By Joseph Cyr
Staff Writer
When voters go to the polls next Tuesday, they will be faced with seven referendum questions, but none has garnered more attention than Question 1.
Question 1, is a People’s Veto to “An Act To End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom,” which was signed into law May 6 by Governor John Baldacci. The original bill was sponsored by Senator Dennis Damon of Hancock and passed by a House vote of 89-57 on May 5. The Senate passed the bill May 5 with a vote of 21-13.
According to the Maine Legislature roll call, most of the Aroostook County delegates in the Maine Senate and House of Representatives opposed the enactment of L.D. 1020. Senators Troy Jackson (Allagash) and Roger Sherman (Houlton) both voted “no” on the final bill, while in the House, Representatives Bernard Ayotte (Caswell), Tyler Clark (Easton), Peter Edgecomb (Caribou), Charles Theriault (Madawaska) and Michael Willette (Presque Isle) voted “no” on the bill. Only Reps. Richard Cleary (Houlton) and Patricia Sutherland (Chapman) voted “yes.”
To overturn this law, a “People’s Veto” was initiated this summer when more than 100,000 signatures were collected on a petition to send the matter to voters. A people’s veto allows voters to overturn any bill signed into law by the Maine Legislature.
The question reads: “Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?”
A “yes” vote overturns the new law, making it illegal for same-sex couples to marry in Maine. A “no” vote, allows the new law to remain in effect.
Reverend Dave Hutchinson of the Unitarian Church in Houlton is encouraging voters to vote “no” on Question 1.
“One of our principles is promoting respect for the inherent worth and dignity of every person.” Rev. Hutchinson said. “We feel that civil marriage is a civil right. We believe no one should be dehumanized through acts of exclusion, oppression or violence because of their identities.”
Pastor Randall Burns of the Military Street Baptist Church in Houlton said while his church has not taken a stance for either side of the issue, he was voting yes on Question 1.
“Within our congregation, we are very diverse,” Pastor Burns said. “The majority will probably vote ‘yes,’ but there are those that will vote ‘no.’ I haven’t been proclaiming from the pulpit how people should vote. That is different from some of my peers, and I understand that.
“I, personally, am voting ‘yes,’” he continued. “God is the one who established marriage and we look at things through a Biblical world view. That view is clear that God created marriage to be between a man and a woman.”
Pastor Burns acknowledged that the world doesn’t always look at things from a Biblical view.
“We feel very strongly that we need to stand for what we feel was God’s plan and it wasn’t for us to mess with,” he said.
Supporters of the “Yes on 1” campaign argue that same-sex couples are already protected under Maine’s domestic partner laws, and therefore a law making marriage legal was not necessary. According to the group’s Web site (www.standformarriagemaine.com), L.D. 1020 eliminates Maine’s commitment to promoting monogamous marriage between a man and a woman and eliminates any interest that children have in the state promoting marriage.
“The [Maine] Legislature has thrown on the scrap heap Maine’s historic commitment to promoting marriage as an essential building block of society,” the Web site states. “More troubling, the interests of children in having strong marriages in Maine have been completely eliminated.”
Supporters for the “No on 1” campaign counter that marriage is about supporting two individuals, regardless of sexual preference, who make a lifelong commitment to one another. According to the group’s Web site (www.protectmaineequality.org), “Marriage equality honors the commitment that thousands of loving, same-sex couples in Maine have made to each other, often for decades. Without marriage equality, loving, committed same-sex couples are not recognized as a legal pair. They cannot file taxes jointly, do not have access to health insurance as a family and are not allowed to inherit property at the time of death without the hardships of crushing taxes. Their children are not entitled to all of the rights and protections conferred automatically on a family headed by a married couple.”
Both political groups have thrust children into the campaign.
The “Yes on 1” group states a “yes” vote would “protect our children from being taught in public schools that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage. The “No on 1” group counters, “Marriage equality protects children. It guarantees the children of same-sex couples all the rights and protections that marriage grants automatically to a married couple’s children.”
By Kathy McCarty
Staff Writer
Question 2 has Maine residents considering whether to reduce the excise tax on certain vehicles or retain the current system of determining the tax.
Under Question 2, voters are asked: Do you want to cut the rate of municipal excise tax by an average of 55 percent on motor vehicles less than six years old and exempt hybrid and other alternative-energy and highly fuel-efficient motor vehicles from sales tax and three years of excise tax?
