ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Michael M. Franz is assistant professor of Government and Legal Studies at Bowdoin College in Brunswick.
When Maine voters head to the polls on Nov. 3, they will once again be asked to veto legislation passed by their elected representatives. This time the question at hand is a Maine law permitting same-sex couples to marry. This is the fourth people's veto in 11 years, and three of the four have related to sexual orientation (1998, 2005, and 2009).
Putting aside one's views on gay marriage or gay rights, the people's veto is a popular but curious attempt to rein in the actions of elected state legislators. It is curious because Maine voters already have a mechanism through which to reward or punish elected representatives – their re-election or defeat for another term.
There seems to be something of a disconnect between a voter's opposition to an issue or a vote of their legislator and the vote of the full Legislature.
Consider this. In 1998, Maine voters barely vetoed a bill banning discrimination based on sexual orientation with respect to jobs, housing, public accommodations, and credit. The vote was essentially split 50-50. Later that year, however, Maine voters sent back to Augusta every one of the incumbent state senators standing for re-election. In the Maine House, 86 percent of incumbents running for another term won. When Maine voters are so divided on an important piece of legislation (important enough to warrant the time and effort of a people's veto), how can these same voters overwhelmingly re-elect the legislators who are the source of the discontent?
In 2005, Maine voters again considered legislation that would make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. This time the law was sustained by 55 percent of voters. By the 2006 elections, however, the salience of the issue seemed irrelevant in state legislative races. All but three of the 29 incumbent senators running for re-election were given another term. Eighty-three percent of state representatives who wanted another term were successful.
To be sure, lots of issues motivate voters to cast ballots for or against incumbents, and the issue of discrimination based on sexual orientation may not have mattered much in the voters' calculus. But the absence of such salience is precisely the point. If voters care little about specific issues in deciding whom to re-elect, why spend so much effort singling out particular legislation for voter approval or disapproval?
The people's veto has, in effect, reduced the threat of voter retaliation against sitting incumbents. This is backwards. Voters should focus their anger on the races that decide who makes the laws. Voters should pay attention to what their elected officials do in office, debate the positives and negatives of the resulting legislation, and levy their judgment directly on the sitting incumbents.
In a sense, the logic also applies to citizen's initiatives. This year voters will decide on four initiatives, which include questions about a reduction in the excise tax, a second taxpayer bill of rights, a repeal of school consolidation, and adding to the reach of medical marijuana laws.
And plenty of money will go into all of these campaigns – on television ads, door-to-door mobilization, and mailed literature. All of it will highlight the importance of the issue, pointing implicitly to the weaknesses of our elected leaders. But next year, when nearly 9 in 10 incumbents win re-election, the process will begin all over again.
Maine has worked hard to increase competitiveness in the electoral process. Term limits and clean election laws have had some measured success, but we are missing a more simple solution – re-emphasize the focus on legislative races.
Too many people's vetoes and citizen's initiatives create the impression that voters have a louder voice. Instead, they introduce a sort of cognitive dissonance, and they ask voters to weigh in on complex legislation. This often compels voters to skip voting altogether.
In the end, voters should only be asked a fairly simple question: should we re-hire or fire the people elected to serve our interests? That question is the original and best people's veto.
