Opinion: Why Republicans should vote to override Janet Mills’ vetoes / by Ethan Strimling

_{^{Gov. Janet Mills at a press conference in January 2023 | Beacon}}

_{Reposted from the Maine Beacon}

Friday is “Veto Day,” the day the legislature gathers to vote on whether to override any vetoes a governor returns after the legislature has adjourned.

Efforts to override any veto have been universally futile under Gov. Janet Mills (of the 43 vetoes she has sent back, she is 43 for 43 on having them sustained). But that is not unusual. Almost all vetoes are sustained because governors rarely veto bills that receive votes from two-thirds of the legislature (the number needed for an override)—unless you were Gov. Paul LePage, who vetoed just about everything.

Since Democrats have been virtually united in voting to overturn Mills’ vetoes (they are almost all Democratic bills, a point for a future column), let me take a moment to offer Republicans a simple argument for each bill coming to the floor that they might actually agree with.

L.D. 1231 – This bill would reduce taxes on middle- and low-income Mainers by raising taxes on our most wealthy (those making over half a million dollars a year).

This bill was sponsored by a Republican as a way to provide long-term tax relief to working families—not just a one time give-away that Republicans often decry as window dressing. Yes, it does that by raising taxes on our wealthiest a very small percentage, but the wealthy, on average, pay less of a percent of their income in taxes than the working poor. With many Republicans saying everyone should pay the same rate, this bill actually helps achieve that result.

L.D. 2086 – This bill would ban mechanisms that turn semi-automatic weapons into machine guns and allow police departments to destroy weapons used in crimes.

In general, rural red communities experience higher per capita rates of gun violence than urban areas. That means people living in the districts represented by Maine’s Republican legislators are in more danger of being killed by guns turned into weapons of mass destruction than the rest of us.

L.D. 525 – This bill would allow agricultural workers to speak to each other about working conditions.

In the recently approved 2024 Republican Party platform, it says that Republicans will, “Defend every citizen’s right… to freely speak and associate.” In the end, that is all this bill does. It allows agricultural workers to talk to each other while on the job about working conditions.

L.D. 2273 – This bill would ensure that farm workers get paid at least the minimum wage and that they could sue their employer if their employer steals their wages—just like almost every other worker in Maine.

Although I realize some Republicans don’t believe there should be ANY minimum wage, many Republicans also say that we shouldn’t have different rules for different groups of people. This bill gets us closer to creating one set of labor rules for all workers (and employers) in Maine.

L.D. 373 – This bill would require companies leasing state land for a clean energy project to enter into “harmony” agreements with employees in which employers get a guarantee that workers will show up and workers get a guarantee that employers won’t oppose efforts to unionize.

Any business owner will tell you that workplace harmony is vital for a healthy business and a healthy bottom line. Workers will tell you the same. And what this bill does is create that workplace harmony up front. Plus, Republicans hate strikes and this bill guarantees that won’t happen!

In the end, I am not holding out hope that Republicans will vote to override these vetoes. Even their hatred for Gov. Mills won’t likely allow them to do what is right for workers, the environment, and public safety.

_{Ethan Strimling served for 10 years as the progressive mayor and state senator representing Portland. He also spent 19 years as the executive director of LearningWorks, a social service agency helping to break the generational cycle of poverty through education. Currently, he is a community organizer for progressive causes around the country, an active member of Maine DSA, and one third of the podcast “In The Arena” with Pat Callaghan and Phil Harriman.}

Feeding War, Killing Peace: Why the US Vetoed ‘Palestine’? / by Ramzy Baroud

_{^{US representative at the UNSC vetoes UN resolution on the recognition of Palestine. (Photo: UN, video grab)}}

_{Reposted from ZNet}

The outcome of the Palestine vote and the American veto at the United Nations Security Council on April 18 was predictable. Though European countries are becoming increasingly supportive of a Palestinian state, the United States is not yet ready for this commitment.

These are some of the reasons that the US deputy envoy to the UN, Robert Wood, vetoed the resolution.

One, US foreign policy in the Middle East is still governed by Israeli priorities. And since the majority of Israelis reject the idea of a Palestinian state, or any ‘concessions’ or even the most basic rights for Palestinians, the weak US president neither has the courage, nor the desire to defy the Israeli position.

Two, the fact that Israel, as per the words of its ambassador at the UN, Gilad Erdan, saw that a vote for Palestine would be equivalent to ‘rewarding terror with a Palestinian state’, created the kind of political discourse that would have made a positive American vote, or an abstention, akin to supporting this so-called terrorism.

Three, Biden, in his own Democratic Party’s calculations, cannot politically afford supporting an independent Palestine only a few months ahead of one of the most contested and decisive elections in US history.

His position remains that of supporting a strong Palestinian Authority – which only exists to ‘secure’ Israel against Palestinian Resistance – while giving the illusion that a Palestinian state is forthcoming.

