Maine Marijuana Legalization, Question 1 (2016)

Maine Question 1
Election date November 8, 2016
Topic Marijuana
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

2016 measures
November 8
Question 1 a
Question 2 a
Question 3 d
Question 4 a
Question 5 a
Question 6 a
Polls
Voter guides
Campaign finance
Signature costs

The Maine Marijuana Legalization Measure, also known as Question 1, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Maine as an indirect initiated state statute. It was approved. Opponents sought a recount of election results, but abandoned the effort on December 17, 2016.

A "yes" vote supported legalizing recreational marijuana for adults over the age of 21.

A "no" vote opposed this proposal to legalize recreational marijuana.

Question 1 took effect on January 30, 2017, at which point Maine residents were allowed to grow, own, and use marijuana. The legislature, however, amended Question 1 to postpone retail sales of any marijuana products and keep any retail edible marijuana products illegal. Maine is one of 11 states with no restrictions on how soon or which what majority the state legislature can repeal or amend initiated state statutes. Read about the legislature's bills to delay and implement retail sales, the governor's veto of those bills, and the final outcome below.

This election was one of Ballotpedia's top 10 state-level races in 2016. Click here to read the full list.

Aftermath

Legislative alteration

LD 88: Delayed sales

Rep. Louis Luchini (D-132) introduced a bill, titled LD 88, in the state legislature near the start of the 2017 legislative session. LD 88 was designed to delay the licensing of retail marijuana facilities until February 2018, with the intent of giving state agencies additional time to craft rules and regulations. Question 1 stated that agencies would begin licensing retail marijuana facilities within nine months of the measure's certification, which was around September 2017. LD 88 was also designed to clarify that marijuana would be legal for recreational use by individuals 21 years of age and older. The bill was written to allow for the legalization of marijuana cultivation, possession, transportation, and sharing in a private residence to go into effect on January 30, 2017, as Question 1 prescribed. The bill was also written, however, to ban the consumption of edible retail marijuana products until February 1, 2018.

On January 26, 2017, the Maine Senate and Maine House of Representatives unanimously approved LD 88. Gov. Paul LePage (R) said he would neither sign nor veto the bill. He wanted legislators to also appropriate revenue to his administration to begin making rules for marijuana regulation. Gov. LePage said, "I’m going to wait until they fix it. As soon as they fix it, I will sign it." The governor changed course and signed LD 88 on January 28, 2017. He said he would use his executive powers to move oversight of the licensing process and marijuana sales from the Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry to the Maine Bureau of Alcoholic Beverages and Lottery Operations.

LD 1650: Implementation of commercial licensing and regulation

In a one-day special session on October 23, 2017, the state legislature passed LD 1650 to implement a regulation and licensing system for cultivators, retail stores, and processing facilities and to enact a 10 percent tax on retail and wholesale sales. The bill was also designed to require cities to opt in before retail establishments could operate within the city's limits, while Question 1 had an opt-out provision. On November 3, 2017, Gov. LePage vetoed the bill arguing that that enforcement of federal laws could interfere with the system established by the bill, the bill didn't mesh with the state's already operational medical marijuana system and laws, the bill's timeline was unreasonable, the regulation structure was confusing, and it might not generate enough revenue. LePage also said, "until I clearly understand how the federal government intends to treat states that seek to legalize marijuana, I cannot in good conscience support any scheme in state law to implement expansion of legal marijuana in Maine.”

LD 1650 was passed without the two-thirds (66.67%) vote of those voting required to overturn a gubernatorial veto in the state House and only reached the two-thirds threshold in the Senate because four senators were absent. The state House voted 81-50, with 19 not voting and one vacancy. The state Senate voted 22-9 with four absent. If all members of the legislature are present and voting, approval by 24 senators and 100 representatives is required to overturn a veto. Usually, the requirement is 101 votes in the House, but, as of November 2017, the House had one vacancy. The legislature met on Monday, November 6, 2017, to consider LePage's veto of LD 1650. In the veto override vote, the state House voted 74-62 in favor of the bill, which was 17 votes shy of the two-thirds supermajority required to push it past LePage's veto. Thirteen representatives were absent. With the veto of LD 1650 standing, the February 1, 2018, start date for retail sales went back into effect. Several lawmakers suggested that the legislature could either extend the delay of commercial implementation or try to pass a new implementation bill in January during the first month of the 2018 session.

House Minority Leader Ken Fredette (R), who backed LePage and ultimately voted against LD 1650, proposed extending moratorium on recreational marijuana sales beyond the February 2018 start date during the special, one-day veto override session, but House leadership opted to leave the discussion until a key LePage ally in the Legislature, said that regardless of the outcome of the override vote, it was unlikely that retail sales of recreational marijuana would be able to begin before a moratorium expires on Feb.1. He called on lawmakers to extend the moratorium, to provide time for the administration to do the rule making that establishes details of retail licensing and a tax regime. Fredette suggested that the Legislature try to move on that extension Monday, but Democratic leadership rejected that proposal instead deciding to wait until the beginning of the 2018 session in January to consider the legislature's next steps.

Sen. Mark Dion (D), a 2018 gubernatorial candidate, voted in favor of LD 1650 in both the initial approval and the failed veto override vote. Dion said, “The governor’s veto is the latest in a long line of setbacks, but we remain closer than ever before to enacting reasonable drug policy reforms to end the system of black-market profits and needless incarceration. We will continue our work, knowing the people of Maine are on our side. It’s only a matter of time before the voters’ will is fulfilled.”

