Maine primaries show Democrats could win big

 

Maine primaries show Democrats could win big

But RCV unduly complicated

 

Gordon L. Weil

Maine’s unusual primary elections produced expected results, but raised new puzzles.

In the Democratic primary for governor, former House Speaker Hannah Pingree, who had finished second initially, defeated Nirav Shah, the former Maine CDC director.  Her win came thanks to an unusual ranked-choice-voting ticket.  Pingree and two other candidates asked voters to rank them, skipping Shah and Angus King III.

Pingree, former Senate President Troy Jackson and Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, were experienced state leaders and sought to ensure that newcomers Shah and King should not represent the party.  Pingree received more second choice support from others on the ticket to pass Shah.  Voters agreed with the unified ticket strategy.

Proponents of RCV probably had not thought of electoral tickets to the extent this one worked.  Clearly, each of the three wanted a like-minded candidate with a good state record to the point of being willing to risk their own chances.

In the Republican primary, Bobby Charles, the first-round frontrunner, won the election.  A loyal Trumper, he faced competitors whose general election backing seems to be in doubt. He might have lost to more unified opposition.  He may now try to move more toward the center. If his opponents remain cool to him, he’s in trouble, because Pingree does not face defections.

Charles’ win opens the door to Rick Bennett, the moderate Republican running as an independent, who could pick up the GOP defectors.  But he will need independents and Democrats, so he must take votes from Pingree.  She favors ending Maine’s selection of presidential electors by congressional district, so he could differ from her on that issue.

In the Second District Democratic House primary, State Auditor Matt Dunlap defeated Joe Baldacci, the former Bangor city council member who had been endorsed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.  Though Dunlap is seen as more progressive, he is known as a gun rights advocate.

National Democratic endorsements of Baldacci and Gov. Janet Mills in her failed run for the Senate nomination suggest that the national party ought to stay out of Democratic primary races.  Leaders might suppose they can pick general election winners better than the locals, as Trump does among Republicans, but they can’t, and their meddling can hurt fundraising.

Both the Senate and the Second District races are critically important to the Democratic effort to take congressional control, allowing them to bring Trump somewhat under legislative control. But that significance does not make Washington wiser about Maine politics than the local folks.  It’s not over, but more Maine campaign mistakes will likely be made by outsiders.

The Maine primaries sent a message about the November elections that may be reflected nationally.  While the pundits focus on the redistricting battles meant to reduce Democratic seats, especially those held by Blacks, and on swing districts where seats could flip, they miss the possibility of something bigger.

Twice as many Democrats as Republicans voted in the Maine primaries.  Even if the Second District congressional race contributed, the margin was large nonetheless.  Democrats are fired up and Republicans seem dispirited, possibly because of the high consumer prices resulting from the Iran war and fatigue with Sen. Collins’ support for Trump.

In Texas, the Democratic Senate primary was also impressive.  They may have slightly edged the Republicans in their primary.  This showing is unusual in Texas, a reliably red state. 

If these are omens of political enthusiasm, then a Blue Wave is possible.  Traditional district-by-district analyses could be less useful if the nation has tired of Trump.  As with Democrats in 2024, many unhappy Republicans could stay home.  Big campaign spending might help the GOP, but huge outlays have limited effectiveness past a certain point. 

Trump has succeeded in creating doubts about the honesty of vote counting, though he lacks evidence.  Democrats have gone overboard attempting to counter such doubts.  The Maine primary RCV count was a prime example.  It took ten days between voting and the final count, all because of an overblown effort to achieve perfect accuracy.

Votes are supposed to be counted in the municipality where they are cast.  In RCV, Maine allows only first-choice winners to be counted locally, leaving later rounds to the state. Ballots or electronic data must be transported to Augusta.

But local counts of all voting would let winners be tentatively calculated in a day.  The state count could determine the final numbers, which would not vary significantly from the sum of local counts.  Counting would be quicker and depend less on the opaque operation of computers, reducing opportunities for false claims about vote tampering.

Under the Maine Constitution, plurality voting must be used in races for governor and the Legislature.  Using RCV for federal races and primaries creates confusion.

Maine has created an unduly complicated system.  It treats voters as ignorant or lazy.

Platner’s war: Ending Maine’s gerontocracy

Gordon L. Weil

Graham Platner easily won the Maine Democratic Senate primary to challenge Republican U.S. Sen. Susan Collins.

Platner overcame sharp criticism of some of his past personal behavior, already being made an issue by GOP PACs. 

From a Maine perspective, the national media missed what is taking place, preferring its cosmic level analysis.  Platner’s victory was not mostly the defeat of a Democratic moderate by a progressive.  It was about who could capture the seat from an aging, formerly moderate Republican, who too often supported Trump.

Age is the driving issue in Maine’s campaigns.  Platner defeated Gov. Janet Mills, 78, because she would have been the oldest first-year senator ever.  Maine Sen. Angus King is even older.  Plus, Mills is not the usual moderate; she leans to the right.  Though she vigorously challenged Trump, she is more conservative than her own party in the Legislature.

Collins, 73, suffers from visible hand and head tremors.  Pledged to serve two terms, she now seeks her sixth.  Over her career, she has ossified, going from a popular Mainer to a Washington pro, putting power over principle.  Her status as moderate has faded, partly because she backed the nominations of Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Health Sec. Bobby Kennedy, Jr.

