SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Rep. Bruce Poliquin (R-Maine) speaks on Capital Hill on September 12, 2017 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images for Make Room USA)
'Sore Loser Loses Again': Federal Judge Rejects GOP Lawsuit, Defends Mainers' Right to Ranked Choice Voting
"With this historic ruling, we predict that Ranked Choice Voting will sweep the nation."
Dec 12, 2018
In the latest rebuke to Rep. Bruce Poliquin's (R-Maine) repeated attempts to hold onto his seat in Maine's 2nd congressional district after losing the midterm election, a federal judge threw out his lawsuit in which the two-term congressman claimed the state's use of ranked choice voting (RCV) was unconstitutional and unfair to voters.
Local advocacy groups applauded as U.S. District Court Judge Lance Walker rejected Poliquin's claim that the use of RCV, which has been endorsed repeatedly by Maine voters, violates Mainers' First Amendment rights and the Voting Rights Act, as well as his argument that the system is confusing to voters.
"Mr. Poliquin and his attorneys threw everything but the kitchen sink at Ranked Choice Voting and the Court defended Maine's law in full," said Kyle Bailey, campaign manager for the Committee for Ranked Choice Voting, in a statement.
The Committee also expressed hope that the success of the system in Maine will pave the way for wider use across the country.
The federal court "ruled today that the people of Maine have a right to choose the way we elect our leaders," Cara Brown, the committee's treasurer, said. "With this historic ruling, we predict that Ranked Choice Voting will sweep the nation."
"Mr. Poliquin and his attorneys threw everything but the kitchen sink at Ranked Choice Voting and the Court defended Maine's law in full." --Kyle Bailey, Committee for Ranked Choice VotingPoliquin failed to gather more than 50 percent of first-choice vote on November 6, when, under the RCV system, voters were able to rank Poliquin, Democratic challenger Jared Golden, and independents Tiffany Bond and William Hoar with the numbers one through four instead of just selecting one candidate. Election officials then distributed Bond's and Hoar's supporters' second and third choices until either the Democrat or Republican gained a majority.
The congressman had already attempted to stop the re-tallying from happening with a lawsuit, and filed another legal challenge after Golden won the second round of voting by 3,500 votes.
"To the extent that the Plaintiffs call into question the wisdom of using RCV, they are free to do so but...such criticism falls short of constitutional impropriety," Walker wrote in his opinion. "A majority of Maine voters have rejected that criticism and Article I [of the U.S. Constitution] does not empower this Court to second guess the considered judgment of the polity on the basis of the tautological observation that RCV may suffer from problems, as all voting systems do."
The judge also addressed the fact that Mainers approved RCV not once but twice in the last two years; the state legislature blocked RCV's implementation after voters supported using the system in November 2016, and a signature drive gathered enough support to include a question about RCV on ballots again in June 2018 when more than 54 percent of Maine voters again backed the measure.
In supporting RCV, Walker wrote, Mainers were "motivated by a desire to enable third-party and non-party candidates to participate in the political process, and to enable their supporters to express support, without producing the spoiler effect."
"In this way, the RCV Act actually encourages First Amendment expression, without discriminating against any voter based on viewpoint, faction or other invalid criteria," he concluded.
Poliquin did not indicate whether he would appeal the judge's decision, while Golden expressed hope that Poliquin would help to "facilitate a smooth transition of power for the people of the 2nd Congressional District."
Advocates of RCV argue that the system, saving voters from feeling they must choose between only two candidates representing the country's two major, pro-business parties, will encourage higher voter turnout as Americans understand it as a way to make their views heard on Election Day.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
In the latest rebuke to Rep. Bruce Poliquin's (R-Maine) repeated attempts to hold onto his seat in Maine's 2nd congressional district after losing the midterm election, a federal judge threw out his lawsuit in which the two-term congressman claimed the state's use of ranked choice voting (RCV) was unconstitutional and unfair to voters.
Local advocacy groups applauded as U.S. District Court Judge Lance Walker rejected Poliquin's claim that the use of RCV, which has been endorsed repeatedly by Maine voters, violates Mainers' First Amendment rights and the Voting Rights Act, as well as his argument that the system is confusing to voters.
"Mr. Poliquin and his attorneys threw everything but the kitchen sink at Ranked Choice Voting and the Court defended Maine's law in full," said Kyle Bailey, campaign manager for the Committee for Ranked Choice Voting, in a statement.
The Committee also expressed hope that the success of the system in Maine will pave the way for wider use across the country.
The federal court "ruled today that the people of Maine have a right to choose the way we elect our leaders," Cara Brown, the committee's treasurer, said. "With this historic ruling, we predict that Ranked Choice Voting will sweep the nation."
"Mr. Poliquin and his attorneys threw everything but the kitchen sink at Ranked Choice Voting and the Court defended Maine's law in full." --Kyle Bailey, Committee for Ranked Choice VotingPoliquin failed to gather more than 50 percent of first-choice vote on November 6, when, under the RCV system, voters were able to rank Poliquin, Democratic challenger Jared Golden, and independents Tiffany Bond and William Hoar with the numbers one through four instead of just selecting one candidate. Election officials then distributed Bond's and Hoar's supporters' second and third choices until either the Democrat or Republican gained a majority.
