Letter to the editor: Ballot wording confused guardianship issue

I agree with letter writer Jay Gruber (“Failure of ballot Question 8 shames Maine,” Nov. 19) that Question 8, which lost by 7%, should have passed. But I don’t think a majority of Maine voters oppose having people under guardianship vote.

Question 8 reads: “Do you favor amending the Constitution of Maine to remove a provision prohibiting a person under guardianship … from voting for Governor, … which the United States District Court for the District of Maine found violates the United States Constitution and federal law?”

This question has three negatives, remove, prohibiting and violates, which could confuse any voter who did not have the time or inclination to research the question. Picture a voter, on their way to work, running a bit late, trying to figure this out. Three negatives, hmm. So if I want these folks to be able to vote, I should vote “no,” right? Wrong. Because a “yes” vote will remove the provision. Whew!

For now, the Secretary of State is ignoring the prohibition because it is unconstitutional. But still, it is unsettling to think our Maine Constitution has such a provision. It is worse that our ballot measures can be so confusing.

A simple cure is to follow each referendum question with a brief sentence explaining the outcome if passed. In this case, the explanation could have read: a “Yes” vote will allow people under guardianship to vote, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.

To our Legislature: Require brief explanations after referenda!

Victoria Adams
Kennebunk

Full Article & Source:
Letter to the editor: Ballot wording confused guardianship issue