Revived efforts for Maine voters to elect constitutional officers founder
Renewed efforts by some lawmakers for the state to adopt a system where voters elect the state's constitutional officers again failed this year.
Maine is an outlier in having the Legislature appoint constitutional officers and state auditors. Rather than giving that power to state legislators, most states popularly elect their treasurer, secretary of state and attorney general. States vary more on how they select auditors.
For decades, some lawmakers have proposed changing the selection process, such as allowing the public to decide instead through a direct popular election, but such attempts have failed.
The Maine House of Representatives and Senate killed all of the proposals to change the selection process this year.
LD 455, sponsored by Sen. Rick Bennett (R-Oxford), would have amended the constitution to require the popular election of the secretary of state, attorney general and state treasurer. Both chambers voted against it, so it died upon adjournment on Wednesday.
LD 508, sponsored by Senate Minority Leader Trey Stewart (R-Aroostook), sought to essentially do the same. The Senate indefinitely postponed it on June 11, killing the bill, on a motion from Bennett.
Other bills, all sponsored by House Minority Leader Billy Bob Faulkingham (R-Winter Harbor), focused on switching to popular elections for specific positions.
LD 150 proposed a constitutional amendment to allow for the popular election of the state treasurer. It also died after the Senate followed the House in rejecting it earlier this month.
That's also the case for LD 147, which proposed a constitutional amendment to require the popular election of the secretary of state, and LD 149 that would do so for the attorney general.
Bennett also offered an alternative election process for constitutional officers and the state auditor in LD 1193. Instead of a popular election, this bill would still have the Legislature elect these positions but with an open ballot system, under which a lawmaker's vote would be publicly available.
However, LD 1193 remained tabled in the Senate upon adjournment. Since it was not one of the bills carried over into next year, the bill died when the Legislature adjourned on Wednesday.
Sen. Richard Bradstreet (R-Kennebec) proposed in LD 1068 switching to popularly elect the state auditor, though not through a constitutional amendment. That bill also remained tabled in the Senate upon adjournment and died since it was not carried over.
The state auditor is not a constitutional officer, however another bill, LD 1052, sought to make it one through a constitutional amendment.
Sponsored by Rep. Suzanne Salisbury (D-Westbrook), the bill passed both chambers in initial votes, however failed enactment in the House, which was the crucial vote as constitutional amendments need to win the support of two-thirds of lawmakers for enactment. The bill was then placed on what's called the appropriations table because it required funding.
Constitutional amendments ultimately have to be approved by voters even if they pass the Legislature, and therefore always have associated ballot costs.
The Appropriations and Financial Affairs Committee, which manages the table, decided not to fund LD 1052 this year but it will be carried over into next year for consideration. (More on that here.) Though, if funded next year, this bill would still face a steep path to passage given the failed enactment in the House.
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
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Search for answers after Texas' deadly floods brings lawmakers to devastated Hill Country
KERRVILLE, Texas (AP) — Texas lawmakers will take their search for answers following the deadly July 4 floods to the heart of the devastation in Kerr County, where local officials were expected to face questions over their response to the disaster that swept away homes and campers along the Guadalupe River. The hearing Thursday is the first time a panel of lawmakers is visiting the hard-hit Texas Hill Country since the floods, which killed at least 136 people. Most were in Kerr County, including 27 young campers and counselors at Camp Mystic, an all-girls summer camp. Among those invited to testify were local leaders who have defended their preparations and response to the fast-rising waters. Residents will also be given the chance to address lawmakers. The hearing comes as authorities have begun publicly releasing records and audio — including 911 calls — that have provided new glimpses into the escalating danger and chaos in the early hours of the July Fourth holiday. They include panicked and confused messages from residents caught in trees as well as families fleeing with children from homes with water creeping up to the knees. 'People are dying,' one woman tells a 911 operator in call logs released by nearby Kendall County. She says she had a young relative at a church camp in Kerr County who was stranded along with his classmates because of the high waters. 'I don't want them to get stuck in a low-water crossing. And what are they going to do? They have like 30 kids," the woman says. Kerr County officials have denied several Texas Public of Information requests filed by The Associated Press for 911 calls and body-camera footage related to the floods. Lawmakers have had to address flood relief amid a busy 30-day legislative special session that has included a highly-partisan sprint by Republicans to redraw the state's maps to pick up five more seats in the U.S. House. