The ballot questions

A guide to November’s referenda

The campaign trail leading up to November 7 is bumper to bumper: six statewide referendum questions, a citywide question in Portland, state house and senate races, US house and senate races, and, of course, the George and Al show (sorry, sorry: the George, Al, and Ralph show). It’s so full we’re splitting up our preview coverage: working through referendum questions this week and races next week. Following are the nuts and bolts on each question along with our endorsements.

Endorsements Question 1: Whether you support or oppose Question 1, there is no denying it has shed light on the shameful inadequacy of care for the terminally ill in Maine. Our state has no inpatient hospice care, there is no Medicaid reimbursement for hospice care, and there are no palliative-care specialists. But the question we’re asked now is if physician-assisted suicide should be legalized, and we believe it should. To give terminally ill patients dignity in their final days, especially if they are in excruciating pain, they should have as much control over their bodies as possible. Just as hospice care should be an option open to the terminally ill, the right to take one’s own life with the help of a doctor should be an option as well. (And just as the Death With Dignity Act proposes, doctors should have the option of not participating if they so choose.) What the Death With Dignity Act would do is provide a legal framework to regulate a very humane practice that is already taking place. As the Associated Press recently reported, 24 Connecticut doctors responding to a questionnaire concerning end-of-life issues said they had complied with at least one patient’s request to be given help in committing suicide in the past year. By comparison, 27 Oregonians took their own lives in 1999 using the state’s assisted-suicide law. There is no reason to believe Connecticut is an aberration. Physician-assisted suicide is taking place with or without a legal framework. And the bill is not flawed as opponents claim. Terminally ill patients are narrowly defined, and abuse is controlled through a series of checks: two verbal requests from the patient, at least 15 days apart; a written request from the patient; opinions from two physicians that the patient has six months or less to live; consultation with a psychologist or psychiatrist; patients must be informed of other options; patients must administer the lethal dose of medication themselves. Finally, opponents object to the fact that no family notification is required under the act. We feel the decision of a terminally ill patient to take his or her life is a personal one and this component of the act reflects that. This is a tough issue, and whether it passes or not, Maine must do more to make humane options available to the terminally ill as they face their final days. Assisted suicide is one of the options they should have. Vote yes on Question 1. Question 2: It is obvious at this point that despite evidence the logging of Maine’s forests continues to proliferate at unsustainable levels, the state Legislature does not have the political will to regulate it properly. If regulation does not come from a citizen initiative it won’t come at all. And if Question 2 is not passed, it is doubtful after trying three times before, Jonathan Carter will have the political cache to try again. For this and other reasons, we support Question 2. An Act Regarding Forest Practices, which Question 2 would implement, is not the sprawl-inducing measure opponents claim. First, assertions that the practice of “banking” — when a woodlot owner does not cut his or her yearly harvesting limit, but “banks” it to be harvested in the future — would be extinguished are false; there is nothing in the initiative that would halt the practice. But even if you were skeptical, if passed, the language of the bill would be interpreted by a governor-appointed Sustainability Council; since all parties involved — Question 2 sponsors included — feel banking is valuable, there is no reason to believe the council would feel otherwise. Opponents also claim small woodlot owners would be forced to develop their property because, under this bill, they would no longer be eligible for the state’s Tree Growth tax law. It is very unlikely that the majority of the state’s small woodlot owners would lose their eligibility. For one, only those woodlot owners who over-harvest would be impacted; small woodlot owners do not have the same financial incentive large paper companies have to over-harvest. And two, if large-scale logging is curtailed, demand will rise, and the value of small woodlot owners’ timber will rise, giving them more incentive to keep their property as is. What this measure will do is put in much-needed regulations on large-scale timber harvesting in the North Woods, an action that is long overdue. Vote yes on Question 2. Question 3: This citizen initiative is flawed in several ways and should be rejected by voters. Nearly every portion of the question is contradicted in the bill that would be enacted. For instance, the question refers only to “video lottery machines,” but the bill says machines can be “mechanical.” That opens the door to slot machines. The question refers to “horse racing tracks,” but the bill effectively restricts use to one horse racing track, Scarborough Downs, owned by Joe Ricci, who is behind the bill. The question