Your editorial of Dec. 4, on ballot Questions 1, 2 and 4, demonstrates several biases that deserve to be challenged.

• First of all, you assert that “passing laws by referendum when they haven’t been debated and amended means that there are rough spots that need to be smoothed over.”

I would strongly argue that this is no more likely to be the case with legislation passed by our “citizen legislators” than with legislation passed by citizen referendums.

One need only recall the single omission of the word “and” from the Legislature’s 11,633-word energy law in 2013.

This one missing word reduced funding for energy-efficiency programs for homeowners and businesses across Maine by up to $38 million. This “rough spot” led the Public Utilities Commission to cap funding for the Efficiency Maine Trust in the fiscal year beginning in July 2016 at $22 million, rather than the $60 million the Legislature intended.

• Secondly, with regard to Question 1 on the Nov. 8 ballot, regarding adult-use marijuana, you assert that opponents of the referendum were correct in identifying a flaw in the bill and that flaw is “the unintentional legalization of marijuana for people under age 21.”

However, you and your reporters have totally and consistently ignored the “intent and content” statement prepared by the Office of the Attorney General and included in the Citizen’s Guide to the Referendum Election prepared by the Secretary of State’s Office.

This evaluation by the attorney general’s own office clearly states that the citizen-initiated legislation “would make it permissible under state law for a person 21 years of age or older to possess, grow, cultivate, process, transfer or purchase up to certain specified amounts of marijuana.”

This assessment contradicts Attorney General Janet Mills’ last-minute argument, which likely misled voters to nearly defeat this referendum. It should not be taken seriously.

Louis T. Sigel

Gardiner

Copy the Story Link