Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Judge blocks use of ranked voting in Maine presidential balloting

Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap

Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap said he hopes to win a reversal of the ruling, but the window is closing.

Portland Press Herald/Getty Images

Griffiths is the editor of Independent Voter News, where a version of this story first appeared.

Despite a series of legal challenges, Maine was set to be the first state to use ranked-choice voting in presidential elections this year. That has changed after a Superior Court ruling.

Judge Thomas McKeon reversed Democratic Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap's determination that the Maine Republican Party had not gathered enough valid signatures to challenge the use ranked-choice votingfor presidential elections. Now, RCV is set to go before Maine voters for a third time in four years.


"Mainers have already made their decision clear, year after year: they want ranked choice voting in their elections. Putting it on the ballot a third time will not change their minds," said Anna Kellar, executive director for the League of Women Voters of Maine.

The decision came down to a difference in state constitutional interpretation. The Maine Constitution requires petition circulators to be residents of the state and registered to vote in the municipality in which they are collecting signatures. Since two circulators were not registered to vote in their municipalities, Dunlap invalidated the signatures they gathered.

However, McKeon ruled that the circulators didn't have to be registered to vote at the time they collected the signatures. (They registered in those towns before turning in the petitions.) The decision restored barely enough signatures for the RCV challenge to appear on the November ballot.

Because the state must print ballots by Friday, there is little room to appeal. But according to the Bangor Daily News, Dunlap said he would seek a reversa l, either by asking the judge to change his ruling or by appealing to the state Supreme Court.

FairVote, the nation's leading advocate for ranked choice voting, added a national perspective to the court's decision:

"We all want the same things from our elections: candidates want to run knowing their race won't be 'spoiled' or held hostage by vote-splitting, and voters want to make choices based on their own convictions, not careful calculations about electability," said Rob Richie, the group's president and CEO. "As cities and states across the country adopt ranked choice voting, we're confident Mainers will continue to lead with this sensible electoral reform."

RCV, which has faced numerous challenges in Maine, will still be used in down-ballot races this fall.

Visit IVN.us for more coverage from Independent Voter News.


Read More

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

US Capitol and South America. Nicolas Maduro’s capture is not the end of an era. It marks the opening act of a turbulent transition

AI generated

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

The U.S. capture of Nicolás Maduro will be remembered as one of the most dramatic American interventions in Latin America in a generation. But the real story isn’t the raid itself. It’s what the raid reveals about the political imagination of the hemisphere—how quickly governments abandon the language of sovereignty when it becomes inconvenient, and how easily Washington slips back into the posture of regional enforcer.

The operation was months in the making, driven by a mix of narcotrafficking allegations, geopolitical anxiety, and the belief that Maduro’s security perimeter had finally cracked. The Justice Department’s $50 million bounty—an extraordinary price tag for a sitting head of state—signaled that the U.S. no longer viewed Maduro as a political problem to be negotiated with, but as a criminal target to be hunted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Red elephants and blue donkeys

The ACA subsidy deadline reveals how Republican paralysis and loyalty-driven leadership are hollowing out Congress’s ability to govern.

Carol Yepes

Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis

Picture a bridge with a clearly posted warning: without a routine maintenance fix, it will close. Engineers agree on the repair, but the construction crew in charge refuses to act. The problem is not that the fix is controversial or complex, but that making the repair might be seen as endorsing the bridge itself.

So, traffic keeps moving, the deadline approaches, and those responsible promise to revisit the issue “next year,” even as the risk of failure grows. The danger is that the bridge fails anyway, leaving everyone who depends on it to bear the cost of inaction.

Keep ReadingShow less
White House
A third party candidate has never won the White House, but there are two ways to examine the current political situation, writes Anderson.
DEA/M. BORCHI/Getty Images

250 Years of Presidential Scandals: From Harding’s Oil Bribes to Trump’s Criminal Conviction

During the 250 years of America’s existence, whenever a scandal involving the U.S. President occurred, the public was shocked and dismayed. When presidential scandals erupt, faith and trust in America – by its citizens as well as allies throughout the world – is lost and takes decades to redeem.

Below are several of the more prominent presidential scandals, followed by a suggestion as to how "We the People" can make America truly America again like our founding fathers so eloquently established in the constitution.

Keep ReadingShow less
Money and the American flag
Half of Americans want participatory budgeting at the local level. What's standing in the way?
SimpleImages/Getty Images

For the People, By the People — Or By the Wealthy?

When did America replace “for the people, by the people” with “for the wealthy, by the wealthy”? Wealthy donors are increasingly shaping our policies, institutions, and even the balance of power, while the American people are left as spectators, watching democracy erode before their eyes. The question is not why billionaires need wealth — they already have it. The question is why they insist on owning and controlling government — and the people.

Back in 1968, my Government teacher never spoke of powerful think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, now funded by billionaires determined to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Yet here in 2025, these forces openly work to control the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court through Project 2025. The corruption is visible everywhere. Quid pro quo and pay for play are not abstractions — they are evident in the gifts showered on Supreme Court justices.

Keep ReadingShow less