Whatever voters’ opinions about the flawed Platner, the calendar doesn’t lie; at 41, he’s a lot younger and more attuned to today’s average Mainers.  And he tells them what they want to hear about the need for change, as the state gradually moves from being bipartisan purple to outright Democratic blue.

The Collins-Platner campaign is likely to follow predictable lines unless one or both falters badly.

Collins will run on the pork-barrel money she has brought back to Maine for local projects.  As chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, she has conceded real spending power to the White House, but she can claim to be the Queen of Earmarks.  Every senator gets their share, but she can “bring home the bacon.” 

As the Republican senator who splits most often with Trump, Collins will try to keep her moderate image alive.  Her balancing act has worked, because her disagreements with the White House rarely make a difference in the final Senate vote.  She characteristically explains away and excuses some of her party-line votes, perhaps because they assure her committee leadership.

Her backers will hammer Platner’s personal defects.  They want women voters to reject him for his sexual gambits and back the female candidate.  Their attacks will be constant, and the GOP will spend heavily to hold onto its last remaining congressional seat in New England.  Still, given how little Trump’s crotch grabbling revelation mattered, these attacks might fizzle.

Platner will run like a progressive.  His major out-of-state support comes from Sen. Bernie Sanders and company, not from Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer.  This will be a hugely costly campaign, so Democratic money matters, and he knows it.  In-state, he will garner the support of respected Democratic leaders.

To some degree, Platner’s chances will depend on voters in Maine’s Second Congressional District, which has supported Trump while narrowly electing Democratic Rep. Jared Golden, who is retiring.  It’s the north-eastern district.  Platner will easily carry the southern, blue First District.

The Democratic governor’s primary is relevant.  It ended with one candidate slightly ahead of three others who are closely grouped.  The winner will be selected by ranked choice voting, and it’s likely the front-runner won’t prevail. The next three ran as a ticket designed to deny him second or third choice votes.  All four are decades younger than Mills.

Anything can happen when the votes are tabulated next week.  Troy Jackson, a former state Senate President, was one of the three and ran well in his northern Maine home territory.  If he’s on the general election ballot with Platner, Jackson could provide valuable help.

Also on the joint ticket was Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, considered by some to be everybody’s second choice.  Candidate Angus King III, running fifth, will be eliminated, and if Bellows picks up enough support from his voters, she could have a chance of moving up to the top.

Maine House Speaker Hannah Pingree, another member of the trio, ran a strong campaign, backed by Mills.  Like Bellows, she would add a woman to the Democratic ballot, which could help calm Platner concerns. 

Hannah’s mother, Rep. Chellie Pingree, the First District U.S. House member, will be easily reelected.  RCV will produce a more liberal Democrat than Golden to run against the aging former Gov. Paul LePage, 77, a Trumper.

There will be more election excitement and spending than usual in Maine. The sharpest irony is that Trump, 80 on Sunday, must back Collins, whom he intensely dislikes but whose Senate vote he desperately needs.  His support could hurt her as much as it helps. 

Maine Democratic Senate primary -- a new twist

 

A twist in Maine’s Democratic Senate primary

Gordon L. Weil 

“It ain’t over ’til it’s over.”   That wisdom of Yogi Berra may still be working in Maine.

In the Democratic primary race, commentary has assumed that Graham Platner, a Bernie Sanders’ backed progressive who has said and done some controversial things, will be the nominee to face incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins.  That’s because Gov. Janet Mills suspended her campaign when faced with poor poll results and being outspent.

Ever since, Platner has been under constant attack from outside groups apparently aligned with Collins.  For them, the fall campaign is already under way.  Commentaries in national media pick at Platner, though some may marvel at his appeal in changing the focus of the Democratic Party.

However, it’s possible that the attacks on Platner are having an almost subterranean effect on the June 9 Democratic primary.

Mills suspended her campaign, but she did not withdraw, and she has not endorsed Platner.  Her name remains on the ballot along with Platner and David Costello, who ran in 2024 as the Democratic candidate against Independent Sen. Angus King. 

The national and state media has assumed that the primary race will be a walk-in for Platner.   It may be somewhat more complicated than that.

The primary will be conducted under ranked choice voting.  A Democratic voter could vote for all three candidates in rank order.

Some voters say they will put Mills in first place on the ballot.  That’s not likely to give her the election, but it could complicate matters.  If Costello, who received over 10 percent of the general election vote two years ago, becomes a factor, the outcome could be less clear. 

Platner might want to encourage bullet voting, where his backers vote only for him, but that’s a risk.  He would need to win an outright majority, as the media assumes.

But two factors need to be taken into account.  First, there are supposed to be debates.  Platner, acting as if that’s no longer necessary, says he won’t participate.  Costello obviously would show up.

What about Mills?  The editorial page editor of Maine’s largest newspaper advocated yesterday that Mills should participate in the debates to give Platner a “stress test.”  If you believe in conspiracies, this is surely a way to revive Mills’ candidacy.

Having merely suspended her campaign but not her candidacy, she could seek to be included in a debate.  Her involvement would ensure increased visibility for Costello, who is almost entirely ignored.