“There needs to be a Palestinian Authority. There needs to be a path to a Palestinian state,” Biden said in October 2023.

The same position was, for the lack of a better word, articulated by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in January 2024: There is a need for a “pathway to a Palestinian state.”

But what does this mean in practice?

“The problem is getting from here to there, and of course, it requires very difficult, challenging decisions. It requires a mindset that is open to that perspective,” according to Blinken. In other words, more illusions and newspeak.

On the other hand, the Republican Party leadership made it clear that their support for Israel is blind and unconditional. They are also ready to exploit any comment – let alone action – by Biden and his officials that may seem critical of Israel in any way. All of these factors combined made the American veto quite predictable.

Important Lessons

However, the vote was still important, as it, according to Palestinian political leaders and officials, showed that it is the US, not the Palestinians, who are isolated within the international community.

Indeed, the vote demonstrated that:

One, the international community remains largely united in its support of the Palestinians.

Two, the positive vote by France, an influential European country, signals a shift in the perception of the European body politic towards Palestine.

“The time has come for a comprehensive political settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, based on the two-state solution,” the French Delegation at the UN tweeted on April 19.

Three, the strong statements emanating from Ireland, Norway, Spain and others in this regard indicate that the trajectory of support of Palestine in Europe will continue in the coming months and years.

Ireland’s Foreign Minister, Michael Martin, expressed his disappointment “at the outcome of the UN Security Council vote on Palestinian UN membership,” he tweeted.

“It is past time for Palestine to take its rightful place amongst the nations of the world. (Ireland) fully supports UN membership and will vote in favor of any UNGA resolution to that end.”

The same position was also adopted by Norway.

“Norway regrets that the Security Council did not agree on admitting #Palestine as a full member of the UN,” Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide tweeted, adding: “Norway is a staunch supporter of Palestine’s right to statehood. The #TwoStateSolution is the only way to durable peace.”

Four, the outcome of the vote further isolates the United States precisely as much as the Israeli genocide in Gaza has also exposed and isolated Washington.

Despite the Israeli genocide in the Strip, Washington remains the main line of defense for Tel Aviv, allowing it to violate the rights of the Palestinian people and to deny them the very political horizon needed for a just peace.

And, finally, the vote and veto further accentuate Biden’s inability to liberate himself from the stronghold imposed on him and his party by Israel’s supporters – Israel’s backers within the Democratic Party institution and the pro-Israel lobby from without.

Despite the negative outcome of the vote, however, Palestinians, now have a renewed resolve that they will ultimately prevail, despite the numerous obstacles created by the US and Israel.

In truth, this collective feeling of hope and empowerment is not the outcome of the strong support for Palestine at the UNSC and the General Assembly, but of the growing sympathy and support for Palestine worldwide and, even more important, the continued resistance of Palestinians in Gaza.

_{Ramzy Baroud is a journalist and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of six books. His latest book, co-edited with Ilan Pappé, is “Our Vision for Liberation: Engaged Palestinian Leaders and Intellectuals Speak out”. Dr. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA). His website is}_{www.ramzybaroud.net}

Sponsor: Veto of bill limiting noncompete clauses hastens ‘race to bottom’ for labor / by Evan Popp

_{^{Gov. Janet Mills gives the State of the State address on Jan. 30, 2024 | Jim Neuger/ Maine Morning Star}}

_{The bill sought to further restrict the agreements by only allowing them in cases that would protect an employer’s trade secrets or when an employee has an ownership stake}

_{Reposted from Maine Morning Star}

The Maine House of Representatives on Tuesday sustained Gov. Janet Mills’ veto of legislation to further limit noncompete clauses in Maine — a defeat for critics of such agreements who believe they unnecessarily restrict workers.

Noncompete clauses, which typically prevent an employee from working for a competitor during and for a period of time after their employment, are already limited under Maine law. The bill Mills vetoed late last week, LD 1496, sought to further restrict such agreements by only allowing them in cases that would protect an employer’s “trade secrets” or when an employee has an ownership stake in a business. Trade secrets are information a company tries to keep secret and derives economic value from doing so.

The House and Senate passed the bill, sponsored by Rep. Sophia Warren (D-Scarborough), last month. After Mills’ veto, the bill returned to the House on Tuesday, which voted 74-72 in favor of overriding the governor’s opposition. However, that fell well short of the number of votes needed to overturn a veto (two-thirds of those present).

In her veto message, Mills referenced a 2019 law that she said has already placed strict limits on noncompete clauses, barring their use when it comes to low-income workers. LD 1496 would go too far, Mills argued, “by rendering most noncompete agreements unenforceable,” even when designed to protect confidential information.

“The Labor and Housing Committee was presented with no evidence that the recently enacted statute is inadequate, or that noncompete agreements are being abused in Maine,” Mills said, adding that she heard from businesses who were concerned about LD 1496.

