As part of an effort to engage the Gardiner, Maine, community and clean up the town of roughly 5,000, a nearby marijuana dispensary is rolling out an innovative new program. Essentially, citizens who bring in a bag of collected trash can exchange it for some weed.

Dennis Meehan, owner of Summit Medical Marijuana, offered the marijuana as a gift to adults over the age of 21. Citizens would meet Meehan at the park and get two trash bags to explore the city and collect any garbage they found.

If residents collected a full bag of trash from around the city they could bring it back and pick up their gifted weed. The exchange rate was one full trash bag for one gram of marijuana. Gifting weed to others became legal in Maine after recreational marijuana was legalized in January. Across municipalities with legalized weed, gifting weed has become a common method to circumvent rules against selling the product on the street.

For more information on the status of legalization in Maine check out our “State of Weed” map here. 

He was inspired to put the event together by a similar weed exchange community event he heard about in Colorado. “[I heard of it in] Colorado – there was a town that did this,” Meehan told the local NBC affiliate. “They had a great response to this. So I was hoping to do the same thing in Maine.”

Meehan advertised the event on the dispensary’s Facebook page. After seeing its success, Meehan hopes to expand the program and make it statewide. While there are certainly some business interests at play here, Meehan also said that he wants to promote the “life-changing” aspects of marijuana, according to the Associated Press.

The nascent marijuana industry has been, so far, considered a success. One important aspect is the massive tax influxes that states that have legalized it have seen. For example, Colorado pulled in $200 million in just tax revenue in 2016, according to MarketWatch. Meehan’s actions prove that there are even more interactive ways for the marijuana industry to engage with the community.

For an industry that faces plenty of criticism, working with local communities could have a huge impact on public perception and how quickly critics shift their views. Now, it’s time to see if other marijuana businesses engage their communities in a similar way to Meehan and his Colorado inspiration.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Maine Dispensary Trades Weed for Trash in Community Clean Up Effort appeared first on Law Street.

When Upton Sinclair wrote “The Jungle,” he intended to show the harsh conditions of poor immigrants working in the meat packing factories of Chicago. Published in 1906, his book ended up being one of the earliest catalysts for American food regulation. People were revolted by the unregulated food industry and the awful truth behind where their meat came from.  Sinclair’s book led to a public outcry, and many called for more regulations for the food industry. And for good reason–throughout American history up until that point there had never been any serious attempts to regulate the food industry. 

We now live in an age of big farms and monoculture. It used to be that most of the food you ate was grown or raised fairly close to where you lived. As technology and jobs changed, and the demand for meat grew, food began to be produced on a larger scale. Read on to learn more about the changing food culture and the concept of “food sovereignty.” 

Eating Local?

During President Theodore Roosevelt’s tenure, the U.S. began regulating food and drugs produced in the country with the Pure Food and Drugs Act of 1906. This act prohibited “misbranded and adulterated foods, drinks, and drugs in interstate commerce.” This was regulated by the Bureau of Chemistry in the Department of Agriculture, which eventually became the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1930.

Today, food laws are still imperfect. But the American public is increasingly conscious of where and how food is produced. Debates regarding food production are happening all over the country. Most Americans eat three times a day. A 2011 study found that the average American eats roughly 1,996 pounds of food each year. With that much food at stake, it makes sense that people are concerned.

Recently in America there has been a push toward “eating local.” Many people want to go to farmers markets and buy their tomatoes and cabbage from the farmer who grew it. They want to buy their eggs from chickens that were raised in hen houses that they could visit, rather than from a place straight out of “Food Inc.” 

In short, people are more aware of where their food is coming from. And that is where “food sovereignty” comes in. It’s an issue that is starting to gain traction in the U.S. Those who advocate for food sovereignty feel that farming has become over regulated. The movement is global, and many farmers around the world are standing up for themselves and for food production as a whole.

What is Food Sovereignty?

La Vía Campesina, an international “peasant” movement, coined the term “food sovereignty” at the 1996 World Food Summit. The group defines it as such:

Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through sustainable methods and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems.