Responses from Question 1 supporters:

Paul T. McCarrier, founder of Legalize Maine and co-author of Question 1, opposed LD 1650 and supported LePage's veto of it. McCarrier said that LD 1650 changed Question 1 in ways that were opposed to the intention of the original initiative. McCarrier said, that in the drafting process for LD 1650 “there was very little public input. There was mostly input from lobbyists and the chairs of the committee.” McCarrier also called LD 1650's opt-in requirement for cities de facto prohibition.

David Boyer, former director for the Marijuana Policy Project who also campaigned in favor of Question 1, disagreed with McCarrier and said, “We call on the legislature to override this ill-advised veto. Seven other states have passed legalization initiatives over the past five years, and none has seen this type of obstructionism from its Governor.”

Legislative alteration context

See also: Legislative alterations of ballot initiatives and Legislative alteration rules

From 2010 through 2018, 97 initiated state statutes and two initiated ordinances in D.C. were approved by voters. Of these 99 total initiatives from 2010 through 2018, 28 were repealed or amended as of April 2019. The states with the most total cases of legislative alterations of initiatives approved since 2010 were Maine—with four initiatives altered out of eight approved—and Colorado and Oregon—each with three initiatives altered out of five approved. Among initiatives approved from 2010 through 2018, marijuana was the topic that drew the most legislative alterations, with eight initiatives. Other topics addressed by legislatively altered initiatives included elections and campaigns, term limits, education, business regulation, law enforcement, minimum wage, taxes, and gambling.

The rate of legislative alteration was 13 percentage points higher for initiatives approved in 2016 and 2018 than initiatives approved from 2010 through 2015.

Legislative alteration rates
Year span	# approved	# altered	Alteration rate
2010 - 2023	152	30	19.74%
2016 - 2018	56	20	35.71%
2010 - 2015	43	9	20.9%

Click here for information about all legislative alterations of initiatives approved since 2010.

Recount

Due to the narrow margin by which Question 1 passed, opponents of the measure requested an official recount of the results. The No On 1 campaign picked up papers from the secretary of state's office to collect signatures for a recount and submitted at least 100 signatures to the secretary of state's office on November 16, 2016. The secretary of state certified the recount petition on November 21, 2016. The Question 1 recount was planned to occur in tandem with recount efforts for another ballot measure, Maine Question 2, but the request for that recount was withdrawn on November 29, 2016.

The secretary of state's office coordinated with volunteers from both sides of the campaign, state staff, and police to work out the logistics of the recount. The recount process began on December 5, 2016, with teams of three, consisting of one secretary of state staff member and one volunteer from both the support and opposition campaigns, hand counting "yes" and "no" votes. Votes from the city of Portland were the first ones counted, and officials continued to conduct the process in phases, starting with larger cities like Portland, and then moving on to assess votes from smaller communities. Ballots were reviewed from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and would have been assessed until all were counted, if the requesting group had not dropped the recount after partial review.

No statistically significant change had been found by the seventh day of the recount, leading supporters to argue that the process was a waste of time and money. Supporters also criticized the opposition campaign for not providing enough volunteers during some of the recount days. The second week of the recount began at 11 a.m. on Monday, December 12, 2016, instead of 9 a.m., due to a snow delay. The recount was put on hold for the holiday season, beginning on December 15, 2016, and was set to resume in January.

On December 17, 2016, the opposition campaign officially withdrew its request for a recount. It was estimated that the process could take more than a month to complete and cost taxpayers more than $500,000. Opponents indicated that the end cost after partial review was about $15,000. When the margin of votes is less than 1.5 percentage points, as is the case with Question 1, the state pays for all recount costs. If the margin were greater than 1.5 percent, the group seeking the recount would be responsible for paying between $500 and $5,000 of the costs.

Gov. LePage's response

Gov. Paul LePage (R) said he might challenge the results, depending on whether President Trump's administration intends to enforce federal law against marijuana possession. LePage also indicated that he believed Maine's medical marijuana program was not necessary with the advent of legal recreational marijuana. Question 1 took effect on January 30, 2017.

Election results

Question 1
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		381,768	50.26%
No		377,773	49.74%

Election results from Maine Secretary of State

Vote in Pivot Counties

See also: Pivot Counties: The counties that voted Obama-Obama-Trump from 2008-2016 and Pivot Counties in Maine

Voters in Maine passed Question 1, with 50.26 percent voting to enact the initiative. At the county level, the vote ranged from 36.72 percent in Aroostook County to 55.21 percent in Cumberland County.

The seven counties that voted for Hillary Clinton for president in 2016, and Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, passed the measure by an average of 51.80 percent. Piscataquis County, the one county in Maine to vote Republican in the 2008, 2012, and 2016 presidential elections, voted against the measure, with 44.26 percent supporting.

Maine's other eight counties voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 and then flipped to the Republican candidate Donald Trump in 2016. Ballotpedia calls these Obama-Obama-Trump counties Pivot Counties. Averaging across the state's eight Pivot Counties, support for the measure was 46.43 percent.

By winning eight counties that Obama won in 2008 and 2012, Donald Trump was able to secure one electoral vote in Maine for winning the 2nd Congressional District in the northern part of the state. Although Maine has awarded two of its electoral votes in presidential elections based on who wins each congressional district since 1972, the two electoral votes had never been split until 2016. In 2008 and 2012, Obama won the vote in both congressional districts.

The average yes vote percentage on Question 1 in Pivot Counties was 46.43 percent, which was 2.17 percent more than in the Republican county and 5.36 percent less than in Democratic counties.

