Ranked choice voting expansion in Maine sent to Gov. Mills
Jun. 18—AUGUSTA — The Senate voted Wednesday to send a bill to Gov. Janet Mills that would expand ranked choice voting to include the governor's and state legislative races.
Mills has not yet taken a position on the bill. She previously let a bill to allow the voting method to be used in presidential elections become law without her signature in 2019, citing concerns about a lack of funding.
This year's bill, LD 1666, was enacted 73-72 in the House of Representatives on Wednesday. The Senate later voted 21-14 in support of the measure.
Maine became the first state in the nation to adopt ranked choice voting in 2016 after it was approved through a citizens' initiative. It has withstood Republicans' subsequent efforts to repeal it.
The voting method is used in federal races, including for president, and legislative primaries.
Proponents hope the expansion will take effect for next year's gubernatorial races, which is drawing a lot of interest from candidates because Mills cannot seek reelection because of term limits.
But the proposal may wind up in the courts, which could delay implementation, because it conflicts with an advisory opinion issued by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court in 2017 that said ranked choice voting for state-level offices would violate the state Constitution, which says such offices are determined by who gets the most votes.
During floor debates last week, Rep. Adam Lee, D-Auburn, said Maine's advisory opinion was undermined by a court in Alaska, which has a similar constitutional provision and ranked-choice voting. He said Maine's court ruling hinged on the idea that a candidate must win in the first round, while Alaska's court ruled that the vote is not completed until the final round.
"The Alaska Supreme Court compellingly took apart the Law Court's opinion and demonstrated the flaw of its reasoning," said Lee, who is an attorney. "This legislative change would align us with how the Federal Elections Commission and other federal courts and the Alaska Supreme Court have come to understand ranked choice voting — not as multiple votes but as a single iterative process."
Ranked choice voting allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. The candidate with the fewest votes in each round is eliminated. Ballots listing an eliminated candidate as their top choice then have their second choice added to the remaining candidates. That process continues until a candidate surpasses 50% of the vote.
The push for ranked choice voting came largely as a response to the 2010 governor's race, in which long-shot Republican candidate Paul LePage took office with just under 38% of the vote, after the Democratic candidate and a third-party challenger split the opposition. LePage won reelection in 2014 in another three-way contest without receiving more than 50% of the votes.
Mills has 10 days to sign, veto or allow the bill to become law without her signature, as long as the Legislature is still in session. But if lawmakers adjourn for the year, she would have to sign the bill within 10 days for it to become law.
Copy the Story Link
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
32 minutes ago
- Forbes
Moratorium On State AI Regulation Draws Some GOP Fire, But Also Praise
Both the House and Senate versions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act include provisions to preempt ... More state regulation of AI. As President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans seek to extend the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act's (TCJA) personal income tax rate cuts as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), how to deal with the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap remains a key point of contention. The House-approved version of OBBBA raises the TCJA's $10,000 per household SALT cap to $40,000 but the Senate proposal keeps it at $10,000. The SALT cap isn't the only part of OBBBA that has divided some Republicans. Opponents of the TCJA's SALT cap often accuse it of targeting blue states, which tend to have relatively higher tax burdens and are where most SALT beneficiaries live. The same criticism, however, cannot be leveled at the OBBBA provision prohibiting states from regulating artificial intelligence (AI), a proposal that has been the subject of some GOP criticism. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), for example, voted for OBBBA but has since derided the moratorium on state regulation of AI included in the bill. 'This needs to be stripped out in the Senate,' Greene wrote about OBBBA's AI preemption provision in a June 6 post on X. 'When the OBBB comes back to the House for approval after Senate changes, I will not vote for it with this in it.' 'We should be reducing federal power and preserving state power,' Greene added. 'Not the other way around.' Neil Chilson, former chief technologist at the Federal Trade Commission, responded to the sentiment expressed by Greene in a June 10 X post: 'A lot of 'conservatives' seem desperate to have California (a state that is having some difficulties governing itself right now) regulate how the US does AI,' Chilson wrote, adding that 'China thanks you.' The sort of progressive state regulation of AI development that Greene is vowing to defend is now on display in Albany, where the New York Assembly and Senate recently passed the RAISE Act, legislation that would impose new regulations on companies, both large and small, that deal with AI. That legislation is now on Governor Kathy Hochul's (D) desk awaiting her consideration. 