With the increased demand for locally-grown produce in America, it’s becoming more popular for farmers to want to sell their produce to their local communities. But it’s also important to note that outside of the U.S., food sovereignty takes on a much more important role. Hannah Wittman, Annette Desmarais, and Nettie Wiebe, authors of “Food Sovereignty: Reconnecting Food, Nature and Community,” wrote: 

The stunted growth and high mortality rates of hungry children and the ill health and lost potential of malnourished adults are clear and tragic results of the chronic food shortages suffered by an increasing number of people. A growing number of households and communities fear for tomorrow’s meals, even though there may be enough food for today.

Shifting more power to local farmers would increase the availability of food. And food would not have to travel as much, making it less costly and more likely to be fresh.

In the U.S., Maine Leads the Way

The U.S. has very structured regulations for farmers. One state is breaking away from this model. On June 16, Maine Governor Paul LePage signed LD 725, or An Act to Recognize Local Control Regarding Food Systems. This act is the first of its kind in the United States. It shifts power from the state to local municipalities. The Bangor Daily News described the rationale behind the law:

Supporters of food sovereignty want local food producers to be exempt from state licensing and inspections governing the selling of food as long as the transactions are between the producers and the customers for home consumption or when the food is sold and consumed at community events such as church suppers.

There were already about 20 municipalities in Maine that had their own food sovereignty laws. Now with this statewide law, municipalities that apply for food sovereignty will be granted more control. 

The law allows small farmers to sell food within their communities with fewer government regulations. Maine Rep. Craig Hickman enthusiastically embraced the passage of the law. In an interview with the Bangor Daily News, he said, “Food sovereignty means the improved health and well-being of the people of Maine by reducing hunger and increasing food self-sufficiency through improved access to wholesome, nutritious, and locally produced foods.”

According to a 2012 USDA census, Maine has some of the youngest farmers in the country. And the field is drawing in more and more young farmers, partially due to the growing demand for local produce. As more farmers embraced this lifestyle, and consumers demanded local produce, Maine decided to change the regulations a bit to accommodate them.

In 2013, many municipalities in Maine fought for food sovereignty. One of their complaints was about a new law that allowed small farms that sold less than $1,000 worth of chicken a year to slaughter chickens on their own farms rather than go to a slaughter house. The regulations it sought to change would require those farms to spend as much as $40,000 to be able to properly slaughter their chickens.

The Advantages of Food Sovereignty

Less regulations may give pause to the more cautious eater or the revolted reader who cannot get the images of “The Jungle” out of his or her head. But many local Maine representatives feel that this new act is a good thing for Maine. So what regulations are being repealed exactly? While the law states that food produced locally must still adhere to federal standards, these local farms do not require state licensing, nor do they have to go through state inspections of food produced, sold, and consumed locally.

The new law does not apply to every food producer and seller, however. Chain grocery stores and establishments selling large quantities of food must still adhere to the old laws. The new act is specifically designed for small farmers selling within their communities.

Betsy Garrold, the acting executive director of Food for Maine’s Future, felt that this will encourage many young and burgeoning farmers to enter the trade. She told the Bangor Daily News, “This means face-to-face transactions are legal if your town has passed a food sovereignty ordinance [and] you can sell food without excessive government regulations,” she said. “If we can feed ourselves, no one can push us around.”

Garrold felt that with the amount of farms in Maine, large and small, it is hard to make one law that regulates everyone equally. “Now if a small vegetable farmer wants to diversify their holdings and run a few meat birds, they can,” she said.

But Not Everyone is Onboard

Maine might be alone in its quest to deregulate farmers for a while. As of right now, no other states are moving to enact food sovereignty laws.

There are national food sovereignty groups, like the U.S. Food Sovereignty Alliance (USFSA). However, the group is more engaged in activism than writing laws. USFSA “works to end poverty, rebuild local food economies, and assert democratic control over the food system,” according to its website.

And while other states do not seem to be following Maine any time soon, not even all Maine farmers are pleased with the new act. When Maine began allowing certain municipalities more sovereignty back in 2013, Kevin Poland, a local Maine farmer, was less than pleased.

“It has nothing to do with encouraging local farming,” Poland said in an interview with NPR back in 2013. “There’s plenty of that here. What there should be more encouragement of is food safety. The state of Maine has laws that work,” he added.

Perhaps this is why other states have not joined Maine in passing their own food sovereignty laws. With all of the criticism that the food industry faces, it could seem counterintuitive to try to ease regulations on those who provide us with our food.

Global Impact

While Maine may be the first state in the U.S. to enact a food sovereignty law, other global initiatives have been on the forefront of this movement for decades. La Vía Campesina (The Peasants’ Way) started in 1993 as a way to support small farmers. The group is now a huge global initiative that has been one of the largest advocates of food sovereignty. 

La Vía Campesina says on its website that it represents, “164 local and national organizations in 73 countries from Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. Altogether, it represents about 200 million farmers.”

Most recently, the group supported a rally in Morogoro, Tanzania on June 23. The protesters felt that the government was not acting in the best interest of the Tanzanian people. In a statement on its website, La Vía Campesina said, “We know that our African elites in the public and private sectors have been for many years colluding in corruption with the evil transnational corporations which today represent the new face of imperialist neo-colonialism.”

Conclusion

Food sovereignty is a topic that is gaining traction around the world. Those fighting for it do so because they cannot comply with the regulations imposed by the government that are intended for larger farms. For small farmers selling food within their community, these regulations can be damaging. In America, it is less dire that we change our food sovereignty laws, but in other countries, the consequences are higher. Food shortages and government corruption are why farmers around the world want to take their food back into their own hands. 

Anne Grae Martin

Anne Grae Martin is a member of the class of 2017 University of Delaware. She is majoring in English Professional Writing and minoring in French and Spanish. When she’s not writing for Law Street, Anne Grae loves doing yoga, cooking, and correcting her friends’ grammar mistakes. Contact Anne Grae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Food Sovereignty: Shifting Control from the Government to Local Farmers? appeared first on Law Street.

The Oxford comma: an age-old debate for grammar nerds. (Editor’s note: the editorial team at Law Street insists on using the Oxford comma. We know it’s not AP Style. We’re okay with that.) But those of us in favor of the Oxford comma got a little validation this week, in the form of a court ruling in a Maine labor dispute.

In 2014, a company called Oakhurst Dairy was sued by three of its truck drivers. They claim that they were not given sufficient overtime pay. Maine’s rules state that overtime pay doesn’t apply to:

The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of:

(1) Agricultural produce;

(2) Meat and fish products; and

(3) Perishable foods.

Notice that the first sentence doesn’t include an Oxford comma. If it did, the sentence would read “the canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment, or distribution of” and would clearly designate “packing for shipment” and “distribution” as two different activities. But as it reads, without the Oxford comma, it only designates packing the items for shipping or distribution as an exempt activity, not the actual distribution itself. This matters because the truck drivers were responsible for distribution. According to Nick McCrea, of the Bangor Daily News:

The drivers read the passage to say that people who take part in packing for either shipment or distribution are exempt. Distribution wasn’t its own category as written, and because drivers don’t do any packing for either of those purposes, the law doesn’t apply to them, the drivers argued. Also, if ‘distribution’ was meant to be its own exempt activity, why isn’t it written as a gerund (word ending in ‘-ing’) like all the other activities in the list?

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit released a 30-page decision about the matter that began with: “For want of a comma, we have this case.” The Circuit court ruled in favor of the drivers, overturning an earlier district court ruling in favor of Oakhurst.

This comma kerfuffle may have just been a matter of time, because the guidelines Maine has for drafting its legislation specifically recommends avoiding the Oxford comma, stating: “don’t use a comma between the penultimate and last item in a series.” But just because Maine doesn’t recommend an Oxford comma, it doesn’t make up for the fact that the law was ambiguous, which was what led the court to rule in the drivers’ favor.

It’s unclear on whether or not Oakhurst plans on pursuing any further appeals. But fellow lovers of the Oxford comma, rejoice–we should feel vindicated, joyful, and content today.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Court Ruling Shows How the Oxford Comma is Correct, Useful, and Wonderful appeared first on Law Street.

On February 17, Maine’s Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) asked the federal government to approve a statewide ban on the use of food stamps to purchase sugary drinks and candy. In its press release, DHHS representatives argued that banning such purchases would benefit public health and ease the burden on taxpayers. While many welcomed the move, it embodies the way in which conditional government welfare programs patronize and stigmatize low-income people.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as the Food Stamp program, is a state-administered and federally-funded program designed to help low-income families. Maine’s move to ban candy and soda aside, SNAP is already an example of conditional welfare in that benefits can only be used to buy foodstuffs from approved vendors. Rather than providing unconditional benefits for low-income families to spend at their discretion, conditional welfare programs like SNAP undermine the autonomy of low-income people by imposing parameters on how they are allowed to use their benefits. Governments rationalize the conditions imposed on welfare recipients, but these rationalizations are often unjustified. Ultimately, conditional welfare is motivated by a cultural and institutional mistrust of low-income people.

The press release from Maine’s DHHS justified the prospective ban on the grounds that soda and candy lack nutritional value and that eliminating the option to buy soda would reduce obesity amongst SNAP recipients. However, the assumption that simply improving nutritional content of the food one eats will improve one’s weight is not that well supported by evidence. While poor nutrition can affect certain health outcomes, the American Medical Association and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases agree that caloric content, not nutritional content, of food overwhelmingly determines one’s weight.

In 2010, a professor of human nutrition at the University of Kansas made headlines when he lost 27 pounds in two months by cutting his calorie intake and restricting his diet to Twinkies, Doritos, and Oreos. Of course, being thin is not equivalent to being healthy and there are many positive health outcomes associated with improving nutritional intake. Nonetheless, simply banning the purchase of some items will do little to reduce obesity, nor ensure those on food stamps will diversify their nutritional intake.

Misguided Calculations

After drawing a tenuous prediction that the prohibition of sugary foods will cause a reduction in obesity rates, the press release notes “Over $700 million is spent in Maine on obesity related medical expenditures and more than a third of that paid for by taxpayers in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.” This, of course, implies that low-income individuals are disproportionately responsible for Maine’s obesity problem and that they disproportionately contribute to the healthcare costs associated with obesity.

However, according to data from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), the average low-income Mainer generates an effectively equal amount of “obesity related medical expenditure” as the average Mainer who is not reliant on Medicare or Medicaid. Over 269,000 of 1.33 million Mainers rely on Medicaid and over 306,400 on Medicare. When factoring in the 104,000 dual eligibilities, KFF’s data shows that nearly 35 percent of Maine’s population relies on these health aid programs.

Therefore, just under two-thirds of the Maine population that is not low-income makes up about two-thirds of Maine’s “obesity related medical expenditure.” The assertion made in this press release is likely grounded in the misguided and simplistic belief that poorer Americans are more likely to be obese. In reality, obesity is a relatively constant cause for concern across all income brackets.

Unconditional Help

Obesity is no doubt an issue in Maine and throughout the country. While the state’s move to eliminate sugary products from its food stamp program may have been well intentioned, it is but one example of how conditional welfare disproportionately blames low-income people for public problems that are largely unrelated to economic status. Such misguided rationalizations are often used to justify patronizing conditional welfare programs.

While limiting the autonomy of beneficiaries is seen as a way of ensuring government funds are spent properly, doing so not only unjustly stigmatizes welfare recipients, it often undermines the efficacy of each dollar spent on welfare. Conditional welfare assumes that because one is in need of welfare, they are unfit to have discretion over how they spend money.

Research has shown that unconditional cash transfer and welfare programs are far more effective means of improving recipients’ conditions. In 2003, Brazil introduced a program known as Bolsa Familia under which poor families were eligible to receive direct cash transfers. While Bolsa Familia did impose some conditions on families (requiring children of recipient families be vaccinated and attend school), each family was free to spend their cash transfer as they saw fit. The program was considered a huge success, helping to reduce poverty and inequality nationwide.

Maine’s effort to ban the purchase of candy and soft drink with food stamps awaits approval from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), which is the federal agency in charge of overseeing SNAP.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No Food Stamps for Sweets: Unjust Welfare Conditionality appeared first on Law Street.

Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) has crossed party lines before, and she says she will do it again–the politician announced that she would not support President Donald Trump’s pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt.

Collins will not vote for Pruitt, the current Oklahoma Attorney General, at his confirmation hearing because of concerns over his numerous lawsuits against the EPA and potential impact on clean air in Maine. She is the only Republican to voice her opposition to Pruitt so far. 

