Maine Supreme Court Blocks RCV Expansion, Defends Elections

Maine’s Supreme Court issued a unanimous advisory opinion saying a bill to expand ranked-choice voting would violate the state constitution, and that ruling landed as a win for voters who worry RCV undermines one-person, one-vote. The opinion is nonbinding, so the legislature could still press on, but the court’s analysis makes it clear there are serious constitutional problems with expanding RCV beyond its current uses. Conservatives and election reform skeptics see this as validation of long-held concerns about the complexity and fairness of ranked ballots. The debate now shifts to whether lawmakers will respect the court’s reading or gamble on litigation and political pressure to move the expansion forward.

Maine already uses ranked-choice voting in certain elections, and a bill known as LD 1666 aimed to extend RCV to general and special elections for governor, state representative, and state senator. The Maine Supreme Court was asked to weigh in before any law was passed, and it responded with a clear advisory opinion that expanding RCV in that way would, if enacted, run afoul of the state constitution. That conclusion landed as a surprise to some and a relief to others who argue RCV distorts the voting process and opens the door to outside influence and confusing procedures at the ballot box.

In a Monday advisory opinion, the Maine Supreme Court unanimously determined that legislation aimed at expanding the use of ranked choice voting (RCV) in the state would, “if enacted, violate the Maine Constitution.”

“[T]his decision provides clarity against efforts to pollute our state elections with Ranked-Choice Voting,” Maine Republican Party Chairman Jim Deyermond said in a statement. “This decision should, finally, end the attempts from the radical left to force RCV into Maine’s elections for Governor, Senate, and House.”

Advisory opinions are nonbinding judicial interpretations requested to prevent future legal battles, and state courts can issue them while federal courts cannot under Article 3, Section 2. Lawmakers sought the court’s view to avoid costly litigation and to know whether the proposed reform would survive constitutional scrutiny. That practical move gave the public a preview of how the judiciary understands the state constitution’s protections for straight, majority-based elections.

An advisory opinion is a court’s nonbinding interpretation of law. It states the opinion of a court upon a legal question submitted by a legislature, government official, or another court. Parties seeking advisory opinions tend to do so to better understand their odds of winning a potential lawsuit before risking the expensive process of litigation.

The court’s position complicates plans to widen RCV, because a law struck down as unconstitutional is a costly mistake to fight over. Supporters of RCV argue it prevents vote-splitting and encourages broader voter choice, but critics say it confuses voters, weakens the clarity of the ballot, and can produce outcomes that feel less legitimate. In states like Alaska, where RCV has been used for primary and general elections, critics note unusual outcomes that raise doubts about whether the system serves the principle of one voter, one vote.

As The Federalist has previously reported, RCV is a voting method in which voters “rank” candidates on the ballot. If none of the nominees win a majority in the first round of voting, the candidate in last place is eliminated. His votes go to whichever candidate was ranked second. The process continues until one candidate receives a majority.

Monday’s decision comes weeks after the state legislature asked the court to weigh in on the constitutionality of bill LD 1666, which would expand the voting method in the state to apply to general and special elections for governor, state representative, and state senator. Maine currently uses RCV in primary elections and general elections for federal office.

From a Republican perspective, the court’s ruling is a defense of straightforward voting rights and a pushback against electoral gimmicks pushed by national groups with deep pockets. Critics have long warned that expanding RCV invites outside spending and complicated count procedures that can be manipulated or misread by the public. The advisory opinion gives the legislature a legal caution sign that pushing the policy without clearer constitutional footing risks wasting time and money on a likely losing battle.

There is still a political dimension that the courts did not eliminate. Even with the advisory opinion in hand, the legislature could pass the bill and challenge the court’s interpretation, or supporters could seek a constitutional amendment to authorize broader use of ranked ballots. Either route would force a public fight over how elections should be run and who ultimately decides what standards govern voting procedures in Maine.

For voters and election officials worried about clarity and fairness, the court’s opinion offers a welcome pause to re-evaluate whether expanding ranked-choice voting is the right move. If lawmakers respect the ruling, expansion will likely stall and debates will return to the ballot box and statehouse committees rather than courtrooms. If they do not, the dispute will move to litigation and the voters will once again be asked to decide which side of the system they trust.