Vote on Question 1 (2016) in Maine Pivot, Democratic, and Republican Counties
County	Type	Trump Margin in 2016	Percent "Yes" on Question 1	Percent "No" on Question 1
Androscoggin	Pivot	9.39%	48.37%	51.63%
Aroostook	Pivot	17.19%	36.72%	63.28%
Cumberland	Democratic	-26.35%	55.21%	44.79%
Franklin	Pivot	5.47%	50.46%	49.54%
Hancock	Democratic	-7.51%	50.59%	49.41%
Kennebec	Pivot	3.58%	46.45%	53.55%
Knox	Democratic	-14.24%	51.88%	48.12%
Lincoln	Democratic	-2.39%	49.68%	50.32%
Oxford	Pivot	12.94%	50.21%	49.79%
Penobscot	Pivot	10.91%	45.64%	54.36%
Piscataquis	Republican	25.14%	44.26%	55.74%
Sagadahoc	Democratic	-6.29%	52.82%	47.18%
Somerset	Pivot	22.67%	45.80%	54.20%
Sagadahoc	Democratic	-0.28%	48.35%	51.65%
Washington	Pivot	18.44%	47.80%	52.20%
York	Democratic	-4.76%	54.04%	45.96%
All Pivot Counties		12.57%	46.43%	53.57%

Overview

Looking for more information about marijuana on the ballot in 2016? Explore other Ballotpedia articles on the subject below. Presidential candidates on marijuana • Marijuana laws in the U.S. Drug Policy Alliance • Marijuana Policy Project • NORML • SAM Action Recreational marijuana on the ballot Arizona Prop. 205 • California Prop. 64 • Maine Question 1 • Massachusetts Question 4 • Nevada Question 2 Medical marijuana on the ballot Arkansas Issue 6 • Florida Amendment 2 • Montana I-182 • North Dakota Measure 5

Prior to the election, medical marijuana was legal in Maine, but recreational marijuana was not. While medical marijuana was first legalized in Maine in 1999, several attempts to legalize recreational marijuana through ballot measures had been unsuccessful before 2016.

Initiative design

Question 1 was designed to legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana in Maine as an agricultural product. The measure allowed individuals over the age of 21 to possess and use marijuana, also providing for the licensure of retail facilities and marijuana social clubs. The measure required that the marijuana industry be regulated by the Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry; that municipalities be allowed to limit the operation of retail stores; and that a 10 percent tax be placed on marijuana sales.

State of the campaigns

The support campaign raised more than $3.4 million, while the two groups filed in opposition to the measure raised $294,282.

A poll conducted in March 2016 showed that nearly 54 percent of Maine voters supported approving Question 1.

Although petitioners submitted more than the required signatures to qualify Question 1 for the ballot, the Maine secretary of state initially invalidated more than half of them and disqualified the measure. The support campaign filed a lawsuit challenging the decision, and ultimately the court overturned it. After a second review of signatures, Question 1 qualified for the ballot on April 27, 2016.

Marijuana measures in other states

See also: Marijuana on the ballot, History of marijuana on the ballot, and Marijuana laws and ballot measures in the United States

Voters in Arizona, California, Massachusetts, and Nevada also voted on recreational marijuana measures in 2016. In addition, medical marijuana measures were on the ballot in Arkansas, Florida, Montana, and North Dakota.

The following map depicts the legal status of recreational marijuana in different states:

Current as of November 28, 2016.

Text of measure

Ballot question

The question appeared on the ballot as follows:

“

Do you want to allow the possession and use of marijuana under state law by persons who are at least 21 years of age, and allow the cultivation, manufacture, distribution, testing, and sale of marijuana and marijuana products subject to state regulation, taxation and local ordinance?

”

Summary

The summary of Question 1 was as follows:

“

This initiated bill allows the possession and use of marijuana by a person 21 years of age or older. It provides for the licensure of retail marijuana facilities including retail marijuana cultivation facilities, retail marijuana products manufacturing facilities, retail marijuana testing facilities and retail marijuana stores. It also provides for the licensure of retail marijuana social clubs where retail marijuana products may be sold to consumers for consumption on the licensed premises. It provides for regulation and control of the cultivation, manufacture, distribution and sale of marijuana by the Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry. It allows the department to establish limitations on retail marijuana cultivation. It allows a municipality to regulate the number of retail marijuana stores and the location and operation of retail marijuana establishments and to prohibit the operation of retail marijuana establishments in the municipality. It also allows a municipality to require separate local licensing of retail marijuana establishments. The initiated bill allows a person 21 years of age or older to use, possess or transport marijuana accessories and up to 2 1/2 ounces of prepared marijuana; transfer or furnish, without remuneration, up to 2 1/2 ounces of marijuana and up to 6 immature plants or seedlings to a person who is 21 years of age or older; possess, grow, cultivate, process or transport up to 6 flowering marijuana plants, 12 immature marijuana plants and unlimited seedlings, and possess all the marijuana produced by the marijuana plants at that person's residence; purchase up to 2 1/2 ounces of marijuana and marijuana accessories from a retail marijuana store; and purchase up to 12 marijuana seedlings or immature marijuana plants from a retail marijuana cultivator. It allows the home cultivation of marijuana for personal use of up to 6 flowering marijuana plants by a person 21 years of age or older. The initiated bill allows a person to consume marijuana in a nonpublic place including a private residence. It provides that the prohibitions and limitations on smoking tobacco products in specified areas as provided by law apply to smoking marijuana and that a person who smokes marijuana in a public place other than as governed by law commits a civil violation for which a fine of not more than $100 may be adjudged. The initiated bill places a sales tax of 10% on retail marijuana and retail marijuana products.