'The RAISE Act would create a legal minefield for New Yorkers trying to innovate by imposing vague, unworkable standards that punish developers instead of bad actors,' noted a letter that NetChoice, a trade association of online businesses, sent to Governor Hochul on June 17. That letter, which urged Hochul to veto the RAISE Act, added that the bill 'would stifle AI tech development, harm economic competitiveness and undermine free expression.' Bipartisan opposition to the AI preemption provision in OBBBA is not surprising. Though capping the SALT deduction disproportionately affects blue state taxpayers, OBBBA's federal preemption of state AI regulation would have implications for red and blue states alike. That's because governors and lawmakers in red states have proved just as inclined as their blue state counterparts to propose state-level regulation of AI. Take Texas, commonly viewed as one of the reddest and most conservatively governed states in the nation, and for good reason. Texas, where Republicans control every statewide office and both chambers of the legislature, is one of only eight states that does not impose an income tax. It's a right-to-work state where leading politicians tout freedom, liberty, and limited government. It's also a state where Republican lawmakers have been seeking to regulate AI. In late 2024, Texas Representative Giovanni Capriglione (R) introduced the Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA), legislation to establish a state-level regulatory regime affecting companies operating in the AI space. Following its introduction, TRAIGA was quickly met with opposition from free market organizations. 'Though well-intentioned, this draft bill imposes restrictive regulations and burdensome compliance costs that risk stifling Texas's thriving artificial intelligence (AI) sector,' a coalition of conservative organizations wrote in a joint letter to Texas legislators. 'Texas has a unique opportunity to be a leader in AI innovation, but TRAIGA's approach threatens to undermine that potential. It would also be detrimental as a policy framework for other states or the federal government.' In response to pushback, Representative Capriglione scaled back TRAIGA, reworked it, and refiled it as House Bill 149. HB 149, which ultimately passed both chambers, is more narrow in scope than the original version of TRAIGA, with HB 149 focusing on government utilization and development of AI. 'Under the bill, government agencies will be required to disclose to consumers when they are interacting with an AI system,' noted a Transparency Coalition blog post on HB 149. 'Systems will be prohibited from 'dark pattern' interaction, or any 'user interface designed or manipulated with the effect of substantially subverting or impairing user autonomy, decision-making, or choice.'' 'TRAIGA also bans the government from using AI to create 'social scores' for users, and from using biometric data without consent,' the Transparency Coalition added. 'Government agencies also are prohibited from discriminating against users based on their political viewpoints, as well as from blocking, banning, removing, deplatforming, demonetizing, or otherwise limiting users.' Aside from Texas, legislation seeking to regulate AI has been introduced in most state capitals, in both blue and red states. It's not only free market voices and tech industry leaders who are expressing concerns about the adverse effects that would stem from a 50-state patchwork of overlapping and conflicting AI regulations. 'I just worry about every state going out and doing their own thing, a patchwork quilt of regulations, Connecticut being probably stricter and broader than most, what that means in terms of AI development here,' Governor Ned Lamont (D-Conn.) said last month. Shortly after Colorado lawmakers enacted their AI bill in 2024, Governor Jared Polis (D-Colo.) urged congress to enact federal legislation preempting state regulation of AI. 'There are better ways for states to address AI concerns than a heavy-handed, top-down, paperwork-intensive regulatory approach,' Governor Glenn Youngkin (R-Va.) wrote in the veto statement explaining his decision to reject an AI regulation bill passed by the Democrat-led Virginia Legislature. 'The role of government in safeguarding AI practices should be one that enables and empowers innovators to create and grow, not one that stifles progress and places onerous burdens on our Commonwealth's many business owners.' Proponents of federal preemption of state AI regulation, which includes many conservatives who advocate for pushing most policy decisions down to the states, believe that a patchwork of 50 separate state regulatory regimes for AI would put the U.S. at a disadvantage when it comes to development of AI. Vance Ginn, president of Ginn Economic Consulting and former economist at the White House Office of Management and Budget, says there is a precedent for a federal moratorium on state AI regulations. That precedent is the Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998, which was passed by a GOP-run congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. 'That federal pause on state taxes for internet access helped fuel the digital revolution,' writes Ginn. 