Maine Court strikes down RCV expansion

The highest court in Maine has struck down an attempt by the Legislature to expand ranked-choice voting in state elections. The unanimous decision reiterated an earlier court ruling based on the plain text of the Maine Constitution, which specifies that state offices are won by a plurality.

Ranked-choice voting advocates in the Maine Legislature tried to get around the Constitution by changing how their system is described. LD 1666 was remarkably dishonest, even in an era of disingenuous politics. While RCV advocates sell their scheme based on guaranteeing a “majority” winner, the bill replaced that term with “plurality.” It was a wink and nod to the Court, suggesting: “We’re all on the same side here, so let’s ignore the law and do what we want.”

To their great credit, every judge on Maine’s Supreme Judicial Court declined the invitation. Gov. Janet Mills, when earlier serving as the state’s Attorney General, had also found RCV to violate the state constitutional provisions governing the election of state officials. The state will, however, continue to use RCV for federal elections and state primary elections, which are not governed by the state Constitution.

That is unfortunate, given the research by MIT showing that RCV in Maine has failed to produce the promised benefits. Below are some of the findings of that research.

• “RCV produced significantly lower levels of voter confidence, voter satisfaction, and ease of use.”
• “Negative spending increased significantly in Maine following the implementation of ranked-choice voting.”
• Compared to a normal ballot, RCV “increased the amount of time it took to vote by nearly 12 seconds per candidate.”
• “A majority of respondents were concerned with how ‘other people’ were more likely to be confused and spoil their ballots, which may be a way of signaling that the respondents themselves were confused by the ballot design.”