”

Intent and content

The following intent and content statement was prepared by the office of the attorney general:

This citizen-initiated legislation would repeal the existing state law that makes it a civil violation to possess up to 2 ½ ounces of marijuana (broadly defined to include all parts of the Cannabis plant, as well as any resin, compounds, or derivatives), other than for medical use by a qualifying patient. It would make it permissible under state law for a person 21 years of age or older to possess, grow, cultivate, process, transfer or purchase up to certain specified amounts of marijuana. (These activities would still be prohibited by federal law.) The initiative would establish a system of state regulation and licensing of the cultivation, manufacture, distribution, testing and retail sale of marijuana and marijuana products, and would authorize municipal regulation as described below. It would impose a 10% sales tax on sales by retail marijuana stores and social clubs, with revenues to be deposited in the General Fund. Personal use of marijuana: The initiative would allow any person 21 years of age or older to: use, possess, or transport up to 2½ ounces of prepared marijuana; transfer or furnish to another person who is 21 years of age or older, without payment of any kind, up to 2½ ounces of marijuana and up to 6 immature marijuana plants or seedlings; possess, grow, cultivate, process or transport up to 6 flowering marijuana plants, 12 immature plants and an unlimited number of seedlings, and possess all the marijuana produced by these plants at the person’s residence; purchase up to 2½ ounces of retail marijuana from a retail marijuana store; purchase up to 12 seedlings or immature plants from a retail marijuana cultivation facility; cultivate up to 6 flowering plants at the person’s residence, or on property the person owns or has written permission to use for this purpose; and consume marijuana in a nonpublic place, including a private residence. The term “nonpublic place” is not defined in the bill. The initiated bill does not repeal state criminal laws relating to marijuana but provides that personal use and other activities specifically authorized in the bill are nevertheless legal. Cultivation of marijuana for medical use would continue to be regulated under the existing medical marijuana law. Existing laws that restrict where people may smoke tobacco would also apply to smoking marijuana, though not to ingestion of marijuana and marijuana products by other means. State licensing and regulation: The Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry (the “Department”) would become the state licensing authority and would be required to adopt rules within nine months. A state license would be required for any entity to locate or operate a “retail marijuana establishment” or “retail marijuana social club.” A retail marijuana social club means a facility that sells retail marijuana to consumers for consumption on the premises. A retail marijuana establishment includes the following facilities, all of which are prohibited from allowing consumption of retail marijuana or retail marijuana products on the premises: a retail marijuana store, which sells retail marijuana and/or retail marijuana products to consumers; a retail marijuana testing facility, which analyzes and certifies the potency of retail marijuana and retail marijuana products; a retail marijuana cultivation facility, where retail marijuana is grown, prepared and packaged; and a retail marijuana manufacturing facility, where retail marijuana products are manufactured, prepared and packaged. The Department would be required to regulate the labeling and advertising of retail marijuana and retail marijuana products, including a prohibition on mass market advertising campaigns that would “have a high likelihood of reaching persons under 21 years of age.” Municipal authority: Local approval by the municipality where the applicant proposes to locate the facility would be required before the issuance of any state license. In addition, this initiative would authorize municipalities, within their jurisdictions, to: prohibit the operation of retail marijuana establishments and retail marijuana social clubs; restrict the number of retail marijuana stores in the municipality; regulate the location and operation of retail marijuana establishments and social clubs; and adopt and enforce regulations for retail marijuana establishments and social clubs, which are at least as restrictive as the state law and regulations and may include local licensing requirements. Employment policies: The proposed law specifies that employers would not be required to allow or to accommodate the consumption, use, possession, sale, trade, display or growing of marijuana in the workplace. Employers also could adopt and enforce policies restricting use of marijuana by employees and could discipline employees who were under the influence of marijuana in the workplace. If approved, this citizen initiated legislation would take effect 30 days after the Governor proclaims the official results of the election. A “YES” vote is to enact the initiated legislation. A “NO” vote opposes the initiated legislation.

Full text

The full text of the measure can be found here.

Fiscal impact

The Maine Office of Fiscal and Program Review's fiscal impact statement stated that the revenue from recreational marijuana taxes would increase by an estimated $2,800,000 in fiscal year 2017-18 and by an estimated $10,700,000 in subsequent years. The statement also stated that 98 percent of the sales taxes collected would be deposited in the general fund, while 2 percent would be distributed to cities and towns through the Local Government Fund.

Support

The group Legalize Maine, run by Paul McCarrier, originally led the campaign in support of the initiative. In October 2015, the support campaign of another marijuana initiative merged with Legalize Maine. The campaign then became known as the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol and was led by David Boyer.

Supporters

• NORML endorsed this measure
• Rick Steves, travel writer and NORML board member
• Wellness Connection of Maine
• Dr. Bronner’s
• Former Cumberland County Sheriff and Rep. Mark Dion (D-43)
• American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

Arguments in favor

The Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol listed the following arguments in support of legalization on their website:

“

It will make our communities safer. Regulating marijuana will replace a dangerous underground market with a system of licensed businesses that ask for ID and only sell marijuana to adults. Products will be tested, packaged, and labeled to ensure marijuana is not contaminated and consumers know what they’re getting. Law enforcement officials will be able to spend more of their time and limited resources addressing serious crimes instead of enforcing failed prohibition laws. It will bolster our economy. Taxing marijuana sales will raise millions of dollars in new revenue each year. Legitimate marijuana businesses will create thousands of good jobs for Maine residents and utilize the products and services of other Maine businesses. It just makes sense. Marijuana is objectively less harmful than alcohol to the consumer and to society — it is less addictive, less damaging to the body, and less likely to contribute to violent and reckless behavior. Adults who can legally consume alcohol should not be punished simply for using a less harmful substance.