City officials expressed concern, should voters favor passage of the referendum question. Municipalities rely on revenue sharing through the state to maintain roads and infrastructure. If Question 2 goes through, it will shift taxes once collected by the state and passed on to communities through revenue sharing to the local level.
“If Question 2 passes, the state will receive less funds and therefore have less money to pass along to cities and towns in Maine, through the revenue sharing program. That will leave municipalities having to raise taxes to cover such costs as road maintenance — paving, plowing,” said Presque Isle City Manager Tom Stevens.
Stevens said the end result would be someone without a car could see their property taxes go up, thus supporting road and bridge work, benefiting those with vehicles.
“Excise taxes would be reduced for a select few, while taxes would most likely have to be raised for property owners — business and residential — to make up for the state’s loss of revenue,” said Stevens.
Kirk Carroll, owner of Carroll’s Auto Sales in Presque Isle, said he’d wait and see what decision voters make come Nov. 3.
“It’s up to consumers. I haven’t heard a lot about this particular referendum question. I haven’t had any feedback at all from customers,” said Carroll.
Carroll said it would have more of an impact on dealers who are more involved with the sale of hybrid vehicles.
Ultimately, it will be up to voters to determine whether they’ll benefit by passage of Question 2 or if the end result is more than they’re willing to support.
By Scott Mitchell Johnson
Staff Writer
Voters will decide Tuesday if they prefer the new school district consolidation efforts or if the state should revert back to the way things were.
Question 3 will ask voters, “Do you want to repeal the 2007 law on school district consolidation and restore the laws previously in effect?”
David Connerty-Marin, director of communications for the Maine Department of Education, said the state has been working on reorganization for the past two and-a-half years.
“We think it’s been very successful and are certainly supportive of it,” he said. “A very substantial amount of time and effort has been put in both by the local districts and at the state level, and we’ve put some money into it, as well, to support school districts that are working toward reorganizing.
“Ninety-eight school districts have consolidated into 26 Regional School Units. Overwhelmingly those communities are doing great work,” he said. “At least 20 of the 26 new RSUs are very deeply engaged in educational planning … finding ways to combine the best that each of the former districts had to offer. They’re looking to share the strengths of each of their districts.”
Connerty-Marin reminds people that repealing the law “does not undo the legal transactions that have taken place where ownership of buildings has transferred and previously existing legal entities have dissolved.”
“You can’t just simply make them reappear,” he said. “You have to have a process for that to happen, and the Legislature would have to come up with that process if any of those new districts did want to go back to the way they were. We don’t know what would happen; it would really be up to the Legislature to decide. The Legislature has until the middle of February to figure out how to enact that.
“If the law doesn’t get repealed, and we don’t think it will,” said Connerty-Marin, “then we need to be ready Nov. 4 to help the many districts that are actually planning to go ahead with reorganization but are waiting to see what happens on Nov. 3 before they take any next steps. We have an immediate need to be ready to work with the districts that have an interest in moving forward.”
Connerty-Marin said he hopes voters will keep an open mind when stepping into the voting booth Tuesday.
“I think the communities that have been the most successful in this have been focusing on the educational opportunities for their kids, and that’s what I hope people will be looking at,” he said. “When you look at enrollment that’s declining quite significantly and funding which is about to take a very severe hit, do you want to spend that money outside the classroom or inside the classroom? Do you want it to go into programming for kids, and do you want to make sure that your students have the best opportunities that are available not only in their schools, but in all of the surrounding schools?
“If the answer is ‘Yes,’ then I think we need to look at consolidating the districts and creating more educational opportunities for kids and saving money along the way,” said Connerty-Marin.
On the other side of the issue is the Maine Coalition to Save Schools.
“We want to repeal the school consolidation law,” said Mars Hill’s Carolee Hallett, coalition co-chair. “It would be a cost savings to all communities because the law itself – to this point – has not saved money, it has cost money.
“Mandatory consolidation already has cost the state an estimated $4 million to enforce, but the Department of Education says it’s too soon to quantify any real savings at the local level,” she said. “We support doing something to be more fiscally responsible, but we already have a collaboration where we do all the ordering of our paper and books together to get a more reasonable price. We’re committed to finding, developing and implementing all the cost effective methods to provide education that we can. We believe that locally it can be done much more efficiently and more beneficial to the students than try to force a group of towns who really don’t have a lot in common into one RSU.”
