(Editor’s note: This article summarizes information available in the “Maine Citizen’s Guide to the Referendum Election.”)
On Election Day, Tuesday, Nov. 7, Maine voters will decide whether to create a new power company, make four amendments to the state constitution, and other matters.
Question 1
Question 1 reads as follows: “Do you want to bar some quasi-governmental entities and all consumer-owned electric utilities from taking on more than $1 billion in debt unless they get statewide voter approval?”
The question is the result of a citizen’s initiative. It is intended to require some types of public bodies and electric utilities to get voter approval in a state referendum before they can exceed $1 billion in total outstanding debt. If approved, the measure would ably to quasi-independent state entities, reporting entities, municipal electric districts, consumer-owned transmission and distribution utilities, and rural electrification cooperatives.
The measure exempts the state retirement system, Finance Authority of Maine, post-secondary education, the Maine Health and Higher Educational Facilities Authority, state highways, the Maine State Housing Authority, and the Maine Municipal Bond Bank.
Question 2
Question 2 reads as follows: “Do you want to ban foreign governments and entities that they own, control, or influence from making campaign contributions or financing communications for or against candidates or ballot questions?”
The question is the result of a citizen’s initiative.
If approved, the measure would restrict the political activities of “foreign government-influenced entities,” a category that includes foreign governments and entities that are at least 5% owned by foreign governments, if enacted. The measure would also encourage Maine’s congressional delegation to support amending the U.S. Constitution to undo or narrow certain U.S. Supreme Court decisions limiting regulation of campaign spending.
Question 3
Question 3 reads as follows: “Do you want to create a new power company governed by an elected board to acquire and operate existing for-profit electricity transmission and distribution facilities in Maine?”
The question, the result of a citizen’s initiative, is intended to replace Maine’s two investor-owned electricity transmission and distribution utilities – Central Maine Power Co. and Versant Power – with Pine Tree Power Co., a new publicly owned utility.
Pine Tree Power would be governed by a board of 13 voting members, seven of which would be elected at a November general election and represent five state Senate districts each. The remaining six members would be appointed by elected members and must collectively have experience and expertise in certain topics relating to utilities, utility employees, commercial or industrial electricity consumers, electricity, climate, and economic, environmental and social justice.
As a consumer-owned utility, Pine Tree Power would be subject to oversight by the Public Utilities Commission.
Question 4
Question 4 reads as follows: “Do you want to require vehicle manufacturers to standardize on-board diagnostic systems and provide remote access to those systems and mechanical data to owners and independent repair facilities?”
The question is the result of a citizen’s initiative and is intended to require automakers to take steps to make it easier for vehicle owners and independent repair shops to diagnose, repair, and maintain motor vehicles.
If initiated, the measure would require vehicle manufacturers to standardize on-board diagnostic systems of all vehicles – including commercial and heavy-duty vehicles – and make the systems available to owners and independent repair shops. Specific access requirements would depend on the vehicle’s model year.
The Maine Attorney General would be tasked with designating an independent entity to establish and administer access to vehicle data if the measure is approved.
Question 5
Question 5 reads as follows: “Do you favor amending the Constitution of Maine to change the time period for judicial review of the validity of written petitions from within 100 days from the date of filing to within 100 business days from the date of filing of a written petition in the office of the Secretary of State, with an exception for petitions filed within 30 calendar days before or after a general election?”
The intent of the proposed amendment to is to give the Department of Secretary of State and the judicial branch more time to determine whether petitions for citizens’ initiatives and people’s vetoes have enough valid signatures to meet constitutional requirements. It is also intended to shield the Department of Secretary of State from having to divert resources to reviewing petitions while it is administering a general election.
The Legislature would be permitted to extend the deadlines for Secretary of State and judicial review so they collectively add up to 100 business days instead of 100 calendar days. Such an expansion would add approximately 40 calendar days to the maximum permitted review period.
Question 6
Question 6 reads as follows: “Do you favor amending the Constitution of Maine to require that all of the provisions of the Constitution be included in the official printed copies of the Constitution prepared by the Secretary of State?”
If approved by voters, this amendment would require inclusion of three previsions that are already part of the Maine Constitution in the official printings of the document. It would repeal article X, section 7, of the Maine Constitution, which requires sections 1, 2, and 5 of article X be omitted in copies of the document that appear in printings of the laws of Maine.
Section 1 of contains a schedule for the election and convening of the first Maine Legislature in 1821 and established initial electoral districts for the Maine House of Representatives and Maine Senate. Section 2 established special terms of office for officials elected in the 1821 election.
Section 5 reprints and incorporates into the Maine Constitution provisions of the 1819 Massachusetts law authorizing the separation of Maine from Massachusetts. These provisions are known as the Articles of Separation. There are nine Articles. The Articles describe rights and obligations of Maine and Massachusetts relating to separation, including division of property and assets, the assignment of certain Massachusetts obligations to Maine, and the treatment of certain public lands.
Question 7
Question 7 reads as follows: “Do you favor amending the Constitution of Maine to remove a provision requiring a circulator of a citizen’s initiative or people’s veto petition to be a resident of Maine and a registered voter in Maine, requirements that have been ruled unconstitutional in federal court?”
The intent of the proposed amendment is to remove a provision that can no longer be enforced due to an injunction issued by a federal court.
The Maine Constitution currently provides that individuals who gather signatures for petitions for citizens’ initiatives or people’s vetoes must be Maine residents registered to vote in their town of residence. In 2020, a group of plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit, We the People PAC v. Bellows, said the requirements violated their First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution. A permanent injunction now prohibits the Maine Secretary of State from enforcing the circulator residency and registration requirements.
Question 8
Question 8 reads as follows: “Do you favor amending the Constitution of Maine to remove a provision prohibiting a person under guardianship for reasons of mental illness from voting for Governor, Senators and Representatives, which the United States District Court for the District of Maine found violates the United States Constitution and federal law?”
If approved, the amendment would remove a provision from the Maine Constitution that a federal court determined violates the U.S. Constitution and federal law. Currently, the state constitutions says that persons who are “under guardianship for reasons of mental illness” are not qualified to vote for governor, state representative, or state senator.
In the 2000 federal lawsuit, Doe v. Rowe, plaintiffs said the restriction violated their rights under the U.S. Constitution’s due process and equal protection provisions and under the American with Disabilities Act. The district court sided with the plaintiffs in 2001. The state has not enforced this restriction since.