”

David Boyer submitted the following public comments to the secretary of state's voter's guide in support of Question 1:

“

Voting Yes on Question 1 will create significant economic, public safety, and health benefits for Maine. Regulating and taxing marijuana will provide tax revenue that can be used for vital services like funding our schools. A recent Tax Foundation study shows we could generate tens of millions of dollars per year from taxes on marijuana. In 2015, Colorado brought in over $150 million dollars in new tax revenue. We are wasting valuable law enforcement and court resources on punishing adults for small marijuana crimes. These penalties create criminal records that can negatively affect people for life through loss of student loans and employment. In other states that have approved legalization measures, arrests for simple marijuana offenses are down nearly 90%, saving a huge amount of police and court time and substantial taxpayer money. Regulating marijuana would free up time and money for police to focus on serious, violent, and unsolved crimes. Our current system is failing; marijuana is widely available in Maine. Question 1 offers a chance for adults who choose to use marijuana — or who need it for medical purposes — to get it in a safe, regulated environment. Maine’s medical marijuana program is not accessible for all adults that could benefit from it. There is only a handful of qualifying conditions, and if you do qualify, you have to pay an expensive doctor’s fee every year. Patients and doctors should be able to determine the best treatments and have ready access to marijuana without fear of committing a crime. If marijuana were legal for private, adult use, we could control and regulate it, rather than allowing criminals to control its distribution and quality. Please join the majority of Mainers who agree it’s time for a new approach. Vote YES on Question 1!

”

Campaign advertisements

Yes on 1 Campaign Video

"It's About Time" Mark Dion TV Ad

Opposition

The group Mainers Protecting Our Youth and Communities led the effort against Question 1 with the No On 1/Not on my Maine Street campaign.

Opponents

• Gov. Paul LePage (R)
• Attorney General Janet Mills (D)
• Smart Approaches to Marijuana Maine (SAM Maine)
• Maine Cannabis Patients and Caregivers Defeating MPP
• Maine Children for Cannabis Therapy
• Don Roberts, former Augusta city councilor
• Sen. Andre Cushing (R-10)
• Rep. Janice Cooper (D-47)
• Karen Heck, former mayor of Waterville

The Vote No On 1 campaign listed the following endorsements on their website:

• Maine Public Health Association
• Maine Hospital Association
• Maine Medical Association
• Maine Association of School Nurses
• Maine State Chamber of Commerce
• Alliance for Addiction and Mental Health Services, Maine
• National Alliance on Mental Illness Maine
• Maine Chiefs of Police Association
• Bangor Region Chamber of Commerce
• Day One
• Tri-County Mental Health Services
• St. Joseph Healthcare
• Smart Approaches to Marijuana Maine
• Maine State Police
• Aroostook Substance Abuse Prevention
• Cumberland County Sheriffs Office
• Community Voices
• Yarmouth Police Department
• Cumberland Police Department
• Concerned Women for America of Maine
• Falmouth Police Department
• Christian Civic League of Maine
• Town of Dixfield Police Department

Arguments in opposition

Gov. Paul LePage on Question 1

The initiative was met with opposition from local medical marijuana growers and patients who believed Question 1 would "put marijuana in the hands of big business." Others, such as Hillary Lister, who was originally part the other marijuana legalization effort that eventually merged with the Question 1 campaign, feared that revenues may not meet regulation costs, that the limited-license structure could implicitly favor out-of-state investors and that the long, detailed state rulemaking process triggered if the bill passes could harm the medical market.

Local medical marijuana growers and patients were concerned that this initiative could hurt the "cottage industry" of local medical marijuana. Other opponents, such as protester Will Neils, expressed concern that the initiative would "commodify" the needs of patients who moved to Maine for the medical marijuana-friendly environment created by the relationship among citizens, the legislature, and the Health and Human Services Committee.

Opponents of Question 1 also were concerned about the proliferation of pot shops that could result from the measure as well as the availability of marijuana to youth, and were wary of marijuana as a big business. The tax rate related to the measure was also an area of concern for opponents who did not view it as an efficient way to generate revenue. “Maine’s initiative proposes a very low tax rate of 10% - lower than any other current or proposed rate on marijuana sales. And Mainers know from experience that for every $1 taxed on alcohol and tobacco we see $10 or more dollars of public cost in enforcement, health and safety costs,” according to Sally Manninen, the substance abuse prevention coordinator for the Choose to Be Healthy Coalition.

While not stating opposition to Question 1, some pro-marijuana media outlets, such as the Marijuana Times, expressed concern over a specific stipulation of the proposed law that would require marijuana-related publications to be kept behind counters in certain retail locations rather than be displayed publicly. The law stated that "a magazine whose primary focus is marijuana or marijuana businesses may be sold only in a retail marijuana store or behind the counter in an establishment where persons under 21 years of age are present." For some, this was viewed as a significant infringement on First Amendment rights and may have dissuaded some voters from voting in favor of the initiative.

While he did not officially state opposition to Question 1, Walter Whitcomb, commissioner of the Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry, expressed concern about the ability of his department to take on the responsibility of overseeing marijuana regulation. While Question 1 designated Whitcomb's department as the head regulatory agency for marijuana in Maine, he did not feel that the department's laboratory was up to the task of the testing that was assigned to the department under Question 1. Whitcomb also expressed concern that the added responsibilities could divert state resources away from supporting farm growth in the state.

