Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The Fahey Q&A with two state legislators pushing to open Maine's primaries

Opinion

Matt Pouliot and Chloe Maxmin

Maine state Sens. Matt Pouliot and Chloe Maxmin

Courtesy The People

Since organizing the Voters Not Politicians 2018 ballot initiative that put citizens in charge of drawing Michigan's legislative maps, Fahey has been the founding executive director of The People, which is forming statewide networks to promote government accountability. She regularly interviews colleagues in the world of democracy reform for our Opinion section.


Two Maine state senators, Democrat Chloe Maxmin of Nobeloboro and Republican Matt Pouliot of Augusta, are sponsoring legislation that would allow voters not registered with a political party to cast ballots in partisan primaries. After a term in the state House, last year Maxmin was elected at 28 as the youngest woman ever to serve in the state Senate. Pouliot, in his second term, is the assistant minority leader.

Our recent conversation has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Fahey: How would your bill change Maine elections?

Maxmin: It's a semi-open primaries bill, so it would allow any unenrolled voter to vote in a primary election. It wouldn't allow a Democrat to vote in the Republican primary, or vice versa. It's meant to increase access to the party primary system.

Fahey: Why are you supporting this?

Pouliot: My party has the smallest membership in Maine; there are more Democrats and unenrolled voters than Republicans. It's important for more folks to be able to participate because the current process causes each party to nominate candidates usually further toward one end of the spectrum or the other. Semi-open primaries would help pull us toward the middle. By having unenrolled voters participate, we may have a better chance of getting candidates that are more aligned with the majority of folks' views, as opposed to polarized figures. It is extremely important that we find ways to get more civility in politics.

Maxmin: I promised every independent I talked to on my campaign trail that I would support this bill; it came up all the time. A third of my constituents don't have a say in who they're going to end up voting for in the general election, and it generates feelings of distrust and being left out of the process. Semi-open primaries are one answer to that frustration, though certainly not a complete answer.

Fahey: What about Maine's political landscape makes this switch important?

Maxmin: We form our relationships around our common values. When I first got access to the voter database, I looked up everyone who raised me and realized they were all Republicans, but that never mattered. What matters is that you're a good person, a good neighbor. This bill would ensure our voting infrastructure matches the values of our communities.

Fahey: What is the history of this debate?

Maxmin: Last year the bill didn't pass because almost all Democrats voted against it. This made me quite upset because, at the time, the district I now represent was only 27 percent Democratic and had more independents than any party. But that version didn't include language, which we've added, to address concerns around preservation of delegate count and ballot tracking — important for folks more invested in the party structure. Now my impression is we'll get bipartisan support this time, and we're working to make sure of that.

Fahey: Is there anything Mainers can do to move the bill toward a hearing and a vote?

Maxmin: They can go to our site for help with emailing committee members, submitting written testimony or signing up to testify live. We also have a large group organizing with us that can help voters write letters to the editor and engage in the community.

Pouliot: One of the best ways for people to influence policy is to call their own state legislators. We get a lot of non-constituent emails which help raise an issue on our radar, but aren't always very compelling. People can even text or message their legislator on Facebook to convey how they feel.

Fahey: Is anyone opposing the bill?

Pouliot: Some folks in my party say it would dilute the Republican Party, take away the impetus for people to join a party and therefore make the parties weaker. If you removed the fear of the unknown about how semi-open primaries would impact parties, most would say this is a no-brainer.

Maxmin: As far as I can tell, there's no concerted group lobbying against it, but in conversations with folks there have been a couple objections. One is it could be used to unfairly swing a primary, but there are already stories of that with the current system. The other is that being part of a party is a privilege, and to vote in a primary, you need a D or an R next to your name. Nothing in democracy should be so exclusive that no one else has the right to access it unless they give something up.

Fahey: What has it been like working across the aisle?

Pouliot: I had some preconceived notions about Sen. Maxmin before we really got to know each other. Now I see she has good, sound reasoning behind her ideas, even if we sometimes disagree. We don't always have great opportunities for dialogue with other members of the legislature, and I think a lot of challenges in this country can be overcome with better dialogue.