says 40 percent of the profits from the gambling machines would go toward property-tax relief. The bill, however, allows the money to be spent by towns in any way they see fit. We’re not against gambling, but this initiative is meant to benefit one business — Scarborough Downs — with no guarantee of property-tax relief. It’s a scam. Vote no. Question 4: The commercial fishing industry has not had an easy go of it lately. Competition from aquaculture and growing concern over the health of ocean stocks have created great uncertainty. Add to that the fact that a robust economy is driving up the price of waterfront property — and allowing more people to buy homes there — and you’ve got an industry on very shaky ground. This constitutional amendment would allow waterfront property being used for commercial fishing activities to be assessed taxes based on their current use, as opposed to their optimal use, say as a resort or waterfront mansion. This would give fishermen a much-needed tax break, and help to ensure the viability of working waterfronts in the state. Maine already gives such tax breaks for things like farm land, recreational areas, and wildlife sanctuaries. Property used for commercial fishing activities should be brought into the fold. Vote yes. Question 5: Although the concept of this referendum — to give the mentally ill under guardianship the right to vote — is a noble one, we have to recognize why these Mainers are under guardianship to begin with: a judge has determined that they are not capable of making responsible decisions on their own and therefore need someone to make decisions for them. We sadly have to conclude that if they are unable to make responsible decisions concerning their daily lives that they are unable to make responsible decisions for society. But does this mean our current system is perfect? Far from it. A more rational approach would be the sort practiced in some other states (Florida, Hawaii, Kentucky, Nevada, and others) where a judge decides specific terms of a guardianship, among those whether the person should have the responsibility of voting. Maine’s all or nothing approach to giving or denying the vote to citizens under guardianship is too simplistic. It is with mixed emotions we recommend a no vote on Question 5. Question 6: Does an argument really need to be made at this point on why gays and lesbians deserve protection from discrimination? We hope not. But something does need to be said about the religious exemption that is a part of the bill that Question 6 attempts to enact. Under the bill, religious organizations that do not receive state funds could lawfully discriminate against homosexuals. Does that blow? Sure it does. What’s more frustrating is a referendum without that exemption probably could have passed, especially considering the Catholic church would have been hard pressed to launch an effective opposition campaign seeing as their efforts are so focused on Question 1. Although the referendum quite likely could have been approved by voters, it’s unlikely the bill would ever have made it through the Legislature without the religious exemption. If it had not made it through the Legislature, we wouldn’t be voting on it. That’s one reason to feel OK about the religious exemption. Another reason is the good this bill could do even with the exemption. Think about this: if Question 6 is approved, a lesbian high school teacher could be honest on the job about who she is. Because of this, teenagers, parents, and other teachers would be able to see more clearly that homosexuals are no different than anyone else. And, more importantly, gay and lesbian teenagers at that school would have a role model, and could hopefully brave the cruel storm of high school a little easier, a time when many of them consider suicide. Forget about the religious exemption, this is a step in the right direction. Vote yes on Question 6. Portland charter amendment: Only 4.8 percent of Portland’s 40,346 registered voters turned out for last May’s municipal election. That set a record — the lowest turnout since the elections were moved from December to May, 25 years ago. The reason the elections were moved to begin with was to increase turnout. It didn’t work. But in that same spirit — making it as convenient as possible to vote — Portlanders should move the elections once more, this time from May to November, by voting yes on this charter amendment. The arguments against the move range from absurd to laughable: that somehow having fewer voters is a more pure form of democracy (they are the really good voters) and that city elections will get lost in the bustle of national elections (well, last time we checked, those municipal elections are lost on most people in May). The bottom line is when more people vote we’re provided a more true reflection of the electorate’s will, and that is what a democracy is all about. Plus, a turn out of only a couple thousand people allows too great an opportunity for special interests to impact an election. The opposition claims that proponents see the move as a first step in dismantling the city’s non-partisan election, but the truth is the opposition wants to keep the election in May for partisan reasons — it’s no secret Republicans (whether they call themselves that or not) benefit when the turnout is low. Let them work for their election in November like candidates in 19 of Maine’s 21 cities already do. Vote yes.

