Latest news with #MaineHouseofRepresentatives
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Hannah Pingree officially launches bid for governor
Hannah Pingree is running for governor in the 2026 Democratic primary. (Official headshot) Hannah Pingree officially launched her campaign for governor after months of speculation about the candidacy of the former Mills administration official and speaker of the Maine House of Representatives. Pingree, the daughter of U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree, will join at least three other Democratic candidates facing off in the gubernatorial primary next June, including Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, former Senate President Troy Jackson and Angus King III, the son of independent U.S. Sen. Angus King. She kicked off the campaign with several planned stops around the state on Tuesday, starting with a rally in Rockland, scheduled meetings with local leaders in Lewiston and Biddeford before capping off the day with a celebration in Portland. Pingree left her role as head of Gov. Janet Mills' Office of Policy Innovation and the Future, also known as GOPIF, which she held since 2019. The office was created to recommend policy solutions for some of the state's biggest issues including climate change, housing, workforce development, the opioid crisis and more. Under Pingree's leadership, GOPIF helped advance legislation that created the Maine Climate Council to support the state in meeting its greenhouse gas emission reduction goals while investing in local infrastructure. Pingree served as co-chair of the council, which authored the state's climate action plan that outlines strategies for electrifying transportation and home heating, among other initiatives. When Pingree stepped down from that role, Mills said in a statement, 'She and her team … have exceeded my expectations at every step, and I look forward to watching her do great things for Maine in the years to come.' In her campaign announcement, Pingree said her vision for Maine's future was 'rooted in economic opportunity, climate resilience, affordable housing and health care, and strong, connected communities.' Before working in the Mills administration, Pingree served four terms in the Maine Legislature including two years as speaker of the state House of Representatives. In a poll released last week by Pan Atlantic Research, Pingree came in third among likely Democratic voters, with 20% percent of respondents saying they would likely support her, and another 39% saying they would consider supporting the congresswoman's daughter, though at the time she had not yet officially announced a run. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Bill making it easier to restrain and seclude students passed by Maine lawmakers
Gardiner-area Superintendent Patricia Hopkins testifies at an education committee public hearing in favor of a bill that would ease restrictions on restraint and seclusion. (Photo by Eesha Pendharkar/ Maine Morning Star) Both chambers of the Maine Legislature advanced a version of a bill that would make it easier for school staff to restrain and seclude students, weakening a law passed in 2021 restricting the use of practices that experts say cause lasting trauma. Maine has historically led the country in its use of these practices, which include physically immobilizing students and placing them in small rooms, with educators predominantly using them on students with disabilities. Restraint and seclusion practices have been used more than 22,000 times in Maine in some years, and the real number is even higher, since many large districts do not submit their data to the state despite reporting being required by the 2021 law. This year, citing increased issues with student behavior, some teachers and administrators pushed to relax the restrictions. 'It broke him, and it broke me': Parents, educators describe trauma from restraint and seclusion Despite disability rights advocates sounding the alarm at the public hearing for the bill, lawmakers in both the Maine House of Representatives and the Senate voted to pass LD 1248. 'While most states are looking at bills this session that provide greater protections for students and more resources for educators, Maine is one of the few states that is looking to roll back protections for students,' said Ben Jones, director of legal and policy initiatives for Lives in the Balance, a Maine-based national nonprofit that offers training for schools on how to move away from restraint and seclusion.'It is a serious disappointment.' Under Maine law, restraint and seclusion are only supposed to be used in case of emergencies, where the student's behavior poses 'imminent risk of serious physical injury' to themselves or others. The original proposal changed that to risk of injury after some educators said they interpreted the law to mean they couldn't use these practices to prevent a potentially dangerous situation unless a teacher could be injured severely enough to seek outside medical care. 'Staff are being hit, they're being bit, but it doesn't meet the threshold of serious imminent danger, because a 5-year-old isn't going to [cause] an injury that requires medical care,' said Gardiner-area Superintendent Patricia Hopkins during the April 23 public hearing. The amended version of the bill defines 'serious physical injury' to mean 'any impairment of the physical condition of a person, whether self-inflicted or inflicted by someone else, that requires a medical practitioner, including, but not limited to, a school nurse, to evaluate or treat the person.' This definition was already included in Chapter 33, the Maine Department of Education rules governing restraint and seclusion. Another aspect of the bill allows educators to move students without their consent without having to document the incident as a restraint. Atlee Reilly of Disability Rights Maine told lawmakers at the work session for LD 1248 that if the bill passes, schools will no longer have to report these kinds of incidents where staff forcibly move students, which he explained will likely mean the number of documented restraints could decrease. 