Hallett said the law simply is not fair.
“The law was definitely aimed at destroying the rural part of our state as far as our schools are concerned,” she said, “when urban areas were not required to merge with anyone. There are 65 districts, representing 55 percent of the state’s enrollment, that were not forced to consolidate because of size, location or other special dispensations granted by the Department of Education. Another 126 got no exemption and face $5 million in penalties next year for exercising their rights at the ballot box to reject the consolidation mandate. The law is far from being fair.”
Hallett said the state’s initial plan called for SAD 42 (Mars Hill and Blaine), SAD 45 (Washburn, Wade and Perham), the Bridgewater School Department and the Easton School Department to become one single RSU.
“There were no clear savings in cost. In fact, it would have cost SAD 42 alone $150,000 for the next three years to meet ‘leveling up costs,’” said Hallett. “We also could find no educational benefits for joining forces. The loss of local control was another big reason why we voted not to merge. Another big item was that there was no provision in the law to ever get out of an RSU. Once you form an RSU, there was no plan to get out like there was when we formed SADs.”
Hallett maintains local schools are better left to the local communities.
“We believe that we can run our schools more efficiently from here than they can in Augusta,” said Hallett. “It’s not going to cost a penny to repeal that law. Everybody will go back to the way they were except work toward a common goal of enlarging the collaborations that we have.”
By Natalie Bazinet
Staff Writer
Question Four on the November 3rd ballot will read “Do you want to change the existing formulas that limit state and local government spending and require voter approval by referendum for spending over those limits and for increases in state taxes?”
Titled “An Act to Provide Tax Relief,” the bill proposes restrained growth of state and local government “by imposing expenditure limitations on state and local government and by requiring a procedure of voter approval of certain state tax increases,” according to the bill’s summary.
Generally speaking, under Tabor II, a municipality or county who exceeds their General Fund, Highway Fund or Other Special Revenue Funds must seek voter approval to raise taxes As the bill is written, during the current fiscal year of which the bill takes effect, the most yearly spending can increase in the General Fund, Highway Fund and Other Special Revenue Funds is proportionately equal to the increases of population and inflation with the addition of any increases attributable to items approved under section 2043.
According to section 2043, in order for the state to increase revenue (taxes), the increase must be approved by a majority vote of all the members of each House of the Legislature and the measure must be approved by a majority of voters (unless voter approval is not required in situations such as the measure is an emergency tax or in the case where Maine’s revenue is less than annual payments on general obligation bonds, required payments related to pensions and final court judgments).
Should the state, a county or a municipality generate more funds than they need to fill their set budget, 20 percent of that excess tax money must be placed in a budget stabilization fund and 80 percent of the excess must be placed in a tax relief fund. Excess money placed into the budget stabilization fund may only be accessed during years that Maine, a county or a municipality haven’t collected enough revenue (taxes) to fund their level costs (in respect to an increase in population and inflation).
The tax relief reserve fund may only be used to provide tax relief though broad-based reductions in tax rates or refunds proportionate to individual income tax personal exemption claims made in the previous tax year.
The Highway Fund Reserve Fund must be used only to provide a decrease in motor fuels taxes.
For state agencies that manage Other Special Revenue Funds, those account managers must report excess surpluses to the Legislature with a plan to refund those revenues.
A county may exceed or increase the county assessment limit only if approved by a vote of a majority of all the members of both the county budget committee or county budget advisory committee and the county commissioners and if approved by the voters at a referendum held at a regular or special election.
Supporters of the bill feel that linking spending to the rate of inflation and population growth allows spending to increase annually without surprise tax increases the majority of voters don’t support.
Opponents worry that the bill will hurt transportation and education of the state, predicting that the state government will fall farther behind in its obligations to pay the majority of educational costs, leading to property tax increases to pay for schools.
Should Tabor II be approved by voters on Tuesday, the bill does allow for a county to exceed or increase the county assessment limit if a majority of voters of the county budget committee (or its equivalent), the county commissioners and the voters at a referendum held at a regular or special election.
According to the bill, a municipality may exceed or increase the property tax levy limit if the municipal budget is adopted by town meeting or referendum by following very specific steps listed in section 16 of the bill. If a municipal budget is adopted by a town council or city council, the property tax levy limit may also be exceeded thorough a specific set of steps listed in section 16 of the bill.
