Portland city councilors voted Monday to provide voters with the full ordinance language for six citizen-initiated referenda that will appear on the ballot this fall.

But whether that language will appear on the ballot, or whether it will be included with absentee ballots remains to be seen. Councilors said they preferred to send voters copies of each ordinance proposal without formally placing it on the ballot – providing the information that also is available at the polls. But staff said they need to consult the state about whether mailing such information with an absentee ballot is allowed. If not, the staff was directed to place the full ordinance language on the ballot.

The move may deliver a weighty ballot to Portland residents on Nov. 3 – both literally and figuratively. This year’s election cycle is particularly intense with competitive races for president and U.S. Congress. Locally, three seats on the council are up for grabs and generating a lot of interest. And now, residents will be asked to vote on six referenda impacting short-term rentals, retail marijuana and the minimum wage, among other things.

And all of it is taking place against an ongoing pandemic that is expected to lead to a surge in mail-in voting at a time when concerns are being raised about U.S. Postal Office’s ability to deliver.

Five of the questions are being put forward by People First Portland, a campaign being run by the Southern Maine Democratic Socialists of America, and the sixth is being put forward by the No Cannabis Cap campaign. People First Portland supporters urged the council to include only summaries of the questions, while opponents said that would mislead voters and pushed for the full ordinance language.

The council voted unanimously to provide the full ordinance language to all voters. Staff will check with state election officials to see if voters can be sent the full ordinance language on separate sheets of paper with their ballots; and if not, whether that language would appear on the ballot itself. In the event the ordinance language is required on the ballot, the council agreed to pay return postage, a request made by Councilor Spencer Thibodeau.

Advertisement

“I don’t want anyone to have issues. That’s not their fault,” Thibodeau said. “I don’t want people to have to think about that. I want them just to vote.”

The council also tweaked the summary language of the People First Portland referenda, except for the questions on the proposed ban on facial recognition and tenant protections. The changes recommended by City Councilor Belinda Ray were deemed acceptable to proponents and opponents of the measure during an hour-long public comment period.

People First Portland has separate referendums to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour; further restrict short-term rentals; ban facial surveillance technology by public officials; a slate of proposals to protect tenants by, among other things, limiting rent increases; and enacting a New Green Deal for Portland that would increase energy efficiency and wage standards for projects that receive $50,000 or more in public funding.

The No Cannabis Cap would eliminate 20-establishment limit on recreational and medical marijuana retail stores in the city.

Portland has traditionally sent the full ordinance proposals to voters.

That’s because the city’s code of ordinances says that councilors shall include the full ordinance language on the ballot and a summary, unless the city clerk “determines that it is not reasonably possible to reproduce the full text and summary of the proposed ordinance on the ballot.” If the clerk makes that judgment, the summary provided by the petitioners “shall accompany the title on the ballot in place of the full text.”

Advertisement

But Danielle West-Chuhta said in the past that councils have amended summary language to make it more objective.

City Clerk Kathy Jones estimated that the municipal ballot would be seven pages long if the full ordinance language was included on the ballot. And that doesn’t include the state ballot.

Most of the people who spoke during an hour-long public hearing – including representatives from the Portland Regional Chamber of Commerce, Hospitality Maine, Retail Association of Maine and short-term rental owners – implored councilors to include the full language of the proposed ordinances on the ballot, as well as a fair summary. They argued that the summaries provided by the petitioners are biased and seek to influence voters, rather than provide a fair and accurate description of the initiatives.

“For me it’s just a matter of transparency and having all facts in front of you when you vote on this,” Munjoy Hill resident Kathy Palmer said.

Stratton Place resident Eammon Dundon said the council should eliminate any political slogans and accurately describe the proposals.

“It should be clear what the language is and what the actual policies are,” Dundon said.

Advertisement

Others, however, urged the council to only publish the summaries of each question and they were open to the revised summaries offered by Ray. They argued that publishing the full ordinance language amounted to voter suppression.

“It amounts to voter intimidation and it amounts to a literacy test,” said Kate Sykes, a former Southern Maine DSA steering committee member and volunteer for People First Portland who is running for District 5 City Council seat. 

Munjoy Hill resident Karen Snyder said that full ordinances are available online and will be available to people voting in person.

“The text is available, it does not need to be on the ballot on Nov. 3,” Snyder said.

Proponents of summaries argued that Portland was an outlier in requiring full ordinance language, whereas the state only uses summaries. But Mary Costigan, an attorney who represents area businesses, said that comparison was “apples to oranges,” since the summary language printed on state ballots is drafted by the state officials, not proponents.

“Unfortunately many of the summaries that appeared on the petition were not clear or objective,” Costigan said.

Mayor Kate Snyder said the debate highlighted the issues in the referenda process that need to be addressed, including whether it’s appropriate for advocates to draft summary language for the ballot. The council also needs to wrestle with the use of the internet to inform voters, when many low-income and older residents aren’t well connected, she said.

“To me at least that gets at core issues we need to be talking about,” Snyder said. “To me we’ve got some fundamental issues that were brought to light tonight and I think we’re working through it the best way we can.”


Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.