'What we're going to do is take a whole class of stuff — like the physical management of students that I think most people would look at and say, that child's being restrained — and say it's no longer restraint,' Reilly said. He added, 'It doesn't mean that people are going to be putting their hands on kids less.' Jones said these changes 'were conjured up by schools' lawyers who will surely use the new language as legal cover to protect schools, not kids.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - The justices must at long last deal with ‘chronic injunctivitis'
This week, the Supreme Court continued to deliberate over what to do with the growing number of national or universal injunctions issued by federal district courts against the Trump Administration. The court has long failed to address the problem, and so-called 'chronic injunctivitis' is now raging across the court system. Justices have only worsened the condition with conflicting and at times incomprehensible opinions. Both Democratic and Republican presidents have long argued that federal judges are out of control in issuing national injunctions that freeze the entire executive branch for years on a given policy. For presidents, you have to effectively sweep the district courts 677-to-0 if you want to be able to carry out controversial measures. Any one judge can halt the entire government. Under President Barack Obama, Justice Elena Kagan expressed outrage over the injunctions in public comments at Northwestern University School of Law. Kagan lashed out at the obvious 'forum shopping' by then conservative advocates to get before favorable courts, insisting 'It just cannot be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years it takes to go through the normal [appellate] process.' In his first term, Trump faced a more than 450 percent increase in the number of such injunctions over the number issued under Obama — a rise from 12 to 64. The number then went down to just 14 under former President Joe Biden. With Trump back in office, district courts have now outstripped that record and may surpass the total from the first term in the first year. However, when the current case came up before the Supreme Court on one of the Trump injunctions, Kagan suggested that this was 'different,' because Trump was clearly wrong. In oral argument, Kagan snapped at the Solicitor General: 'Every court is ruling against you.' It was a curious point coming from a justice who had previously acknowledged that challengers were forum-shopping by going to favorable judges, as with the current cases coming out of largely blue states. Kagan did not explain where the line should be drawn, leading to speculation on when something would be viewed as 'just sorta wrong' or 'really, really wrong.' This week, the Supreme Court enjoined the Maine House of Representatives from denying State Representative Laurel Libby her right to speak and vote on the floor. In an outrageous action, the Democratic majority had effectively taken Libby's constituents hostage by telling her that, unless she apologized for identifying a transgender athlete in public comments, she could not vote. The Supreme Court voted 7-2 to lift the ban, with Kagan joining the more conservative justices. However, in her dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (who has favored the injunctions in the Trump cases) stressed that there was no need for an injunction here because there were no 'significant legislative votes scheduled in the upcoming weeks' or where Libby's lack of a vote would 'impact the outcome.' It again left many scratching their heads on what Jackson would consider a 'significant vote.' Moreover, thousands of Maine residents have been denied representation on the state House floor. That would seem significant even if the justice did not find certain bills to be sufficiently weighty. These different approaches only deepen the uncertainly over the standards for lower courts. Just in case the Supreme Court doubted the need for greater clarity on the use of these injunctions, Boston District Judge Myong J. Joun, perfected the record this week. The Biden appointee had just been reversed by the Supreme Court last month when he issued a temporary restraining order that the Trump Administration to pay out frozen grants worth more than $65 million. The administration had raised questions about the basis for the grants and ordered a review. Usually, a temporary order freezes the parties from changing the status quo to allow for review. It is difficult to appeal such an order, and the parties generally wait for a couple of weeks to seek review after the court issues a preliminary injunction. But Judge Joun wanted to use the temporary restraining order to force the payments to happen, changing the status quo permanently. This did not seem like temporary relief, since money is not likely to come back after it is paid out. This week, Joun was back with another injunction. This time he enjoined an effort of Education Secretary Linda McMahon to initiate a reduction-in-force and prepare for the potential elimination of the Department of Education. Despite the false claims that Trump's underlying executive order actually shut down the department, it stated that McMahon should, 