Click on the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife web page, and a large portion of the screen will let you know that the agency opposes Question 1, which seeks to outlaw trapping, hounding and baiting bears. Elsewhere on the website, department biologists and a game warden appear, in uniform, in a series of videos produced by the department advocating a “no” vote on the referendum. The agency’s Facebook page posts many of these same materials for more than 50,000 people who have “liked” the page.
Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting, the group advocating for passage of Question 1, has filed a lawsuit seeking to stop DIF&W employees from advocating a “no” vote on the referendum. This activity, the complaint says, goes beyond providing factual information.
At the federal level, the Hatch Act prohibits federal government employees from working to influence election outcomes. The act, passed in 1939, forbids federal employees from engaging in political activity while in uniform, while on duty and while using a government vehicle.
Maine has a version of the Hatch Act, but it only applies to candidate elections. The law should be expanded to cover ballot questions as well.
The law states: “An officer or employee in the classified service or an employee from the executive branch in the unclassified service of this state may not engage in political activity:
A. When the employee is on duty;
B. In state-owned or leased work space occupied in the discharge of official duties or by using the facilities or services of the state; or
C. When wearing a uniform or official insignia identifying the office or position of the employee or while using a vehicle owned or leased by the state or its agencies.”
The statute narrowly defines political activity to mean “to advocate expressly for the election or defeat of any candidate for a federal office, a constitutional office or any candidate for partisan elective municipal, county or state office, including leadership positions in the Senate and the House of Representatives or to solicit [campaign] contributions.”
Expanding this to cover ballot questions makes sense.
There is good reason for the Hatch Act. Government officials in uniform and official vehicles convey a sense of power and authority to voters. This is why state law forbids sheriffs and deputies from campaigning in uniform or while on duty.
Most troubling, however, is the expenditure of taxpayer money to oppose a ballot question. The department gets only a small portion of its money from the state’s general fund, but that money should be used to carry out the department’s mission, not for political activity.
The DIF&W has produced, with hired help, a number of videos, which look like campaign ads, featuring its employees explaining their opposition to the referendum. It has paid graphic designers for work on department presentations. Department personnel have met with newspaper editorial boards during working hours and participated in a televised forum to call for rejection of the ban while wearing DIF&W clothing.
Groups that advocate for and against ballot measures are required to register with the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices and disclose their expenditures. DIF&W has not done so. It should.
DIF&W personnel have valuable information to show that the broad ban proposed in Question 1 is not necessary. Maine has a healthy bear population, with bait making up a small portion of the ursine food supply. Even with the use of bait, traps and hounds, only one in four bear hunters is successful, so this is far from a canned hunt. The areas with the densest bear population don’t overlap with areas of dense of human population, which helps minimize conflicts.
In 2004, DIF&W personnel were allowed to oppose a similar referendum to outlaw bear baiting, hounding and trapping. But, they were to do this by providing scientific information. They could appear in campaign ads, but not in uniform. Voters rejected that referendum.
DIF&W personnel can again share educational information without spending department time and money explicitly campaigning for a vote against Question 1.