Here are the big questions that will appear on Maine's November ballot
When ticking through the statewide ballot in November, Maine voters will first see a question about changing election procedures before being asked about implementing a red flag law.
This order was determined Thursday when Secretary of State Shenna Bellows held a public lottery to determine the order of the two citizen-initiated referendum questions for the upcoming election.
Maine law requires that questions on the ballot be arranged in a specific order, with carry-over measures from a previous election listed first, followed by people's veto questions, initiated measures, bond issues, constitutional amendments and then other legislatively proposed referenda. The questions within each of those categories must be arranged in a random order.
The first question will read: 'Do you want to change Maine election laws to eliminate two days of absentee voting, prohibit requests for absentee ballots by phone or family members, end ongoing absentee voter status for seniors and people with disabilities, ban prepaid postage on absentee ballot return envelopes, limit the number of drop boxes, require voters to show certain photo ID before voting, and make other changes to our elections?'
The campaign for this question was launched in April 2024 by the Dinner Table PAC as an effort to require voters to show photo identification at the polls. However, the official five-page petition submitted to the state in January seeks to change additional aspects of Maine election law, such as absentee voting.
The question posed to voters encompasses the multitude of election law changes included in the petition. Though there was pushback on the wording from the campaign and its proponents, Maine's highest court gave it the OK in mid-July.
In addition to legal action, the referendum has also drawn big spending on both sides.
The 'Voter ID for ME' ballot question committee has raised more than $550,000 with half a million of that coming from the national Republican State Leadership Committee PAC, which typically focuses on electing Republican candidates in down-ballot races.
Dinner Table PAC was founded by state Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn) and Alex Titcomb, who now serves as 'Voter ID for ME' campaign manager, with the goal of electing local conservatives to the Maine Legislature.
Those opposed to the voter ID referendum have collected even more with a group named 'Save Maine Absentee Voting' having raised more than $600,000. Additionally, the Democratic Governors Association and the Maine Democrat's House of Representatives campaign arm each contributed $50,000 to a progressive Washington-based law firm that specializes in voting rights.
The second question on the ballot will read: 'Do you want to allow courts to temporarily prohibit a person from having dangerous weapons if law enforcement, family, or household members show that the person poses a significant danger of causing physical injury to themselves or others?'
The question asks voters if they would like to implement a red flag law, officially called an Extreme Risk Protection Order, which would make it easier to temporarily confiscate one's guns if they are deemed to be a threat by law enforcement or their family members. Both gun safety advocates and owners in Maine have emphasized the need for such a law.
The Maine Gun Safety Coalition spearheaded the efforts for this question by collecting more than 80,000 signatures in less than two months.
Maine currently has a so-called yellow flag law, a weaker provision that allows law enforcement officials to take away guns from someone considered a safety risk to themselves or others after an evaluation from a mental health professional. If the referendum passes, it would not replace Maine's current law, but would be an additional tool police or the general public can use to temporarily confiscate weapons.
A group opposed to the referendum connected with the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine reported it raised more than $12,000 as of mid-July.
Currently, 21 states have adopted a red flag policy. A red flag proposal introduced in the Maine Legislature in the wake of the 2023 Lewiston mass shooting advanced out of committee but never was voted on by the full House or Senate.
Though the question hasn't raked in as much cash as the voter ID initiative, it caused somewhat of a kerfuffle late in the legislative session. Before sending it to voters, lawmakers were required to hold a public hearing on the bill associated with the referendum. As adjournment neared, Republicans pushed for the hearing that was eventually held the final days of the session.
Some gun rights proponents, including the Sportsman's Alliance, wanted to put a competing measure on the ballot that could potentially have drawn some voter support from the red flag question. However, that proposal, which sought instead to beef up the current yellow flag law, required a work session to be introduced, which the Judiciary Committee declined to hold before adjournment.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bill limiting use of sales tax passes
GUILFORD COUNTY — Voters will be asked again to approve a sales tax increase of 0.25% of a penny for every $1 of sales, but this time legislation dictates how the revenue must be spent if the increase is approved. House Bill 305 was amended by Sen. Phil Berger Sr., R-Rockingham and Senate president pro tem, to set parameters on how the revenue, estimated at $28.7 million a year, would be allocated, with most of it going for teacher pay. The bill passed the General Assembly this week. The Guilford County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously in mid-June to place the sales tax referendum issue on the November 2026 general election ballot. A little more than a week after the commissioners' action, Berger amended House Bill 305 to address the sales tax proposal. Berger, whose legislative district includes Guilford County and some precincts in High Point, has said he placed directives on allocating the tax revenue to assure Guilford County voters on how the money would be spent. Although the county commissioners have pledged that all revenue raised by the proposed sales tax increase would go to teacher pay, there was no provision in state law preventing the money from being directed to other purposes. 'House Bill 305 now provides them with information so they can make an educated decision,' Berger previously said. If the proposed tax increase is approved by voters and raises $28.7 million, this is how the money would have to be allocated, according to the new legislation: • Teacher pay supplements in Guilford County Schools, $19.2 million. • Guilford County Fire and Rescue Council for equipment purposes and capital expenditures, $5.5 million. • Guilford Technical Community College capital projects, $2.7 million. • Allocations for Whitsett, Summerfield, Stokesdale, Pleasant Garden and Oak Ridge, $1.3 million. Berger's allocation approach apparently was the first time that has been applied in North Carolina to a sales tax referendum. Whether it will change how Guilford County voters view the proposal is uncertain. Voters have rejected the same proposed sales tax increase six times in the past 20 years, most recently in the November 2024 general election. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.' She also asked: 'What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?' Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.' She also asked: 'What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?'