Hillary Lister submitted the following public comments to the secretary of state's voter's guide in opposition to Question 1:

“

Question 1 directs lawmakers to enact a scheme to tax, regulate, and police marijuana similar to Washington and Colorado. Those states have spent millions of taxpayer dollars to implement and enforce the new laws. This proposal doesn’t guarantee revenue would cover expanded costs. The initiative creates a cumbersome government contract process to award limited licenses for industrial marijuana operations, favoring large out-of-state investors. Increased scale of production creates financial incentives for cartel involvement. Implementation would require devoting significant resources to prevent interstate sale, bringing increased federal intervention. Unconstitutional media restrictions nearly identical to those in Colorado’s initiative direct lawmakers to treat marijuana publications like pornography. Colorado created criminal penalties for people who distributed magazines about marijuana if publications weren’t behind the counter and inaccessible to people under 21. Following lawsuits, the law was amended in 2016 to remove the penalty. If voters approve Question 1, that unnecessary and unconstitutional restriction would become part of Maine’s law. Question 1 creates marijuana social clubs, leading to concerns about impaired driving. Legislators will be pressured to modify Maine laws to comply with federal priorities on drugged driving by implementing costly and inaccurate blood tests for anyone suspected of operating under the influence of marijuana. Maine already allows legal and regulated cultivation, processing, sale, and testing of marijuana, generating millions every year in registration fees and tax revenue. The medical marijuana program has been rated best in the country, balancing safe patient access with needed safety protections. Maine has some of the lowest arrest and incarceration rates in the country for cannabis possession and cultivation, and law enforcement resources are able to be directed to more serious problems. Our laws can be improved without passing an initiative that would bring new costs and favor big business over the health and well-being of Maine people.

”

Campaign finance

See also Campaign finance requirements for Maine ballot measures

Total campaign contributions:
Support:	$3,444,892.94
Opposition:	$294,282.06

Support

As of January 18, 2017, the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol raised $3,444,892.94. Of the total donations, $353,813.51 were in the form of in-kind contributions.

Committee	Amount raised	Amount spent
Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol	$3,444,892.94	$3,087,753.46
Total	$3,444,892.94	$3,087,753.46

Top donors

As of January 18, 2017, the following were the top five donors in support of Question 1. These figures include in-kind donations.

Donor	Amount
New Approach PAC	$2,239,872.00
Marijuana Policy Project	$330,881.72
Jonathan Lewis	$250,000.00
Drug Policy Action	$175,000.00
Rick Steves	$100,000.00

Opposition

Two groups, Maine Matters Vote No and Mainers Protecting Our Youth and Communities, filed in opposition to Question 1. As of January 18, 2017, the campaigns had raised a combined $294,282.06 and spent a total of $273,921.21. Of the total contributions, $20,000 were in-kind donations. The Alliance for Healthy Marijuana Policy donated the majority of the funds with $210,000.

Committee	Amount raised	Amount spent
Maine Matters Vote No	$15,569.00	$17,812.08
Mainers Protecting Our Youth and Communities	$278,713.06	$256,109.13
Total	$294,282.06	$273,921.21

Background

See also: Marijuana on the ballot

Marijuana in Maine

Medical marijuana has been legal in Maine since 1999, when voters approved an initiated state statute that allowed patients with specific illnesses to grow and use limited amounts of marijuana. A decade later, voters approved a measure that created nonprofit dispensaries and a statewide identification card system for medical marijuana users. Since then, there have been attempts to legalize recreational marijuana through legislatively referred measures, but none made it to the ballot.

Recreational marijuana in other states

In 2012, legalized recreational marijuana advocates saw their first statewide victories in Colorado and Washington. In 2014, marijuana became legal for recreational use via ballot initiatives in Alaska, Oregon, and Washington, D.C. Voters in Arizona, California, Massachusetts, and Nevada also voted on the legalization of recreational marijuana in November 2016.

Media editorials

Support

Portland Press Herald and sister publications Kennebec Journal and Morning Sentinel said the following:

“

We support the citizen-initiated Question 1, an act to tax and regulate marijuana like alcohol, because it would tell lawmakers to change course. A 'yes' vote says that there is such a thing as responsible, adult use of marijuana. The current law makes criminals out of people who are otherwise law-abiding and dumps millions of dollars into a tax-free black market. Legalization would put low-risk marijuana use on the right side of the law, and focus resources where they are more needed.

”

Opposition

Sister newspapers the Ellsworth American and the Mount Desert Islander said the following:

“

The fact also remains that, should Question 1 be approved, Maine’s law then will be in conflict with federal law, under which marijuana remains classified in the most restrictive category of the Controlled Substances Act. Despite years of discussion, too many unanswered questions remain regarding the societal impact that will result from legalizing recreational use of marijuana. Come November, voters should turn thumbs down on the proposal.

”

Bangor Daily News said the following:

“

Maine is in the midst of a deadly addiction crisis that will likely kill at least one Mainer per day this year. At the same time, the state’s public health and addiction treatment systems have been decimated by an administration that cares more about punishment than prevention, intervention and rehabilitation. Now is not the time to exacerbate these problems by legalizing marijuana. We recommend a 'no' vote on Question 1.

