Maine Supreme Court Blocks Expansion of Ranked-Choice Voting in State Elections

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court delivered a decisive constitutional ruling this week, striking down a Democrat-backed effort to expand ranked-choice voting and handing a clear legal victory to Republican critics who argued the proposal overstepped the state’s foundational law.

In a unanimous opinion issued Monday, the court determined that the legislation—LD 1666—violates the Maine Constitution, effectively blocking any attempt to apply ranked-choice voting (RCV) 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 standard presumption in favor of a law’s validity had been decisively overcome.

The case reached the high court after Democratic legislative leaders sought clarity on whether their proposal complied with constitutional requirements. Republicans, however, had consistently warned that expanding ranked-choice voting into additional races would directly conflict with the Constitution’s clear rules on how election winners must be determined.

Monday’s ruling reinforces long-standing legal constraints on Maine’s use of the controversial voting system. Although voters initially approved ranked-choice voting via ballot initiative in 2016, the court had already issued a 2017 advisory opinion limiting its use to federal elections and party primaries due to constitutional conflicts.

Under the current framework, Maine continues to use ranked-choice voting in congressional contests and primary elections—but not in general elections for statewide offices. The now-defeated proposal would have dramatically expanded its reach.

Supporters of ranked-choice voting claim the system promotes majority support and offers voters greater flexibility by allowing them to rank candidates. Through a multi-round tabulation process, votes from lower-performing candidates are redistributed until a candidate secures a majority.

Critics, including many conservatives, have long raised concerns about the system’s complexity and whether it aligns with constitutional principles. Notably, the court made clear its decision was not based on the policy merits of ranked-choice voting itself.

“Our decision does not reflect or turn on the wisdom” of ranked-choice voting, the justices emphasized, “but rather rests on fundamental constitutional principles.”

At the heart of the ruling is a core constitutional distinction: laws can be passed by simple legislative majorities, but constitutional changes require a far more rigorous process—including a two-thirds vote in the legislature and ratification by voters. The court concluded that the proposed expansion would effectively rewrite constitutional provisions without following that required process.

Republican leaders quickly praised the decision as a victory for the rule of law. GOP figure Jim Deyermond described the ruling as a critical defense of Maine’s constitutional framework, providing much-needed clarity on the limits of election law changes.

The case also drew attention due to the involvement of Aaron Frey, a Democrat who broke ranks with some in his party by opposing the expansion. Frey submitted a legal brief urging the court to strike down the measure as unconstitutional—a position ultimately affirmed by the justices.

Maine remains one of only two states, alongside Alaska, to utilize ranked-choice voting at the statewide level, though its application in Maine continues to be narrowly confined under constitutional interpretation.

Across the country, ranked-choice voting remains a deeply contested issue. While some states have experimented with the system, at least 19 have moved to ban it outright—reflecting growing skepticism about its transparency and fairness.

The court’s ruling leaves the door open for future changes—but only through the proper constitutional amendment process, not through legislative shortcuts.

For now, the decision preserves Maine’s existing election structure and reinforces a fundamental principle: election laws must adhere strictly to the Constitution, not be reshaped through political maneuvering.