'to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law, take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education.' While Joun admits that this was not a department shutdown, he still enjoined these efforts in an 88-page decision full of sweeping, dramatic language that sounds more like a policy paper than a restrained judicial order. The court simply declared that even a reduction in force would make it 'effectively impossible for the department to carry out its statutorily mandated functions.' Many on the left again celebrated a judge effectively micromanaging the executive branch. Michael Mann, a climate professor and senior administrator at the University of Pennsylvania, even seemed to add a threat — that 'If Trump doesn't comply, we're in second amendment territory.' Insurrection aside, it is clearly time for the Supreme Court to do something about this. Despite a majority of justices harrumphing for years about these injunctions, lower court judges continue to issue them with abandon. In the meantime, presidents like Trump are looking at two years of litigation before they can make meaningful changes, including downsizing the government. For the Supreme Court, it has become madness, as emergency motions pile up every morning after executive programs are frozen overnight. The solution to chronic injunctivitis is simple: You give district judges a dose of clarity and tell them not to call you in the morning. Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School, where he teaches a course on the Supreme Court and the Constitution. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
24-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
The justices must at long last deal with ‘chronic injunctivitis'
This week, the Supreme Court continued to deliberate over what to do with the growing number of national or universal injunctions issued by federal district courts against the Trump Administration. The court has long failed to address the problem, and so-called 'chronic injunctivitis' is now raging across the court system. Justices have only worsened the condition with conflicting and at times incomprehensible opinions. Both Democratic and Republican presidents have long argued that federal judges are out of control in issuing national injunctions that freeze the entire executive branch for years on a given policy. For presidents, you have to effectively sweep the district courts 677-to-0 if you want to be able to carry out controversial measures. Any one judge can halt the entire government. Under President Barack Obama, Justice Elena Kagan expressed outrage over the injunctions in public comments at Northwestern University School of Law. Kagan lashed out at the obvious 'forum shopping' by then conservative advocates to get before favorable courts, insisting 'It just cannot be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years it takes to go through the normal [appellate] process.' In his first term, Trump faced a more than 450 percent increase in the number of such injunctions over the number issued under Obama — a rise from 12 to 64. The number then went down to just 14 under former President Joe Biden. With Trump back in office, district courts have now outstripped that record and may surpass the total from the first term in the first year. However, when the current case came up before the Supreme Court on one of the Trump injunctions, Kagan suggested that this was 'different,' because Trump was clearly wrong. In oral argument, Kagan snapped at the Solicitor General: 'Every court is ruling against you.' It was a curious point coming from a justice who had previously acknowledged that challengers were forum-shopping by going to favorable judges, as with the current cases coming out of largely blue states. Kagan did not explain where the line should be drawn, leading to speculation on when something would be viewed as 'just sorta wrong' or 'really, really wrong.' This week, the Supreme Court enjoined the Maine House of Representatives from denying State Representative Laurel Libby her right to speak and vote on the floor. In an outrageous action, the Democratic majority had effectively taken Libby's constituents hostage by telling her that, unless she apologized for identifying a transgender athlete in public comments, she could not vote. The Supreme Court voted 7-2 to lift the ban, with Kagan joining the more conservative justices. However, in her dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (who has favored the injunctions in the Trump cases) stressed that there was no need for an injunction here because there were no 'significant legislative votes scheduled in the upcoming weeks' or where Libby's lack of a vote would 'impact the outcome.' It again left many scratching their heads on what Jackson would consider a 'significant vote.' Moreover, thousands of Maine residents have been denied representation on the state House floor. That would seem significant even if the justice did not find certain bills to be sufficiently weighty. These different approaches only deepen the uncertainly over the standards for lower courts. Just in case the Supreme Court doubted the need for greater clarity on the use of these injunctions, Boston District Judge Myong J. Joun, perfected the record this week. The Biden appointee had just been reversed by the Supreme Court last month when he issued a temporary restraining order that the Trump Administration to pay out frozen grants worth more than $65 million. The administration had raised questions about the basis for the grants and ordered a review. Usually, a temporary order freezes the parties from changing the status quo to allow for review. It is difficult to appeal such an order, and the