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott added flood relief and disaster preparedness to the agenda items shortly after calling a special session in June. He also included redrawing the state's maps after receiving pressure from President Donald Trump, who has said he wants Texas Republicans to squeeze five additional seats. House Democrats have launched a series of protests that have involved fleeing the state to meet with Democratic governors to try and stop Republican redistricting. As the minority party in both chambers, the caucus has few options and lawmakers face up to $500 a day for walking out after they broke a quorum in 2021. Party leaders have said they will not engage in other legislative business until the legislature addresses flood relief. Lawmakers have filed bills to provide funding for early warning systems, improve emergency communications and strengthen flood infrastructure in flood-prone areas. Residents along the Guadalupe River have said they were caught off guard and had no warning when rainfall struck. Kerr County does not have a warning system along the river after several missed opportunities by state and local agencies to finance one. Abbott and Texas Republicans have signaled no appetite for assigning blame for the disaster or second-guessing decisions by local officials, who have described the scale of the disaster as one that no one could have saw coming. At the first hearing by Texas lawmakers this month, Texas' chief emergency management official called for better accreditation for county response officials. Democrats, meanwhile, have questioned if officials had done enough to provide sufficient infrastructure for flood-prone areas in rural counties. ___ Lathan is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Triumphant in trade talks, Trump and his tariffs still face a challenge in federal court
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has been getting his way on trade, strong-arming the European Union, Japan and other partners to accept once unthinkably high taxes on their exports to the United States. But his radical overhaul of American trade policy, in which he's bypassed Congress to slam big tariffs on most of the world's economies, has not gone unchallenged. He's facing at least seven lawsuits charging that he's overstepped his authority. The plaintiffs want his biggest, boldest tariffs thrown out. And they won Round One. In May, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized federal court in New York, ruled that Trump exceeded his powers when he declared a national emergency to plaster taxes — tariffs — on imports from almost every country in the world. In reaching its decision, the court combined two challenges — one by five businesses and one by 12 U.S. states — into a single case. Now it goes on to Round Two. On Thursday, the 11 judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, which typically specializes in patent law, are scheduled to hear oral arguments from the Trump administration and from the states and businesses that want his sweeping import taxes struck down. That court earlier allowed the federal government to continue collecting Trump's tariffs as the case works its way through the judicial system. The issues are so weighty — involving the president's power to bypass Congress and impose taxes with huge economic consequences in the United States and abroad — that the case is widely expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, regardless of what the appeals court decides. Trump is an unabashed fan of tariffs. He sees the import taxes as an all-purpose economic tool that can bring manufacturing back to the United States, protect American industries, raise revenue to pay for the massive tax cuts in his 'One Big Beautiful Bill,'' pressure countries into bending to his will, even end wars. The U.S. Constitution gives the power to impose taxes — including tariffs — to Congress. But lawmakers have gradually relinquished power over trade policy to the White House. And Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average U.S. tariff to more than 18%, highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. At issue in the pending court case is Trump's use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs without seeking congressional approval or conducting investigations first. Instead, he asserted the authority to declare a national emergency that justified his import taxes. In February, he cited the illegal flow of drugs and immigrants across the U.S. border to slap tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico. Then on April 2 — 'Liberation Day,'' Trump called it — he invoked IEEPA to announce 'reciprocal'' tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and a 10% 'baseline'' tariff on almost everybody else. The emergency he cited was America's long-running trade deficit. Trump later suspended the reciprocal tariffs, but they remain a threat: They could be imposed again Friday on countries that do not pre-empt them by reaching trade agreements with the United States or that receive letters from Trump setting their tariff rates himself. The plaintiffs argue that the emergency power laws does not authorize the use of tariffs. They also note that the trade deficit hardly meets the definition of an 'unusual and extraordinary'' threat that would justify declaring an emergency under the law. The United States, after all, has run trade deficits — in which it buys more from foreign countries than it sells them — for 49 straight years and in good times and bad. The Trump administration argues that courts approved President Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic crisis. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language used in IEEPA. In May, the trade court rejected the argument, ruling that Trump's Liberation Day tariffs 'exceed any authority granted to the President'' under the emergency powers law. 'The president doesn't get to use open-ended grants of authority to do what he wants,'' said Reilly Stephens, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian legal group that is representing businesses suing the Trump administration over the tariffs. In the case of the drug trafficking and immigration tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico, the trade court ruled that the levies did not meet IEEPA's requirement that they 'deal with'' the problem they were supposed to address. The court challenge does not cover other Trump tariffs, including levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos that the president imposed after Commerce Department investigations concluded that those imports were threats to U.S. national security. Nor does it include tariffs that Trump imposed on China in his first term — and President Joe Biden kept — after a government investigation concluded that the Chinese used unfair practices to give their own technology firms an edge over rivals from the United States and other Western countries. Paul Wiseman, The Associated Press Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