The other factor is how the primary is seen in Maine.  While the national media focus on Platner as a sign of the rise of the Democrat’s progressive wing, many Maine voters pay more attention to his image as an average guy, outspoken and pushing real change.  He needs to maintain that image in the face of continuing GOP attacks.

Mills has been a right-of-center Democrat, but a tough Trump opponent, so she has continuing appeal with some in the party.  She could get some votes, and Costello could be her back-up.  We could learn more about ranked choice voting, than we think we know.  Democrats and unenrolled voters can participate in the primary.

Does this change the expected outcome?  Probably not, but there’s more going on below the superficial commentary in the national media.  That makes this primary race one to watch.

Sen. Collins meets the common man

Sen. Collins meets the common man

Big money, big attacks coming

 

Gordon L. Weil

Gov. Janet Mills left the Maine Democratic Senate primary race, and the pundits flooded the media with their opinions.

Her story fit their story: the Democratic Party is split between traditional moderates and leftwing progressives.   Her withdrawal showed the progressives are gaining.

The pundits may have been partly correct, but that’s not the whole story.  The split was more practical than ideological.  The dominant question was not about the direction of the Democratic Party, but who had the best chance of defeating Sen. Susan Collins.

The almost automatic response was that Mills, a proven statewide winner with high name recognition, was the ideal candidate to end Collins’ hold on the Senate seat.  Undoubtedly, that led Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Senate Democratic leader, to endorse Mills, but it proved to be too simple a theory.

Sen. Susan Collins usually looks vulnerable to a Democratic challenger, but always wins.  This year, for the first time, with Mills out, she will face a candidate who has not previously held public office – an outsider.   Mills gave way to Graham Platner, an oyster farmer who never held a higher office than harbormaster.

Mills got into the race late.  Collins, who too often had supported President Trump, was losing her reputation as a rare GOP moderate.   Mills, as a two-time statewide winner, could have calculated that her right-of-center record and high voter recognition would give her an advantage.  Platner, already running, could be easily defeated.

She might have believed that she could readily assemble a coalition of coastal liberal voters and her more inland moderate constituents.  After all, that has worked in the Legislature while she’s been governor. 

But Mainers, like people elsewhere, are increasingly dissatisfied with the failure of government, federal or state, to improve their lives.  Collins could bring home Capitol largesse, but a new dock or dam doesn’t put food on the table or gas in the tank.

This sentiment suggests voter despair with both parties.  Voters say they want a candidate who expresses independence from the system.   Sen. Angus King may be an independent, but he comes across as a conventional Democrat. 

Platner appears as bold, basic and original.  His personal defects have emerged, notably a tattoo linked to Nazi symbols and his negative posts about women and even lobstermen.  He readily admits his errors, attributing them to a heedless youth.  Though virtually sure to win, he still faces a respectable, but unfunded, primary opponent.

Collins campaign allies are already attacking him for these faults, but the Democrats seem undeterred.  Since candidate Trump survived his Access Hollywood remarks about grabbing women, voters may have come to ignore the past failings of candidates whose politics they prefer.

The pundits focus on Maine as a purple state – one that could swing between the red GOP and the blue Dems.  One of its two congressional districts has voted for Trump each election.  That might raise doubts about Platner, backed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, when facing a statewide electorate.

Trump’s popularity has reflected discontent with government among many Second District rural voters, but he may have lost some appeal.  He backs a candidate in the GOP governor’s primary and has attracted massive financing for him, which pays for a big media buy.  But, at this stage, he is still trailing a more traditional conservative.

Many Democrats saw Mills as too right-of-center.  She opposed the creation of a system of public defenders, though Maine was the last state without one.  She later gave some ground.  Just before her departure, she vetoed a Democratic move to suspend approval of any data centers in the state, which would have set Maine apart.

At 78, Mills’ age counted against her.  She would have been the oldest first-year senator ever.  King, the other Maine senator, is 82.  Maine has the oldest median age, and many seniors are aware of the limits imposed by age when working the long hours required by public life.

Collins, 73, faces age and possibly a health issue, a “benign essential tremor.”  No Mainer has ever served six terms in the U.S. Senate, as she would.  Platner, 41, is slightly younger than the state’s median age of 45.  He will face relentless attacks focusing on his past.  Collins may have some deniability, if her campaign does not directly sponsor the ads.

Her split-the-difference form of moderation will be weakened by her having backed Trump’s cabinet nominations and key policies.  She rarely differs with the president when it counts.

The Maine GOP is divided between moderates and conservatives.   Collins may have miscalculated that she can still hold onto both Rockefeller Republicans and MAGA Trumpers.   She clings to her Senate seat, unlike Olympia Snowe, a GOP moderate who retired gracefully.  Platner may be strong competition in a down year.

Let the campaign cash flow.

 

 

  

The last word on the law

 

The last word on the law

Courts or legislatures?

Gordon L. Weil

Who should decide if a law is constitutional?  The courts or the people?

This question does not exist only in an academic ivory tower.  As people increasingly see courts as partisan, it is a real issue.   A Maine case last week focused on it.

The American Constitution is silent on the issue, but the U.S. Supreme Court lost little time in asserting its authority.   It declared that it alone could conduct “judicial review” – deciding if laws are constitutional.  The highest state courts have done the same.

