Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

Russia Tested NATO’s Airspace 18 Times in 2025 Alone – a 200% Surge That Signals a Dangerous Shift

Police inspect damage to a house struck by debris from a shot down Russian drone in the village of Wyryki-Wola, eastern Poland, on Sept. 10, 2025.

Russia Tested NATO’s Airspace 18 Times in 2025 Alone – a 200% Surge That Signals a Dangerous Shift

Russian aircraft, drones and missiles have violated NATO airspace dozens of times since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022.

Individually, many of these incidents appear minor: a drone crash here, a brief fighter incursion there, a missile discovered only after the fact.

Keep ReadingShow less
Crowd waving flags
Crowd waving flags
(Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

The Government We Value Is Fading

What's happening in our country? Americans are living through a political transformation we did not vote for, did not debate, and did not consent to — and it is happening in real time. [NPR]

America was built on a radical idea: that a diverse people could govern themselves, that power would be shared, and that no leader could ever place himself above the law. The framers designed a Constitution that divided authority, checked ambition, and protected the voices of ordinary citizens. They feared concentrated power. They feared silence. They feared exactly what we are witnessing today.

Keep ReadingShow less
Speak Now or Forever War

U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick (C along fence) listens as U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a visit to the Fort Bragg U.S. Army base on February 13, 2026 in Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

Getty Images, Nathan Howard

Speak Now or Forever War

Trump may have just started the next forever war. If you were a casual listener of last week’s State of the Union, you’d have heard the president offer some forceful words about Iran without mentioning he had already amassed an armada outside Iran so big it is the largest show of U.S. naval power in the Middle East since Iraq. Only a few days later, against the counsel of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, despite having neither a clear rationale nor a plan for involvement, let alone presenting one to Congress or the American public, the U.S. began reckless and illegal strikes on Iran. For weeks prior, rumors had been circulating that Trump was considering a fully fledged, enduring conflict. Former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene’s response on X summed up what many of us were thinking: “Americans do not want to go to war with Iran!!!…And they voted for NO MORE FOREIGN WARS AND NO MORE REGIME CHANGE.” None of this registered with a President who had already bombed seven countries since returning to power. With Trump and Hegseth so hellbent on hellfire at our expense, we all must speak up to stop them. That’s why they’re coming after our freedom of speech–and starting with the troops on purpose.

The U.S. military’s weaponization of poverty presents a financial incentive to stay in line. By design, the military is one of the most foolproof ways in America to get education, healthcare, a steady paycheck, and even citizenship. In return, young servicemembers risk their lives while oligarchs profit. This is the military industrial complex, and it is not a secret. As long as Trump can extract and exploit, he doesn’t see a cost to war. He’s a draft dodger who has called fallen American soldiers ‘losers’ and ‘suckers’ and “finds the notion of military service difficult to understand, and the idea of volunteering to serve especially incomprehensible.” Those of us who have served or are serving see it differently. But unfortunately, when the consequences can be cuts to rank, pay, or benefits, dishonorable discharge, court-martial, or getting deported, what 18-year-old enlisted kid is prepared to disobey or speak out against the officers above them?

Keep ReadingShow less
President Franklin D. Roosevelt addressing congress, December 8, 1941.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt addressing congress, December 8, 1941.

Getty Images, Fotosearch

Four Freedoms: What We Are Fighting For

The record of the Trump 2.0 administration is one of repeated usurpations and injuries to the body politic: fundamentally at odds with the principles of democracy, without legal or ethical restraint, hostile to truth, and indifferent to human suffering. Our nation desperately needs a stout and engaging response from the party out-of-power. It’s necessary but not sufficient for Democrats to criticize Trump, rehearsing what they are against. If it is to generate renewed enthusiasm among voters, the Democratic Party must offer a compelling positive message, stating clearly what it stands for.

Fortunately, Democrats don’t need to reinvent this wheel. They can reach back to a fraught moment in our history when a president brought forward a timely and nationally unifying message, framed within a coherent, memorable, and inspiring set of ideas. In his address to Congress on Jan. 6, 1941 – a full 12 months before Pearl Harbor – Franklin Delano Roosevelt termed the international spread of fascism an “unprecedented” threat to U.S. security. He also identified dangers on the home front: powerful isolationist leanings and, in certain quarters, popular support for Nazi ideology. Calling for increased military preparation and war production (along with higher taxes), he reminded citizens “what the downfall of democratic nations [abroad] might mean to our own democracy.”

Keep ReadingShow less