11-07-2025
Maine Supreme Judicial Court upholds language of voter ID referendum
Jul. 11—The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed on Friday that the language of an upcoming statewide referendum question on whether to require photo identification in order to vote does not need to change.
A group campaigning in support of the referendum sued the Maine secretary of state this spring, arguing that the wording the office released in May is too confusing to understand and that it could mislead voters. The lawsuit also argued it was not written "in a clear, concise and direct manner."
The ballot question reads: "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 referendum qualified for the November ballot in February.
A Superior Court justice ruled last month that the wording did not need to change, and Maine's top court backed the ruling on Friday, stating "a ballot question is fatally misleading only if a voter would be led to vote contrary to the voter's intent."
"Here, although the question is longer than most have been in the past, that is because it lists the salient features of the legislation in short, easily understood phrases," the recent ruling states. "The wording may be complex but it is not complicated."
Secretary of State Shenna Bellows and other opponents of the referendum have criticized advocates for promoting the measure only as a voter ID mandate when it would also make it harder to vote absentee and make other changes to election laws that officials say would be difficult and expensive to implement.
Supporters of the referendum, Voter ID for ME, claimed in a statement in May that the referendum wording misrepresents their proposal, saying it "buries the core intent" and that "it fails to meet the constitutional and statutory standards of clarity, accuracy and impartiality."
"Because we conclude that the secretary's question is 'understandable to a reasonable voter reading the question for the first time and will not mislead a reasonable voter who understands the proposed legislation into voting contrary to that voter's wishes,' we affirm the judgment of the Superior court," the decision concludes.
Copy the Story Link
