Well here we have another "off year" election cycle..
Referendum proponents like these years because only their supporters will go vote whilst everyone else works, hunts or sit on their ass collecting welfare.  ie: no major issues...

One member on the legislature, Gina M. Mason, (R), passed away opening up a slot in District 56, Lisbon, and Scott N. Gaiason, (D) and  her widower, Richard G. Mason, (R) are vying for the seat.
...keep it red Lisbon!!!

Referendum issues...
(Copied from me.gov site)
.

Question 1: Citizen InitiativeTITLE: An  Act To Allow Slot Machines or a Casino in York County. - Legislation
Do you want to allow  a certain company to operate table games and/or slot machines in York County,  subject to state and local
approval, with part of the profits going to the  specific programs
described in the initiative?

Question 2: Citizen InitiativeTITLE: An  Act To Enhance Access to Affordable Health Care. - Legislation
Do you want Maine to  expand Medicaid to provide healthcare coverage for qualified adults under age  65 with incomes at or below 138% of the federal poverty level, which in 2017  means $16,643 for a single person and $22,412 for a family of two?

Question 3: Bond Issue TITLE: An  Act To Authorize a General Fund Bond Issue to Improve Highways, Bridges and  Multimodal Facilities and Upgrade Municipal Culverts  - Legislation
Do you favor a $105,000,000 bond issue for  construction, reconstruction and rehabilitation of highways and bridges
and for  facilities or equipment related to ports, harbors, marine
transportation,  freight and passenger railroads, aviation, transit and bicycle and pedestrian  trails, to be used to match an estimated
$137,000,000 in federal and other  funds, and for the upgrade of
municipal culverts at stream crossings?

Question 4: Constitutional AmendmentTITLE: Resolution,  Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Maine To Reduce Volatility in  State Pension Funding Requirements Caused by the Financial Markets  - Legislation
Do you favor amending the Constitution of Maine to  reduce volatility in state pension funding requirements caused by the financial  markets by increasing the length of time over which experience losses are  amortized from 10 years to 20 years, in line with pension industry standards?


My general thought is to vote the whole works down but Portland and the populated lib cities will prolly pass the whole she-bang

What's your thoughts fellow mainiacs???
Either way... go vote.

edit... formatting all fubar from copy / paste

Turnout will be low.  It is vital for small-government folks to turn out to vote, especially on Question 2.

Here are my thoughts on the various questions:

I stink at this...  Here is my comment on Question 2.

No, no and NO!

First, allow me to point out the following information. You can look it up on the Maine Ethics website.

October financing:

Mainers For HealthCare (supports Question 2): raised $1,201,225
-$15,575 from Maine (1.3%)
-$1,185,650 from out of state (98.7%) Much of that is from California.

Welfare to Work PAC (opposes Question 2): raised $217,700
-$217,700 from Maine (100%)
-$0 from out of state (0%)

On the substance, this adds non-disabled working-age adults with no kids to Medicaid if they make under 139% of the federal poverty level. The program currently covers poor people who are disabled, over 65, children (and their parents) and pregnant women. The program already takes up 1/3 of the annual state budget and covers 250,000 people. If expanded, Medicaid could cover a full 1/3 of the state's population.

A year or two ago proponents said expansion would add 50,000 people to Medicaid, then it was 70,000 and now they are saying 80,000. Per the census, there are 144,000 people in this income bracket and if you add folks who are just above it that number swells to 200,000. If history tells us anything on Medicaid it is that enrollment always surpasses estimates. Nationally, with only 31 states having expanded, we already have more than double the number of people on Medicaid that the feds projected would ever be on Medicaid if all 50 states expanded. When Maine expanded in 2002, they projected 11,000 new enrollees. We more than doubled that in a year!

It took us years to fix the problems of our prior expansion. We went from budget over-run to budget over-run, and in order to make the number work the state cut programs for the elderly and disabled kids. The state also just didn't bother paying hospitals and other care providers for years. We racked up around $750 million in unpaid bills. Some providers went out of business. Hospitals laid off staff. Specialty services were cut.

Vote NO on Question 2.

Damn the out of state money..
I wasn't aware the big bux were "from away"..
Should've suspected as much.
At least Bloomburg was open about his efforts on guns.
Thanks for the explanation..

I already voted. and it was NO on every question.

These special interest groups can go shit in their hats.

NO X 4.

My thoughts;

Clear NO on questions #1 and #2;

#1 -- essentially carves out a monopoly gambling franchise in York County (classic "rent-seeking")
#2 -- budget busting and work disincentive expansion of Medicare (will sink Maine's economy)

Not sure on questions #3 and #4, but possible YES votes on these two.

It is my understanding that Governor LePage has vetoed this before. Is it not possible for him to do it again?

He has vetoed it several times when it went through the legislature, but the governor's veto only applies to legislation coming out of the legislature.  Ballot initiatives bypass that process and become law without going through the normal channels.  The question on the ballot is a mere sentence, but the sentence represents underlying legislation (a "bill") that you can only find if you look for it and which may be multiple pages of legalese.  In this case it wasn't terribly long, but included references to other laws you would have to go look up.

Absent legislative action to overturn or in some way modify the bill underlying Question 2, that bill becomes law.

Today the Governor said he would refuse to implement the expansion unless the legislature found a way to pay for it without raising taxes.  The legislature is stuck with this job because, of course, the bill didn't mention anything about how it would be paid for.  The proponents of the bill didn't want to talk about that part...

Hi all.

I'm from CT but we are planning our move North soon to Maine and have been following Maine politics so we're prepared.

Regarding the expansion of the Medicaid program in Maine, is it possible that since it was passed by referendum, the legislature will be compelled to find a way to fund it regardless of the governor's wishes?   In other states where referendum questions have been passed with the voice of the people clearly dictating what how they feel only to have a court rule against them and overturn their answer.  I wonder if someone will sue the state to fund the expansion demanded by the referendum or, because there is no funding stream available, it will wither on the vine.  (We're not fans of expanding government programs because they tend to raise taxes on everyone but those in the program. )  Just curious.  

Congrats, too, on killing the new casino.  Here in Connecticut we are fighting that same fight but on a much less amenable terrain.  The government here has it in for certain people to run the thing (the local indian tribes) but they have no say on private grounds and private people who wanted to bid on the license were denied the opportunity.  Even Steve Wynn was denied.  Whether or not it gets built will still be a question but it's pretty messy.  Since there are already two here and one going up just over the line in Springfield, MA, we'd rather not have another.   Gosh I can't wait to get out of this state!  

Rome

The legislature has in the past directly repealed, modified, or refused to fund referendum questions.  Being that this one provides for a specific entitlement, I don't doubt that a lawsuit will arise if the administration doesn't provide the benefits.  However, I think the state is on pretty solid ground to not provide the benefits if the legislature doesn't fund the expansion.  

22 MRS section 3174-G includes a provision that allows DHHS to shrink program eligibility criteria if there aren't enough funds.  That language specifically applied to Medicaid benefits for non-disabled folks the last time we expanded Medicaid up to 125% of FPL.  The new referendum didn't include any such provision for the up to 138% of FPL population, but it also didn't repeal the old provision.  The new referendum did include statutory language to empower DHHS to implement such rulemaking as necessary for implementation.  It stands to reason that DHHS would treat the new expansion as subject to the same provisions as the old expansion to avoid the absurd result of having to fund people between 125% and 138% of FPL, while being able to cut back benefits for those below 125% of FPL.  

Then again, when it comes to out-of-state groups pushing ballot initiatives, reason sometimes seems to be checked at the door.