If there are any sweeping statements to be made about the referendum questions facing voters in a week and a half it’s that perfection is not easily attained. We have a referendum question that attempts to regulate clear-cutting and over-cutting of Maine’s forests (that’s good), but it will surely impact the small woodlot owners who offer a valuable buffer against urban sprawl (that’s bad). We’ve got a referendum that attempts to provide terminally ill patients greater control over their bodies by legalizing physician-assisted suicide (that’s good), but it does so through a bill that could make the option attractive to patients who simply can’t afford proper care (that’s bad). Another referendum attempts to protect the state’s gays and lesbians against discrimination in areas of employment, housing, public accommodation, and credit (that’s good), but it exempts religious organizations (that’s bad).

It’s times like these when we lift up our arms and thank God for Joe Ricci.

The Scarborough Downs Racetrack owner has provided us — despite the sly wording of the question — with one of the easiest decisions on the ballot. As we reported last week, Ricci’s Question 3 — which asks if you’d like video gambling machines at certain horseracing tracks (and by that he means his horseracing track) — has no redeeming qualities. It’s a scam waiting to happen.

For the other, less cut-and-dry referendum questions, we hope the following information helps guide you through the ballot. Just remember, although Ricci may have attained a certain kind of perfection with Question 3, a referendum shouldn’t necessarily be nixed because it’s flawed. In some cases it’s a lesser-of-two-evils decision — but we’ll go into that more next week.

Citizen Initiatives

Question 1

“Should a terminally ill adult who is of sound mind be allowed to ask for and receive a doctor’s help to die?”

Probably no referendum issue is stirring up more debate and emotion than this one.

“We believe that terminally ill adults who are competent should have many options,” says Kate Roberts of Mainers for Death with Dignity, the group that is behind Question 1.

She says the state needs to do a better job in including patients in their end-of-life decisions and one of those options should be the right to commit suicide.

The 11-page proposed law, patterned closely after the one passed in Oregon two years ago, makes it legal for a physician to prescribe a lethal dose of medication to someone who has six months or less to live. It requires confirmation from two doctors that the person is truly terminal, and referrals for the patient to see a mental health counselor and a palliative-care (a health practitioner who deals in pain relief) specialist.

Those opposing this bill say it’s too vague and sends the wrong message to Mainers about how they should die. They fear the law would be misused by managed care companies, who would encourage patients and their doctors to opt for suicide instead of getting expensive palliative or hospice care. Opponents claim provisions in the legislation are not specific enough; they point to the requirement for a referral to a mental health specialist, but say it does not ensure the patient actually has to go for the consultation. They also dislike that there is no mandate for next-of-kin approval before swallowing the lethal prescription.

Edie Smith of the No on 1 Campaign uses her mother, who died in April of cancer, as an example of proper end-of-life treatment. “She was given proper pain medication, she had excellent doctors and nurses. That’s the direction we need to go in,” she says.

She calls the Death with Dignity bill physician-assisted suicide. “It’s a poorly written piece of legislation and dangerous,” says Smith. “It can include people with diabetes and paraplegics; they can die within six months if they don’t take their meds.”

Her group’s original name is Maine Citizens Against the Dangers of Physician-Assisted Suicide. Others opposing the bill include the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, the Maine Hospice Council, and the Maine Medical Association.

A board member of the Maine Hospice Council, Smith also takes issue with the palliative-care referral. “In the state of Maine, there’s no such thing as a palliative-care specialist,” she says. And a person would have to swallow 60 to 100 pills, which she says could be hard to keep down, so an anti-vomiting medication might also be needed.

“The whole attitude of end-of-life care will shift to death instead of pursuing other options (if this becomes law),” she says.

Furthermore, says Smith, the uninsured and the poor (Medicaid does not cover hospice care in Maine) might be more likely to use the suicide option than the insured and middle and upper classes. While palliative care can be pricey, the price of the suicide meds is about 40 bucks. “What do you think they’ll choose? And that is a very dangerous path for Maine to take. . . I cannot advocate for suicide in the voting booth.”

—Sharon Bass

Question 2

“Do you favor requiring landowners to obtain a permit for all clear-cuts and defining cutting levels for lands subject to the tree growth tax law?”

This is the third statewide vote on forest practices in four years. Clashing again over the fate of the Maine woods are Forest Ecology Network leader Jonathan Carter and a growing band of grass-roots environmentalists (this time joined by the Natural Resources Council of Maine, the state’s largest conservation group) and, on the other side, paper corporations, other woodland owners, and most of Maine’s political establishment.

The bill behind the question would regulate clear-cutting, when the trees are stripped from a plot of land, and over-cutting, when more trees are cut than are growing back. It would require state permits for clear-cuts. During the past 20 years the forest, especially the vast corporate land in northern Maine, has been massively clear-cut and, in general, environmentalists claim, over-cut. The paper companies say they have reduced clear-cuts and regulation isn’t needed.

