MADAWASKA, Maine — Citing violations of constitutional rights, the Maine Equal Justice Partnership and Maine ACLU have sent letters to the Madawaska town manager urging the community to reconsider proposed drug testing of all General Assistance applicants.
In June, members of the town’s Board of Selectmen approved moving forward with developing a policy to require random drug screening of all participants in the municipal assistance program, which helps pay for living expenses of qualifying residents. Madawaska would be the first town in Maine to require drug-testing for the program.
Expanding testing for welfare programs has been a long-term priority of Gov. Paul LePage and other Republican governors, but courts have put up roadblocks to it without suspicion of drug use.
At least 15 states have laws that require drug testing for all or some public assistance applicants or recipients, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Maine passed a law in 2011 affecting the federal-state Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, allowing it to test some applicants who have been convicted of drug felonies and current recipients who are drug felons. The LePage administration implemented the law in 2015 after working with Attorney General Janet Mills to guard the state from potential lawsuits.
But other states have implemented far broader laws, including one that affected all TANF applicants in Florida that was struck down in 2014 by a federal court, which found that the suspicionless collection and testing of urine for drugs could not be considered a reasonable search and thus violated the Fourth Amendment. Advocates cited that case in the letters.
“This proposal forces poor people to surrender their constitutional rights in order to get assistance feeding their families,” said Jamesa Drake, staff attorney at the ACLU of Maine in a Tuesday press release. “People don’t give up their rights to privacy and due process just because they’re poor.”
Madawaska Town Manager Ryan Pelletier, who read the letters from both organizations on Tuesday, said he appreciated the feedback but already was very familiar with the Florida case.
He said it was his understanding that the Florida case referred to state benefits, and he was unaware of any case law that pertains to the types of local assistance programs Madawaska is considering.
He also indicated that as currently proposed, “drug testing would not be mandatory for all general assistance applicants. Their names would be put in the same pool as other town employees (and workfare participants) for random drug testing.”
Pelletier added that the letters from the Maine ACLU and MEJP would remain under his consideration as he and the board continue to evaluate the proposed policy.
Municipalities pay for General Assistance benefits to qualifying residents, but the state reimburses towns 70 percent of actual General Assistance benefits paid out.
Jack Comart, litigation director at MEJP, said in Tuesday’s release, “If the town really wants to save money and fight the drug problem, there are far more effective and constitutional ways to do so.”
Pelletier countered that the proposed policy has never been about the budget.
“It’s about fairness and equity,” he said. People taking part in the town’s “workfare” program are already subject to random drug tests, as are regular town employees, the said.
He added that he was not aware of any workfare applicant being randomly selected for drug testing since he became town manager in September. In any given year, approximately a half dozen people take part in the workfare program, he said.
The 2016-17 town budget ratified by voters in June includes $16,600 for General Assistance benefits for eligible applicants. Last year, Madawaska approved 46 out of 88 applicants for some level of GA, according to Pelletier.
“I see it as a deterrent” to those who would abuse the system, Pelletier said at that June meeting.
Selectman Don Chasse expressed concern at that meeting about the potential for significant legal fees should the town ordinance be challenged in court. The MEJP indicated in its letter that the town could be liable for attorney fees and damages.
Pelletier said that the drug testing proposal was still in the early stages of development and that any new ordinance would require further discussion by selectmen and would then need to be approved by voters at town meeting.
BDN writer Michael Shepherd contributed to this report.