This ruling was authored by Chief Justice John Marshall, a member of the Federalist Party, which was dying.  By taking broad powers for the Court, he would be empowered to use his long tenure to support the Federalist view as a check on the rising Jeffersonian democracy.   Thus, from the outset, the Court was political.

While court decisions are supposedly objective and nonpartisan, it’s obvious that judges’ opinions often reflect their personal philosophy or the positions of the political parties that put them on the bench.  Pledges of neutrality may assure judicial independence, but not objectivity. 

Because judges have known ideological or political leanings, the courts inevitably take on a legislative role.  When they define what the law is, they may substitute their judgment for the lawmakers’ intent and become lawmakers themselves.

Court views may change over time, as when the Supreme Court reversed its earlier pro-abortion decision in Roe v. Wade, causing the public to see the judiciary as essentially legislative and not reliably objective.  As judicial rulings have become more controversial and apparently partisan, public support for the courts has been declining.

If courts become more like legislatures, should legislative bodies representing the people, not the judges, be responsible for deciding on constitutionality?   Two differing answers have come from two states, Maine and Alaska.

They both focused on  ranked choice voting, which modifies how votes are counted in multi-candidate elections, potentially eliminating a candidate winning simply by being “first past the post.”  In 2016, a Maine referendum launched it for federal offices and for state elections of governor, members of the House and senators. 

But the state Supreme Court ruled that the Maine Constitution requirement for election by a “plurality” prevented using RCV for state elections.  It cited the state’s troubled history involving a disputed election that had almost led to armed conflict as the reason for the requirement for a simple plurality.  The Legislature repealed the referendum result.  In 2018, a second Maine referendum approved RCV for federal offices and state primaries, but not for state elections.   

Two years later, Alaska voters narrowly approved RCV for both federal and state elections.  In 2022, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the Alaska Constitution, requiring “the greatest number of votes” to be elected, allows for RCV.   It attacked the earlier Maine decision for failing to take good election policy into account.  As in Maine, Alaska voters decided a second time on RCV, retaining it by a margin of 664 votes out of 340,110.

In a ruling last week, the Maine justices unanimously rejected Alaska’s unusually harsh criticism, and explained the detailed vote counting procedures laid out in the Maine Constitution, requirements that are absent in Alaska.

In Alaska, the will of the voters, expressed by a slim majority in a referendum, dictated the Court’s determination of what the State Constitution meant.  The Court concluded that RCV is constitutional, based on its political judgment of the “State’s interests in allowing voters to express more nuanced preferences through their votes….”

In Maine, RCV proponents asked the Court also to follow referendum results and its successful use in the state’s elections for federal offices.  The justices would not agree, finding that the Constitution’s definition of “vote” in state elections means the ballot cast by the voter that must be counted in their municipality, which precludes RCV.

In the U.S., the highest court, federal or state, usually decides on the constitutionality of laws.  In Britain, without a written constitution, the Supreme Court accepts Acts of Parliament as being constitutional.   In the RCV rulings, Maine had retained its traditional judicial review authority, while Alaska deferred to a referendum, a legislative act, leaning toward the British model.

Because American courts, with unelected membership, are increasingly seen as legislative bodies, adopting the British system of allowing the elected legislature to decide on constitutionality might seem to be a realistic alternative.  But there’s no chance of dropping judicial review. 

A hybrid solution could allow court decisions on constitutionality to be overridden by a legislative body, voting by a super majority vote within a fixed period after the court’s ruling.  Marshall’s concept of judicial review is not included in the U.S. Constitution, so this change could be made by law.

Is a November election landslide possible?

 

Gordon Weil

November’s congressional elections may follow a predictable script.

But there could be another scenario, turning an expected squeaker into a landslide.

According to conventional thinking, the elections are contests for a few seats that could tip the balance to the Democrats, giving them a good chance of winning the House and the possibility of a Senate victory.

This thinking inevitably focuses on relatively few elections in scattered swing states or districts.  The Republicans, heavily committed to backing their leader, focus on holding their slim but effective congressional majorities.  The Democrats count on declining presidential popularity to hand them enough seats to gain control.

The elections are clearly about Trump.  His impact factors into virtually every primary and general election.  Strategists assume the status quo will generally survive in most contests with Trump’s political fate determined in marginal seats. 

For Trump, the elections are personal.  He worries that a Democratic House majority will impeach him for a third time.  A man who likes to set “never before in history” records, he doesn’t want this one.

His strategy calls for countering the usual mid-term election losses of an incumbent president’s party.  He believes that erecting obstacles to voting will reduce the number of likely Democratic voters, especially the poor and minorities.  He also pushes for redistricting to tilt political demographics his way and prepares to claim fraud, if the GOP loses.

He punishes Democratic states by cutting funding and launching ICE invasions, creating incentives for them to flip to his side.   Though he has alienated some voting groups, he may write them off as being concentrated in states where he wouldn’t win in any case.  He plays to the prejudices of voters who could protect his majority. 

But there is an alternative scenario.  Suppose his falling poll ratings indicate a widespread national rejection of Trump’s style and substance.  The sagging approval ratings for his presidential performance and almost all his key policies suggest this possibility.  While he could hold his MAGA core, he might face outright nationwide opposition.  

