Maine Tax on Incomes Exceeding $200,000 for Public Education, Question 2 (2016)

Maine Question 2
Election date November 8, 2016
Topic Taxes and Education
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

2016 measures
November 8
Question 1 a
Question 2 a
Question 3 d
Question 4 a
Question 5 a
Question 6 a
Polls
Voter guides
Campaign finance
Signature costs

The Maine Tax on Incomes Exceeding $200,000 for Public Education Measure, also known as Question 2, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Maine as an indirect initiated state statute. The measure was approved. On July 4, 2017, Gov. LePage signed a budget bill that repealed Question 2.

A "yes" vote was a vote to approve an additional 3 percent surcharge on the portion of any household income exceeding $200,000 per year. Revenue would be earmarked to fund public education.

A "no" vote was a vote against this proposal to enact a 3 percent surcharge on household incomes greater than $200,000.

Aftermath

Legislation to overturn Question 2

See also: Legislative alteration

Governor LePage

Before swearing in members of Maine's 128th Legislature, Gov. Paul LePage (R) urged legislators to amend or repeal Question 2, arguing that the measure would hurt the economy. The Maine Constitution allows the legislature to change or repeal measures at any point. LePage said he would introduce a budget that included income tax cuts and proposed spending reductions in response to the measure. He also stated that elements of Question 4, the minimum wage increase initiative, needed to be amended as well.

Government shutdown

On June 21, 2017, the Maine State Legislature voted to extend the 2017 legislative session. The session was scheduled to adjourn on June 21. Lawmakers needed to pass a budget to prevent a possible government shutdown on July 1, 2017. Gov. LePage (R) and Republicans wanted Question 2 repealed. Democrats said that their caucus would not support a repeal of Question 2 unless Republicans proposed an alternative plan for generating the $320 million in revenue for education funding as the surcharge was estimated to generate.

On June 30, 2017, Senate President Michael Thibodeau (R-11) and House Speaker Sara Gideon (D-48) came to an agreement on the budget bill. President Thibodeau described the bill as imperfect, but that he hoped the bill "will be good enough to bring people together." Speaker Gideon stated, "We feel we’ve done the best job we can here." The bill would have repealed Question 2 and increased the lodging tax from 9 percent to 10.5 percent to increase education funding $162 million. The Maine House of Representatives failed to pass the budget bill. A two-thirds vote (66.6 percent) was needed in the House, but the bill received 87 of 151 votes (57.6 percent). On July 1, 2017, Gov. LePage ordered a partial shutdown of non-essential government services.

Repeal

On July 4, 2017, leaders of the Maine State Legislature and Gov. LePage negotiated a budget bill that repealed Question 2. The Maine House of Representatives voted 147 to 2 on the bill. The Maine Senate passed the bill 35 to 0. The final budget bill did not include the lodging tax increase proposed on June 30. In exchange for agreeing to the repeal of Question 2 without a lodging tax increase, Republicans and Gov. LePage agreed to allocate an additional $1.15 million for the state preschool program and place a two-year moratorium on reductions for MaineCare behavioral health services. The budget earmarked $162 million for public education—about 50 percent of what Question 2 was estimated to bring in.

Other proposed legislation in 2017

During the 2017 legislative session, at least six different bills had been introduced to repeal Question 2, amend Question 2, or amend laws related to Question 2. Three of the bills were written to reduce the total tax rate imposed on income above $200,000 down from the post-Question 2 total rate of 10.15 percent to the pre-Question 2 rate of 7.15 percent.

• Legislative Document 337 was designed to repeal the laws enacted by Question 2. The bill would have removed the law creating the Fund to Advance Public Kindergarten to Grade 12 Education and the additional 3 percent tax on income above $200,000. This was designed to bring the income tax rate for this bracket down to the pre-Question 2 rate of 7.15 percent.

• Legislative Document 291 was designed to remove 3 percentage points from the income tax rate imposed on income above $200,000. Therefore, the rate would have been reduced from 7.15 percent to 4.15 percent. This bill was written to leave all of the provisions of Question 2 intact, and to change the income tax rate on income above $200,000 to 4.15 percent according to the regular tax bracket. Reducing the total applicable tax rate to 7.15 percent as it was going into 2016, but leaving a portion of the revenue dedicated to the Fund to Advance Public Kindergarten to Grade 12 Education.

• Legislative Document 571 was designed to remove the provision of Question 2 enacting an additional 3 percent tax on income above $200,000, but leave in place the provision establishing the Fund to Advance Public Kindergarten to Grade 12 Education. The bill was proposed to provide alternative funding for the education fund through two other sources:
  • all revenue from the tax levied on recreational marijuana, which was legalized through another citizen initiative in 2016—Question 1; and
  • a certain amount of the "surplus revenue generated by growth in the Maine economy," up to levels dictated by Question 1 from 2004.

• Legislative Document 851 was designed to repeal Question 2 and submit a nearly identical law to voters as a legislatively referred state statute in November 2018.

• Legislative Document 708 was designed to use revenue from non-medical marijuana taxes and increased cigarette taxes to reduce the income tax surcharge on income above $200,000.