'AI deserves the same breathing room. If the moratorium or something like it doesn't happen, America risks ceding the future to countries like China, where communist governing directs resources rather than profits.' Those remarks from Ginn, who served in the first Trump administration, sound a similar note to those recently delivered by a member of the second Trump administration. In an address to the AWS Public Sector Summit, David Sacks — the venture capitalist, technologist, and first ever White House AI czar — described the state-level efforts to regulate AI as 'fear-mongering', adding that a 50-state patchwork of varying and conflicting AI regulatory regimes across the U.S. could 'end up killing these things in the cradle.' 'If we had taken this approach towards the internet, if we had basically had a fear-based approach towards regulation and passed hundreds or thousands of regulations, I don't think the U.S. would become the dominant country in the internet,' Sacks added, calling the internet 'one of the crown jewels of the American economy.' There is bipartisan agreement about the need for federal preemption of state AI regulations and there is also bipartisan opposition to such a federal moratorium. The matter will be decided, however, by Republicans on Capitol Hill. 'Republicans have a pretty straightforward choice on AI,' writes Zach Lilly, deputy director of state and federal affairs for NetChoice, noting that the choices are 'follow Trump's lead and use their Congressional majority to set a light touch approach, or miss the moment and let California regulate it into oblivion.'
San Francisco Chronicle
42 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Letters: There's a way around Great Highway closure traffic jam
Regarding 'Has the Great Highway closure led to a traffic nightmare? This is the most complete data yet' (Projects, June 16): I lived on 40th Avenue in San Francisco's Outer Richmond for over 20 years before relocating last year. I always found complaints about traffic on Chain of Lakes Drive in Golden Gate Park to be overblown. Many drivers seem to have forgotten or never experienced the same congestion during periodic Great Highway closures (usually for sand) before the COVID pandemic. When I saw cars backed up to Lincoln or Fulton on Chain of Lakes, I had a simple solution: go around the west side of the park on the Great Highway — the portion that remains open after the recent closure. At the height of rush hour, this detour never took me more than about five minutes. John Cumming, West Sacramento Stop gestapo tactics Regarding 'Deport the worst' (Letters to the Editor, June 15): I suspect most people would not argue much with letter writer Peter Behr's call to deport criminals. The problem with President Donald Trump's policies, encouraged by adviser Stephen Miller, is that to meet their high deportation goals, they are taking law-abiding immigrants and, in some cases, citizens, and putting them into their dragnet. People are showing up for immigration court hearings like they are supposed to do, and being detained and deported. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are going into farms, restaurants and other workplaces and just taking people away, especially in Democratic cities and states. There's no legal process. ICE seems to be turning into the gestapo — fear and intimidation. What is next? Notice how Trump sent in the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles, and Homeland Security Secretary Noem saying that they are there to 'liberate California'? Please wake up, Mr. Behr. Republicans, especially those in Congress, need to take steps to control Trump before it is too late. Mike Elgie, San Rafael Tariffs are taxes President Donald Trump says that consumers don't pay tariffs; foreigners do. That couldn't be further from the truth, and I should know — I just paid it. I recently ordered a piece of equipment used in an obscure martial art from Japan. It's a craft item that will never be made in the United States. The cost was $525, but on delivery, UPS required an additional $180. When I asked what it was for, the answer was tariffs on steel and aluminum. That $180 paid to the federal government won't contribute to the creation of any jobs in the U.S. It won't make us richer or more competitive. It did take money out of my pocket and out of the real economy that could have been spent in our community. Make no mistake, tariffs are a tax, pure and simple. They are a tax on all of us. Support new teachers Regarding 'Legislature rejects 'draconian' cuts to UC and CSU, keeps TK-12 funding intact' (California, June 12): I applaud the California Legislature's work balancing the budget; however, one area needs more attention and fiscal support: paying a stipend for aspiring teachers. Many teachers spend hundreds of hours learning in classrooms, with no salary but high debt. This barrier is one of the leading causes of a declining teacher workforce, particularly in California. In Dublin, where I live, advanced and honors classes suffer from ill-trained substitute teachers, while there are hardly any new teachers on campus. This worsens education and hurts student outcomes. With one of the largest educational budgets across the nation, California can lead by example: In this next budget cycle, by creating this new program — with the proposed $600 million price tag — it can start incentivizing aspiring teachers to enter the workforce. Aayush Gandhi, Dublin
Boston Globe
43 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Juneteenth endures even as the rest of Black history is under attack by Trump and GOP. Here's why.
