Maine's high court hears arguments on citizen's veto of ranked-choice voting - Press Herald

bentangos.blogspot.com

Opposing attorneys in a case that will decide whether Maine uses a ranked-choice system to award its four Electoral College votes in the Nov. 3 presidential election were back before the state’s Supreme Judicial Court Tuesday.

The court heard oral arguments in an appeal of a Cumberland County Superior Court justice’s decision that would have allowed a citizen’s veto question of a 2019 state law that extends Maine’s first-in-the-nation ranked choice system to presidential elections to appear on the November ballot.

The case is important in the November presidential election because it could have an impact on how the state’s Electoral College votes are awarded.

Maine is one of only two states to split its Electoral College votes by election outcomes in its congressional districts — the other to split is Nebraska. And in 2016, for the first time in 30 years, President Trump won one of the state’s Electoral College votes by winning Maine’s northern and more rural 2nd Congressional District, besting Hillary Clinton by 10 points. Clinton won the statewide vote and the vote in Maine’s southern and more populous 1st Congressional District, earning her the state’s other three Electoral College votes.

With five candidates on the ballot for president this cycle, a ranked-choice system could be a significant factor in whether Trump can repeat his 2016 election performance in Maine or whether his Democratic challenger, former Vice President Joe Biden, will be able to win all four of the state’s Electoral College votes.

In addition to Trump and Biden, presidential candidates on the ballot include the Green Party’s Howie Hawkins, Libertarian Party nominee Jo Jorgensen and the Alliance Party’s Rocky De La Fuente.

Republicans have staunchly opposed rank-choice voting, and they funded a statewide petition drive to force a referendum on overturning a law that applies the ranked-choice system to presidential elections in Maine, beginning this year.

But the drive to hold a referendum, known as a people’s veto, was derailed when Secretary of State Matt Dunlap disqualified more than 1,000 voter signatures on the petition on procedural and legal grounds. Dunlap’s move left petitioners short of the 63,067 signatures needed to qualify for the ballot.

At issue in the court case is whether some of the people circulating petitions for the veto question were qualified to do so and whether the state’s requirement that they be registered voters in the town where they live is an infringement on their rights to free speech under the U.S. Constitution.

Patrick Strawbridge, an attorney for the group of voters who signed the petition argued that Maine’s requirement imposed an unacceptable burden on those rights.

The circulators in question did register to vote in their towns of residence prior to turning in their petitions to the state, Strawbridge said.

Asked by the justices why registering to vote in their towns was too burdensome before collecting signatures but not too burdensome after, Strawbridge said that was in part due to Maine’s well-known and liberal voter registration laws.

He said because Maine allows voters to register on the day of an election, residents tend not to be too concerned about updating their registration if they change addresses. “They will always have the opportunity to do that at the polls on the morning of the election,” he said.

Strawbridge said the only time a voter had to be cognizant of whether they were properly registered to vote was in the petitioning context.

But Acting Chief Justice Andrew Mead pushed back. “The petition-gathering drive people have the statute, they have the law there. There is no burden in registering. You go down to your town office, you fill out a two-side card. There’s no burden to that at all.”

Also pushing back on that argument was Maine Assistant Attorney General Phyllis Gardiner, who was representing Dunlap’s office in the case.

Gardiner said the burden question was never before the lower court, but if it were the evidence would show the petition drive had no difficulty in finding eligible, registered voters to circulate petitions and did not contest the requirement.

“That’s been our argument all along,” Gardiner told Mead, “that these petitioners did not present this constitutional challenge, it was not litigated, there was no factual development to assess burden.”

She also said the question has been litigated in two other cases that have come before the state’s law court. “The majority didn’t reach the registered voter issue in either circumstance, but those were at least properly litigated.”

Mead then asked Gardiner if the “touchstone for whether a severe burden” had been imposed on the petitioners or the petition drive was whether or not they could get enough qualified people to circulate the petition.

Gardiner said the petition drive had plenty of qualified circulators.

In August Cumberland County Superior Court Justice Thomas McKeon overturned a determination by Dunlap that a number of the signatures on petitions were invalid because they were collected by people who were not registered to vote in the towns where they lived, as required by the state constitution.

But McKeon determined the state’s constitution doesn’t require so-called petition circulators to be registered voters until they turn their petitions into the Secretary of State. Dunlap appealed McKeon’s ruling, resulting in Tuesday’s proceeding.

The people’s veto question would only apply to presidential elections and does not stop the use of ranked-choice voting in congressional primaries and elections or in primaries for the Legislature or the governor’s office, when there are more than two candidates appearing on the ballot.

The high court last week put on hold the lower court’s decision while it decides the appeal.

The Supreme Judicial Court will have until Sept. 24 to make its decision but Mead said Tuesday it would expedite its ruling.

This story will be updated.

Invalid username/password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

« Previous

Biden assembles legal team, anticipating court challenges in divisive 2020 election

filed under: