The ballot questions

A guide to November’s referenda, continued

Constitutional Amendments

Question 4

“Do you favor amending the Constitution of Maine to allow the Legislature to provide for the assessment of land used for commercial fishing activities based on the current use of that property?”

This is one of those questions most people read for the first time when they go into the voting booth. The proponents, a coalition of fishing and coastal-preservation interests calling themselves Citizens to Preserve Maine’s Fishing Heritage, have done little to publicize it — spending only $3200 by the end of September, according to campaign finance reports. The only opponents — the Maine Municipal Association (MMA), representing town and city officials — had spent zero. Perhaps neither side feels strongly about the issue, and maybe the proponents don’t want to create a stir, hoping the measure will slide by. But that’s a risky strategy. A September poll found a statistical tie between the yes’s and no’s — 32 to 28 percent — with most voters undecided or clueless.

Here’s the issue: should coastal land and buildings used for landing and selling fish or providing ice, fuel, bait, and vessel repair be valued for taxation at a lower rate than other waterfront property like cottages, condos, and mansions? The proponents argue that the fishing industry is suffering because rich folks are buying up the coast, giving municipalities a reason to tax a fishing pier, for example, at its value for a summer home location. The resulting higher taxes, they claim, will eventually crack one of Maine’s economic pillars, which now provides directly or indirectly 26,000 jobs.

This amendment would give the OK to the Legislature to require towns to tax fishing-industry property at “current use” rather than fair-market value, if a property owner so requested. Such constitutional provisions exist for farms, timberlands (the Tree Growth Tax Law), recreational and scenic open spaces, and wildlife sanctuaries. Legislation would have to be passed establishing the specific rules of the fishing-industry taxation. Some proponents say they support state reimbursement to towns and cities to offset lost tax revenues. And Portland and some other communities would not be affected negatively in revenues because they already have zoning protecting working waterfronts from high taxation, says proponent Elizabeth Sheehan of Coastal Enterprises, Inc., a nonprofit community-development organization.

“But it’s extremely unlikely there will be reimbursement,” replies the MMA’s Geoff Herman. Thus, this tax break would “shift the burden” onto other taxpayers. He is pessimistic about reimbursement because the farmland and open-space tax breaks have not seen municipalities reimbursed in 30 years of existence. And there is a mitigating factor to the tax pressure on waterfront property, says Herman: “Tax rates in waterfront property towns tend to be lower” because of the wealth of property supplying the town’s budget needs.

Farmland, forestry, and recreational and scenic land tax breaks are consistent because they keep land undeveloped, he adds, but in this proposal “we’re talking about land under a developed structure. It opens the door to other property interests coming in for tax breaks.” What if telemarketing, computer, and biotechnology firms — all fast-growing industries in Maine — ask for similar tax breaks? “You can’t carry out fishing without access to the water,” Sheehan responds. “That’s what’s at stake here.”

—LT

Question 5

“Do you favor amending the constitution of Maine to end discrimination against persons under guardianship for mental illness for the purpose of voting?”

You’d think Question 5 would be virtually free of opposition. Everybody else who’s an American citizen and at least 18 in Maine can vote. Even those under guardianship for other reasons, such as mental retardation, can cast their ballots.

But Mainers voted against this bill in 1997. It failed in all 16 counties, 58 percent to 42 percent. When the law was put on the books in 1820 — Maine and Vermont became the first states to have such a restriction — it included everybody under guardianship. In 1965, Maine amended the law, giving everybody under guardianship, except those with mental illness, the power to vote.

“It’s been way too long,” says Kristin Aiello, a staff attorney with the Disability Rights Center of Maine in Augusta. “It’s a real black mark on our constitution.” She says some of her clients have told her they very much want to vote on the issues that affect them. “It’s another way they’re stigmatized,” she says.

While she concedes the voting restriction only affects about 500 people statewide, she says, “it’s still an outrage. It’s not about competency; it’s about discrimination against people with mental illness.”

Don’t try to convince state Rep. Susan Kasprzak, a Republican from Newport, that the bill is about trying to eradicate a type of discrimination. “It’s not about hating these people or discrimination. I don’t think these people should be exploited when they’re in such a vulnerable position,” she says.

Kasprzak says, “The question is worded in such a way as to (elicit) a certain response. I don’t think it’s a good idea to have people who are under guardianship for mental illness to be exploited for someone to get votes.”

The real motivation behind this referendum, she asserts, is to give the green light to politicians and political campaigners to march into the state mental hospitals in Bangor and Augusta, to convince patients to vote for them and their causes.

She calls the bill a “vote-getting mechanism.” When asked if it’s OK for those with mental retardation and under guardianship to vote, she replied: “I didn’t even know (mentally retarded) people were allowed to vote until someone recently told me.”

