The Maine Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that a proposal to expand ranked-choice voting to additional state elections is unconstitutional, halting an effort backed by Democratic lawmakers and delivering a legal victory to Republican opponents.
In a unanimous decision issued Monday, the court found that the proposed expansion—known as LD 1666—violates the Maine Constitution. The ruling prevents ranked-choice voting (RCV) from being applied to general elections for governor, state senator, and state representative.
“Because of the Maine Constitution’s language, there are strong and convincing reasons that [the law] is unconstitutional,” the justices wrote, concluding that the usual presumption in favor of a law’s validity had been overcome.
The case reached the court after Democratic legislative leaders requested a formal opinion on whether the expansion complied with constitutional requirements. Republicans had argued that extending ranked-choice voting to additional races would conflict with provisions in the state constitution governing how election winners are determined.
The decision reinforces earlier legal limitations on Maine’s use of ranked-choice voting. While voters approved the system through a ballot initiative in 2016, a 2017 advisory opinion from the same court restricted its use to federal elections and party primaries, citing constitutional concerns.
Under Maine’s current system, ranked-choice voting is used in congressional races and primaries, but not in general elections for statewide offices. The now-rejected proposal would have significantly broadened its application.
Supporters of ranked-choice voting argue that the system ensures elected officials have majority support and gives voters more flexibility by allowing them to rank candidates in order of preference. The system redistributes votes from lower-performing candidates in successive rounds until one candidate secures a majority.
Critics, however, have raised concerns about both the complexity of the system and its compatibility with constitutional requirements. The court’s ruling focused strictly on legal issues, not the merits of the voting system itself.
In their opinion, the justices emphasized that their decision was grounded in constitutional interpretation rather than policy preference.
“Our decision does not reflect or turn on the wisdom” of ranked-choice voting, the court wrote, “but rather rests on fundamental constitutional principles.”
Specifically, the court pointed to the distinction between passing legislation and amending the Constitution. While laws can be enacted by a simple majority vote, constitutional changes require a higher threshold, including approval by two-thirds of the legislature and ratification by voters.
The justices concluded that expanding ranked-choice voting to offices governed by constitutional provisions would effectively alter those provisions without following the required amendment process.
Republican leaders in the state welcomed the ruling. Jim Deyermond called the decision a defense of the state’s constitutional framework and said it provides clarity on the limits of election law changes.
The case also drew attention due to the involvement of Aaron Frey, a Democrat who broke with some members of his party by opposing the expansion. Frey filed a legal brief urging the court to reject the proposal as unconstitutional.
Maine remains one of only two states, along with Alaska, that use ranked-choice voting in statewide elections, though its use in Maine is currently limited by the court’s interpretation of the constitution.
Nationally, the system has become a point of debate, with some states adopting it and others banning it outright. At least 19 states have enacted laws prohibiting ranked-choice voting, reflecting ongoing divisions over election methods.
The ruling leaves open the possibility that ranked-choice voting could still be expanded in Maine—but only through a constitutional amendment process rather than standard legislation.
For now, the decision maintains the status quo, limiting ranked-choice voting to the elections where it is already permitted and reinforcing the constitutional boundaries that govern how the state conducts its elections.