Under this proposal the burden would be on landowners to prove a clear-cut is needed. And cutting could not exceed growth if landowners want property tax breaks from the Tree Growth Tax Law. A commission would be established to develop rules for putting the reforms into practice.

The bill’s opponents claim it would have a negative impact on forest-related jobs in northern Maine. Property-rights advocates in the north are upset about the prospect of more government regulation of the use of land, and they see this bill as a precursor of a move to establish a Maine Woods National Park. In southern Maine, opponents say, it would promote suburban sprawl by forcing small landowners to sell their property for development if they can’t continue to get tree-growth property-tax abatements.

But the reformers say logging and paper-mill jobs, in decline for some time, will sink further if cutting continues at unsustainable levels. They basically fear the big companies are liquidating the Maine woods. Already, they say, it is hard to find places to hike, canoe, hunt, and fish without encountering clear-cuts.

The sprawl argument is bogus, they say, because most unsustainable forestry is on northern corporate land, there is no big pressure for development there, and financial penalties would have to be paid if the corporations abandoned the Tree Growth Tax Law. “The paper companies are hiding behind the skirts of the small woodlot owner,” Carter says of the forest industry’s ad campaign on the sprawl issue. “It’s cynical. They did a poll and found that sprawl was an issue in southern Maine and so they try to raise fears about it.”

A 1996 initiative bill would have banned clear-cuts and set standards for timber harvesting in the northern half of the state known as the Unorganized Territory. The paper companies and Gov. Angus King crafted a referendum alternative known as the “Compact.” They said it was a set of reasonable limitations on wood harvesting. The vote was 47 percent for the Compact, 29 percent for the clear-cutting ban, and 24 percent for none of the above.

The Compact had to be sent again to the people because it hadn’t achieved a majority. In 1997 Carter teamed up with other-side-of-the-political-spectrum property-rights advocates to defeat it 53 to 47 percent.

—Lance Tapley

Question 3

“Do you want to allow video lottery machines at certain horse racing tracks if 40% of the profits are used for property tax relief?”

Should Scarborough Downs racetrack be allowed to build an electronic-game gambling casino with as many as 1,500 machines? It would be the first gambling casino in Maine and have $100-million-plus a year in income. Forty percent of the profits would be dealt out to municipalities to use, if they wish, for property tax relief.

Although the question refers to “certain horse racing tracks,” everyone agrees that under the provisions of the bill being voted on only Scarborough Downs would qualify in the foreseeable future. Its owner, former Democratic gubernatorial primary candidate Joseph Ricci, is financing the campaign for the bill and organized the signature collection that initiated it.

Campaign spokesman George Kerr says the measure is necessary to rescue a faltering harness-racing industry including horse farms. The Maine Harness Horsemen’s Association supports it. Kerr says the 50-year-old Downs has been losing a million dollars or more a year. His organization is the Committee for Property Tax Relief for ME. Website: www.propertytaxforme.com.

Gov. Angus King believes “this is the worst proposal to come along for Maine certainly since I’ve been governor.” The opposition committee, No Dice: Mainers Against a Dishonest Deal — website: www.nodice4me.com — includes former Democratic Gov. Kenneth Curtis and Republican State Sen. Peter Mills of Skowhegan.

Opponents say the complex bill is full of loopholes. Their claims have become the issues in the debate. One alleged loophole is that more than the 1,500 machines the bill refers to would be allowed. Kerr denies this. State Police Lt. Craig Poulin believes the bill “has been crafted to include slot machines.” Kerr responds: “It specifically says ‘video lottery terminals’ on the front page of the bill.” Opponents say the bill might allow Ricci to set up machines in other locations besides Scarborough, a claim Kerr also denies.

No provision requires money sent to the towns actually be used for lowering taxes. Kerr counters that if a town buys a new fire truck property taxes won’t have to be raised for that purpose. He sees $44 million being distributed in 2002.

The biggest loophole, according to critics, is lack of accountability for the large amount of cash to be handled. Poulin says the bill “provides no real way for the State to effectively and efficiently monitor gambling activity” because, unlike in many other states with gambling, the machines would not be connected to a computer for on-line, real-time monitoring by officials.

But Kerr says broad powers to regulate the gambling are in the bill, and “if the state police would like the convenience of doing their investigation on-line then they can require by rule that the machines be linked on-line to the state police computer.”

—LT

Page 1 | 2 | Next