Maine RCV
Rob Lanphier via Election-Methods <[email protected]> Wed, 15 Apr 2026 01:07:11 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.politics.election-methods |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAK9hOYmvszs9o5cQ2DAWaDVmVVTRgg+LJZ0GhMiLoRDjSOK4Tw@mail.gmail.com> |
--===============7101700550143189972== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004308a8064f7b36d4" --0000000000004308a8064f7b36d4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi folks, Interesting report by Sara Wolk on votingtheory.org: https://www.votingtheory.org/forum/topic/606/rcv-found-unconstitutional-in-maine In short: the Maine legislature decided to expand RCV/IRV beyond federal offices to state and local offices, but worried about both a governor's veto, and/or an overturn from Maine's high court (the "SJC" or "Supreme Judicial Court"). So, rather than sending it to the governor (whose veto could be for many reasons), they sent it to the SJC first. The SJC said "*The Maine Constitution, construed as a whole, treats a 'vote' as a single choice, tallied by a municipality*" That not only has implications for RCV, but many other systems too. A brief explainer with direct links the SJC opinion and some key quotes from them is available on electowiki: https://electowiki.org/wiki/Maine#2026_advisory_opinion The "*tallied by a municipality*" caveat is interesting, since it implies precinct summability is important to the SJC. Thoughts? Rob p.s. my cursory investigation of this topic was in preparation for the ElectoramaCall, which is happening in a few hours: https://electowiki.org/wiki/ElectoramaCall --0000000000004308a8064f7b36d4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr">Hi folks,<div><br></div><div>Interesting report by Sara Wo= lk on <a href=3D"http://votingtheory.org">votingtheory.org</a>:</div><div><= a href=3D"https://www.votingtheory.org/forum/topic/606/rcv-found-unconstitu= tional-in-maine">https://www.votingtheory.org/forum/topic/606/rcv-found-unc= onstitutional-in-maine</a></div><div><br></div><div>In short: the Maine leg= islature decided to expand RCV/IRV beyond federal offices to state and loca= l offices, but worried about both a governor's veto, and/or an overturn= from Maine's high court (the "SJC" or "Supreme Judicial= Court").=C2=A0 So, rather than sending it to the governor (whose veto= could be for many reasons), they sent it to the SJC first.=C2=A0 The SJC s= aid "<i>The Maine Constitution, construed as a whole, treats a 'vo= te' as a single choice, tallied by a municipality</i>"=C2=A0 That = not only has implications for RCV, but many other systems too.=C2=A0 A brie= f explainer with direct links the SJC opinion and some key quotes from them= is available=C2=A0on electowiki:</div><div><a href=3D"https://electowiki.o= rg/wiki/Maine#2026_advisory_opinion">https://electowiki.org/wiki/Maine#2026= _advisory_opinion</a></div><div><br></div><div>The "<i>tallied by a mu= nicipality</i>" caveat is interesting, since it implies precinct summa= bility is important to the SJC.</div><div><br></div><div>Thoughts?</div><di= v>Rob</div><div>p.s. my cursory investigation of this topic was in preparat= ion for the ElectoramaCall, which is happening in a few hours:</div><div><a= href=3D"https://electowiki.org/wiki/ElectoramaCall">https://electowiki.org= /wiki/ElectoramaCall</a></div></div> --0000000000004308a8064f7b36d4-- --===============7101700550143189972== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info --===============7101700550143189972==--