Trump has openly offended women, Blacks, Hispanics and other groups.  His anti-minority beliefs have brought the exclusion of female and Black military leaders, the erasing of American history about slavery and racial discrimination, arrests of people because of the color of their skin, killing Americans and ignoring the Constitution. 

Voters, alarmed by his narrow national policies and bellicose foreign gambits, might now turn out in large enough numbers to transform a campaign for swing seats into an opposition landslide, burying his efforts to tamper with the electorate. 

The split between progressive and moderate Democrats could matter less than their common opposition to Trump.  Still, an upsurge in support for progressives could be a sign of motivated opposition to MAGA.  And if conservative Republicans can win while opposing Trump, that could also weaken his control.

While this is far from assured, indicators could forecast the final outcome.  Take Maine’s June 9 Democratic Senate primary to pick an opponent to GOP Sen. Susan Collins’ sixth term bid.   

Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer anointed Gov. Janes Mills as most likely to be able to unseat Collins.   Mills is a moderate, but would be the oldest first-year senator in American history.  Normally, she would have a lock on the nomination.

But progressive Graham Platner, a Sanders-endorsed oyster farmer, is popular.  While his life story raises questions, polls indicate he is popular and could defeat both Mills in the primary and Collins in the general.   The latest poll, though of uncertain accuracy, surprisingly shows that about one-fifth of Maine voters are socialists.

Normally, Mills would seem a good fit for Maine.  Platner’s showing could represent the signal that a strong response to Trump is popular.  Interestingly, the Trump-oriented candidate in the Maine GOP governor’s primary currently trails, despite massive early spending.

Another marker may be the May 19 GOP House primary in Kentucky’s 4th congressional district.  Incumbent Thomas Massie, a strong conservative, is Trump’s most notable GOP House critic.  The president recruited a MAGA loyalist to oppose Massie.

A Massie win could encourage other House GOP candidates to put some space between themselves and Trump.  If Massie loses, Trump will have reasserted virtually absolute domination over the Republicans.  Massie has been highly popular, so this race has significant potential to turn into a Trump referendum.

Look also at the Texas GOP Senate primary on Tuesday, March 3, where the winner could face a tough general election.  In the Democratic race, a progressive faces a moderate.  A progressive win could be a sign that Democrats see Trump as vulnerable nationally not just in swing elections.

Possibly relevant postscript:  Last week in a UK special parliamentary election, the Greens (progressive) won, defeating Reform (MAGA, having pushed traditional Conservatives aside), with Labour (Democrats) third.  This was a Labour district.

 

Maine Gov. Mills wants Collins' Senate seat

 

Gordon L. Weil

The formal announcement Tuesday by Maine Gov. Janet Mills that she will seek the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate seat now held by Republican Susan Collins deserves attention.

Collins’ skill consists in convincing Maine voters she’s a moderate.  But her support for some of Trump’s actions and appointments look less like her traditional balancing between two sides and more like temporizing.  Her support for Justice Kavanaugh and Secretary Kennedy work against her.  The political situation has become too dire for some voters to accept her usual approach.

Mills is a right of center Democrat in a state that is majority Democratic with a heavy concentration in the southern First C.D. and a smaller GOP preference in the Second C.D.  By her own balancing, she has managed to rile some liberal Democrats.  Whether she has pleased more conservative voters remains to be seen.

Mills is 77 years old.  She would be the oldest first-year senator ever.  Even if candidates soft- peddle the age issue, it is sure to be a factor.  Collins is 72 and Sen. Angus King is 80.  Mills has been endorsed by Sen. Chuck Schumer, which probably means little in Maine, though it tells you something about how he sees his role.

She will face a primary challenge next June from several declared candidates.  Right now, Graham Platner, an oyster farm operator, veteran and local official, seems to be the most serious. He’s raising money and has the strong backing of Sen. Bernie Sanders.  Could Platner be Maine’s Mamdani (though less progressive)?

In some ways, the outcome of a Mills-Platner contest could suggest the direction of the Democrats.  Younger voters may want a change from the usual balancing by the state’s major politicians.  For example, in the two state referendums this fall, Mills opposes GOP efforts to make voting more difficult, and opposes a red flag law. That’s one for each side. 

Maine will be a money magnet.  The referendums are attracting major funding as will the Democratic primaries for Senate and governor.  Of course, the GOP will go all out for Collins, a possible key to their holding their Senate majority.

Collins, even when she starts out with low poll numbers, has succeeded in defeating relatively weak Democratic candidates.  This year, Mills, who has won two state-wide elections for governor and is well-known, is a different kind of challenger with a track record.  Collins has not yet announced that she’s running.

Are the times right for Mills rolling to primary and election wins?  Could be, but watch for the Democratic left and if Collins can sustain her appeal as a moderate.

Court reveals how America has changed

 

Gordon L. Weil

Maine’s highest court revealed last week how the country is changing.  It found that the U.S. Supreme Court is intentionally eroding an essential American right. 

The absolute rule of the British king, who denied people their natural rights, brought the American Revolution.  In the United States, personal freedom was always to be protected from a powerful government.

No person can be required by a government to be a witness against themselves.  They cannot involuntarily give evidence against themselves.  They can remain silent and not answer questions or undergo interrogation, and they cannot be punished for their silence.