—SB

 

Referendum

Question 6

“Do you favor ratifying the action of the 119th Legislature whereby it passed an act extending to all citizens regardless of their sexual orientation the same basic rights to protection against discrimination now guaranteed to citizens on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin in the areas of employment, housing, public accommodation and credit and where the act expressly states that nothing in the act confers legislative approval of, or special rights to, any person or group of persons?”

During nearly every session from 1977 to 1991, the state Legislature took up the issue of equal rights for Maine’s gays and lesbians, but was never able to pass a bill to the governor. The first bill to make it through both the house and senate was vetoed by then-governor John McKernan in 1993. Four years later, Gov. Angus King signed into law a new equal-rights bill. This time the veto came from voters, in a special election held in February of 1998. By a small margin, the new equal-rights law was rejected before it ever took effect.

In April of this year, the house and senate approved a bill that would prohibit discrimination against homosexuals in the areas of employment, housing, credit, and public accommodations, adding the term “sexual orientation” to the Maine Human Rights Act. To secure the support of the Roman Catholic Diocese, religious entities were exempt from the provisions of the bill, which threatened to turn some progressive legislators against it.

“I had deep reservations about this bill because of the religious exclusion,” says Rep. Ben Dudley (D-Portland). “I felt confident that Maine voters would pass a bill without the exclusion, but I soon realized that, though voters weren't an obstacle, the Legislature was. I believe the religious exclusion was the key to getting a majority of legislators to support the referendum.”

Gov. King supported the bill only if it was passed to the voters, which is how we’ve ended up with Question 6 on the ballot.

Proponents of Question 6 argue in favor of the referendum as much for what it would do as for what it would not do. It would protect homosexuals from discrimination in the areas listed above. It would not require any school to promote or teach sexuality. It would not establish affirmative action based on sexual orientation. And it does not require employers to provide domestic partnership benefits.

The opposition is led by many of the same people who organized the 1998 people’s veto, Michael Heath, executive director of the Christian Civic League, among them.

“The moral concern is that public policy is shifting from where, in the 1970s, Maine law actually criminalized homosexuality to where homosexuality can trigger protection within the Human Rights Act,” says Heath.

Heath argues against Question 6 also because he feels it may be used in the future as a basis for requiring same-sex marriage benefits, adoption rights to homosexuals, and the promotion of homosexuality in schools.

Suzanne Brunner, co-chair of the Yes on 6 executive committee, points out that there is nothing in the bill about marriage or adoption rights or promoting homosexuality in schools.

“This is about jobs, housing, credit, public accommodations,” she says. “We’re the only New England state that doesn’t have one of these laws. It’s the right thing to do. It’s been the right thing to do for 23 years.”

—Sam Smith

Portland

Charter Amendment

“Shall the city charter be amended to change the date of the regular city election for city council and school committee from the first Tuesday in May of each year to the first Tuesday in November of each year?”

Municipal elections have not been known to sit still in Portland. Twenty five years ago, the election was moved from December to May, when elections for Portland’s water district were already being held. The move was an attempt to boost voter turnout, hoping that the electorate would be more likely to get out of the house in the spring. Voter turnout has not benefited by the move; last May, continuing a pattern of decreasing numbers, turnout hit a record low, with only 1960 Portlanders — out of 40,346 registered voters — turning out to vote in two school committee races.

Proponents of Portland’s only citywide ballot question say the election should be moved once again, this time to November, for the same reason it was moved before: to increase voter turnout.

Toby Hollander, a member of the executive board of Portland Community Action, one of the groups pushing for the move, says he initially hoped the city council would approve the new election date, but “unfortunately most city councilors like getting elected with only 100 votes, rather than thousands of votes.”

Neither side of the debate argues that moving the election to November will result in more Portlanders voting in municipal races, they differ on whether this is a good thing.

As Hollander argues, “Because more people will participate in November, we’ll have a more democratic process. If people are elected in November, when people are thinking about the election and turn out to the polls, they can certainly say they have more of a mandate [than if they were elected in May].”

Councilor Jim Cloutier, who made the failed proposal, to the council, seeking to move the election, agrees with Hollander, and adds, “Another thing is the influence of special interests. When you have an election that rests on a few hundred votes, that creates a situation where elections can be manipulated.”

Mayor Cheryl Leeman wants to keep the election in May and has released a statement outlining her objections to the move. She agrees more voters will come to the polls in November, “but it does not follow that this larger turnout will be focused on good, honest, non-partisan local government; it does not follow that this larger turnout will know or care about local candidates for office and/or local issues.”

Leeman says running a municipal race in November and trying to compete for attention with everything else on the ballot will make it difficult and expensive for independent candidates to seek office. She also feels the proponents of the move have alterior motives: there is a greater chance of abolishing Portland’s council/city manager form of government through a November election than a low-turnout May election, and that is what proponents are after. She also says she expects the measure to pass, and “I hope my fears prove groundless.”

Cloutier says the effort to move municipal elections to November is not motivated by an interest in abolishing the council/city manager form of government. n

—SS

Page 2 | 1 | Back