“Government is too big and too important to be left to the politicians.” -Claire Huchet Bishop
Lane/Tommy: Maine is a state where citizens have to right to petition their government. We feel that this right must never cease in order that we, the people, have the control when necessary. There are detractors who believe that we are too stupid to write legislation and govern ourselves. However, what we see is a particular party in control of the legislature who fears loss of power due to citizen initiatives. On the ballot this year the state of Maine has two referendum questions and the town of Windham has one.
Lane: I thank God that the citizens of Maine can petition their government. That has become a necessity because of our government’s lack of fiscal responsibility causing our state to have the highest tax burden in the nation. The citizens’ initiative known as Maine’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) is a perfect example where residents have banded together because our governor and legislature have failed us.
Tommy: What amazes me is how public officials react to the mere suggestion of a citizens’ referendum. Their wheels start in motion with 11th hour recommendations to counteract their loss of power. Referendums give power to the people of this state enabling them to have the necessary authority to correct government inaction or fiscal irresponsibility.
Lane/Tommy: There are two referendum questions on the state of Maine ballot. Question 1, which is commonly known as TABOR, is a measure to control the increase in spending at every level in Maine with provisions for a citizens’ override when needed. As we have discussed TABOR at length in previous columns, we urge all voters to vote YES on Question 1.
Unfortunately, Question 2 was a great surprise and many wonder what it’s about. It is worded in such a way that one would believe it is a constitutional change to help citizens with referendums. What scares us to death is that no one seems to know where this question comes from as it seemingly appeared out of thin air. What is even worse is that some legislators don’t even know they voted for it. Checking the history of this referendum which passed in the Legislature as LD 2033 shows no roll calls were taken in Maine’s House or Senate. Isn’t it awful strange that not one group has formed to support this change to Maine’s Constitution?
Lane: I am advising people vote NO on Question 2. This proposed change to the state constitution is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. We are being deceived by the invisible backers of this referendum question. Let me explain. It seems like a long time ago when the Maine Attorney General supported the petition signatures for Maine’s TABOR. What we must remember is that Maine law allowed a superior court judge to throw out enough signatures causing failure of the TABOR referendum. The case was appealed to the Maine Supreme Court which ruled Maine law was in conflict with the Maine Constitution. The Supreme Court justices’ unanimous decision stated that the TABOR petition signatures were, in fact, valid.
Tommy: Why did the Maine Legislature propose a constitutional amendment instead of changing Maine law? Who are the scallywags who proposed this piece of skullduggery which will limit our power to petition? Question 2 is treachery at its worst because it does just the opposite of what it appears to do. Again, if Maine laws are in conflict with Maine’s Constitution, it’s the laws that need changing. Vote No on Question 2!
Lane/Tommy: The final referendum question that we will discuss is the proposed changes to Windham’s Mineral Extraction Ordinance. Let us begin by stating everyone has property rights. Does one group have more property rights than another? These changes in the ordinance are all about property rights.
Lane: I don’t know where the breakdown came during the planning process on the proposed quarry that would be located on the Nash Road in Windham. It was not only a surprise to the abutters of the proposed quarry, it was a shock to many citizens in Windham that a quarry could appear next to their property. Vote for the ordinance.
Tommy: Is this going to be a case where the one with the most toys wins? In other words, there is a perception in the past that big money talks in Windham. I feel that the little guy has the same rights as the big guy. Please vote for the ordinance.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
