message that Maine values the integrity of its democratic process\u2064 and is committed to protecting it from external influences.<\/p>\n<h3>Question 4: Voting Rights for People with Disabilities<\/h3>\n<p>Question\u200c 4 seeks to \u2064amend the\u200b Maine Constitution to expressly state that people\u2063 with disabilities \u200bhave the right to vote in all public elections. While this right is currently\u2063 protected by federal law, supporters of Question 4 argue that\u2063 enshrining it in the state constitution would\u2064 provide an additional layer of \u2064protection and ensure that it cannot be easily revoked or modified.<\/p>\n<p>Advocates for people with disabilities\u2064 argue that voting is a\u200d fundamental right \u200cand that individuals should not be excluded\u2064 from participating in the democratic \u200dprocess simply because of their\u200c disabilities. They believe that amending the state constitution would not only protect the rights \u200dof people with disabilities but also promote inclusivity and equality.<\/p>\n<p>Opponents of Question 4 argue that the\u2062 current protections under federal law are sufficient and that amending the \u2064state constitution is unnecessary. They believe that the existing\u2062 legal framework \u2062adequately ensures that people with\u2064 disabilities can exercise their right to vote without discrimination.<\/p>\n<p>Ultimately, the \u200ddecision on Question 4 will come down \u200dto whether Maine residents believe that explicitly guaranteeing the voting \u2064rights of people with disabilities in the state constitution\u2064 is necessary to protect those rights and promote inclusivity.<\/p>\n<p>These four ballot questions in\u2064 Maine cover a range of important issues\u2064 that will shape the \u200bfuture of the state. From utility consolidations to protecting the integrity of elections\u2063 and defending the rights of people with disabilities, voters will have a significant impact on Maine&#8217;s policies and values through their\u2062 votes. As November approaches, the battle of ideas and the clash of interests will unfold, and the results of these \u2063ballot questions will be eagerly awaited by many across the state and the country.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In the upcoming 2023 elections, although not as eventful as 2024, there are still significant opportunities. Virginia&#8217;s Nov. 7 elections will be closely observed, especially by supporters of Gov. Glenn Youngkin, to gauge if his Republican triumph can propel him towards national ambitions. Additionally, attention will be on the governor&#8217;s mansion.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2082043,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[538],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2082042","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-washington-examiner"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2082042","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2082042"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2082042\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2082043"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2082042"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2082042"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2082042"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}