• Legislative Document 829 was designed to increase the threshold at which the 3 percent tax applied to $300,000 for single heads of households and $400,000 for those filing joint returns.

Legislative alteration context

See also: Legislative alterations of ballot initiatives and Legislative alteration rules

From 2010 through 2018, 97 initiated state statutes and two initiated ordinances in D.C. were approved by voters. Of these 99 total initiatives from 2010 through 2018, 28 were repealed or amended as of April 2019. The states with the most total cases of legislative alterations of initiatives approved since 2010 were Maine—with four initiatives altered out of eight approved—and Colorado and Oregon—each with three initiatives altered out of five approved. Among initiatives approved from 2010 through 2018, marijuana was the topic that drew the most legislative alterations, with eight initiatives. Other topics addressed by legislatively altered initiatives included elections and campaigns, term limits, education, business regulation, law enforcement, minimum wage, taxes, and gambling.

The rate of legislative alteration was 13 percentage points higher for initiatives approved in 2016 and 2018 than initiatives approved from 2010 through 2015.

Legislative alteration rates
Year span	# approved	# altered	Alteration rate
2010 - 2024	175	30	17.14%
2016 - 2018	56	20	35.71%
2010 - 2015	43	9	20.9%

Click here for information about all legislative alterations of initiatives approved since 2010.

Recount request

Due to the narrow margin by which Question 2 passed, opponents of the measure requested an official recount of the results. The opposition campaign picked up papers from the secretary of state's office to collect signatures for a recount and submitted at least 100 signatures to the secretary of state's office on November 16, 2016. The secretary of state certified the recount petition on November 21, 2016, and planned to begin the work of the recount on December 1, 2016. The Question 2 recount was planned to occur in tandem with recount efforts for another ballot measure, Maine Question 1.

The group who asked for the recount withdrew their request on November 29, 2016. The group cited the recount process, the cost, and a low probability of changing the election results as reasons for the withdrawal.

A recount could have taken a month to complete and cost the state $500,000. When the margin of votes is less than 1.5 percentage points, as was the case with Question 2, the state pays for all recount costs. If the margin were greater than 1.5 percent, the group seeking the recount would have been responsible for paying between $500 and $5,000 of the costs. The secretary of state's office coordinated with volunteers from both sides of the campaign, state staff, and police to work out the logistics of the recount. Counting teams of volunteers and one secretary of state staff member would have reviewed bundles of 50 ballots at a time from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. every day until all ballots were counted, or the requesting group dropped the recount after a partial review. The recount would have been conducted in phases, and was likely to have begun with the larger cities of Bangor, Portland, South Portland, Lewiston, and Scarborough.

Election results

Question 2
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		383,428	50.63%
No		373,848	49.37%

Election results from Maine Secretary of State

Vote in Pivot Counties

See also: Pivot Counties: The counties that voted Obama-Obama-Trump from 2008-2016 and Pivot Counties in Maine

Voters in Maine passed Question 2, with 50.6 percent voting to enact the initiative. At the county level, the vote ranged from 42.2 percent in Piscataquis County to 53.7 percent in Knox County.

The seven counties that voted for Hillary Clinton for president in 2016, and Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, passed the measure by an average of 51.4 percent. Piscataquis County, the one county in Maine to vote Republican in the 2008, 2012, and 2016 presidential elections, voted against the measure, with 42.2 percent supporting.

Maine's other eight counties voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 and then flipped to the Republican candidate Donald Trump in 2016. Ballotpedia calls these Obama-Obama-Trump counties Pivot Counties. Averaging across the state's eight Pivot Counties, support for the measure was 48.7 percent.

By winning eight counties that Obama won in 2008 and 2012, Donald Trump was able to secure one electoral vote in Maine for winning the 2nd Congressional District in the northern part of the state. Although Maine has awarded two of its electoral votes in presidential elections based on who wins each congressional district since 1972, the two electoral votes had never been split until 2016. In 2008 and 2012, Obama won the vote in both congressional districts.

The average yes vote percentage on Question 2 in Pivot Counties was 48.7 percent, which was 6.5 percent more than in the Republican county and 2.7 percent less than in Democratic counties.

Vote on Question 2 (2016) in Maine Pivot, Democratic, and Republican Counties
County	Type	Trump Margin in 2016	Percent "Yes" on Question 2	Percent "No" on Question 2
Androscoggin	Pivot	9.39%	49.84%	50.16%
Aroostook	Pivot	17.19%	51.55%	48.45%
Cumberland	Democratic	-26.35%	52.44%	47.56%
Franklin	Pivot	5.47%	48.69%	51.31%
Hancock	Democratic	-7.51%	48.72%	51.28%
Kennebec	Pivot	3.58%	49.56%	50.44%
Knox	Democratic	-14.24%	53.67%	46.33%
Lincoln	Democratic	-2.39%	49.67%	50.33%
Oxford	Pivot	12.94%	50.49%	49.51%
Penobscot	Pivot	10.91%	47.10%	52.90%
Piscataquis	Republican	25.14%	42.23%	57.77%
Sagadahoc	Democratic	-6.29%	51.40%	48.60%
Somerset	Pivot	22.67%	46.04%	53.96%
Sagadahoc	Democratic	-0.28%	51.27%	48.73%
Washington	Pivot	18.44%	46.49%	53.51%
York	Democratic	-4.76%	52.80%	47.20%
All Pivot Counties		12.57%	48.72%	51.28%

Overview

Initiative design

Question 2 was designed to enact a 3 percent increase on individual income taxes for household income greater than $200,000. This means that a household with an income of $280,000 would have had to pay an additional 3 percent on $80,000 annually. Going into 2016, the rate applied to such income was 7.15 percent. Thus, Question 2 was designed to increase that rate to 10.15 percent.

