Dear Editor:

I became aware of Question 7 only recently due to the article Referendum questions dominate November ballot. published in this newspaper.

On the Secretary of State website question 7 is presented like so:

QUESTION 7: Do you favor amending the Constitution of Maine to remove a provision requiring a circulator of a citizen's initiative or people's veto petition to be a resident of Maine and a registered voter in Maine, requirements that have been ruled unconstitutional in federal court?

The voters of Maine are being asked to change our Constitution due to a single ruling by the First Federal Court of Appeals. This is a states rights vs federal rights issue that has deeper ramifications than appears at first glance. Let it be resolved in the US Supreme Court before the Maine Constitution is changed.

I do not see this issue being given the public attention that it deserves before changing our Constitution. The question rests on the definition of “circulator” in the Maine Constitution which requires those circulating petitions to initiate or veto a state law to be registered voters in Maine.

The suit brought against the Maine Constitution is We the People PAC, et al. versus Bellows. There is a long definition for “written petition” in the Maine Constitution but I have not found where the Maine Constitution identifies who can author petitions to be circulated in this state and so the definition of “circulator” is all we have to prevent organized initiatives from outside of Maine from influencing laws within Maine.

In this era when the country is so divided, If we change our Constitution pursuant to a single federal court ruling, organized and professional circulators can come into our state to advance laws or veto others that affect such controversial issues as abortion, gun rights, laws benefiting private equity investors and foreign investors and so forth. Nothing is off limits.

Maine deserves better. Instead of approving Question 7, We the People PAC, et al. versus Bellows. should be appealed to a higher court and the public conversation expanded.

Susan M Andersen

Boothbay