The congressman had already attempted to stop the re-tallying from happening with a lawsuit, and filed another legal challenge after Golden won the second round of voting by 3,500 votes.
"To the extent that the Plaintiffs call into question the wisdom of using RCV, they are free to do so but...such criticism falls short of constitutional impropriety," Walker wrote in his opinion. "A majority of Maine voters have rejected that criticism and Article I [of the U.S. Constitution] does not empower this Court to second guess the considered judgment of the polity on the basis of the tautological observation that RCV may suffer from problems, as all voting systems do."
The judge also addressed the fact that Mainers approved RCV not once but twice in the last two years; the state legislature blocked RCV's implementation after voters supported using the system in November 2016, and a signature drive gathered enough support to include a question about RCV on ballots again in June 2018 when more than 54 percent of Maine voters again backed the measure.
In supporting RCV, Walker wrote, Mainers were "motivated by a desire to enable third-party and non-party candidates to participate in the political process, and to enable their supporters to express support, without producing the spoiler effect."
"In this way, the RCV Act actually encourages First Amendment expression, without discriminating against any voter based on viewpoint, faction or other invalid criteria," he concluded.
Poliquin did not indicate whether he would appeal the judge's decision, while Golden expressed hope that Poliquin would help to "facilitate a smooth transition of power for the people of the 2nd Congressional District."
Advocates of RCV argue that the system, saving voters from feeling they must choose between only two candidates representing the country's two major, pro-business parties, will encourage higher voter turnout as Americans understand it as a way to make their views heard on Election Day.
In the latest rebuke to Rep. Bruce Poliquin's (R-Maine) repeated attempts to hold onto his seat in Maine's 2nd congressional district after losing the midterm election, a federal judge threw out his lawsuit in which the two-term congressman claimed the state's use of ranked choice voting (RCV) was unconstitutional and unfair to voters.
Local advocacy groups applauded as U.S. District Court Judge Lance Walker rejected Poliquin's claim that the use of RCV, which has been endorsed repeatedly by Maine voters, violates Mainers' First Amendment rights and the Voting Rights Act, as well as his argument that the system is confusing to voters.
"Mr. Poliquin and his attorneys threw everything but the kitchen sink at Ranked Choice Voting and the Court defended Maine's law in full," said Kyle Bailey, campaign manager for the Committee for Ranked Choice Voting, in a statement.
The Committee also expressed hope that the success of the system in Maine will pave the way for wider use across the country.
The federal court "ruled today that the people of Maine have a right to choose the way we elect our leaders," Cara Brown, the committee's treasurer, said. "With this historic ruling, we predict that Ranked Choice Voting will sweep the nation."
"Mr. Poliquin and his attorneys threw everything but the kitchen sink at Ranked Choice Voting and the Court defended Maine's law in full." --Kyle Bailey, Committee for Ranked Choice VotingPoliquin failed to gather more than 50 percent of first-choice vote on November 6, when, under the RCV system, voters were able to rank Poliquin, Democratic challenger Jared Golden, and independents Tiffany Bond and William Hoar with the numbers one through four instead of just selecting one candidate. Election officials then distributed Bond's and Hoar's supporters' second and third choices until either the Democrat or Republican gained a majority.
The congressman had already attempted to stop the re-tallying from happening with a lawsuit, and filed another legal challenge after Golden won the second round of voting by 3,500 votes.
"To the extent that the Plaintiffs call into question the wisdom of using RCV, they are free to do so but...such criticism falls short of constitutional impropriety," Walker wrote in his opinion. "A majority of Maine voters have rejected that criticism and Article I [of the U.S. Constitution] does not empower this Court to second guess the considered judgment of the polity on the basis of the tautological observation that RCV may suffer from problems, as all voting systems do."
The judge also addressed the fact that Mainers approved RCV not once but twice in the last two years; the state legislature blocked RCV's implementation after voters supported using the system in November 2016, and a signature drive gathered enough support to include a question about RCV on ballots again in June 2018 when more than 54 percent of Maine voters again backed the measure.
In supporting RCV, Walker wrote, Mainers were "motivated by a desire to enable third-party and non-party candidates to participate in the political process, and to enable their supporters to express support, without producing the spoiler effect."
"In this way, the RCV Act actually encourages First Amendment expression, without discriminating against any voter based on viewpoint, faction or other invalid criteria," he concluded.
Poliquin did not indicate whether he would appeal the judge's decision, while Golden expressed hope that Poliquin would help to "facilitate a smooth transition of power for the people of the 2nd Congressional District."
Advocates of RCV argue that the system, saving voters from feeling they must choose between only two candidates representing the country's two major, pro-business parties, will encourage higher voter turnout as Americans understand it as a way to make their views heard on Election Day.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.