The revenue that the surcharge was estimated to raise would have been added to a fund—known as the Fund to Advance Public Kindergarten to Grade 12 Education—intended to benefit schools serving kindergarten through 12th grade. The fund would have served to improve the state's ability to reach the annual target of providing 55 percent of the total cost of funding education for public schools from kindergarten through grade 12.

State of the campaigns

The support campaign, led by Stand Up for Students and Citizens Who Support Maine's Public Schools, received more than nine times as much in contributions as the opposition campaign led by No on Question 2. No editorial boards published opinions in support of the measure, although both the Ellsworth American and the Bangor Daily News released editorials opposing the measure. A poll conducted in mid-September of 2016 indicated that Mainers favored Question 2, with 60 percent of respondents saying they supported it.

Text of measure

Ballot question

The question appeared on the ballot as follows:

“

Do you want to add a 3% tax on individual Maine taxable income above $200,000 to create a state fund that would provide direct support for student learning in kindergarten through 12th grade public education?

”

Ballot summary

The official ballot summary was as follows:

“

This initiated bill establishes the Fund to Advance Public Kindergarten to Grade 12 Education for the purpose of improving the ability of the State to reach the annual target of 55%, as specified in statute, for the state share of the total cost of funding public education from kindergarten to grade 12, and for increasing direct support for student learning rather than administrative costs. Revenue for the fund is generated by a 3% surcharge on Maine taxable income over $200,000, beginning with tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2017.

”

Intent and content

The following intent and content statement was prepared by the office of the attorney general:

This citizen-initiated legislation would establish a new state fund to support K-12 public education, with revenue generated by a 3% tax on individual Maine taxable income above $200,000. The 3% tax would apply in tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2017. The tax would apply only to that portion of an individual taxpayer’s Maine taxable income that exceeds $200,000. Maine taxable income means an individual’s adjusted gross income under federal tax law, with modifications, personal exemptions and deductions as provided by Maine tax law. All of the revenue generated by this tax would go into a new state fund, called the “Fund to Advance Public Kindergarten to Grade 12 Education” (the “Fund”), to be administered by the Maine Department of Education. Necessary expenses incurred by the Department in administering the Fund could be paid from the Fund. Existing law directs the Legislature to provide at least 55% of the total cost of K-12 public education from General Fund revenue. The intent of this initiative is that the Fund would be used to supplement (not supplant) the state’s General Fund appropriation when that appropriation falls short of the 55% annual target. It would be used to pay only for “direct support for student learning.” This phrase is defined to exclude salary and benefit costs for school administrative or clerical staff. It includes salary and benefit costs for classroom teachers as well as associate and assistant teachers, career technical education teachers, special reading and math teachers, education technicians, special education technicians, literacy specialists, guidance staff, health staff, librarians and media assistants. Monies from the Fund would be distributed to schools under the existing school funding formula. By July 1st of each year, each school district would be required to file a report with the Department detailing how the funds were used to provide “direct support for student learning,” as defined above. If approved, this citizen initiated legislation would take effect 30 days after the Governor proclaims the official results of the election. A “YES” vote is to enact the initiated legislation. A “NO” vote opposes the initiated legislation.

Full text

The full text of Question 2 was as follows:

“ Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows: Sec. 1. 20-A MRSA §15697 is enacted to read: §15697. Fund to Advance Public Kindergarten to Grade 12 Education 1. Fund established. The Fund to Advance Public Kindergarten to Grade 12 Education, referred to in this section as "the fund," is established as an interest-bearing account administered by the department. 2. Revenue; 30-day review before changing use of fund. The Treasurer of State shall deposit all revenue collected pursuant to Title 36, section 5111, subsection 6 from the income tax surcharge to advance public kindergarten to grade 12 education into the fund according to the schedule in Title 36, section 5111, subsection 6. Any private or public funds appropriated, allocated or dedicated to the fund must be deposited into the fund as well as income from any other source directed to the fund. All interest earned by the fund becomes part of the fund. Legislation that proposes to enact or amend a law that would change the distribution of the revenue directed to the fund by this subsection or by Title 36, section 5111, subsection 6 must be submitted to the Legislative Council and to the joint standing committee of the Legislature having jurisdiction over education matters at least 30 days prior to any vote or public hearing on that legislation. 3. Use of fund to supplement and not supplant General Fund appropriations; direct support for student learning. The use of the fund is controlled by this subsection. The fund may not be used for any purpose other than as described in this subsection. A. If the General Fund appropriation for the state contribution for general purpose aid for local schools as finally enacted in any year is insufficient to meet the annual target established by section 15752, the commissioner shall use the fund to supplement the state contribution. These supplemental funds must be used to enable the State to meet the annual target established by section 15752 or to decrease the amount by which state funding from all other sources falls short of the target. The commissioner shall announce the increased state contribution amounts made possible by the supplemental amounts obtained from the fund within 14 days after final enactment of the General Fund appropriation for general purpose aid for local schools. The commissioner shall distribute the increased state contribution amounts on the basis of the essential programs and services formula set forth in this chapter. B. The fund may be used only to pay for portions of the state contribution that constitute direct support for student learning and not for the costs of administration. As used in this paragraph, “direct support for student learning” includes salary and benefit costs paid for public school classroom teachers; special teachers of reading or mathematics; literacy specialists; career technical education teachers; education technicians; associate teachers; assistant teachers; special education technicians I, II or III; guidance staff; health staff; librarians; and media assistants as documented in the department’s database. Direct support for student learning does not include salary and benefit costs paid for school administrative staff or clerical staff. By July 1st annually each school administrative unit must file a report to the department detailing how the funding provided by this section was used to provide direct support for student learning in this chapter. C. The fund may be used for the necessary expenses of the department in the administration of the fund. 4. Report. Annually by January 15th, the department shall submit a report to the joint standing committee of the Legislature having jurisdiction over education matters showing the amounts deposited into and disbursed from the fund and detailing how those disbursements increased the state contribution and enabled the State to meet or come closer to meeting the applicable annual targets specified in section 15752. The department shall post the report on its publicly accessible website. 5. Rule of construction. This section must be liberally construed to increase the amount of funding available for public kindergarten to grade 12 education above the General Fund appropriation for that year to the greatest extent possible in any year. Sec. 2. 36 MRSA §5111, sub-§6 is enacted to read: 6. Income tax surcharge to advance public kindergarten to grade 12 education. An income tax surcharge to advance public kindergarten to grade 12 education, referred to in this subsection as "the surcharge," is established and administered as follows. A. For tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2017, in addition to any other tax imposed by this chapter, a tax at the rate of 3% is imposed on that portion of the taxpayer's Maine taxable income in excess of $200,000. B. One hundred percent of the revenue from the surcharge must be deposited each year into the Fund to Advance Public Kindergarten to Grade 12 Education established in Title 20-A, section 15697 in accordance with this paragraph. (1) Prior to January 1st of each year, the bureau shall estimate the annual revenue to be collected from the surcharge for the immediately following calendar year. (2) On the first of each month, beginning on January 1, 2018, the Treasurer of State shall deposit 8.333% of the estimated annual total revenue from the surcharge into the Fund to Advance Public Kindergarten to Grade 12 Education. (3) The bureau may adjust the monthly transfer amount once annually to account for any difference between the estimated collection and actual collection. C. The surcharge must be imposed and collected regardless of whether the income tax brackets in this section are changed, replaced or eliminated by an act of the Legislature or by a measure approved by voters pursuant to the Constitution of Maine, Article IV, Part Third, Section 18. ”

Ballot language comments and alteration

During the month-long public comment period about ballot question language, Gov. Paul LePage (R) argued that the original ballot question for Question 2, which used the word "surcharge" instead of "tax," was misleading and unclear. Following these comments by LePage and his administration, as well as others, Maine Secretary of State Matt Dunlap altered the question, replacing the word "surcharge" with the word "tax." During the public comment period, 185 comments were provided concerning the ballot language Dunlap originally provided for the six measures on the ballot. After the public comment period was over, Dunlap made slight changes to the ballot questions for all six measures.

Fiscal impact

The Maine Office of Fiscal and Program Review's fiscal impact statement stated that beginning on January 1, 2018, 1/12th of the revenues from the 3 percent surcharge for that year would be transferred to the Fund to Advance Public Kindergarten to Grade 12 Education each month. The review estimated that revenues would be approximately $142 million annually, increasing by an additional $12 million or more each subsequent year.

Support

The campaign in support of Question 2 was led by Stand Up for Students.

Supporters

Individuals

• Ethan Strimling, Portland mayor
• Karen Heck, former mayor of Waterville

Organizations

The following groups supported the Stand Up for Students campaign:

• Maine AFL-CIO
• Maine Education Association
• Maine Parent Teacher Association
• Maine State Employees Association
• Maine Small Business Coalition
• Maine People's Resource Center
• Maine People's Alliance
• The Ballot Initiative Strategy Center
• Maine Association of School Libraries
• Maine Children's Alliance
• Machinists (IAM) Local S7
• Maine Center for Economic Policy
• Maine Unitarian Universalist State Advocacy Network
• American Association of University Women

Arguments in favor

Supporters argued that Question 2 would:

An ad sponsored by Stand Up For Students

• Provide tax fairness

Supporters argued that wealthy Mainers have had their income taxes cut twice recently and that residents with a household income of $40,000 pay the same tax rate as those with an income of $1 million.

• Provide equal funding for public schools

The measure was designed to distribute the revenue from the surcharge to schools across the state, allowing schools in less wealthy districts to receive funding.

• Help the state meet its requirement of funding 55 percent of public education costs

The revenue from the surcharge would be used to supplement the existing state fund for public education, to be used when the state's appropriations do not meet the 55 percent requirement.

