Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Ranked-choice voting in Maine faces new challenge

Maine ranked-choice voting

Maine Gov. Janet Mills is among those being sued this week by citizens who want to block the use of ranked-choice voting in the fall election.

Ben McCanna/Getty Images

It turns out the battle over Maine's voting system isn't done yet.

When the Republican Party failed to turn in enough petition signatures last week to block the use of ranked-choice voting in Maine's presidential election this year, it seemed that fight was finished. But Maine, the one state that has approved RCV, is facing a new challenge.

A federal lawsuit filed this week seeks to block the use of ranked-choice voting in November, which would be another high-profile test of a system that advocates are trying to expand throughout the country. And it would play a role in the outcome of one of the most-watched Senate races in the country, featuring incumbent Republican Susan Collins.


The lawsuit — filed on behalf of four Maine voters against Gov. Janet Mills, Attorney General Aaron Frey and Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap — is the just the latest in a series of challenges to RCV in Maine, which was initially approved by voters in 2016 for use in state and congressional elections. The system allows people to vote for more than one candidate and rank their choices.

Proponents argue that it results in a truer reflection of voter support, achieves majority support before naming a winner, allows for an instant runoff that saves the time and expense of putting on another election, and makes for less harsh political campaigns.

Opponents say the system is confusing, and in this lawsuit they rely heavily on the argument that the value of some people's votes is diminished if they don't choose multiple candidates.

Maine voters again approved the idea in 2018 after the Legislature had rejected it and legislation later expanded it for use in the presidential race; an attempt to place another voter referendum on the ballot this fall — which would have halted its use in the 2020 election — failed because not enough valid signatures were gathered.

Ranked-choice voting resulted in Democrat Jared Golden ousting Republican Rep. Bruce Poliquin in 2018. Poliquin initially challenged the results in court but ended up withdrawing his lawsuit.

The latest suit argues that allowing ranked-choice voting in this fall would deny many voters full participation in the election. The argument is based largely on a study of the 2018 elections by Nolan McCarty, a Princeton University professor.

The study claims many voters were hurt because they did not understand how ranked-choice voting works and did not choose and rank enough candidates.

So, the argument goes, after the first round of ballot counting if no candidate has a majority, then the candidate receiving the lowest number of votes is eliminated and the second choice of those voters is applied in the second round of counting. (That's how Golden won despite trailing in the initial count.)

But if the voter did not make a second or subsequent selection, then their ballot is "exhausted" and, in effect, does not count, the suit argues.

It points out that the judge in the 2018 legal challenge ruled there was no empirical evidence to show that the system diminished the votes of some people.

It also argues that an election conducted using a larger number of absentee ballots, as is expected this fall because of the coronavirus pandemic, could exacerbate the problem. That's because people won't have a chance to get help with their ballot if they are voting at home.


Read More

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA)

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA) at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. House Republicans

(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Democrats Gerrymandered David Valadao’s District. Did It Backfire?

GOP US Rep. David Valadao has never won his seat in Congress on Republican votes alone because too few Republicans live in the district where he was raised, lives, and runs his family farm.

- YouTube youtu.be

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

Getty Images

Birthright Citizenship Explained: History, SCOTUS Rulings & Executive Orders

Birthright citizenship has been part of American law for more than 150 years. As the American public continues to see challenges against its constitutionality, brought on by the Trump administration, it is important to remember why.

After the Civil War, Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied citizenship to Black Americans, dampening their federal protections. While the 13th amendment had abolished slavery a few years earlier, Free Black Americans were considered noncitizens by many, and thus had to work around a separate set of laws, meaning they could never be fully integrated as members of American society. In response to this issue, the 14th Amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scales of justice
a golden scale with an eagle on top of it

A Real Test for “Lawfare” Must Protect Allies and Enemies Alike

“Lawfare” is becoming a word that ends arguments instead of clarifying them. When Donald Trump or his allies are prosecuted, many on the right call the case political. When the Trump administration investigates critics, many on the left call it retaliation or “score-settling.” Sometimes those accusations are justified. Sometimes they are partisan reflexes. A label that changes with the identity of the defendant is not a rule of law.

The hard cases are not the ones with a public order to punish an enemy. They are cases with mixed facts: a real investigative predicate, a politically active target, disputed timing, later changes in treatment, and no contemporaneous record the public can inspect. Those cases require something better than “trust the prosecutors” or “trust the accused.” They require an auditable standard.

Keep ReadingShow less