The governor also noted that her office proposed an amendment that Warren rejected. As passed by the Legislature, LD 1496 would have eliminated a provision of current law that allows for noncompete agreements in order to safeguard confidential information or protect an employer’s “good will.” The amendment Mills’ floated would have reversed that change, permitting noncompetes to continue being enforced in those cases.

However, Mills’ version would have defined “good will” and “confidential information” in the existing noncompete statute — which does not currently define the terms — while further stipulating that noncompete agreements shouldn’t last longer than needed.

Mills’ proposed definition for confidential information was something created, used or obtained within a business that isn’t generally known by the public. Good will would mean the advantage a company gains by creating relationships with customers and potential customers and would also extend to confidential business information.

Bill sponsor pushes back against governor’s amendment

In an interview, Warren said she was disappointed by the governor’s veto and heard from people around the state who were also disappointed.

“I regret that I was not able to come to a compromise, but all I can say is I hope that this effort continues in the future,” she said.

The Scarborough Democrat also disputed Mills’ assertion that there was no evidence that noncompete clauses are in issue in Maine, saying she and other legislators were contacted by constituents impacted by such agreements.

Warren added that she didn’t view Mills’ proposed amendment as a true compromise, saying the governor simply sought to add back in the instances where noncompete clauses could be enforced that LD 1496 was trying to eliminate.

She also said the governor’s proposal to define good will and confidential information in statute could create confusion, as they are already well understood from case law. And Warren argued that such changes ought to go through a committee process to help lawmakers understand the implication of defining the terms along with the impact of the governor’s proposal that noncompetes last no longer than necessary.

“There was no piece of the bill that she was willing to sign and what she came back with was something that had a really ambiguous, and potentially really radical, negative effect,” Warren said of Mills’ offer.

Warren argued that had Mills signed the bill, it would have allowed for a more competitive marketplace in which employers are incentivized to improve conditions to retain workers. And it could have potentially attracted workers to Maine, helping to address the state’s labor shortage, she said.

“With this veto, we just continue a race to the bottom,” Warren said Tuesday on the House floor.

Possible federal government action

The debate in Maine over noncompete clauses comes as the Federal Trade Commission last year put forward a proposed rule that would ban the agreements. The agency said ending the use of noncompetes could increase wages by almost $300 billion a year collectively for the 30 million Americans currently subject to the agreements.

Mills referenced the potential federal action in her veto message, arguing that it would be “ill-advised” to enact new-state level legislation right before a new national policy is announced.

However, Warren said both she and Mills are both tasked by the people of Maine to consider changes to state law.

“I feel like it is an abdication of that responsibility … to say ‘let’s just wait and see what the federal government will do’ when I think we ought to be leading,” she said.

_{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.}

Despite broad support, Maine House fails to override veto of crucial tribal rights bill / by Evan Popp

_{^{Supporters attend a rally in support of Wabanaki tribal sovereignty in 2022. | Beacon}}

_{Originally published in the Maine Beacon on July 6, 2023}

Despite hundreds and hundreds of people lining the halls of the State House in strong support of the Wabanaki nations, the Maine House on Thursday failed to muster the votes to overturn Gov. Janet Mills’ veto of a far-reaching tribal rights measure in a significant setback for efforts to reinforce Indigenous sovereignty.

Lawmakers were voting on whether to overturn the governor’s objections to LD 2004, a bill to ensure that the Wabanaki have access to most federal laws that benefit Indigenous tribes around the country. The vote was 84-57 in favor of overturning the veto, coming a little bit short of the two-thirds margin needed to override the governor, with 10 members absent. While some Republicans voted in favor of overturning Mills’ decision, many favored sustaining the veto. The vast majority of Democrats voted to support the tribes. However, Rep. William Bridgeo (D-Augusta), Ed Crockett (D-Portland) and Anne-Marie Mastraccio (D-Sanford) voted to uphold the governor’s veto.

Wabanaki leaders after the vote thanked those lawmakers who supported them and expressed frustration with the governor and her unwillingness to move forward on important tribal rights measures.

“It’s extremely disappointing that the governor insists on keeping her thumb on the tribes and the legislature,” said Chief Rena Newell of the Passamaquoddy Tribe at Sipayik. “She clearly will not be deterred from using any authority she has to oppress the tribes.”

“The governor is out of touch,” added Chief Kirk Francis of the Penobscot Nation. “Her hardline stance in opposition to the tribes is something of a bygone era, though apparently just effective enough today. Though today was a loss on the floor of the House, we’re confident moving forward we will only gain greater support.”

_{^{Supporters attend a rally in support of Wabanaki tribal sovereignty in 2022. | Beacon}}

As Beacon previously reported, LD 2004, sponsored by House Speaker Rachel Talbot Ross (D-Portland), would correct what the tribes say is a long-standing injustice that stems from the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980.