Quotes from supporters of Question 2:

Robert Walker submitted the following public comments on behalf of Citizens Who Support Maine's Public Schools to the secretary of state's voter's guide in support of Question 2: “ We urge support for Question 2 because all students, regardless of zip code, deserve support, resources, and time to learn. That’s why a coalition of parents, teachers, and organizations are determined to put students, teaching, and learning first, by voting Yes on 2, for tax fairness and fair funding of Maine’s public schools. What does a YES vote mean? If approved by voters, the initiative, known as Stand Up for Students, will generate an estimated $157 million more dollars for schools statewide. How will the money be raised? By adding a 3% surcharge to taxable income above $200,000, Maine schools stand to gain an additional $157 million for direct funding of classroom education. Why is this “tax fairness”? Right now in Maine, someone earning $40,000 per year has to pay the same top tax rate as someone making $1 million per year. Maine’s wealthiest residents had their income taxes cut twice in recent years. Those tax cuts mean less money coming from the state. Many towns have had to make tough choices to raise property taxes and/or cut back on school funding for both extracurricular activities such as music and art courses and technical education, as well as foreign language and advance math and science classes. With this proposal we can restore a lot of these important school programs. Many Maine families are struggling. It’s only right to ask the wealthiest Mainers to pay their fair share to fund our public schools. Why is this investment in public education so important? Maine has a lot to offer, including a great quality of life, but the key to building a strong economic future is having a skilled, well-educated workforce that will draw more families, companies, and jobs to our great state. For more information: http://standupforstudentsmaine.org ” Ginny Mott, president of the Maine Parent Teacher Association, said that Question 2 could help Maine finally fulfill the requirements of another ballot measure enacted in 2004. The 2004 measure had mandated that the state budget include enough money to fund 55 percent of public education costs. Mott made the following argument: “ The Legislature hasn’t found a way to do that [meet the requirement] yet, and this is a solution we found that we’re putting forward. ” Caitlin Leclair, a teacher at King Middle School in Portland, Maine, made the following statement: “ Our schools have done a remarkable job with limited resources, but we as a state must do more to ensure every child has the opportunity to receive an education that sets them up for success in the future. It’s time for the state to keep its promise to our schools so that every child can get a great education at a great public school in Maine. ” Jon Costin, owner of Veneer Services Unlimited, said the following: “ An investment in K-12 education is an investment that pays dividends to all Mainers. And unfortunately, the burden of not making that investment really falls the heaviest on the least affluent Mainers. ” Teresa Gillis, a parent with two children in the public schools of Brunswick, Maine, made the following argument: “ When the State fails to adequately fund schools, local schools like ours are faced with the awful decision of which services to cut and how much to raise property taxes. Towns are struggling to fill the gap and property taxpayers are paying the price. This referendum will provide more resources for our schools and reduce the burden on property taxpayers. ” Patricia Callahan wrote the following in a Bangor Daily News blog: “ Want to improve the economy? Invest in education. Want to intervene in children’s lives before they become adults making problematic choices? Invest in education. Want to nip addiction in the bud? Invest in education. Want to keep young people in Maine? Invest in education that emphasizes the potentials in our state and accesses internship and mentoring. Educate our youth to be entrepreneurs, contractors, businesspeople. Want to make sure the next generation will be good stewards of our economy, our political process, and our communities? Invest in education. Want a long-term strategy for reforming welfare and fighting hunger? Invest in education. It’s a no-brainer. Schools are hubs in the community, and their outcomes ripple out to touch us all in one way or another. So much of our present and future realities rest in the hands of educators. ” Michael Hillard, an economics professor at the University of Southern Maine, said: “ We’re asking our top earners to pay a little bit more to help fund our most common and essential public good—the education of our children. This initiative is good for taxpayers, and good for Maine. ”

Opposition

The Maine Chamber of Commerce formed a PAC named No on Question 2 in opposition to the initiative.

Individuals

• Gov. Paul LePage (R)
• Former Gov. John Baldacci (D)
• Rep. Paul Stearns (R-119)
• Former Education Commissioner Jim Rier
• Don Roberts, former Augusta city councilor
• Sen. Andre Cushing (R-10)
• David Clough, state director of the National Federation of Independent Business
• Curtis Picard, executive director, Retail Association of Maine
• Charles Lawton, chief economist, Planning Decisions, Inc.
• Stephen Bowen, former commissioner, Maine Department of Education
• Judith West, senior vice president, Maine Medical Center and MaineHealth

Organizations

• Maine Chamber of Commerce
• Maine Heritage Policy Center

The Vote No on Question 2 website listed the following organizations as members of their coalition:

• Associated Builders and Contractors
• Maine Auto Dealers Association
• Maine Energy Marketers
• Associated General Contractors of Maine
• Maine Association of REALTORS®
• Maine Restaurant Association
• Maine Innkeepers Association
• Retail Association of Maine
• Maine Tourism Association
• Maine Real Estate and Development Association
• Maine Society of Certified Public Accountants
• Maine Beverage Association
• Maine Grocers & Food Producers Association
• Maine Aggregate Association
• Maine Beer and Wine Distributors Association
• Maine Hospital Association
• Maine Dental Association
• Maine Motor Transport Association
• Maine Staffing Association
• Educate Maine
• Maine Better Transportation Association
• Manufacturers Association of Maine
• National Federation of Independent Business
• Bangor Region Chamber of Commerce
• Greater Portland Chamber of Commerce
• Lewiston Auburn Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
• Mid-Maine Chamber of Commerce
• Southern Midcoast Chamber of Commerce

Arguments

Opponents argued the following about Question 2:

• More money doesn't equal better academic results

Opponents argued that the funds would go towards teacher and personnel salaries rather than updates to facilities and equipment to improve academic performance.

