The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set news policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com
Jamie Kilbreth is a former chief deputy attorney general of Maine.
Nearly a decade ago, I stood before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court to argue in favor of ranked‑choice voting during a solemn occasion. The court ultimately concluded that ranked‑choice voting, as then written, conflicted with the Maine Constitution’s requirement that certain offices be decided by a plurality of the vote. That decision was advisory, not binding, contained little analysis, and was issued without the benefit of experience, intervening authority or legislative clarification.
Today, Maine has all three. That is why I believe the time is right — indeed overdue — for the court to revisit the constitutional question.
Mainers adopted ranked‑choice voting ( twice) at the ballot box because they wanted elections that better reflect the will of the people. The premise is simple and compelling: Voters should not be forced to choose between their conscience and their strategy, and no one should be elected to high office when another candidate was the choice of more voters. I believe ranked‑choice voting allows voters to express their true preferences and ensures that the winner has the broadest support.
Since 2017, Mainers have used ranked‑choice voting successfully in primary and federal elections. Voters understand it. Election officials administer it without a hitch. For many people, the real confusion now lies in the patchwork — ranked‑choice voting for some elections, but not for others. I believe a single, consistent system would simplify voting and strengthen confidence in our democratic process.
Subsequent authority also makes clear to me that ranked-choice voting is fully consistent with the Maine Constitution. In 2022, the Alaska Supreme Court — interpreting a constitutional provision materially similar to Maine’s — unanimously upheld ranked‑choice voting, joining the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in concluding that it is not a series of runoffs but a single election resolved through a single tabulation. In 2024, the Federal Election Commission reached the same conclusion, determining that the rounds of counting are steps in a single tally of one vote. Maine is the only jurisdiction to reach a contrary conclusion.
The Maine Legislature has also acted. Recently both the House and Senate approved a joint order requesting the Maine Supreme Court to revisit the issue. No legislators objected to this request, reflecting broad agreement that the constitutional issue should be reconsidered.
New legislation clarifying ranked‑choice voting makes explicit what voters already understand: Ranking candidates expresses preferences, and the vote is the final tabulation of those preferences.
I believe this approach is faithful to Maine’s constitutional history. The plurality requirement was adopted after the crisis of 1879-80 to prevent legislative manipulation and ensure that voters — not politicians — choose the governor. Joshua Chamberlain’s actions during that crisis were about defending the popular will, not circumventing it. Ranked‑choice voting advances the same principle by producing a final, voter‑determined outcome in a single election.
Maine has long been a leader in democratic innovation. Ranked‑choice voting is now part of our civic fabric. But the work is not done. Allowing all elections to operate under a single, coherent rubric would honor the will of the voters who adopted this reform and simplify participation for everyone. Most importantly, it would reaffirm a core democratic value: Maine should not be led by someone most voters opposed.