Some states required the Bill of Rights as a condition of their ratification of the Constitution, and it was adopted.  Its Fifth Amendment included protection against testifying against oneself, applying to the federal government and later to all states.

In 1966, the U.S, Supreme Court issued its famous Miranda decision, requiring the police to inform people of their right to remain silent.  The Miranda warning became a regular part of police operations, sometimes frustrating law enforcement.

In Miranda, the Court said: “If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease.”  In reviewing that requirement, the Maine Supreme Court found that, “[a]s time went on, the Supreme Court began to erode the standards by which waiver and invocation of the privilege are judged.”

The erosion consisted of obstacles to people’s natural right to remain silent or to have legal advice before answering.  The Supreme Court, possibly reflecting public sentiment, began making it more difficult for a person to benefit from what had long been considered an inherent right, deserving the automatic respect of government. 

In 1994, the Court, with a new Reagan-oriented majority, ruled that unless the person made a clear request for legal counsel, the police would have “no obligation to stop questioning the suspect.”  The Court said: “In considering how a suspect must invoke the right to counsel, we must consider the other side of the Miranda equation: the need for effective law enforcement.”

There had been no such “equation” in the Constitution; the right to silence and a counsel are unquestionable.  The Court invented the supposed equation.  The interests of the government, from whom the person should be protected by the Bill of Rights, suddenly became balanced with a person’s rights.

In 2010, the Court went even further.  It ruled that if the suspect did not answer a question about whether they understood their rights and simply remained silent, they had not clearly asserted their right and could be questioned by the police.  Their lack of understanding or feeling intimidated by the police presence were not factors to be considered.

In this case, the suspect remained silent for two hours and forty-five minutes.  Yet remaining silent was not interpreted as a sign that they wanted to remain silent.  Instead, the police kept asking questions.  Because the person finally responded to a question, the Court ruled that answer constituted the waiver of their rights, which they had not clearly claimed.

In short, simply keeping silent, even for a lengthy period of questioning, did not mean they had clearly affirmed their right to remain silent.  To have the right to remain silent, you cannot remain silent.

This watering down of the Fifth Amendment right and Miranda’s “indicates in any manner” provision, was done in the name of assisting law enforcement.  Under a Court now dominated by Reagan and his conservative successors, law enforcement would come at the expense of individual rights.    Authoritarian government is making a comeback.

Many criminal cases concern violation of state laws.  Each state has its own constitution, and may differ with federal standards, provided it supplements and does not weaken those standards.

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court, relying on the state constitution and its many previous rulings, declared the state has maintained the absolute protection of the individual.  “We have long held that the Maine Constitution provides greater protection against self-incrimination than that of the United States Constitution,” it said.

The U.S. Supreme Court, the current neo-conservative edition, states that the individual retains their constitutional and natural right only if they clearly assert it.  If not, they may be questioned. 

The Maine Supreme Court, the historically faithful edition, maintains that the individual retains their right unless they clearly waive it.  In Maine, the police cannot interpret a person’s uncertainty or silence as a waiver of the right to remain silent. 

Justice Arthur Goldberg once wrote in a Supreme Court decision: “If the exercise of constitutional rights will thwart the effectiveness of a system of law enforcement, then there is something very wrong with that system.”   That is where authoritarian conservatism is bringing the U.S.

[Next column covers the critical role of today’s Supreme Court.]

 

Maine U.S. Senate race: Collins-Mills for the swing seat

 

Gordon L. Weil

Susan Collins now has her chance for her place in history. 

No, it wouldn’t be from being elected six times to the U.S. Senate.  It would arise from her taking a stand in favor of traditional American and Republican values.   She should show courage and principle even if it brings crude denunciation by President Trump.

Sen. Collins has prided herself on being a moderate Republican, true to the values of limited government, free enterprise with a commitment to equal rights and environmental protection. She comes from a Maine political family closely identified with that brand of Republicanism.

Donald Trump has stolen that party away from her.  The Trump GOP has crushed her ambition to become a major influence on public policy in the Senate, while reducing her power by using the functionally stunted Republican Senate to rubber stamp his policies.  The only use the GOP and its president have for Collins is her vote to maintain his unquestioned control of the Senate.

Collins has made political sacrifices to advance the interests of the nation and Maine and her political career.  When her integrity clashes with Trump’s excesses, she temporizes by cloaking her positions in expedience or dubious superior knowledge, as compared with the rest of us, of how the system really works.

She occasionally breaks with Trump and his demands for blind loyalty, and that is to be commended.  But she seldom either recruits support or casts the deciding vote.  This is leadership by gesture, not by consistent and assertive application of her principles.

Maine and the country may be shortchanged by her approach.  Now is the time that demands her vindicating the courage of her convictions as a moderate or being held accountable for having misled us about her principles.

She likes recalling the story of Sen. Margaret Chase Smith’s Declaration of Conscience, her public stand against Joe McCarthy, a Republican colleague intent on destroying political decency.  That took courage, yet she made a partisan speech, making clear her belief that real Republicanism could defeat the Democrats without McCarthy’s vitriol.

Margaret Chase Smith ultimately lost re-election.  But her electoral defeat is not what we remember.  Her assured place in history derives from that single statement of her principles in defiance of her party.

The nation needs a functioning two-party system, operating through compromise. The majority party should dominate decision making, but it should accommodate views of the minority to promote a sense of unity of purpose.

