Mainers will be asked this November to weigh in on two referendum questions and three separate bonds with a total combined initial cost of $65 million.
One of the most prominent questions on the ballot this November is a citizens’ initiative seeking to change campaign finance law in the state by limiting the value of donations made to qualifying political action committees (PACs).
Residents will also be tasked with deciding if they would like Maine’s current state flag to be replaced with a version of the Pine Tree Flag that was used until 1909. This issue is on the ballot pursuant to a bill approved by the Legislature earlier this year.
The bond questions cover a range of issues, including technological innovation, the restoration of historic buildings, and the “design, development, and maintenance” of trails for outdoor recreation.
Under state law, ballot questions must be arranged in the following order: carry-over measures from a previous election; people’s veto questions; initiated measures; bond issues; constitutional amendments; and other legislatively proposed referenda.
Within each of these categories, question order randomized as part of a publicly-conducted process.
Click Here to Read the Secretary of State’s Full Press Release
Question 1 — An Act to Limit Contributions to Political Action Committees That Make Independent Expenditures
Do you want to set a $5,000 limit for giving to political action committees that spend money independently to support or defeat candidates for office?
If approved, the law proposed under this citizens initiative would limit contributions to independent expenditure-only PACs — commonly referred to as Super PACS — to $5,000.
Maine state law currently defines independent expenditures as any communication expense — such as for advertisements or phone banks — that clearly advocates for or against a particular candidate but is “not made in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, a candidate’s authorized political committee or an agent of either.”
While traditional PACs can make contributions to political candidates in addition to making independent expenditures, they are already limited to receiving no more than $5,000 a year from any single donor.
Super PACs, however, cannot donate directly to candidates but are currently eligible to receive unlimited contributions from their donors.
Under the proposed legislation, however, contributions made by both individuals and businesses to PACs “for the purpose of making independent expenditures” would be limited to a total of $5,000 per calendar year as well.
If approved, this would present a challenge to the current structure of PAC limitations, as well as to existing legal precedent.
Super PACs first came about in 2010 in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC in which the Justices decided that placing limitations on “independent political spending” by both individuals and corporations violated the First Amendment, arguing that these expenditures did not present a sufficient enough threat of corruption warrant government intervention.
With the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ subsequent decision in the case of SpeechNow v. FEC, it was determined that placing any limitations on donations to PACs making only independent expenditures was unconstitutional under the First Amendment, thus paving the way for the creation of Super PACs.
The effort to advance this proposal was spearheaded by Harvard Law Professor and political activist Lawrence Lessig.
Equal Citizens — the non-profit founded by Lessig — played an active role in helping to raise funds in support of gathering the signatures needed to put this issue in front of Mainers.
Both Equal Citizens and Maine Citizens to End Super PACs — the ballot question committee (BQC) responsible for the petition — have indicated that they anticipate this law, if approved, will spark legal challenges that will ultimately bring the issue before the Supreme Court.
Equal Citizens has been involved in similar efforts before, introducing bills in an attempt to get the courts to overturn the D.C. Circuit’s SpeechNow ruling in Alaska in 2018 and again in Massachusetts in 2022.
Click Here to Read the Full Legislation Behind this Question
Question 2 — An Act to Authorize a General Fund Bond Issue for Research and Development and Commercialization
Do you favor a bond issue of $25,000,000 to provide funds, to be awarded through a competitive process and to leverage matching private and federal funds on at least a one-to-one basis, for research and development and commercialization for Maine-based public and private institutions in support of technological innovation in the targeted sectors of life sciences and biomedical technology, environmental and renewable energy technology, information technology, advanced technologies for forestry and agriculture, aquaculture and marine technology, composites and advanced materials and precision manufacturing?
Stemming from a law approved by legislators in April, this question asks voters if they would like to approve a $25 million bond to provide funding to the Maine Technology Institute for innovation-related efforts.
This money would be used for “research and development and commercialization as prioritized by the Maine Innovation Economy Advisory Board’s most recent innovation economy action plan and the Office of Innovation’s most recent science and technology action plan.”
Funding must go toward supporting “technological innovation” that will lead to “commercialization” in a number of specifically enumerated sectors, including life sciences, environmental and renewable energy technology, aquaculture and marine technology, and biomedical technology.
These funds must be awarded by the Maine Technology Institute through a competitive process to Maine-based public and private institutions “to leverage matching private and federal funds on at least a one-to-one basis.”