Fahey: If you were speaking to a high school student or a new immigrant to this country, how would you describe what being an American means to you?

Maxmin: The reason I love American democracy is that we're fighting for a collective form of freedom. All of our interests are tied together, and all our fights for our rights are won when we lift each other up. We're in a moment where democracy is being used to pit people against each other. We're fighting over what makes us different. But to me, that's not what it means to be an American, and it's not why I choose to serve. Elections and democracy should be about including everyone and giving everyone equal opportunity, which ties to my support for semi-open primaries.

Pouliot: A lot of what she said is spot on. We are fortunate to live in a country where we can express our views at the ballot box. Our system, where citizens collectively decide who represents us, is incredible. Our Founders had a lot of foresight developing a system that is really just a work in progress. Our country, now 245 years old, is still very much an experiment. It's exciting to be part of that experiment.












Read More

Five men sitting on one side of a table, as a panel at an event.

Harvard's Guy-Uriel Charles (left) listens to David Walker, Chair of the Federal Fiscal Sustainability Foundation. Fellow panelists (L-R) are Michael Farris, Convention of States Project; Samuel Fieldman, Wolf Pack; and Jim Rubens, FFSA and American Promise.

Photo by Martha Stewart

Congressional Inaction Raises Constitutional Change Alternative

Voting is the anchor of democracy, as we are reminded every two years. But this anchor rests on unstable ground today, signaling that our political roots need examining too.

In the United States, the Constitution itself becomes the focus when serious problems prompt such foundational civic dives. Our current challenges may not be as severe as the Civil War or the excesses of the Gilded Age, which produced waves of amendments, but today’s erosion of our system of checks and balances requires us to revisit our constitutional underpinnings.

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman putting savings in a white piggy bank.

America’s economy now rewards asset ownership over wages. A policy proposal: a $35,000 Birthright Account for every child, and how it could be funded.

Guido Mieth/Getty Images

The American Dream Needs a New Economic Operating System

It is, by now, not an exaggeration to state that the traditional American Dream—work hard, buy a house, raise a family, and retire securely—is failing. It was built for a labor-based economy in which steadily rising wages allowed ordinary families to accumulate wealth. But America has become an asset-based economy, and ownership of those assets is extraordinarily concentrated.

Since the 1980s, the returns from capital have far outpaced the returns from labor. Inflation-adjusted wages for ordinary workers have risen only modestly, while the real value of equities has multiplied many times over. Housing, education, healthcare and childcare costs have soared, employment has become less secure, and defined-benefit pensions have largely disappeared. Even two-income households with respectable jobs often struggle to buy a home, build savings and accumulate enough for retirement.

Keep ReadingShow less
Man wearing Trump hat watches Trump on TV

Trump’s 10-to-1 rule aims to cut red tape, but fewer regulations can mean weaker food safety, Head Start services, and checks on presidential power.

Wu Xiaoling/Xinhua via Getty Images

Trump’s 10-to-1 Rule Gives the Presidency Too Much Power

We only think about the plumbing in our homes when something goes wrong. The same is true for government bureaucracy. Rules, procedures, and bureaucrats operate largely out of sight, making sure food is safe, Social Security checks arrive, workplaces are safe, and children with disabilities receive the services promised to them by law. Yes, there is plenty of red tape in government, just as an old house can accumulate pipes that no longer serve much purpose. But ripping out pipes simply because there are too many of them is not much of a plumbing strategy. Yet the Trump administration has made the number of federal regulations it eliminates a measure of success. That raises a more important question: When does cutting bureaucracy stop making government more efficient and start making it less capable?

1. The Case for Cutting Red Tape

Keep ReadingShow less
US Capitol building
white dome building near body of water during daytime
Photo by José Matute on Unsplash

We The People

On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln concluded the Gettysburg Address with a vision of democracy that has endured for more than a century:

“That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Keep ReadingShow less