• The tax increase might push people out of Maine

This tax would increase the rate to over 10 percent, which would be the second-highest in the nation.

• The distribution of funds would not be fair

Opponents claimed that 60 percent of the revenue would be distributed to 12 percent of towns in the state.

Quotes from supporters of Question 2:

Gov. Paul LePage (R) said: “ Mainers deserve to know why their local school budgets are going up every year, but academic results are not getting better. The MEA can’t answer that question. They just want more money. They want to add a 3 percent tax on Maine’s families and small businesses who earn $200,000 to raise money that is not needed for education. They say it will only affect 2 percent of Mainers. These are the Mainers who already contribute the most revenue to our economy and our tax base. It would drive their income tax rate over 10 percent—and it might drive them out of the state. We’ve worked hard to reduce the income tax, but the MEA is taking us backwards. Instead of punishing our higher-income earners, they should be working to make the education system more efficient and more effective. Instead of building lavish new schools, they should be considering how to combine schools or regionalize services. Instead of paying for a top-heavy system of administrators, they should be paying our teachers more and putting more money into the classroom. ” Dana Connors, president of the Maine Chamber of Commerce, said: “ For us, it’s the wrong solution to a pressing problem...We’re trying to resolve in this question a complicated education reform proposal in sound bites, and it just doesn’t work. It might arise out of frustration, but that doesn’t mean this is the way we should resolve this very important issue. ” Dana Connors also submitted the following public comments on behalf of the Maine State Chamber of Commerce to the secretary of state's voter's guide in opposition to Question 2: “ Vote No on Question 2 Question 2 is the wrong solution for Maine's education funding problem. Question 2 raises taxes, it doesn’t fund school infrastructure and creates more unfair funding distributions for Maine schools and towns. Question 2 raises taxes, more than $157 million on Maine households. In fact, this law would make Maine’s top rate the second-highest in the nation, with a rate over 10 percent. Two-thirds of the taxpayers targeted by this extra income are community based small business owners, many of them local family businesses. Question 2 was written by the teacher’s union, for the teacher’s union. Towns struggling to pay for schools and other education infrastructure won’t get any help from this bill. According to the fine print, all of the money raised by this new tax must be spent on salaries for teachers and other school personnel meaning that none of this new money can be spent on fixing school buildings, buying technology, or providing materials for students. It usurpsbu local control by dictating to local school boards where the money must be spent, not where the local need exists. More than one third of the state’s local school districts would receive zero additional dollars raised from this new tax. That’s right. Towns like Cape Elizabeth, Falmouth, and Scarborough get millions, while towns like Sedgwick, Greenville and West Bath get nothing. 60 percent of the money raised from this new tax goes to 12 percent of towns. That is not fair. All Maine public schools need to be adequately funded. Question 2 is just too vague and misleading with no guarantees, we should find a better way to give all our Maine students the education opportunities and experience they deserve. Question 2 is the wrong solution for Maine. ”

Campaign finance

Citizens Who Support Maine's Public Schools was the political action committee leading the support campaign for Question 2, although five other committees registered in support of the measure as well. As of January 18, 2017, the support campaign raised a total of $4,722,107.14, of which $829,809.02 was in-kind contributions. The campaign reported $3,814,955.13 in expenditures. The National Education Association and the Maine Education Association made the majority of the cash and in-kind donations, with contributions of $2,250,000 and $392,184.51, respectively.

The groups No on Question 2 and Associated Builders and Contractors of Maine PAC filed to oppose this initiative. As of January 18, 2017, the opposition campaign had raised $501,162.95 and spent $464,629.16. Of the total contributions, $37,333.95 were in the form of in-kind contributions.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$3,892,297.72	$829,809.02	$4,722,106.74	$3,814,955.13	$4,644,764.15
Oppose	$463,829.00	$37,333.95	$501,162.95	$464,629.16	$501,963.11
Total	$4,356,126.72	$867,142.97	$5,223,269.69	$4,279,584.29	$5,146,727.26

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the measure.

