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. Capitol.
As government shutdowns drag on, a novel idea emerges: use arbitration to break congressional gridlock and fix America’s broken budget process.
Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

Congress's productive 2025 (And don't let anyone tell you otherwise)

The media loves to tell you your government isn't working, even when it is. Don't let anyone tell you 2025 was an unproductive year for Congress. [Edit: To clarify, I don't mean the government is working for you.]

1,976 pages of new law

At 1,976 pages of new law enacted since President Trump took office, including an increase of the national debt limit by $4 trillion, any journalist telling you not much happened in Congress this year is sleeping on the job.

Keep ReadingShow less
Someone using an AI chatbot on their phone.

AI-powered wellness tools promise care at work, but raise serious questions about consent, surveillance, and employee autonomy.

Getty Images, d3sign

Why Workplace Wellbeing AI Needs a New Ethics of Consent

Across the U.S. and globally, employers—including corporations, healthcare systems, universities, and nonprofits—are increasing investment in worker well-being. The global corporate wellness market reached $53.5 billion in sales in 2024, with North America leading adoption. Corporate wellness programs now use AI to monitor stress, track burnout risk, or recommend personalized interventions.

Vendors offering AI-enabled well-being platforms, chatbots, and stress-tracking tools are rapidly expanding. Chatbots such as Woebot and Wysa are increasingly integrated into workplace wellness programs.

Keep ReadingShow less
Women holding signs to defend diversity at Havard

Harvard students joined in a rally protesting the Supreme Courts ruling against affirmative action in 2023.

Craig F. Walker/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

Diversity Has Become a Dirty Word. It Doesn’t Have to Be.

I have an identical twin sister. Although our faces can unlock each other’s iPhones, even the two of us are not exactly the same. If identical twins can differ, wouldn’t most people be different too? Why is diversity considered a bad word?

Like me, my twin sister is in computing, yet we are unique in many ways. She works in industry, while I am in academia. She’s allergic to guinea pigs, while I had pet guinea pigs (yep, that’s how she found out). Even our voices aren’t the same. As a kid, I was definitely the chattier one, while she loved taking walks together in silence (which, of course, drove me crazy).

Keep ReadingShow less
The Domestic Sting: Why the Tariff Bill is Arriving at the American Door
photo of dollar coins and banknotes
Photo by Mathieu Turle on Unsplash

The Domestic Sting: Why the Tariff Bill is Arriving at the American Door

America's tariff experiment, now nearly a year old, is proving more painful than its architects anticipated. What began as a bold stroke to shield domestic industries and force concessions from trading partners has instead delivered a slow-burning rise in prices, complicating the Federal Reserve's battle against inflation. As the policy grinds on, economists warn that the real damage lies ahead, with consumers and businesses absorbing costs that erode purchasing power and economic momentum. This is not the quick victory promised but a protracted burden that risks entrenching higher prices just as the economy seeks stability.

The tariffs, rolled out in phases since early March 2025, have jacked up the average import duty from 2 percent to around 17 percent. Imported goods prices have climbed 4 percent since then, outpacing the 2 percent rise in domestic equivalents. Items like coffee, which the United States cannot produce at scale, have seen the sharpest hikes, alongside products from heavily penalized countries such as China. Retailers and importers, far from passing all costs abroad as hoped, have shouldered much of the load initially, limiting immediate sticker shock. Yet daily pricing data from major chains reveal a creeping pass-through: imported goods up 5 percent overall, domestic up 2.5 percent. Cautious sellers absorb some hit to avoid losing market share, but this restraint is fading as tariffs are embedded in supply chains.

Keep ReadingShow less