Though signatures still need to be verified, it appears Maine voters will decide two initiated referendum questions this year, one on voting and the other on firearms safety.
Both petition drives were organized for the right reason: to provide the people a voice when the Legislature has failed to act.
Too often, referendum campaigns involve questions later found to be unconstitutional, in whole or in part, or, as in the case of the 2023 “right to repair” cars and trucks petition, trade disputes masquerading as consumer issues.
The first question to be submitted, with a record 170,000 signatures, calls for voter ID to be shown at polling places. For most voters, it appears, this is a matter of common sense.
Supporters say that everyone must show ID to board an airplane, a train or a bus, and it may be required for countless other transactions in everyday life. So why not voting, an activity on which the future of the republic may well depend?
Legislative Democrats, who repeatedly rejected such bills, argue that IDs are not universally available, and many people lack them. This is true, but hardly an insuperable obstacle. If the measure passes, as seems likely, it can be amended to provide free IDs to any voter who requests one, through the same means available for voter registration.
In Maine, potential voters are encouraged to register at motor vehicle and DHHS offices, and information can be supplied to every town and city office. There’s no reason why 100% of the voter list can’t be furnished with an ID.
The second question would add a “red flag” law, also known as “extreme risk protection order” law, to gun safety statutes. The impetus for this was the Lewiston massacre on Oct. 25, 2023, when Robert Card killed 18 Mainers in separate attacks at a bowling alley and restaurant, leaving the state fearful and reeling.
Following exhaustive investigations, it became clear that a red flag law, allowing family members to petition a judge to remove weapons, might have prevented the tragedy. Instead, U.S. Army officials and Maine police officers failed to act, in part because the substitute “yellow flag” flag, passed at the behest of Gov. Janet Mills, wasn’t well understood. Its process allowing police to detain a person for a mental health evaluation takes time when time may be of the essence.
Though Mills testified for a red flag law as attorney general, she negotiated with gun rights groups for the unique yellow flag law after being elected governor in 2018.
Though it failed to protect Mainers on Oct. 25, Mills stood firm against any red flag proposal. Democratic legislative leaders didn’t introduce one until late in the 2024 session, and it died without a vote.
Now, voters themselves will decide, which is as it should be. This time, there need be no worries that either measure will be found unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld both. Recently, the court found that gun ownership rights don’t pertain in domestic violence cases; in Maine, those accused can be disarmed by court order, not a full hearing.
Red flag laws were adopted in Florida and a dozen other states after the Parkland High School shootings in 2018. In Maine, Gov. Paul LePage vetoed the bill. Opponents to it say the yellow flag law is working now. Many commitment orders have been sought since Oct. 25, but that’s hardly reassuring.
As we know from the mind-numbing number of mass shootings nationwide, perpetrators don’t always suffer from mental illness. A variety of dark motivations can be at work.
In Maine, we once felt safe, that “it can’t happen here” and now we know better. A red flag law can seamlessly amend the yellow flag statute, providing different tools for violence prevention well within the U.S. Constitution.
The contrasting appeal of these two questions should encourage a cross-section of the electorate for an “off-off-year” election sometimes featuring low turnout. Given our divided affinities, that’s a good thing. In the past, both parties have used people’s vetoes — the opposite of the initiative process — to drive turnout and register new partisans.
In 2010, Republicans used an ill-advised, Democrats-only tax reform bill to ride to victory that November, creating the only “trifecta” comprising the Legislature and governor they’d enjoyed since the early 1960s.
The following year, Democrats people’s vetoed Republicans’ equally ill-advised attempt to end Election Day voter registration. In 2012, Democrats retook the House and Senate, and have held a “trifecta” throughout Mills’ two terms.
The referendum process is designed to decide issues, not exacerbate partisanship and polarization. This year, thankfully, it can do just that.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
We invite you to add your comments. We encourage a thoughtful exchange of ideas and information on this website. By joining the conversation, you are agreeing to our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is found on our FAQs. You can modify your screen name here.
Comments are managed by our staff during regular business hours Monday through Friday as well as limited hours on Saturday and Sunday. Comments held for moderation outside of those hours may take longer to approve.
Join the Conversation
Please sign into your Press Herald account to participate in conversations below. If you do not have an account, you can register or subscribe. Questions? Please see our FAQs.