Instead, we have a nation divided.  The two sides appear beyond any hope of compromise. The war is on, not only for this presidential term, but for the indefinite future. 

The Democrats are dazed by finding themselves in this situation and remain unable to pull themselves together with a coherent policy under strong leadership.  While the times demand a bold alternative to Trump, they rely simply on the slim hope that opposition to him and his ego-based politics will produce their electoral victory. 

The country not only needs the Democrats to find themselves but the recovery of the traditional Republican Party.  If this is the great nation that we believe it is, that’s the result of the historical interaction of the two parties.  The nation needs two strong political parties; neither now qualifies.

Susan Collins can do more for her country by keeping the spark of Republicanism alive and giving it oxygen than by mere futile gestures.  She may not turn the Party around, but in the current crisis, she can play a strong, visible and independent role in preserving and promoting the traditional GOP.

 

Collins v. Democrats

The Trump Republican Party is likely to see Collin’s situation differently.  It wants to retain at least 51 seats in the U.S. Senate to ensure that the president can pursue his personal agenda without interference from Congress.  That’s the same reason for the Texas redistricting aimed at picking up five more GOP House seats, which otherwise might fall under Democratic control.

Collins is not loyal by Trump standards, though she has either backed him on critical matters or opposed him with meaningless opposition when he could prevail without her.  But she casts one critical vote – to keep the Trump Republicans in control of the Senate.  It is doubtful if Maine could find another person who could hold the seat for the GOP.

That means the Maine campaign could boil down to a single question: which party will control the Senate?  If it’s the GOP, Trump could have a blank check for his entire second term.  If it’s the Democrats, he may be held to account or face somewhat limited powers.   

The challenge for the Democrats is simple.  They need to find a candidate who can defeat Collins.  She successfully overwhelms lesser-known candidates.   Polls showing her popularity is fading are not a basis for Democratic optimism.

The best hope for the Democrats is Gov. Janet Mills.  She is widely known and is more favorably viewed by Maine voters than Collins.  She is a right-of-center Democrat, entitling her to be considered a moderate.  With the chance to defeat Collins, liberal Democrats would likely support her, despite past differences.

The problem with Mills is her age, now 77.  She would be the oldest new senator ever; she would begin when most senators retire.  With Sen. King at 80, Maine would probably have the most geriatric U.S. Senate duo ever.

The Democrats could elect the next governor at the same time as a Mills’ victory, who could appoint her replacement, if necessary.  To ensure their hold on the Senate seat, the Democrats would need the next governor to serve as their insurance policy.

No matter the governor’s affiliation, the Legislature could adopt a law requiring that any replacement must belong to the same party as a departing senator, as is done in 10 states. 

In either case, Mills could serve less than a full term, secure in the knowledge that her seat would go to another Democrat.  (The Legislature could also require a special election to fill a vacancy, as is done in five states.)

Trump's economic moves hit real people

 

Gordon L. Weil

Since the day Donald Trump became president for the second time, the U.S. has been flooded with disruptive actions, just as he intended.

In reaction, experts and the media have issued dire warnings about the effects, intended or not, of his moves – inflation, immigration, employment, science, commerce and the future economy. Almost all these reactions have focused on the deep and long-lasting national harm his actions will cause.

While Trump’s policies must be taken seriously and the warnings should be heeded, they may seem to be happening at a far higher level than the everyday lives of most Americans.  The best the critics can muster is the observation that the effects will soon find their way down to average people.

If the effects seemed remote or even not likely to happen before they would be erased by renewed prosperity, then Trump can be reassuring and convince people that short-term pain will bring long-term gain.  His message has been that he is so brilliant that people can count on him producing the promised prosperity.

That message is still pending, but it seems increasingly possible that the pain won’t be short term, so the gain is more remote than had been originally implied. The immediate test is whether that situation will have a big enough impact on the 2026 elections to produce a Congress able to rein in Trump or even offer its own policies.

The impacts of his policies are already becoming evident in the daily lives of average citizens.  I take a look here at some of what’s happening in Maine.

The Maine license plate has for decades proclaimed the state as “Vacationland.” Tourism means a lot to the state’s economy, and a lot of the tourists come from eastern Canada.  Canadians feel at home in a familiar culture with appealing beaches and attractions.  But with Trump’s ridiculous but often repeated claim that Canada should become the 51st state, everything has changed.

This absurdity coupled with an overt effort to destroy the Canadian economy to the point that it will seek refuge in the U.S. has amazingly and quickly turned a natural friendship into hostility.  Many Canadians now dislike the U.S. and have cancelled plans to come to Maine this summer.  Maine did not give him all its electoral votes, so he likely doesn’t care about the hit to tourism.

Then, there’s inflation, a big issue for Mainers.  Under former President Biden, as the economy recovered from abnormally low inflation during Covid, inflation took off.  Though it had greatly diminished by the end of Biden’s term, the memory lingered on, and Trump continually reminded voters of it.  Kamala Harris’ response was laughably weak, so Trump scored his point.

Instead of inflation abating, especially for home prices, it began to increase.  Trump’s tariffs were not absorbed by exporters or American retailers, as he had promised.  The free market, favored by him, worked normally, and prices eventually reached consumers.  Walmart and Target prices in Maine rose sharply, as they did elsewhere.  Grocery prices remain high in a state that’s at the end of the supply line.   People noticed.