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up There's another straightforward explanation: it's too popular. Even among Republicans. Advertisement In the Senate, every Republican signed off to make it law. In the House, only 14 GOP members voted no. Many of those who supported the law, including Texas Republicans, whose state first recognized Juneteenth as a holiday in 1980, remain in office. For a Congress now deeply polarized on race and education policy, the 2021 vote stands out as a moment of unusual consensus. Advertisement That consensus built on political momentum from the year before. In the summer of 2020, following the murder of George Floyd by a white police officer and the widespread protests that followed, then-President Trump was asked whether he supported making Juneteenth a federal holiday. While he did not propose legislation, he said he would 'absolutely consider it' if a bill came to his desk and added that it 'should be celebrated.' The issue gained traction across the political spectrum, even as deeper policy debates around policing, systemic racism, and racial equity programs remained unresolved. The contrast with what's happened since is striking. Trump, now returned to power, has made curtailing federal engagement with race and history one of the signature priorities of his second term. Executive orders have instructed federal agencies to review and remove materials that reference structural racism or institutional bias. They instructed the National Park Service to Advertisement And beyond the federal government, conservative leaders and lawmakers have sought to limit how race and slavery are taught in classrooms — including bans on the 1619 Project and And yet, Juneteenth has gone untouched. It may be that trying to undo a national holiday, particularly one as publicly embraced as Juneteenth, would be a harder sell than removing curriculum or rewriting a web page. Several red states have followed the federal government's lead and made Juneteenth a state holiday, even as they advance laws that restrict how Black history can be taught in public schools and universities. In South Dakota, Tennessee, and West Virginia, where laws have targeted classroom content about racism and slavery as part of anti-Critical Race Theory measures, June 19 remains an official holiday. In Texas, state offices will close Thursday, just as they have since 1980. The politics are also more delicate. While some on the right criticized the holiday, at the time saying it would compete with July 4 or arguing it was expensive to give another paid holiday without removing an existing one, those voices were outliers. No major Republican figure has called for its repeal, even as they challenge the public role of Black historical narratives elsewhere. Still, the disconnect between what Juneteenth represents — the delayed arrival of freedom to enslaved people in Texas more than two years after the Emancipation Proclamation — and the current rollback of how race and slavery are discussed in public institutions is hard to miss. In Washington, federal employees will get the day off. But many of the initiatives once tasked with commemorating or educating about racial history have already been stripped away. Advertisement In this way, Juneteenth stands apart: a symbolic acknowledgment that remains firmly in place, even as the broader teaching and celebration of Black history is being curtailed. Whether that separation is sustainable or whether the holiday eventually draws new scrutiny remains to be seen. But Markey has a prediction: 'Juneteenth is going to be celebrated for the rest of our nation's history.' James Pindell is a Globe political reporter who reports and analyzes American politics, especially in New England.
