The Maine Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday morning in the lawsuit challenging Secretary of State Shenna Bellows’ wording of a citizens initiative set to appear on the ballot this November.
The group bringing the case has alleged that question, as drafted by Secretary Bellows’ Office, is leading and misrepresentative of their proposal’s intent.
While supporters of the petition have argued that its primary purpose is to implement voter ID requirements for casting a ballot in Maine and ought to be characterized as such, others have suggested that the provisions pertaining to absentee voting are also important and need to be addressed in the question presented to Mainers at the polls.
The debate over the question’s need for precision and clarity versus its need for completeness was at the center of Tuesday’s hearing before the Maine Supreme Court.
Also at issue was the question of whether or not the challengers had the right to bring this case at all since they did not submit feedback expressing their concerns about the question wording to the Secretary of State’s Office during the public comment period.
Voter ID for ME is the ballot question committee behind the petition at issue in this case which ultimately gathered over 170,000 signatures, more than twice the threshold necessary to put a referendum question on the ballot.
Filed in Cumberland County Superior Court in early May, the supporters’ challenge alleges that the Secretary of State’s question “misrepresents” the proposal and “buries its core intent behind a string of technical and inflammatory clauses,” according to a statement.
Led by Dinner Table Action Executive Director Alex Titcomb and Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn), the effort to get a voter ID question on the ballot was accomplished with minimal funding and hundreds of volunteers, organizers said.
According to the challengers, Bellows’ question allegedly “fails to meet the constitutional and statutory standards of clarity, accuracy, and impartiality.”
As it is currently drafted, the question set to appear on the ballot this November 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?”
Challengers have said that this is the longest ballot question in Maine’s history, found to be 30 percent longer than the text of any past initiative.
[RELATED: Shenna Bellows Releases Final Questions Wording for Voter ID Referendum Question]
Under the law appearing on this November’s ballot, voters would be required to present a valid photo ID, such as a Maine driver’s license, U.S. passport, or military ID, when casting their ballots in person.
To minimize financial barriers, the legislation requires the state to issue free nondriver identification cards to eligible residents without a Maine driver’s license.
Voters without photo identification would be able to cast a challenged or provisional ballot with the caveat that they must provide proper ID within four days post-election for their vote to be counted.
This bill also aims to change Maine’s election laws with respect to absentee voting, including by rolling back certain provisions and by implementing new regulations.
For example, voters would be barred from requesting absentee ballots over the phone, something that is currently permissible under state law.
It also seeks to repeal the statute allowing voters to automatically receive absentee ballots for each election without needed to submit separate requests.
Additionally, municipalities would be prevented from having more than one absentee ballot drop box within their jurisdiction, and a “bipartisan team of election officials” would be required to possess keys to the drop box.
[RELATED: Civic Group Challenges Shenna Bellows in Court Over Wording of Voter ID Referendum Question]
“Here, the Secretary’s drafted question fails the legal test,” said Patrick Strawbridge, attorney for Titcomb. “It is not concise, and its unprecedented length for a voter initiatives petition necessarily impairs its clarity.”
“It relegated the primary point of the initiative – requiring identification for those casting ballots – to the end of a long sentence,” Strawbridge said.
Strawbridge also drew attention to Bellows personal opposition to voter ID laws.
“She is free to campaign against it on her own time,” he said. “She is not, however, free to use her office’s limited role to distort the question and interfere with the people’s exercise of the reserved legislative powers.”
During an exchange with one of the Justices, attorney for the Secretary of State’s Office Jonathan Bolton argued that the question as drafted cannot, by definition, be considered misleading to voters.
“It can’t possibly be misleading if you have six or seven accurate clauses describing things in the legislation,” said Bolton. “It is literally impossible for this question to somehow be misleading when everything in the question is accurate.”
Referring to the challengers’ concerns regarding the historic length of the question, he said: “I think you have to presume that voters can read to the end of a 66 word question.”
Christopher Dodge, attorney for the Democratic Party Committee interveners, suggested that presenting voters with a lengthy question is necessary due to the nature of the proposed bill.
“This question that is going before the voters is concise relative to the sheer scope and disparate and discreet components of the initiative,” said Dodge.
The Court also asked the attorneys to address the foundational issue of whether or not the challengers have a right to bring the case given that they did not provide feedback to the Secretary of State’s Office during the public comment period.
While Strawbridge said that this is does not present a problem for the challengers’ case, Bolton suggested that when the “initiator of the bill that doesn’t provide feedback when they’re clearly strongly opposed to even the draft question, that’s a big problem.”
The Maine Supreme Court is considering this case along an expedited timeline. The Justices noted at the end of Tuesday morning’s hearing that they would be deliberating over the case later that day and could be expected to issue a written decision shortly.