Committees in support of Question 2
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Citizens Who Support Maine's Public Schools	$2,850,479.15	$634,737.71	$3,485,216.86	$2,797,003.51	$3,431,741.22
Maine People's Alliance - BQC	$799,437.12	$195,071.31	$994,508.43	$741,732.86	$936,804.17
Planned Parenthood Maine Action Fund PAC	$189,506.65	$0.00	$189,506.65	$186,480.48	$186,480.48
Maine State Employees Association PAC	$30,457.04	$0.00	$30,457.04	$30,457.44	$30,457.44
Maine AFL-CIO PAC	$14,275.26	$0.00	$14,275.26	$14,275.26	$14,275.26
MAINE CENTER FOR ECONOMIC POLICY - BQC	$8,142.50	$0.00	$8,142.50	$45,005.58	$45,005.58
Total	$3,892,297.72	$829,809.02	$4,722,106.74	$3,814,955.13	$4,644,764.15

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
National Education Association	$2,350,000.00	$0.00	$2,350,000.00
Maine Education Association	$407,313.52	$0.00	$407,313.52
Maine People's Alliance	$133,167.06	$0.00	$133,167.06
Planned Parenthood Votes	$80,000.00	$0.00	$80,000.00
New Approach	$50,000.00	$0.00	$50,000.00

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to the initiative.

Committees in opposition to Question 2
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
No on Question 2	$443,789.00	$37,333.95	$481,122.95	$443,274.79	$480,608.74
Associated Builders and Contractors of Maine PAC	$20,040.00	$0.00	$20,040.00	$21,354.37	$21,354.37
Total	$463,829.00	$37,333.95	$501,162.95	$464,629.16	$501,963.11

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Maine Association of Realtors PAC	$50,000.00	$0.00	$50,000.00
Maine Course Hospitality Group	$37,500.00	$0.00	$37,500.00
Gary Bahre	$25,000.00	$0.00	$25,000.00
Maine Auto Dealers Association	$25,000.00	$0.00	$25,000.00
Maine Beer & Wine Wholesalers Association	$25,000.00	$0.00	$25,000.00
Robert Bahre	$25,000.00	$0.00	$25,000.00

Media editorials

Support

Ballotpedia has not found editorials in favor of Question 2. Please send any information about editorials to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Opposition

The Ellsworth American said the following:

“

But beyond and before all that is the ballot question’s assumption that the Maine Legislature will never get its act together to fully fund the state’s obligation to its schools. We expect more from our lawmakers than that. An income tax surcharge is a poor substitute for substantive action by an informed and committed legislature, which is why we recommend voting no on Question 2.

”

Bangor Daily News said the following:

“

With passage of this referendum, Maine would end up with one of the highest top tax rates in the country. Lawmakers would likely consider themselves relieved of the burden to truly fix the inequities in the state’s school funding system. And, the divide between rich and poor schools would remain as wide as ever. We believe Question 2 is well intentioned, but as written, it is not the solution to real problems with Maine’s school funding system. Voters should reject it.

”

The Kennebec Journal and the Morning Sentinel and sister publication Portland Press Herald said the following:

“

We support a “no” vote on Question 2, an act to raise more money for schools, and we call on the next Legislature to make fair school funding a top priority next year. Our skepticism regarding Question 2 does not mean we doubt that schools need more money. The problem with the ballot measure is not what its supporters want to do, but how they want to do it.

”

The Mount Desert Islander said the following:

“

This tax would result in the second-highest tax bracket for high earners in the nation, while doing nothing to encourage new job creation, retaining physicians, retirees or entrepreneurs. School enrollments are declining, school administrative costs are rising, and this bitter pill would only assist certain school districts, not the rural communities that need financial help most. And it sets a poor public policy precedent in allowing individual constituencies to seek redress outside the comprehensive budget process. This question flunks the straight-face test and deserves to fail.

”

Polls

Maine Tax on Incomes Exceeding $200,000 for Public Education, Question 2 (2016)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
University of New Hampshire Survey Center 10/20/16 - 10/25/16	57%	34%	9%	+/-3.6	761
Portland Press Herald/University of New Hampshire Survey Center 9/15/16 - 9/20/16	60%	32%	8%	+/-4.3	506
AVERAGES	58.5%	33%	8.5%	+/-3.95	633.5
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Reports and analyses

Fiscal impact

The Maine Office of Fiscal and Program Review prepared the following fiscal impact statement:

“

This initiated bill imposes a 3% additional tax, referred to as a surcharge, on Maine taxable income in excess of $200,000 for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2017. The surcharge is in addition to whatever tax would be imposed on these incomes under current statute or future statute. Beginning January 1, 2018, 1/12th of that tax year's estimated collections from the 3% surcharge will be transferred monthly to the Fund to Advance Public Kindergarten to Grade 12 Education. Money in the Fund will be used to supplement but not supplant General Fund appropriations for general purpose aid to local schools (GPA). It is estimated that amounts generated by the surcharge would be approximately $142 million annually, increasing by an additional $12 million or more each subsequent year. It should be noted that since collections will begin in calendar 2017 for tax years that begin on or after January 1, 2017, but transfers to the Fund do not start until January of 2018, presumably for tax years that begin on or after January 1, 2018, it is unclear what would be done with the revenue collected in and for the first year. While the intent of the initiative is to have all collections from the surcharge be credited to the new fund, subsequent implementing legislation may be required to clarify that issue. It should also be noted that while the intent of this initiative is to provide additional funding to local schools over and above what would be provided without this initiative (baseline funding), no mechanism is provided to prevent future legislators from reducing baseline funding by an amount equal to a portion of future estimates of the additional funding provided by the surcharge. Language in the initiative does indicate the amount from the surcharge will be announced "within 14 days after final enactment of the General Fund appropriation for general purpose aid for local schools". However, estimates of the surcharge amount will be available before the announcement and may impact budget negotiations on the GPA baseline appropriation.

”

Maine Center for Economic Policy

The Maine Center for Economic Policy (MECEP) released a report claiming that Question 2 would have a positive impact on students, businesses, families, and the state's economy. MECEP claimed that communities have had to raise more than a billion dollars in property taxes since 2011 to make up the deficit in state funds for education. The report argued that this reliance on property taxes will result in a tax environment that is unfavorable for many businesses, and that for schools in property-poor locations, is not enough to provide appropriate funding for education. MECEP concluded that Question 2 would provide equitable funding for all students and improve the fairness of the Maine tax system.

The full report can be found here.

Maine Heritage Policy Center

The Maine Heritage Policy Center (MHPC) released a report claiming that Question 2 would damage the Maine state economy. The report indicated that Question 2 would widen the gap between wealthy and poor school districts, cause high-income residents to leave the state, which could result in a reduction in consumer spending, tax revenue and jobs. The MHPC also claimed Question 2 would be particularly harmful to small businesses who would be subject to a more than 1 percent increase in taxes.

The full report can be accessed here.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Maine and Signature requirements for ballot measures in Maine

• Garrett Martin submitted the petition, and a title and summary for Question 2 was issued on October 19, 2015.
• The initiative petition circulation period was set to expire on April 19, 2017.
• To qualify for the ballot, proponents needed to collect 61,123 signatures—10 percent of the total votes cast for governor in November 2014—by February 1, 2016.
• Stand Up for Students submitted 88,242 signatures to the secretary of state on February 1, 2016.
• The Maine secretary of state had, by statute, 30 days after signatures were submitted to review the signatures for validity and announce a decision about whether or not the initiative qualified for the ballot. The 30-day deadline was March 2, 2016.
• On March 2, 2016, the secretary of state announced that 66,849 of the submitted signatures were valid. This qualified the initiative to go before the Maine State Legislature and then before voters on November 8, 2016, if not first enacted by state lawmakers.
• On March 24, 2016, the legislature indefinitely postponed voting on Question 2, thereby confirming that it would appear on the ballot in November.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired FieldWorks, Maine People's Alliance, Olympic Consulting, and individuals to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $479,956.80 was spent to collect the 61,123 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $7.85. Of the total cost for signature collection, $239,754.58 was spent as in-kind staff hours from the Maine Education Association.

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Maine public education surcharge Initiative. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Maine Tax on Incomes Exceeding $200,000 for Public Education, Question 2 (2016) - Google News

Related measures

Education measures on the ballot in 2016
State	Measures
California	California Proposition 58, Non-English Languages Allowed in Public Education a
Alabama	Alabama Auburn University Board of Trustees, Amendment 1 a
Oklahoma	Oklahoma One Percent Sales Tax, State Question 779 d

State profile

Demographic data for Maine
	Maine	U.S.
Total population:	1,329,453	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	30,843	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	95%	73.6%
Black/African American:	1.1%	12.6%
Asian:	1.1%	5.1%
Native American:	0.6%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0%	0.2%
Two or more:	2%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	1.5%	17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:	91.6%	86.7%
College graduation rate:	29%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$49,331	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	16.6%	11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Maine. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern

See also: Presidential voting trends in Maine

Maine voted for the Democratic candidate in all seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.

Pivot Counties (2016)

Ballotpedia identified 206 counties that voted for Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012. Collectively, Trump won these Pivot Counties by more than 580,000 votes. Of these 206 counties, eight are located in Maine, accounting for 3.88 percent of the total pivot counties.

Pivot Counties (2020)

In 2020, Ballotpedia re-examined the 206 Pivot Counties to view their voting patterns following that year's presidential election. Ballotpedia defined those won by Trump won as Retained Pivot Counties and those won by Joe Biden (D) as Boomerang Pivot Counties. Nationwide, there were 181 Retained Pivot Counties and 25 Boomerang Pivot Counties. Maine had seven Retained Pivot Counties and one Boomerang Pivot County, accounting for 4.42 and 4.00 percent of all Retained and Boomerang Pivot Counties, respectively.

More Maine coverage on Ballotpedia

• Elections in Maine
• United States congressional delegations from Maine
• Public policy in Maine
• Endorsers in Maine
• Maine fact checks
• More...

See also

Suggest a link

• Maine 2016 ballot measures
• Maine ballot measures
• 2016 ballot measures
• Laws governing the initiative process in Maine

Additional reading

• Portland Press Herald, "Group pushing for ballot measure to tax wealthy Mainers to fund education," October 8, 2015
• Bangor Daily News, "Group proposes taxing top 2 percent to help state meet education funding law," October 13, 2015

External links

• Maine Secretary of State
• Maine Citizen's Guide to the Referendum Election

Support

• Stand Up for Students
• Stand Up for Students Facebook page

Opposition

• Vote No on Question 2 website
• Vote No on Question 2 Facebook page

Footnotes

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

---

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Frank Festa • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond • Erica Shumaker
External Relations: Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

---

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams. Managing Editor of Events • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Jimmy McAllister • Brandon McCauley • Ellie Mikus • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox