Maine Redistricting Measure, Question 4 (2011)
| Question 4 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Type | legislatively referred constitutional amendment |
| Origin | Maine Legislature |
| Topic | Redistricting |
| Status | Approved  |
A Maine Redistricting Measure, also known as Question 4 was on the November 8, 2011 ballot in the state of Maine as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment, where it was approved.
The measure amended the Maine Constitution to change the years of redistricting the lawmaking body, congressional districts and county commissioner districts after 2013 from 2023 and every 10th years after that to 2021 and every 10th year after that.[1]
| Redistricting measures on the ballot in 2011 |
 |
According to reports, the proposal made it through Maine Legislature and onto the ballot without any friction or opposition. The chief sponsor of the proposal was State Representative Dennis Keschl.[2]
Election results
- See also: 2011 ballot measure election results[3]
| Maine Question 4 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 197,026 | 49.8% | ||
| No | 175,112 | 44.2% | ||
Results via official election results from the Maine Secretary of State's office.
Text of measure
Ballot language
The ballot language that voters saw on the ballot read:[4]
- Do you favor amending the Constitution of Maine to change the years of redistricting the Maine Legislature, congressional districts and county commissioner districts after 2013 from 2023 and every 10th year thereafter to 2021 and every 10th year thereafter?
Constitutional changes
Question 4 amended Article IV and Article IX of the Maine Constitution.
Constitution, Art. IV, Pt. First, §2 was amended to read: Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.
Constitution, Art. IV, Pt. First, §3 was amended to read:
Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.
In the event that the Legislature shall fail to make an apportionment within 130 calendar days after convening by June 11th, the Supreme Judicial Court shall, within 60 days following the period in which the Legislature is required to act, but fails to do so, make the apportionment. In making such apportionment, the Supreme Judicial Court shall take into consideration plans and briefs filed by the public with the court during the first 30 days of the period in which the court is required to apportion.
The Supreme Judicial Court shall have original jurisdiction to hear any challenge to an apportionment law enacted by the Legislature, as registered by any citizen or group thereof. If any challenge is sustained, the Supreme Judicial Court shall make the apportionment.[5]
Constitution, Art. IV, Pt. Second, §2 was amended to read:
Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.
The apportionment plan of the commission established under Article IV, Part Third, Section 1-A shall be submitted to the Secretary of the Senate no later than 120 calendar days after the convening of the Legislature June 1st of the year in which apportionment is required. In the preparation of legislation implementing the plan, the commission, following a unanimous decision by commission members, may adjust errors and inconsistencies in accordance with the standards set forth in this Constitution, so long as substantive changes are not made. The Legislature shall enact the submitted plan of the commission or a plan of its own by a vote of 2/3 of the Members of each House , within 30 calendar days after the plan of the commission is submitted by June 11th of the year in which apportionment is required. Such action shall be subject to the Governor's approval as provided in Article IV, Part Third, Section 2.
In the event that the Legislature shall fail to make an apportionment within 130 days after convening by June 11th, the Supreme Judicial Court shall, within 60 days following the period in which the Legislature is required to act but fails to do so, make the apportionment. In making such apportionment, the Supreme Judicial Court shall take into consideration plans and briefs filed by the public with the court during the first 30 days of the period in which the court is required to apportion.
The Supreme Judicial Court shall have original jurisdiction to hear any challenge to an apportionment law enacted by the Legislature, as registered by any citizen or group thereof. If any challenge is sustained, the Supreme Judicial Court shall make the apportionment.[5]
Constitution, Art. IX was amended by adding after Section 23 the following:
Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.
- 1. Procedure. Beginning in 2021 and every 10 years thereafter, when the Secretary of State has received notification of the number of congressional seats to which the State is entitled and the Federal Decennial Census population count is final, the Legislative Apportionment Commission, established every 10 years pursuant to Article IV, Part Third, Section 1-A, shall review the existing congressional districts. If the districts do not conform to Supreme Judicial Court guidelines, the commission shall reapportion the State into congressional districts.
- In making such a reapportionment, the commission shall ensure that each congressional district is formed of compact and contiguous territory and crosses political subdivisions the least number of times necessary to establish districts as equally populated as possible. The commission shall submit its plan to the Clerk of the House of Representatives no later than June 1st of the year in which apportionment is required. The Legislature shall enact the submitted plan of the commission or a plan of its own in regular or special session by a vote of 2/3 of the members of each House by June 11th of the year in which apportionment is required to the Clerk of the House of Representatives. This action is subject to the Governor's approval, as provided in Article IV, Part Third, Section 2.
- 2. Court apportionment. If the Legislature fails to make an apportionment by June 11th, the Supreme Judicial Court shall make the apportionment within 60 days following the period in which the Legislature is required to act but fails to do so. In making the apportionment, the Supreme Judicial Court shall take into consideration plans and briefs filed by the public with the court during the first 30 days of the period in which the court is required to apportion.
- 3. Judicial review. The Supreme Judicial Court has original jurisdiction to hear any challenge to an apportionment law enacted by the Legislature, as registered by any citizen or group of citizens. If a challenge is sustained, the Supreme Judicial Court shall make the apportionment.
Section 25. Apportionment of county commissioner districts. County commissioner districts must be apportioned as follows.
- 1. Redistricting, generally. Beginning in 2021 and every 10 years thereafter, the apportionment commission established under Article IV, Part Third, Section 1-A shall review the existing county commissioner districts and, as necessary, reapportion those districts in each county to establish as nearly as practicable equally populated districts. The Speaker of the House of Representatives is responsible for calling the commission together to review the county commissioner districts. No action may be taken by the commission without a quorum of 7.
- A. The apportionment commission shall divide the number of commissioners in each county into the number of inhabitants of the county, excluding foreigners not naturalized, according to the latest Federal Decennial Census or a state census previously ordered by the Legislature to coincide with the Federal Decennial Census, to determine a mean population figure for each county commissioner district. Each county commissioner district must be formed of contiguous and compact territory and must cross political subdivision lines the least number of times necessary to establish as nearly as practicable equally populated districts. Whenever the population of a municipality entitles it to more than one district, all whole districts must be drawn within the municipal boundaries. Any population remainder within the municipality must be included in a district drawn to cross the municipal boundary as long as the population remainder within the municipality is contiguous to another municipality or municipalities included in the district. Any county that already meets the standards and guidelines for equally populated districts, as established by this section, this Constitution and the Constitution of the United States, need not be reapportioned.
- B. Interested parties from each county may submit redistricting plans for the commission to consider. Those plans must be submitted to the commission no later than 30 calendar days after the commission is called together by the Speaker of the House of Representatives under this subsection. The commission may hold public hearings on plans affecting each county.
- C. The commission shall submit its plan to the Clerk of the House of Representatives no later than June 1st of the year in which apportionment is required. The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall submit to the Legislature, no later than January 15, 2022, and every 10th year thereafter, one legislative document to reapportion the county commissioner districts based on the plan submitted by the apportionment commission. The Legislature must enact the submitted plan or a plan of its own in regular or special session by a vote of 2/3 of the members of each House within 30 calendar days after the plan is submitted to it by the Clerk of the House of Representatives. This action is subject to the Governor's approval, as provided in Article IV, Part Third, Section 2.
- 2. Supreme Judicial Court. If the Legislature fails to make an apportionment within the 30 calendar days, the Supreme Judicial Court shall make the apportionment within 60 calendar days following the period in which the Legislature is required to act but fails to do so. In making the apportionment, the Supreme Judicial Court shall consider plans and briefs filed by the public with the court during the first 30 days of the period in which the court is required to apportion.[5]
Support
Arguments
According to the state's Official Voter Guide for 2011 measures, there were no arguments filed in favor of the proposal.
Donors
According to the state campaign finance database, there are no registered committees (PACs).
(last updated October 2011)
Opposition
Arguments
According to the state's Official Voter Guide for 2011 measures, there were no arguments filed against the proposal.
Donors
According to the state campaign finance database, there are no registered committees (PACs).
(last updated October 2011)
Other perspectives
- State Representative Maeghan Maloney commented about the process to place the measure on the ballot during state legislative session in 2011. Mahoney, who co-sponsored the amendment, stated: "I was very pleased with the outcome. We did end up passing a plan with a two-thirds majority, and we worked together, and it's not something that the Democrats love and it's not something that the Republicans love, but it's something that we can both work with and that is best for the state."[6]
Media editorial positions
Support
- The Journal Tribune stated: "Hopefully passage of this bill will keep the process from degrading into threats from party members, and affirm the people of Maine are being accurately represented at all levels of government."[7]
- The Bangor Daily News commented on the measure: "Question 4 is a rarity in referendum history in that its approval would facilitate a better way to resolve an inherently political conundrum. It does so by leveraging better cooperation between the parties. A yes vote will spare us all the angst of watching the next redistricting process, which is something like watching a divorcing couple fight over the family dog."[8]
- The Portland Press Herald said, "Maine should not aspire to repeat the outrageous acts performed by other state legislatures. We have a good system that treats all parties fairly and it should become part of the constitution. We urge you to vote "yes" on Question 4."[9]
- The Sun Journal stated: "The change puts Maine back on schedule to redistrict every 10 years shortly after the latest federal population information is released. A ”yes” vote on Question 4 is warranted."[10]
Polls
- See also: Polls, 2011 ballot measures
- In a poll taken by Critical Insights, results depicted indecision, with 25% of those surveyed undecided on the proposal. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.[11]
| Date of Poll | Pollster | In favor | Opposed | Undecided | Number polled |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| October 18-23, 2011 | Critical Insights | 32% | 33% | 35% | 600 |
Path to the ballot
According to Section 4 of Article X, if the Maine House of Representatives and the Maine State Senate both vote by at least a 2/3rds majority, a proposed amendment to the constitution can be placed on the statewide ballot on the Tuesday following the first Monday of November after the state legislature acts.
Timeline
The following is a timeline of events surrounding the measure:
| Event | Date | Developments |
|---|---|---|
| Introduced | February 10, 2011 | The proposed legislation was introduced in the House |
| House vote | June 16, 2011 | House voted in favor of the proposed measure |
| Senate vote | 'June 28, 2011 | Senate voted in favor of the proposed measure |
| Certified | June 29, 2011 | Measure received by the Secretary of State for the 2011 ballot |
See also
External links
Additional reading
Footnotes
- ↑ WMTW.com, "People's Veto To Top November Ballot Questions," September 8, 2011
- ↑ WSLS.com, "Proposal Bolsters Maine Redistricting Rules," October 16, 2011
- ↑ Results do not add up to 100% due to blank ballots.
- ↑ Maine Secretary of State, "November Referendums," accessed October 7, 2011
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source.
- ↑ MPBN.net, "Maine Ballot Question 4--What's it all About?" November 4, 2011
- ↑ Journal Tribune, "'Yes' on Question 4 will better regulate redistricting," October 22, 2011
- ↑ The Republic, "Maine newspapers take stands on Nov. 8 voter-registration, gambling referendum proposals," October 25, 2011
- ↑ The Portland Press Herald, "Our View: Question 4: A yes vote protects redistrict process," October 30, 2011
- ↑ Sun Journal, "'Yes' is the ticket this Election Day," November 6, 2011
- ↑ Down East, "Poll Shows Yes on 1 Up 8 Points," October 27, 2011
| |||||||||||||||||||