”

Polls

Maine Marijuana Legalization, Question 1 (2016)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
University of New Hampshire Survey Center 10/20/16 - 10/25/16	50%	41%	9%	+/-3.6	761
Portland Press Herald/University of New Hampshire Survey Center 9/15/16 - 9/20/16	53%	38%	10%	+/-4.3	505
Maine People's Resource Center 3/5/16 - 3/8/16	53.8%	42.4%	3.8%	+/-4.15	557
AVERAGES	52.27%	40.47%	7.6%	+/-4.02	607.67
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Reports and analyses

Fiscal impact

The Maine Office of Fiscal and Program Review prepared the following fiscal impact statement:

“

This citizen initiative legalizes recreational marijuana and assesses a sales tax of 10%. Assuming a January 1, 2018 effective date, State sales tax collections would increase by an estimated $2,800,000 in fiscal year 2017-18 and by an estimated $10,700,000 in subsequent years. Under current statute 98% of any sales tax collected is credited to the General Fund and 2% is transferred to the Local Government Fund for distribution to cities and towns. The initiative designates the Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry (ACF) as the state licensing authority for retail marijuana. ACF may collect fees of $250 to $2,500 from each retail marijuana store license, $10 to $100 per unit block from each retail marijuana cultivation facility license, $100 to $1,000 from each retail marijuana products manufacturing facility license, $500 from each retail marijuana testing facility license, $250 to $2,500 from each retail marijuana social club license and other fees determined by ACF for certain other occupational licenses. Half of the revenue from these fees will go to the State and half will go to the municipality in which the establishment or club is located. Although there is no way to predict how many municipalities will allow marijuana establishments within their borders, this fiscal note assumes ACF will set license fees to generate enough revenue to cover ACF costs. ACF will require funding of approximately $132,633 in fiscal year 2016-17 and $2,379,534 in fiscal year 2017-18 for 3 permanent positions in fiscal year 2016-17 and an additional 15 permanent positions (18 total) in fiscal year 2017-18, related costs and certain onetime costs to regulate and control the licensing of the cultivation, manufacture, distribution, testing and sale of retail marijuana and retail marijuana products. As these funding requirements will begin prior to receipt of revenues from licensing fees, General Fund appropriations will be required until other fee revenue becomes available. The Department of the Attorney General, the Judicial Department, the Maine Commission on Indigent Legal Services and the Department of Corrections will experience a decrease in the number of marijuana-related offenses. The amount of savings generated from the reduction in the number of civil and criminal cases is expected to be significant. Some of these savings may be offset by increased legal costs related to the licensing process and the regulation of the legalized marijuana industry.

”

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Maine and Signature requirements for ballot measures in Maine

• Paul Thomas McCarrier submitted the petition, and a measure title and summary were issued on April 28, 2015.
• The initiative petition was scheduled to expire on October 28, 2016.
• In October 2015, the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol decided to end their campaign behind the Marijuana Legalization Initiative and joined the efforts of the group Legalize Maine to get the Legalize Marijuana Initiative on the 2016 ballot.
• David Boyer, who headed up the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, took over the signature gathering campaign.
• To qualify for the ballot, proponents needed to collect 61,123 signatures—10 percent of the total votes cast for governor in November 2014—by February 1, 2016.
• Petitioners submitted about 100,000 signatures on February 1, 2016. More than a dozen protesters who supported medical marijuana but not full legalization stood outside the secretary of state's office as supporters delivered the signatures.
• The secretary of state's office had, by statute, 30 days after signatures were submitted to review the signatures for validity and announce a decision about whether or not the initiative qualified for the ballot. The 30-day deadline for this initiative was March 2, 2016.
• On March 2, 2016, the secretary of state announced that only 51,543 of the submitted signatures were valid, which was not enough to make the initiative petition valid.
• The campaign stated their intent to appeal the decision in hopes of getting Question 1 qualified for the November 2016 ballot. David Boyer stated that he was confident the campaign collected enough signatures and planned to file an appeal within 10 days of the decision.
• A lawsuit was filed on March 10, 2016.
• The lawsuit was ruled in favor of petitioners and the petition was ultimately certified as sufficient.
• The opposition campaign called for an investigation of the signature gathering operation by the attorney general.
• Since Question 1 was an indirect initiated state statute, the legislature had a chance to approve it directly when the petition was certified as sufficient. Question 1 was sent to the Maine Legislature, where it was not approved. Since the legislature did not approve the initiative, it was put on the ballot in November 2016 according to state law.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired Olympic Consulting and FieldWorks to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $343,875.16 was spent to collect the 61,123 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $5.63.

Lawsuit

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Invalid signatures
Court: Kennebec County Superior Court
Ruling: Overturned secretary of state's decision to disqualify the measure
Plaintiff(s): Roger Birks, John Black, David Boyer, Eric Brakey, Erin Canavin, Christina Jones, Olga LaPlante, Matthew Maloney, Paul McCarrier, Tom Obear, Bethany Profaizer, Samantha Rocray, Diane Russell, and Luke Sirois	Defendant(s): Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap
Plaintiff argument: Plaintiffs claimed that Dunlap only reviewed a portion of the notaries' signatures and then disqualified all petitions signed by that notary, rather than reviewing all notary signatures.	Defendant argument: The defendant claimed that 17,000 signatures were invalid because the signature of the notary for those signatures did not match the signature on file with the secretary of state's office.

On March 10, 2016, the support campaign filed a lawsuit in Kennebec County Superior Court against the secretary of state's decision to disqualify Question 1 for the ballot. The secretary of state, Matt Dunlap, determined that 26,779 signatures turned in were invalid and that about 17,000 of those were invalid because the signature of the notary for those signatures did not match what was on file with the secretary of state's office. The notaries—Stavros Mendros and members of his company, Olympic Consulting—were hired to collect signatures for the campaign. The lawsuit claimed that Dunlap only reviewed a portion of the notaries' signatures and then disqualified all petitions signed by that notary, rather than reviewing all notary signatures. The court was required to rule on the issue within 40 days of Dunlap's original announcement of disqualification on March 2, 2016. A court decision was allowed to be appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, which then had 30 days to act. The court's rules were designed to require Superior Court Justice Michaela Murphy to rule on the case by April 11, 2016.

