As the boom of Independence Day fireworks recedes and this year’s political campaigns rev up, Mainers will turn to practicing two of the core freedoms we celebrated on the Fourth of July: the freedom to engage in political debate and, ultimately, the freedom to vote for the candidates of our choice. However, while we consider voting central to our political process and lives as Americans, we nevertheless maintain a strange relationship with our voting laws.

On the one hand, we view voting as a right fundamental to our citizenship. Each of us no doubt feels that voting is both an important tool for creating good public policy and also an end unto itself — an important act by which we express our political and moral views.

On the other hand, few Americans understand that the Constitution does not explicitly grant Americans a right to vote and, therefore, that it gives state policymakers wide latitude to create laws that determine how Americans access the ballot.

In that way, voting is different from many of the basic freedoms that Americans enjoy.

The protections of the First Amendment mean that the Maine Legislature cannot pass a law that tells people when or where they may write books. But, under the federal Constitution, our Legislature can determine how we vote, when we vote, where we vote and even who among us gets to vote (as long as the Legislature doesn’t discriminate based on race, gender and other similar characteristics).

Despite this power, and despite how deeply we feel about the “right” to vote, we do not seem to spend a lot of time talking or thinking about our election laws. No one is going to choose between President Barack Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney because of those candidates’ views on, say, the number of polling locations a town should have. However, such inattention is dangerous.

Mainers should have a robust debate about our election laws and, ultimately, demand that they conform to a set of enduring principles. If we don’t, legislators may be tempted to pass election laws that benefit their own re-election at the expense of broader notions of fairness and access.

That may sound like a charge of corruption, but, the fact is, democracy works because legislators have an incentive to pursue the policies that will get them re-elected. This works well most of the time because the policies that will get them re-elected tend to be the policies that people want.

But election laws are not like education or tax rates. Voting and campaign finance laws form our political infrastructure and, as such, they should not be subject to the short-term goals of the party in power. To their credit, Maine voters have been more vigilant than most in articulating, and enforcing, the deeper values they believe Maine’s election laws

should reflect.

Most recently, when the Maine Legislature abolished our long tradition of same-day registration, Mainers vetoed the measure by referendum. Those legislators who voted to ban same-day registration argued that it was a gateway to fraud. But Maine voters ultimately rejected that argument 60 percent to 40 percent, expressing their collective view that the convenience and fairness of same-day registration were more valuable than the competing goal of further reducing the risk of fraud.

Maine voters also have been consistent in expressing their desire for a campaign finance system that keeps special interests out of politics. In 1996, Mainers voted 56 percent to 44 percent in favor of a trailblazing system of public campaign financing. The system has worked so well that, in 2010, more than 80 percent of Maine office seekers used Clean Election funds.

Unfortunately, after a court struck down a provision of our Clean Election law in 2011, the Legislature failed to take steps to keep the program whole and, in fact, made changes that weakened it. The result is that, if the Legislature’s changes stand, the Clean Election program will be underfunded in the future, such that fewer candidates will use Clean Election funds and more candidates will rely on special interest money.

However, the Legislature’s decision seems no more popular than was its repeal of same-day registration. In polling conducted this past May, 88 percent of Maine voters said the Clean Election Act is important and 65 percent said it is very important. Similarly, a huge majority, 75 percent, said every gubernatorial candidate should use Clean Election funds in every circumstance or at least have the option to use it.

While polls can differ, these are resounding numbers that reflect Mainers’ deeply held view that ideas, not money, should determine the outcome of elections. When November comes around, Mainers should go to the ballot box and enforce this simple but important principle by supporting candidates who believe in it.

Nolan L. Reichl is a lawyer living in Cape Elizabeth. A graduate of Stanford Law School, Reichl was an aide to Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell before embarking on his legal career.

Join the Conversation

18 Comments

  1. You mean like how Liberal Democrats try every trick in the book to allow illegals, felons and the dead to vote?

    1. That trick is allowing people to get a ballot in hand without validating who they are and where they live.  God forbid if you buy a pack of smokes or booze without showing an I.D. though.

      1. Date please on how little fraud there is.  Especially compared to the number of voters unfairly restricted.

  2. “In polling conducted this past May”

    Note that there’s no mention of who conducted the poll.  Probably the Peace and Justice Center.

  3. One of the first things this Republican administration attempted to do was to make voting more difficult for the average working Mainer so that there would be an increased chance of maintaining their control of the legislative branch. That that initiative garnered 40% of the vote was appalling. Can you believe that 40% of the state actually wanted to keep people away from the polls? What a sad statistic!! 

    1. They didn’t want to keep people away from the pools, they just want the people at the polls to be legitimate voters that are legitimate citizens of the town they are voting in. What is the issue with this?

      1. The issue is the right to vote is granted to us in our constitution and is a fundamental part of the democratic process. That’s where the difference lies, unlike flying, buying alcohol, smokes and driving it remains the heart of out voting process. There is little voter fraud and surely not enough to sway an election.

        The Republicans realized after the last election if they didn’t start to restrict the ability of the youth, black and Hispanic populations they would never again win a national election, and rightly so.

        So now they are doing their best to steal the next election by trumping up voter issues and legislating bogus laws that will stop large percentages of the electorate from voting, making them the thieves of our democratic system.

        1. So what your saying is, very few if any  of the 12-15 million illegal aliens casted a ballot during the 2008 elections….O.K.

          1. Maybe they did in limbaugh land? But there is zero proof that voter fraud of any real numbers exists in the actual real world we live in.

            The Republicans can’t admit that their pathetic polices are that unpopular when they lost an election by 11 million votes ….. it’s going to be worse this time around in Nov. you can count on that!

          2. You nailed it on the head, there is zero proof of real numbers because it’s a hard target to hit, especially if no one is trying to hit it.

          3. So the solution is to blanket policies that seem create more problems then solve? Its like a business spending a ton of money because there might be a problem? Maybe there is a problem? we have no idea if there is a problem!

          4. That’s the point. If you use the premise that there Isn’t a problem, why go looking for one in the first place. So the Send are never interested in actually validating the lack of voter fraud. The only stats are what comes from the polls on people they have actually caught. How many go undetected, i.e voting in more than one town.

          5. I have no idea, but that is a valid reason to potentially alienate a lot of legit voters? What about my grand mother who does not have a DL? She has not birth certificate because she was born at home in a small community. What about legit voters with no ID? People want to catch those fraudulent voters but I am sure it will stop more legit voters from voting then preventing fraudulent votes.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *