constitutional law – COMMUNIST PARTY OF MAINE

_{^{Maine Democrats participated in the party convention on May 31 and June 1 in Bangor. (Emma Davis/ Maine Morning Star)}}

_{Reposted from Maine Morning Star}

Maine Democrats unveiled and adopted their 2024 party platform over the weekend, pledging to safeguard democracy, defend reproductive health rights, push for more affordable housing and combat the growing threat of climate change, among other stances.

The platform was presented at the party’s convention in Bangor, where participants heard from political leaders and mobilized supporters for the upcoming 2024 election cycle.

The party agreed to six amendments to the platform on issues ranging from tribal sovereignty, substance use and prison reform. However, Democrats opted against 11 other proposed alterations, including a provision that called for ending U.S. aid to Israel until that country declares a permanent ceasefire in Gaza and withdraws from Palestinian territory.

Several Maine-based organizations demonstrated at the party’s convention Friday in protest of the U.S.’ backing of Israel’s war in Gaza.

In their finalized platform, Maine Democrats include a range of political and policy principles. One emphasis is the need to protect democracy. Within that section, the platform states that “insurrection is disqualifying,” a reference to President Donald Trump and the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol in which his supporters attempted to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

The platform also states that it is “our duty to condemn and prosecute those willing to storm the halls of Congress by force or who otherwise disrupt that transfer of power.”

On the subject of elections, Maine Democrats also back universal voting rights and fair electoral districts free from political gerrymandering.

Another focus is constitutional rights for women, including the right to reproductive freedom — a major emphasis for Democrats around the country following the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022. The party platform states that amendments should be passed to the state and national constitutions “to prevent governmental interference with any individual’s decision relative to their own reproductive health.”

The party’s platform also cites the need to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, eliminate gender pay gaps, and end violence against women.

On health policy, the state party says it supports universal health care, gender-affirming care, increasing rural access to services, and an expansion of public health programs.

As amended, the platform also recognizes substance use disorder as a health crisis and states that Democrats “unequivocally support expanded access to evidence-based treatment and assistance for recovery which includes but is not limited to harm reduction.”

When it comes to housing affordability, a major challenge facing the state, Democrats say they will work to guarantee that “no Mainer will die from a lack of secure, safe, and affordable housing.” That means advocating for affordable housing development along with tenant protections and preventing homelessness through supporting the housing first model, among other policies.

Another significant issue is climate change, which the party says poses an existential threat to the state. The platform pledges Democrats’ support for the implementation and continual improvement of Maine’s climate action plan, green energy expansion and transforming transportation to make it more sustainable. The party also states that Maine should seek energy independence, create a diverse renewable energy apparatus, protect the state’s natural resources and safeguard against storm damage.

The party platform addresses the issue of education as well, saying that Democrats support safe and inclusive schools and “comprehensive teaching and discussion of all subjects in a course of study guided by informed educators and uncorrupted by political agendas” — a likely reference to the increased right-wing pushback against public school curriculums.

However, two education-related amendments failed to pass. One proposed for the party to ensure all Mainers have access to “affordable, low-cost, or free higher education, including four-year colleges, community colleges, and technical schools.” The other proposal called for the continuation of a program providing two years of free community college to Maine graduates and support for efforts to reduce the debt burden on Maine students.

The platform outlines a number of other core values, including welcoming immigrants, supporting racial justice, backing LGBTQ rights, pushing for fair sentencing and alternatives to incarceration — including in the juvenile justice system — and recognizing tribal sovereignty (a plank that was amended slightly to explicitly recognize the sovereignty of the Wabanaki Nations).

Along with those tenets, the platform contains many other principles, such as support for labor rights and equitable wages and helping veterans and older Mainers. However, a proposed amendment to the veterans section that would have acknowledged the sizeable portion of Maine veteran suicides that take place with firearms and sought to support firearm safety and suicide prevention efforts was not adopted.

The presentation and adoption of the Maine Democrats’ core values comes after Maine Republicans unveiled their platform in late April. The Maine GOP platform included a wide range of conservative stances, such as provisions opposing gender-based education, abortion and marriage equality and pushing to create more stringent requirements for voting.

Emma Davis contributed to this report.

_{Evan Popp studied journalism at Ithaca College. He joins Maine Morning Star following three years at Maine Beacon writing about statewide politics. Before that, he worked for the Santa Fe New Mexican newspaper and interned at the Progressive magazine, ThinkProgress and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.}

_{^{Will Trump be able to stay on the ballot in 2024? | Scott Olson, Getty Images}}

_{Reposted from the Maine Beacon}

Momentous questions for the U.S. Supreme Court and momentous consequences for the country are likely now that the court has announced it will decide whether former president and current presidential candidate Donald Trump is eligible to appear on the Colorado ballot.

The court’s decision to consider the issue comes in the wake of Colorado’s highest court ruling that Trump had engaged in insurrection and therefore was barred from appearing on the state’s GOP primary ballot by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Maine’s secretary of state also barred Trump from the state’s primary ballot, and more than a dozen other states are considering similar moves.

The Conversation’s senior politics and democracy editor, Naomi Schalit, spoke with Notre Dame election law scholar Derek Muller about the Supreme Court’s decision to take the case, which will rest on the court’s interpretation of a post Civil War-era amendment aimed at keeping those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from serving in political office.

***^{_{The U.S. Supreme Court. | Stefani Reynolds, Getty Images}}***

The Conversation: On a scale of 1 to 10, how big is this?

Muller: In terms of potential impact, it’s a 10. It is excluding a former president from appearing on the ballot for engaging in insurrection.

That’s monumental for several reasons. It’s the first major and material use of this provision of the Constitution since the Civil War. It’s the first time it has kept a presidential candidate off the ballot, much less a former one and the apparent front-runner for the Republican Party nomination.

But on the flip side, what are the odds of that actually happening? That’s more speculative. And so the number is probably less than 10. This was an extraordinary major decision from the Colorado Supreme Court. But you have to temper that by saying, well, there’s a chance it gets reversed, and then Trump appears on the ballot and this mostly goes away.

The Conversation: What are the risks here for the court? Legal scholar Michael W. McConnell at Stanford said in The Washington Post, “There is no way they can decide the case without having about half the country think they are being partisan hacks.”

Muller: This is a binary choice that either empowers the Republican candidate or prevents voters from choosing him. So when you have a choice in such stark, political and partisan terms, whatever the Supreme Court is doing is often going to be viewed through that lens by many voters.

I think it’s a reason why there will be as much effort as possible internally on the court to reach a consensus view to avoid that appearance of partisanship on the court, that appearance of division on the court. If there’s consensus, it’s harder for the public to sort of point the finger at one side or another.

That’s much easier said than done. The court decides questions with major political consequences all the time. But to decide the questions in the context of an upcoming election feels different.

The Conversation: The justices granted only Trump’s appeal to consider the case, not the Colorado Republican Party’s. Is this significant, and if so, how?

Muller: The Colorado Republican Party and the Trump campaign were on two different tracks in their appeals. When you grant both cases, you invite two sets of attorneys and parties to participate and add complexity. I think the decision to grant only Trump’s case is a decision to make this as streamlined a process as possible.

The Conversation: Will whatever decision the court makes put to rest the ballot access questions in all the other states?

Muller: There are a couple of very narrow grounds the court might rule on. For example, they might say, we’re not ready to hear this case because it’s only a primary, or Colorado so abused its own state procedures as to run afoul of federal constitutional rules. Those would be kind of rulings only applicable to the Colorado case or only applicable in the primaries.

There’s a chance the court does this, but my sense — not to speculate too much — is that’s going to be deeply unsatisfying for the court, knowing that if they delay in this case, another case is likely coming later in the summer where these questions will have to be addressed in August or September. That’s much closer to the general election. Those are months when the court is in recess, and they would have to come back from their summer vacation early. So my sense is that the court will try to resolve these on a comprehensive basis. They’ve scheduled oral argument on Feb. 8, 2024 so they want to move on as quickly as possible to put this to rest.

The Conversation: You submitted an amicus brief in the Colorado case for neither side. What was it you wanted to tell the court?

Muller: I raised two general points and then one specific to Colorado. The two general points are that I think states have the power to judge the qualifications of presidential candidates and keep them off the ballot. And states have done that over the years to say if you were born in Nicaragua, or you’re 27 years old, we’re going to keep you off the ballot.

But I also say states have no obligation to do that. You can look throughout history, going back to the 1890s, where ineligible candidates’ names have been printed and put on the ballot. And this isn’t a question of whether or not the state wants to do it — they have the flexibility to do it. So I wanted to set those two framing questions up so the court doesn’t veer too much in one direction or the other to say “states have no power” or “of course states have power regardless of what the legislature has asked them to do.”

The point specific to Colorado is I doubted there was jurisdiction in Colorado for the state Supreme Court to hear this case, but the court disagreed with me.

The Conversation: What could happen during the period between now and the court’s decision that could be consequential?

Muller: More states are going to consider these challenges as the ballot deadlines approach. And we know that there’s Super Tuesday the first Tuesday of March when a significant number of states hold presidential primaries. So I think there’s a lot of uncertainty in the next six weeks about which states might exclude him.

On top of that is voter uncertainty. Voters are making their decisions and weighing the trade-offs of who to vote for. Right now, this is a cloud hanging over the Trump campaign. It’s not just that he’s been declared ineligible in Colorado and Maine. It’s the question in other states for other voters: Am I wasting my vote, is this actually an ineligible candidate? Should I be voting for somebody else?

That’s not an enviable position for voters to be in — that they might cast their ballots only to find out later that they’re not going to be counted.

_{^{This article was first published by The Conversation.}}

_{Naomi Schalit is the Conversation’s senior politics and democracy editor.}