Question 3 may be receiving all or most of voters’ attention this fall, but the ballot has seven other initiatives. Questions 1 and 2 are influenced by supporters and opponents of Question 3. “No Blank Checks” collected signatures to put Question 1 on the ballot. Willy Ritch is the executive director of No Blank Checks and Maine Affordable Energy which opposes Question 3. 

Question 1 asks “Do you want to bar some quasi-governmental entities and all consumer-owned electric utilities from taking on over $1 billion in debt unless they get statewide voter approval?” This measure was created in response to Pine Tree Power’s attempt to switch Maine’s two largest utility companies from for-profit to a consumer-owned model. No Blank Checks says the cost to seize Central Maine Power and Versant Power would cost close to $13.5 billion and claim Mainers could pay higher taxes. “This would create billions of dollars in debt we would all have to pay off through our electric bills. The people pushing this can’t say exactly how much it would cost, and they are asking us to pay a blank check,” Ritch said.

Pine Tree Power supporters say ratepayers would assume the entire cost. In Boothbay Harbor, Pine Tree Power board of director Jill Linzee, on Oct. 13, told voters the price tag to acquire both utilities is far below $13.5 billion. “Last year, they reported their combined value at $5 billion. There will be a negotiated price, but it won’t be three times the current value,” she said.

While Question 1 is an attempt at slowing down Pine Tree Power’s pursuit of a consumer-owned utility, Question 2 is an attempt at regulating foreign influence in Maine elections. State and federal law already bar foreign contributions to candidates or campaigns, but neither prohibit political contributions to state referendums. 

Both CMP and Versant are foreign-owned. Iberdrola is a Spanish conglomerate which has CMP in its portfolio. Versant Power is owned by the City of Calgary, Alberta. The two foreign entities combined have spent over $34 million in Question 3 related tonspending and Pine Tree Power has spent less than $1 million, according to an Oct. 26 Spectrum News report.

Question 2 asks “Do you want to ban foreign governments and their entities that they own, control, or influence from making campaign contributions or financing communications for or against candidates or ballot questions? Protect Maine Elections is the organization which put the measure on the fall ballot. “Our campaign was started by Mainers coming together to tackle the problem of foreign money in our elections. And it will be won by the same grassroots effort,” according to Protect Maine Elections’ website. Under the proposal, any entity which has at least 5% foreign ownership would fall under the new provision.

In 2019, a referendum question was created regarding a 145-mile-long transmission corridor, called the New England Clean Energy Connect. The transmission line would have been owned by CMP and used by Hydro-Quebec. Despite $63 million spent by project supporters, it was defeated by Maine voters. New England’s Clean Electric Corridor PAC contributed most of the money supporting the initiative. New England ‘s Clean Electric Corridor was an affiliate of Hydro-Quebec and CMP-owned Clean Energy Matters.

Shortly after the 2019 referendum, Question 2 supporters tried to close an apparent loophole in state election laws. State and federal law prohibit foreign contributions to candidates or elections. There are no foreign prohibitions on state referendum contributions. "It is unconscionable that foreign governments are currently permitted to dump millions of dollars into referendum campaigns, the very tool which Maine voters can directly affect state law. In order to maintain the integrity of our elections and political process, we have an obligation to close the loophole identified by the FEC (Federal Election Commission) in 2021, and it’s no surprise that Maine voters agree." said State Sen. Rick Bennett, R-Oxford, in a statement on the Protect Maine Elections website.

In 2021, the Maine State Legislature approved a bill designed to prohibit contributions by foreign government-owned entities to influence ballot measures. Gov. Janet Mills vetoed the bill. “Entities with direct foreign investment employ thousands of Mainers, and that legislation could bar these entities from any form of participation in a referendum is offensive to the democratic process, which depends on a free and unfettered exchange of ideas, information, and opinion,” Mills said, according to Ballotpedia.

Question 4 is the so-called “Right to Repair” ballot question. It would require automobile manufacturers to standardize on-board diagnostics systems to provide remote access to those systems. The Maine Automotive Right to Repair Committee is leading the campaign supporting Question 4. “This issue is about choice. Consumers want the ability to choose where to take their cars or trucks for repairs. They don’t want to be told they can only take their autos to expensive dealerships,” said Maine Right to Repair spokesperson Kate Kahn. 

Alliance for Automotive Choice opposes the initiative. In 2013, the automotive industry entered into an agreement to share diagnostic information, according to AFAC Vice President and spokesman Brian Weiss. “Mainers already can have their car repaired by any repair shop they choose,” Weiss said in a Spectrum News article. “And all the information needed to diagnose and repair a vehicle today is also already made available to all vehicle repair shops.”

Question 5 asks “Do you favor amending the Maine Constitution to change the time period for judicial review of the validity of written petitions from 100 days within the filing date to within 100 business days from the date of filing a written petition?” Maine Assistant Attorney General Julie Flynn supports the change. “This will protect the integrity of Maine elections by smoothing out the workflow requirements placed on a small elections staff without creating a significant impact on the petitions process or increased costs to the state,” she said, according to Ballotpedia. 

Question 6 asks “Do you favor amending the Maine Constitution to remove a provision requiring that all of the provisions of the Constitution be included in the official printed copies prepared by the Secretary of State? In 1876, the state constitution was amended to remove a “duties and obligations” clause in regard to the Wabanaki people in printed copies. The provision remains in the official document. Maine’s current constitution reads in part for Sections 1, 2 and 5, of Article X of the Constitution, “shall hereafter be omitted in any printed copies thereof prefixed to the laws of the state; but this shall not impair the validity of acts under those sections; and said section 5 shall remain in full force, as part of the Constitution, according to the stipulations of said section, with the same effect as if contained in said printed copies.” 

On Oct. 9, Wabanaki Alliance President Maulin Bryant spoke at a “Yes on 6” rally outside the State House urging voters to reinstate the language into the printed versions of the state’s Constitution. “If they're not in there, that makes us feel like we don't matter, that our ancestors' legacy and our history does not matter," Bryant said.

A “yes” vote on Question 6 would cancel the 1876 amendment, and restore the language of original Sections 1, 2, and 5 of Article X to printed Constitution copies. 

Question 7 would remove a residency and registered voter requirement in circulating a citizen’s initiative or people’s veto. This amendment would align the Maine Constitution with a decision by the First Court of Appeals in the We the People PAC, et al. versus Bellows which affirmed a decision by a U.S. District Court requiring a circulator for written petition in Maine to be a resident violates the First Amendment. 

Question 8 would amend the state Constitution to remove a provision prohibiting a person under guardianship for reasons of mental illness from voting for governor, senators and representatives. In 2001, the prohibition on people with mental illness voting was found unconstitutional in a federal district court.