The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set news policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com
Carole Florman of Damariscotta spent almost 40 years in communications, advocacy, and management roles for organizations including the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Financial Stability; the U.S. Department of Justice; the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; Planned Parenthood Federation of America; CancerCare and the League of Conservation Voters.
This fall, Mainers will vote on whether to make significant changes to our electoral system, primarily impacting absentee and early voting. As a Mainer who has volunteered on voter assistance hotlines in Pennsylvania and Georgia in 2020, 2022, and 2024, I have seen first hand exactly what the proposed changes to our law would do to make it harder, if not impossible, for many elderly, disabled, and rural voters to exercise their right to vote. Here are just a few examples of what voters I spoke with faced.
In 2021, Georgia did away with permanent absentee voting, requiring voters to submit a ballot request for each election, even those who had previously signed up to get an absentee ballot for every election. Almost every day I spoke with an older voter wondering where their ballot was, because they were unaware of the changes to the law or thought they had requested a ballot, only to learn that their request was for an earlier election.
Very often by the time they called, the deadline to request a ballot had passed, meaning they would not be able to vote, or if the deadline hadn’t passed they had to figure out how to submit their request, which couldn’t be done over the telephone, and many of these voters didn’t have the technology to request an absentee ballot online. Imagine if they were your parents.
In 2020 and 2024, I spoke to elderly or disabled voters in rural Pennsylvania who had received their absentee ballots late — too late to mail them back — but since they couldn’t leave the house they wouldn’t be able to vote, because Pennsylvania doesn’t allow anyone (including a spouse or child) to return someone’s else’s ballot to a drop box or Board of Elections without a special form that must be printed and signed. That may sound simple, but for those without a printer, or someone willing and able to get the special form, fill it out, get the necessary signatures, and drive the ballots to a drop-off, it can be an enormous obstacle.
I spoke to women voters in Georgia whose names had changed following a marriage, but they hadn’t updated their voter registration with their new name. They wouldn’t be allowed to vote because the name on their driver’s license didn’t match their voter registration.
All these scenarios, and more, will likely become commonplace if Question 1 passes. The referendum, which proponents call a “voter ID” law could disenfranchise rural, disabled, tribal, and elderly voters. If you read the text of the referendum you’ll see that it will set up the exact obstacles that the voters I spoke to in Georgia and Pennsylvania faced. It would end ongoing absentee voting, prohibit phone requests for absentee ballots, ban family members and helpers from picking up or dropping off absentee ballots for their loved ones, reduce the number of early voting days, and create complicated and potentially expensive new restrictions on ballot drop boxes (which are already governed by very explicit rules to ensure their security).
I’m in favor of safe and secure elections, and guess what? In Maine, we already have them! According to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative organization that has tracked voter fraud, we’ve had exactly two cases of voter fraud since 1982, both of which were prosecuted.
Let’s be honest. This referendum isn’t about securing Maine’s elections; it seems to be about limiting the number of people who vote. Don’t be fooled. Please learn the facts and vote against Question 1.