We're Lying to Ourselves About Taxes, Spending, and the Debt
Having extended most of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and added even more tax breaks, Congress is once again punting on the central fiscal question of our time: What kind of government do Americans want seriously enough to pay for? Yes, the "Big Beautiful Bill" avoided a massive tax increase and includes pro-growth reforms. It also adds to the debt—by how much is debatable—and that's before we get to the budgetary reckoning of Social Security and Medicare's impending insolvency. Against that backdrop, it's infuriating to see a $9 billion rescission package—one drop in the deficit bucket—met with cries of bloody murder. The same can be said of the apocalyptic discourse surrounding the Big Beautiful Bill's reduction in Medicaid spending. In spite of the cuts, the program is projected to grow drastically over the next 10 years. In fact, the reforms barely scratch the surface considering its enormous growth under former President Joe Biden. Maybe we wouldn't keep operating this way—pretending like minor trims are major reforms while refusing to tackle demographic and entitlement time bombs ticking beneath our feet—if we stayed focused on the question of what, considering the cost, we're willing to pay for. Otherwise, it's too easy to continue committing a generational injustice toward our children and grandchildren. That's because all the benefits and subsidies that we're unwilling to pay for will eventually have to be paid for in the future with higher taxes, inflation, or both. That's morally and economically reprehensible. Admitting we have a problem is hard. Fixing it is even harder, especially when politicians obscure costs and fail to recognize the following realities. First, growing the economy can, of course, be part of the solution. It creates more and better opportunities, raising incomes and tax revenue without raising tax rates—the rising tide that can lift many fiscal boats. But when we're this far underwater, short of a miracle produced by an energy and artificial intelligence revolution, growth alone simply won't be enough. Raising taxes on the rich will fall short too. Despite another round of loud calls to do so, like those now emanating from the New York City mayoral campaign, remember: The federal tax code is already highly progressive. Here's something else that should be common knowledge: Higher tax rates do not automatically translate to more tax revenue. Not even close. Federal revenues have consistently hovered around 17 percent to 18 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) for more than 50 years—through periods of high tax rates, low tax rates, and every combination of deductions, exemptions, and credits in between. This remarkable stability is no fluke. It reflects a basic reality of human behavior: When tax rates go up, people don't simply continue what they've been doing and hand over more money. They work less, take compensation in nontaxable forms, delay selling assets, move to lower-tax jurisdictions, or increase tax-avoidance strategies. Meanwhile, higher rates reduce incentives to invest, hire, and create or expand businesses, slowing growth and undermining the very revenue gains legislators expect. It's why economic literature shows that fiscal-adjustment packages made mostly of tax increases usually fail to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio. Real-world responses mean that higher tax rates rarely generate what static models predict as we bear the costs of less work, less innovation, and less productivity leading to fewer opportunities for everyone, rich or poor. If the underlying structure of the system doesn't change, no amount of rate fiddling will sustainably result in more than 17-18 percent in tax collections. Political dynamics guarantee further disappointment. When Congress raises taxes on one group, it often turns around and cuts taxes elsewhere to offset the backlash. Then, when the government does manage to collect extra revenue—through windfall-profits taxes, inflation causing taxpayers to creep into higher brackets, or a booming economy—that money rarely goes toward deficit reduction. It gets spent, and then some. It's long past time to shift the conversation away from whether tax cuts should be "paid for." Instead, ask what level of spending we truly want with the money we truly have. I suspect that most people aren't willing to pay the taxes required to fund everything our current government does, and that more would feel this way if they understood our tax-collection limitations. That points toward the need to cut spending on, among other things, corporate welfare, economically distorting subsidies, flashy infrastructure gimmicks, and Social Security and Medicare. Until we align Congress' promises with what we're willing and able to fund, we'll continue down this dangerous path of illusion, denial, and intergenerational theft—as we cope with economic decline. COPYRIGHT 2025 The post We're Lying to Ourselves About Taxes, Spending, and the Debt appeared first on Solve the daily Crossword