The legislation underpinning this ballot question was sponsored by Sen. Teresa Pierce (D-Cumberland) and co-sponsored by a bipartisan group of lawmakers including: Rep. Sawin Millett (R-Waterford), Sen. Russell Black (R-Franklin), Sen. Mattie Daughtry (D-Cumberland), Sen. Trey Stewart (R-Aroostook), Rep. Michael F. Brennan (D-Portland), Rep. Kristen Cloutier (D-Lewiston), Rep. Anne C. Perry (D-Calais), Rep. Maureen Fitzgerald Terry (D-Gorham), and Rep. Samuel Lewis Zager (D-Portland).
It was approved by both chambers of the Legislature without a roll call vote.
Click Here to Read the Full Legislation Behind this Question
Question 3 — An Act to Authorize a General Fund Bond Issue to Restore Historic Community Buildings
Do you favor a $10,000,000 bond issue to restore historic buildings owned by governmental and nonprofit organizations, with funds being issued contingent on a 25% local match requirement from either private or nonprofit sources?
If approved, this bond would give the Maine Historic Preservation Commission $10 million to spend on restoring historic buildings owned by governmental and nonprofit organizations.
Up to one percent of this funding could be allocated to cover administrative costs associated with the program.
Award of these funds by the Maine Historic Preservation Commission would need to be contingent on a 25 percent local match by each recipient.
This bipartisan legislation was presented by Waterford Democrat Rep. Millett, co-sponsored by Sen. Rick Bennett (R-Oxford), and approved by both chambers without a roll call vote.
Click Here to Read the Full Legislation Behind this Question
Question 4 — An Act to Authorize a General Fund Bond Issue to Promote the Design, Development and Maintenance of Trails for Outdoor Recreation and Active Transportation
Do you favor a $30,000,000 bond issue to invest in the design, development and maintenance for nonmotorized, motorized and multi-use trails statewide, to be matched by at least $3,000,000 in private and public contributions?
Should voters support this measure at the ballot box, $30 million will be made available to establish the Maine Trails Program in order to leverage at least $3 million in matching public and private contributions for the “design, development, and maintenance of nonmotorized, motorized, and multi-use trails statewide.”
The Bureau of Parks and Lands would be restricted to $7.5 million spending annually, and after the first year, any remaining unspent balance may be added to the total for subsequent years.
These funds would be awarded through a competitive grant process to municipalities, executive branch departments and agencies, and nonprofit organizations.
About a quarter of this funding must be spent to support nonmotorized trails, another quarter on motorized trails, and the remaining half on multi-use trails for recreation or active transportation.
The law underpinning this ballot question further directs that priority must be given to projects that adhere to “sustainable design standards” and incorporate “accessibility and inclusive design standards.”
In order to eligible for an award through this program, projects must be able to demonstrate access to at least a ten percent matching contribution and, generally speaking, be available for public use.
Up to three percent of this funding may be used by the Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry to administer this program.
This bill was sponsored by Rep. Jessica Fay (D-Raymond) and co-sponsored by a bipartisan — but predominately Democratic — group of lawmakers, including: Sen. Russell Black (R-Franklin), Rep. Rachel A. Henderson (R-Rumford), Rep. Amy D. Kuhn (D-Falmouth), Rep. H. Scott Landry Jr. (D-Farmington), Democrat Representative from Waterford Millett, Rep. Michael Soboleski (R-Phillips), Oxford Republican Sen. Bennett, and Sen. Henry Ingwersen (D-York).
Lawmakers in the House approved this legislation without a roll call vote, while the Senate voted overwhelming in support of the bill in a roll call vote of 29-3.
Sen. Eric Brakey (R-Androscoggin), Sen. Peter Lyford (R-Penobscot), and Sen. Jeff Timberlake (R-Androscoggin) all voted in opposition to this legislation.
Click Here to Read the Full Legislation Behind this Question
Question 5 — An Act to Restore the Former State of Maine Flag
Do you favor making the former state flag, replaced as the official flag of the State in 1909 and commonly known as the Pine Tree Flag, the official flag of the State?
Question 5 asks voters if they would like to replace the current state flag with an early 20th century design commonly referred to as the Pine Tree Flag.
The official description of this design — as included in a bill signed into law earlier this year — reads: “buff, charged with the emblem of the State, a pine tree proper, in the center, and the North Star, a mullet of 5 points, in blue in the upper corner; the star to be equidistant from the hoist and the upper border of the flag, the distance from the 2 borders to the center of the star being equal to about 1/4 of the hoist, this distance and the size of the star being proportionate to the size of the flag.”
Secretary of State Shenna Bellows held a design contest earlier this summer to solicit options for the specific model flag upon which voters will be deciding this November.