In early April 2016, the Maine Sunday Telegram reviewed more than 6,000 copies of signed petitions through the Freedom of Access Act. The Telegram also sent several of the petitions to an independent handwriting expert, who stated that the variations between signatures fell within the "natural range." Mendros spoke in defense of his signatures, saying that it would be impossible to expect that his signature would be the same on each of several thousand documents. The secretary of state argued that the variation was so great that he was unable to determine if they were all Mendros' signatures.

Ruling and certification

On April 8, 2016, Superior Court Justice Michaela Murphy overturned the secretary of state's decision to disqualify Question 1 for the ballot, saying that the secretary of state "committed an error of law by applying a vague, subjective and/or unduly burdensome interpretation" of the law. This decision required the secretary of state to review petition signatures again to decide whether the measure would appear on the November ballot. David Boyer stated that he expected the review to be a "mere formality" and that his group would be ready to formally launch their campaign once Question 1 was qualified. On April 13, 2016, Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap stated that he would not appeal the judge's decision and would review the invalidated signatures again to determine whether the measure qualified for the ballot. Dunlap announced on April 27, 2016, that the second review found enough signatures were valid and that Question 1 did qualify for the ballot, unless it was approved directly by the legislature.

Olympic Consulting

Stavros Mendros' company, Olympic Consulting, was also used to collect signatures for a petition for a casino in York County. The petition failed to make the ballot due to a shortage of valid signatures. Mendros pleaded guilty to and was convicted of three counts of not being in the presence of those to whom he administered oaths in 2007 for a campaign for a casino in Washington County.

Related measures

See also: History of marijuana on the ballot and Marijuana on the ballot

The first attempt to legalize marijuana through the initiative process came in 1972, when California activists got an initiative certified for the ballot. The measure was defeated. Marijuana legalization advocates had their breakthrough election in 2012, when both Washington and Colorado legalized recreational marijuana. Oregonians rejected a legalization measure that same year, but approved one two years later in 2014. As of the beginning of 2016, recreational marijuana had been legalized in four states and Washington, D.C. All legalizations came through the initiative process. As of the beginning of 2016, medical marijuana was legal in 25 states.

More than 60 statewide marijuana-related initiatives were submitted for the 2016 ballot. The table below shows the marijuana-related measures that qualified for the 2016 election ballot:

Marijuana measures on the ballot in 2016
State	Measures
Florida	Florida Medical Marijuana Legalization, Amendment 2 a
California	California Proposition 64, California Marijuana Legalization a
Arkansas	Arkansas Medical Marijuana, Issue 6 a
Arizona	Arizona Marijuana Legalization, Proposition 205 d
North Dakota	North Dakota Medical Marijuana Legalization, Initiated Statutory Measure 5 a

The following table includes past initiative attempts in the United States to legalize marijuana:

State	Year	Measure	Status
Arizona	2016	Proposition 205	d
California	2016	Proposition 64	a
Maine	2016	Question 1	a
Massachusetts	2016	Question 4	a
Nevada	2016	Question 2	a
Ohio	2015	Legalization Initiative	d
Alaska	2014	Ballot Measure 2	a
Oregon	2014	Measure 91	a
Washington, D.C.	2014	Initiative 71	a
Colorado	2012	Amendment 64	a
Oregon	2012	Measure 80	d
Washington	2012	Initiative 502	a
California	2010	Proposition 19	d
Nevada	2006	Question 7	d
Alaska	2004	Measure 2	d
Nevada	2002	Question 9	d
California	1972	Proposition 19	d

State profile

Demographic data for Maine
	Maine	U.S.
Total population:	1,329,453	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	30,843	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	95%	73.6%
Black/African American:	1.1%	12.6%
Asian:	1.1%	5.1%
Native American:	0.6%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0%	0.2%
Two or more:	2%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	1.5%	17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:	91.6%	86.7%
College graduation rate:	29%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$49,331	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	16.6%	11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Maine. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern

See also: Presidential voting trends in Maine

Maine voted for the Democratic candidate in all six presidential elections between 2000 and 2020.

Pivot Counties (2016)

Ballotpedia identified 206 counties that voted for Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012. Collectively, Trump won these Pivot Counties by more than 580,000 votes. Of these 206 counties, eight are located in Maine, accounting for 3.88 percent of the total pivot counties.

Pivot Counties (2020)

In 2020, Ballotpedia re-examined the 206 Pivot Counties to view their voting patterns following that year's presidential election. Ballotpedia defined those won by Trump won as Retained Pivot Counties and those won by Joe Biden (D) as Boomerang Pivot Counties. Nationwide, there were 181 Retained Pivot Counties and 25 Boomerang Pivot Counties. Maine had seven Retained Pivot Counties and one Boomerang Pivot County, accounting for 4.42 and 4.00 percent of all Retained and Boomerang Pivot Counties, respectively.

More Maine coverage on Ballotpedia

• Elections in Maine
• United States congressional delegations from Maine
• Public policy in Maine
• Influencers in Maine
• Maine fact checks
• More...

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Maine legalize marijuana initiative. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Maine Marijuana Legalization, Question 1 (2016) - Google News

See also

Suggest a link

• Marijuana on the ballot
• 2016 ballot measures
• Maine 2016 ballot measures

External links

• Maine Citizen's Guide to the Referendum Election

Support

• Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol
• Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Facebook page

Opposition

• No On 1: Protect Maine's Youth and Communities
• No On 1: Protect Maine's Youth and Communities Facebook page
• Smart Approaches to Marijuana
• Smart Approaches to Marijuana Maine Facebook page