In a presentation on the bill at a public hearing earlier this session, Talbot Ross said that because of provisions in the Settlement Act, any federal law enacted after 1980 for the benefit of tribes around the country that impacts the application of Maine law doesn’t apply to the Wabanaki nations unless they are specifically included in the measure by Congress. The Wabanaki are the only tribes around the country that exist under such an arrangement, Talbot Ross noted.

According to a press release from Talbot Ross’ office, since the passage of the Settlement Act, 151 federal laws have been enacted that benefit every other federally-recognized tribe in the U.S. other than the Wabanaki. Those include laws that have created crucial benefits for many other tribal economies, natural landscapes and justice systems.

LD 2004 would change the paradigm of the Wabanaki being excluded, allowing them to access most federal legislation that would help the nations.

Being covered by those federal laws is something Wabanaki advocates say is crucial, especially given that a report released last year from Harvard University found the unique control Maine has over the tribes has significantly stifled the tribes’ economic development, which has had a negative ripple effect throughout rural Maine.

Debate on measure

In a floor speech before Thursday’s vote on the measure, Passamaquoddy Rep. Aaron Dana said it’s ironic that lawmakers are considering LD 2004 directly after the 4th of July holiday given that the Wabanaki are simply asking for the rights that were articulated in the Declaration of Independence.

“Please stand with me today and let us override this veto and support the Wabanaki pursuit of life, liberty and happiness,” he said.

Another supporter of the bill, Rep. John Andrews (R-Paris), said the vote Thursday was about helping the state’s Wabanaki neighbors thrive and allowing Indigenous children in particular to obtain a better future.

Still, Mills, who has been a thorn in the side of several tribal rights initiatives, has opposed LD 2004 throughout the process.

The Democratic governor, who is on the opposite side of the issue as the vast majority of her party, claimed in her veto message last week that the bill wasn’t thoroughly vetted or clear and that it would create significant amounts of litigation. Other opponents, including Rep. David Haggan (R-Hampden) and Rep. Jennifer Poirier (R-Skowhegan), echoed such complaints about the bill on Thursday, with Haggan citing concerns that the measure would lead to heightened environmental standards and Poirier claiming the legislation was rushed.

Tribal leaders and advocates blasted such positions. They argued that the governor’s reasoning was disingenuous and stated that Mills’ rhetoric on the bill was misleading. Dana noted that many of the things said about the bill were not true, and pointed out that the measure has been developed over several years.

_{^{The State House on Thursday before the vote on LD 2004 | Beacon}}

In support of their movement, the Wabanaki have built a massive campaign for tribal sovereignty in recent years, bringing out members of the tribes as well as Mainers from across all parts of the state. That helped the bill receive widespread bipartisan backing in the House (passing 100-47) and the Senate (26-8) last month, sending it to Mills’ desk with enough of a margin to sustain a veto. However, with absences in the House and a lobbying effort by Mills, the chamber failed to replicate its veto-proof supermajority support for the bill.

Still, the movement created by the Wabanaki was on full display Thursday before the vote, with supporters cramming into the hallway between the Maine House and Senate, holding a variety of signs urging lawmakers to stand with the tribes and override Mills’ objections.

“It’s really beautiful,” Sonja Birthisel, an Orono town councilor and director of the Wilson Center, said of the rally before the vote. “I haven’t done a headcount but there are too many heads to count. I’d say there are hundreds of people here, up and down the hallway, up and down the stairs. It’s beautiful to see — it’s such an outpouring of support and optimism.”

Another participant in Thursday’s rally, Sarah Sprogell of Freeport, said passing the bill is simply the right thing to do, noting that all other tribes around the country have access to federal laws.

“If other states can do it, I’m sure Maine can figure out how to do it too,” she said. “I think it’s time.”

Others criticized Mills’ intransigence on the bill, with Erika Arthur of Freedom arguing that the governor is clearly “behind the times” and “not on the right side of history.”

Although they were dealt a setback on Thursday, the Wabanaki pledged to continue the fight for sovereignty and self determination, with other tribal rights bills — including a larger, omnibus package to reinforce Wabanaki sovereignty — likely to come before the legislature in future years.

“We’re not done,” Dana said in the hallway of the State House after the vote.

“Patience and determination are nothing new to us,” added Penobscot Nation Ambassador and president of the Wabanaki Alliance Maulian Bryant. “Waiting a few more years for a new governor is what we will do if we must. We were here long before Governor Mills and we will be here long after she leaves office.”

_{Evan Popp studied journalism at Ithaca College and interned at the Progressive magazine, ThinkProgress and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. He then worked for the Santa Fe New Mexican newspaper before joining Beacon. Evan can be reached at evan@mainebeacon.com}