Submissions closed Friday, July 19, and the final design will be made available before Mainers start casting their ballots for the November election.
Rep. Sean C. Paulhus (D-Bath) — who resigned from the Legislature in July of 2023 — was the sole sponsor of this bill. Androscoggin Republican Sen. Brakey sponsored an amendment to this legislation that was later adopted by both chambers.
Lawmakers in the Senate approved this legislation in a roll call vote of 22-12, while House lawmakers passed it in a much narrower roll call vote of 72-70.
The bill eventually became law without the signature of Gov. Janet Mills (D) in January of this year.
Click Here to Read the Full Question Behind this Legislation
“No” x 5.
The voters will probably approve all of it. Liberals have never met a bond they didn’t like and liberals are dumbing down everything, including art like our current flag.
How will we know if our vote gets counted ACCURATELY?
NO on all of them. Mainers if you want your tax bills to keep going up just keep voting for these idiotic bonds. When are Mainers going to wake up? Oh never.
no no no no no! another misrepresenttion of the maine flag history! ” it was used until 1909″ is very misleading… it was only the maine flag for a couple years… the new flag design is a hat tip to china and erases our history!!
Thirty Million Dollars to cut brush on some trails ?
Two thirds of that ( $20,000,000 ) will go to some democrat leaning , non government , non profit , “ conservation “ group , to pay for their requisite endless “ studies and designs “ work . Fat salaries for ten years for party faithful and Augusta ass kissers . How many cousins does Janet Mills have ?
Two thirds of Maines residents will never see or use these “ trails “ anyway.
Why not take a million from the rainy day fund and divide it up amount the Maine Snowmobile Groups ? THAT would be money better spent !
Beachmom is probably correct . The traditional Maine democrat liberals will eat this right up . More jobs for party faithful .
No on all 5
Spend, spend, spend that’s the Maine way.
Communists love to change the Norma to Abnormal.
And we don’t need another / different flag anyhow …..What is the purpose of changing the flag ?
Big contract from some “ progressive “ company who is backing this bill ?
A bunch of hyphenated last named “ individuals “ who need a new pet project ?
Commies who want another “ flag with a star “ flying from our capital ?
WTF is wrong with the flag we have now ?
Why can’t these democrats leave our state alone ….why are they set on destroying our past history ?
Bullshit way to have to spend more money on something we don’t need .
Shanon Bellows had a contest ? Oh gee ……how cool is that ?
The Tee Shirt printers lined up at HER Door !
LEAVE THE MAINE STATE FLAG ALONE ….ITS FINE THE WAY IT IS .
If you want to vote for something ….vote to get rid of these damn democrats ….
I was told by someone who favors changing the state flag to the old 1909 one that, “It’s simple and clean looking. So, are the Hammer & Sickle, Star and Crescent and Nazi Party Swastika. Leave the current flag as it is and, by the way, go pound sand!
The reason for the drive for the “New”-Old State flag is that it resembles the Lebanese flag , More “MUZZY” slight of hand
So the push for the new flag was because some leftists have heartburn about two white guys on the flag! So they had a contest and the best they could come up with was a temporary flag used for a couple years. So now we are supposed to swoon over a urine yellow flag with a crappy rendition of a ‘pine’ tree that looks like a kids cutout of a Christmas tree with a dark star of equally lousy shape instead of a bright white star on the disgusting yellow background! As for the bonds, this is on top of the biggest budget in history that is already raising taxes, do we really need to spend more to keep unemployed democrats on the payroll? No on everything!! And we need to demand that every vote is a roll call vote so every politician is held accountable, no more sliding under the radar, you work for us and we need to know if you are doing your jobs!!
The combined bond is approximately $65m while it was just reported the State has a budget surplus of $93m. With a state filled more and more with an elderly population on fixed incomes and many working people living paycheck to paycheck can someone explain why we keep voting these idiots into office both democrat and weak-kneed republicans. Heaven forbid we give any monies back to the taxpayers.
Knowing our state I wouldn’t be surprised if the flag they want is some LGBTQ flag with a pine tree on it.
Do you ever wonder where the “magic money” comes from when there are funds moved around to support projects other than originally intended (supporting illegal migrant invaders for example). It begins with slush funds that are ambiguously worded so “investments” into various areas cannot be challenged.
Colby DeLapp, I’ve already seen the childish flag with alphabet mafia colors added.
1. No! 2. No! 3. No! 4. No! 5. HELL NO!
an act forcing representatives to vote on bills related to referendums, as their constituents voted on those referendums