Maine Supreme Court maintains status quo on ranked choice voting
On April 6, the justices of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court issued an advisory (non-binding) opinion that the state constitution does not permit expansion of ranked choice voting (RCV) to general elections for state offices. While FairVote disagrees with the opinion, it does not impact Maine’s current use of RCV.
Sign up for the latest news from the ranked choice voting movement, or get involved in your community.
Maine has successfully used ranked choice voting since 2018 for all congressional elections, and for primaries for state offices. After a successful election cycle with RCV in 2018, Maine expanded RCV to presidential primaries and general elections. In a 2024 poll, 82% of Maine voters said RCV was easy, and 57% said they liked the ability to rank candidates.
The advisory opinion only applies in Maine, and is based on unusual provisions specific to Maine’s 1820 state constitution that hold limited relevance for other states. The opinion relies on the interplay of two clauses in Maine’s Constitution, one of which is unusually granular and prescriptive on election procedures.
The Alaska Supreme Court’s unanimous 2022 decision upholding RCV in Kohlhaas v. Alaska is still the most widely applicable state court decision on RCV – and specifically how RCV is consistent with state constitutions with requirements that elections are won with a “plurality of” or “the most” votes.
Read more details on ranked choice voting in Maine and the advisory opinion below, and learn more from the League of Women Voters of Maine.
Ranked choice voting comes to Maine
In 2016, Maine voters passed a ballot measure to bring RCV to all congressional, gubernatorial, and state legislative elections.
The Maine Senate then asked the justices of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court to weigh in on the constitutionality of RCV in state elections.
The justices opined that the RCV law violated the plurality provisions in the Maine Constitution for state representatives, state senators, and governor. According to the 2017 opinion, the Maine Constitution requires elections for those offices be awarded to the candidate who receives a plurality “in the first round of counting.” However, the justices did not point to any text in the Maine Constitution or its history requiring this “first plurality” interpretation.
As a result, when RCV took effect in Maine in 2018, it applied only to state primaries, federal primaries, and federal general elections. It did not apply to general elections for state offices.
Over several election cycles, ranked choice voting has become the norm in Maine. In 2018 – the first time Maine used RCV – voters passed another ballot measure reaffirming their support for RCV. In 2019, Maine’s legislature passed a law that expanded use of RCV to presidential general elections beginning in 2020, and to presidential primaries beginning in 2024.
The 2026 advisory opinion
In 2026, Maine’s legislature passed LD 1666, which adopted new language to clarify the manner in which RCV might be interpreted to be consistent with the plurality provisions of the Maine Constitution.
The legislature then requested a new advisory opinion from the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, seeking guidance on whether RCV could be used in state general elections. The state legislature and the League of Women Voters of Maine argued in favor of the RCV expansion before the Court.
In the new advisory opinion, the justices look beyond the plurality provision alone and instead rely on how the meaning of an entirely separate provision – the “sort, count, declare” provision – restricts the meaning of the plurality provision. Notably, the new advisory opinion makes it clear that there’s nothing about plurality provisions on their own that is inconsistent with RCV. Instead, the justices adopted a strict interpretation of the meaning of “vote” in the plurality provision based on the state constitution’s separate “sort, count, declare” provision.
Maine’s “sort, count, declare” provision is an unusually granular and prescriptive provision that dates back to Maine’s original 1820 constitution and describes the outdated counting practices in place at the time. This “sort, count, declare” provision – which calls on individual towns to produce lists of recorded votes – is related to New England states’ history of “town meetings” and rarely found outside New England.
Ultimately, the justices find that RCV cannot comport with this Maine constitutional requirement – claiming that local officials currently only sort, count, declare, and submit to central authorities a single expression of preference taken from each voter. (In fact, RCV elections can be tabulated using locally produced records of votes – but the justices curiously suggest in the opinion that such a solution is “beside the point.”)
In practice, the “sort, count, declare” provisions are rarely followed in Maine today in the kind of strict manner envisioned by the justices, but the justices’ interpretation nonetheless elevates rigid adherence to the outdated ceremonial procedures described in these provisions over reasonable election reform – passed by Maine voters, and again by their representatives in the State Legislature.
What’s next
Following this advisory opinion, the Maine Legislature will not move ahead with the hoped-for expansion of RCV.
However, Maine voters will continue to benefit from RCV in all federal elections and state primaries – including multi-candidate races in both the Democratic and Republican gubernatorial primaries this June.
Visit the League of Women Voters of Maine and Democracy Maine to learn more, and get involved with supporting better elections in the state.