Housing is especially sensitive.  It is among the top three concerns in the state, along with inflation and immigration. Higher building costs, resulting partly from expected increased Canadian lumber prices, put homes out of reach for potential buyers. The ability of the private sector and government to push tiny homes to ease homelessness was undermined.

That happened in a special way in Maine.  The University of Maine has the world’s largest 3-D printer, and it produced a complete tiny house.  But it needs federal funding to move ahead. Because Trump dislikes Gov. Mills’ insistence on state control of trans athletic policy and the president’s aversion to academic research, the project has begun laying off workers.

Like tourism, a mainstay of the economy is lobster fishing.  Lobsters are a high-cost food whose sales track the health of the national economy.  Trump has managed to create so much uncertainty throughout the economy that consumers are holding back on many purchases and there’s concern about the impact on fishing in coming months.

Every state, every market has seen its own effects of Trump’s policies.  Just as the U.S. cannot be an economic island, neither can any state.  Broad-brush national policies have local effects that should not be ignored, especially by Congress.  Trump’s vision of American industrial greatness comes at immediate cost to the paycheck-to-paycheck population.

Trump’s popularity, though waning, survives because many people like his immigration policy and take comfort in his economic nationalism.  The ultimate judgment may come when Maine fishermen, supermarket shoppers, tourism operators and home buyers vote for their next U.S. senator just 17 months from now.

The law versus the president

 

Gordon L. Weil

President Trump’s initiatives have produced a flood of legal actions, charging him with violating laws and the Constitution.  His challengers ask the courts to make sound legal interpretations in their favor, no matter the political orientation of the judges.

The complainants should be worried.  The Supreme Court may share Trump’s expansive view of the presidency, giving him legislative powers.

A second cause of concern is that the courts appear to have begun tipping the balance of power among the three branches of government in their favor.  The legislative power is rapidly fading, as members of Congress are more concerned with self-preservation than the national interest.

The Supreme Court seems to favor Trump.  Its decision in Trump v. U.S. authorized an almost unchecked presidency. Its recent orders allowing the president to control supposedly independent regulatory agencies highlight the Court majority’s agreement with Trump and support for the concept of the unitary presidency.

Look at its handling of Trump’s attack on birthright citizenship.  Instead of making a clear statement on his tortured interpretation, the Court has hidden behind a procedural question to delay a ruling.  Despite clear language and its own solid precedent, it allows Trump to create uncertainty for millions of people.  Its slow response appears intentional.

Oddly enough, a Maine case may be the best indication of a runaway judiciary that, like the president, denies checks and balances that are essential to the American political system.  Here’s the story.

Years ago, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court decided a case pitting mortgage customers against the banks holding their mortgages.  The case related to the speed and ease with which foreclosures could take place.  The Court decided in favor of the customers.

Last year, a new case appeared in which the banks sought to reverse the earlier decision.  A judge now on the Court is a lawyer who represented the banks in the earlier proceeding.   She received some advice that she need not recuse herself and she didn’t.  Hers became the deciding vote in a 4-3 ruling that favored the banks.  Her former clients won.

The official judicial ethics committee found a conflict of interest.  The committee can take no further action; the decision is up to the Supreme Court.  It has done nothing, at least so far.

The Maine Legislature is considering a bill for a study on how to apply judicial ethics to the Supreme Court.  But the Court informed the legislative committee that even its consideration was unconstitutional, because a study could not lead to legislation.  The Court asserted that it alone has judicial power, and the Legislature cannot act.  Obviously, it would rule that any such action is unconstitutional.

Carry this assertion over to the federal level.  Congress can define court jurisdiction.  If Congress were to rein in the Supreme Court from its broad support of a dominant president, it probably would face a presidential veto, and the Court could rule its law as unconstitutional.  Without any appeal, the only reactions then available would either be adding justices or amending the Constitution.

In one of the wisest political acts of his presidency, Joe Biden vetoed the addition of scores of federal judges, all of whom would have been named by Trump.  Had he accepted that he was a one-term president, he might also have been willing to propose increasing the size of the Supreme Court to restore some balance.  Lincoln and FDR both did.

The president is radically changing the Constitution as it has evolved over the centuries.  Trump appears to believe that, in an emergency he declares, he is not bound by the Constitution, the laws or the courts. His position implies that “democracy” no longer works and should be replaced by a presidency of unlimited power.

Congress, when dominated by the president’s party, is proving to be a docile accomplice.  The U.S. now has achieved the goal that then Speaker Newt Gingrich sought in the 1990’s – parliamentary government in which party discipline translates into unified support of a party’s president and unified opposition to the other party.

The Supreme Court, with its jurisdiction under attack by the Trump administration, could educate the president on what the law is. That’s what the U.S. Court of International Trade did this week, when it overturned almost all of Trump’s tariffs.  However, the Supreme Court looks more likely to join the other branches in transforming the American political system. 

The people hold the power to settle the matter in the 2026 congressional elections.  Does the American voter want to replace constitutional checks and balances by presidential rule?   Can they elect a Congress that recovers its powers and restores the intended balance with the president and the Court? That may be the real choice next year.