parties generally wait for a couple of weeks to seek review after the court issues a preliminary injunction. But Judge Joun wanted to use the temporary restraining order to force the payments to happen, changing the status quo permanently. This did not seem like temporary relief, since money is not likely to come back after it is paid out. This week, Joun was back with another injunction. This time he enjoined an effort of Education Secretary Linda McMahon to initiate a reduction-in-force and prepare for the potential elimination of the Department of Education. Despite the false claims that Trump's underlying executive order actually shut down the department, it stated that McMahon should, 'to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law, take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education.' While Joun admits that this was not a department shutdown, he still enjoined these efforts in an 88-page decision full of sweeping, dramatic language that sounds more like a policy paper than a restrained judicial order. The court simply declared that even a reduction in force would make it 'effectively impossible for the department to carry out its statutorily mandated functions.' Many on the left again celebrated a judge effectively micromanaging the executive branch. Michael Mann, a climate professor and senior administrator at the University of Pennsylvania, even seemed to add a threat — that 'If Trump doesn't comply, we're in second amendment territory.' Insurrection aside, it is clearly time for the Supreme Court to do something about this. Despite a majority of justices harrumphing for years about these injunctions, lower court judges continue to issue them with abandon. In the meantime, presidents like Trump are looking at two years of litigation before they can make meaningful changes, including downsizing the government. For the Supreme Court, it has become madness, as emergency motions pile up every morning after executive programs are frozen overnight. The solution to chronic injunctivitis is simple: You give district judges a dose of clarity and tell them not to call you in the morning. Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School, where he teaches a course on the Supreme Court and the Constitution.
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Maine may pull out of compact to choose presidents based on national popular vote
May 21—AUGUSTA — The Maine House of Representatives advanced a bill to withdraw from a multi-state compact that could eventually require Maine to award its four electoral college votes for president to the winner of the national popular vote. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Barbara Bagshaw, R- Windham, cleared the House in a 76-71 vote Tuesday. Three Democrats and two independents joined Republicans to support an effort that would effectively repeal a law narrowly passed by the previous legislature to join the National Popular Vote Compact. The bill, LD 252, heads to the Senate, where it was approved last year in an 18-12 vote and could be taken up as soon as Wednesday. Maine was the 16th state, along with Washington, D.C., to join the compact, which would take effect once the coalition reached the 270 votes needed to elect a president in the Electoral College. Currently, 17 states have joined the compact, totaling 209 votes — 61 votes shy of the threshold needed. Gov. Janet Mills allowed the bill to become law without her signature, after it passed by a single vote in the House last year. Arguments in the House on the proposal largely mirrored the previous debate. Proponents on the national compact argued that the presidency is a unique national office that should go to whoever wins the most votes nationally, even if they end up with fewer Electoral College votes. They argued the current system forces candidates to concentrate on winning votes in a handful of swing states, while ignoring others. But opponents argued that Maine's current system, which awards two electoral votes to the statewide winner and one to the winner in each of the state's two congressional districts, should be preserved and emulated across the country. They argued that rural voters, especially in the 2nd District, would be silenced and that Maine would be giving its influence over to larger states. "Under the current system, Mainer's votes matter, our rural communities matter, our people's priorities matter," Bagshaw said. "But under the national popular vote, Maine's influence would be cast aside for larger populations thousands of miles away." She added, "Maine has long embraced an independent spirit," Bagshaw said. "We were the first state in the nation to split its electoral college votes by congressional district — a system that reflects our political diversity and values and every voice, whether rural or urban." Nebraska — the only other state to have a similar system to Maine — considered changing to a winner-take-all system but kept its current system. If the compact had been in place for the 2024 election, Bagshaw noted that Maine would have had to cast all four of its Electoral College votes for Donald Trump because he won the national popular vote. Trump won one of Maine's electoral votes by winning the 2nd District, but Democrat Kamala Harris won three votes by winning statewide and in the 1st District. After lawmakers joined the compact last year, Republicans launched a people's veto to overturn it, but they did not get the enough signatures. This story will be updated. Copy the Story Link We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others. We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion. You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs. Show less