In a statement, Collins said that she supports EPA regulation of fossil fuel-powered plants to reduce air pollution:

The state of Maine, located at the end of our nation’s ‘air pollution tailpipe,’ is on the receiving end of pollution generated by coal-fired power plants in other states. Reducing harmful air pollutants is critical for public health, particularly for Maine which has among the highest rates of asthma in the country. Controls for mercury, one of the most persistent and dangerous pollutants, are especially important for children and pregnant women. Moreover, there is no doubt that the greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change pose a significant threat to our state’s economy and our natural resources, from our working forests, fishing, and agricultural industries, to tourism and recreation.

Pruitt, meanwhile has questioned the extent to which human activity has affected climate change. During his statewide campaigns, he also received money from donors with strong ties to fossil fuel industries.

This isn’t the first time Collins has opposed one of Trump’s cabinet picks before. Earlier this month, she and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) were the only two Republican senators to vote against Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos.

Collins has a history of taking a more centrist approach to politics, particularly when it comes to social issues–her voting record has shown that she is mostly pro-choice and supports same-sex marriage.

During the election, she wrote in a Washington Post op-ed that she would not vote for Trump, and condemned his attacks on a disabled reporter, Mexican-American judge, and the parents of a soldier killed in Iraq.

When Trump announced an executive order at the end of January that would restrict immigration to the United States from seven Muslim-majority countries, Collins was one of a handful of Republican lawmakers to speak out against the ban.

She told the Maine Sun Journal at the time that the ban could hurt Iraqi citizens working with the U.S. military and that “religious tests serve no useful purpose in the immigration process.”

Because there is a 52-48 Republican majority in the Senate, more Republicans would need to cross the aisle to join Collins (assuming that the Democrats vote unanimously against Pruitt, which may not happen) and defeat his nomination. The Betsy DeVos vote last week came down to a 50-50 tie, with Vice President Mike Pence casting the final vote in her favor.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senator Susan Collins Says She’ll Oppose Trump’s EPA Pick appeared first on Law Street.

All Cannabis in America coverage is written by Alexis Evans and Alec Siegel and brought to you by Law Street Media.

State of Weed: Watch

Maryland Lawmakers Push For Recreational Marijuana 

During a news conference last week, a trio of Democratic Maryland lawmakers said they would introduce two pieces of legislation: one to tax recreational marijuana sales, and another to regulate a legal market. The bills would regulate and tax marijuana like alcohol: use would be permitted for adults 21 and up, and it would be illegal to consume marijuana in public. Cultivators would pay a $30 per ounce excise tax, and there would be a 9 percent sales tax levied on retail products.

Will Rhode Island Reject Recreational Weed…Again?

After multiple failed attempts, Rhode Island could finally legalize recreational marijuana. State Representatives Scott Slater (D-Providence) and Joshua Miller (D-Providence) have proposed a new measure to legalize recreational marijuana for those 21 years and older. The Cannabis Regulation, Control, and Taxation Act will include mandatory product testing and labeling, restrictions on advertising, funding to law enforcement, limits on THC quantity per product, and mandatory reviews for all sale products.

Hawaii Approves First Two Medical Dispensaries 

After two years of waiting, Maui Wellness Group, d.b.a. Maui Grown Therapies, and Aloha Green Holdings on Oahu have been given the green light from the Hawaii State Department of Health to begin growing medical marijuana. The state legalized dispensaries in 2015, and sales were originally set to begin in July 2016. However, growers were still waiting on a seed-to-sale tracking system to be implemented, which stalled the approval.

All links are to primary sources. For more information on state laws for possessing, selling, and cultivating marijuana, click here to read “The State of Weed: Marijuana Legalization State by State.”

Law Street Cannabis Coverage

Recreational Marijuana is Officially Legal in Maine

By Alec Siegel

After nearly three months of being suspended in legislative limbo, Maine’s recreational marijuana bill officially went into effect on January 30. People 21 and older can now possess up to two and a half ounces of cannabis; they can also grow up to six mature plants, and 12 immature plants. But after Governor Paul LePage signed a moratorium on January 27, retail sales of marijuana will be frozen until February 2018, giving lawmakers time to close any loopholes that appeared in the original legalization measure.

Will New Mexico Legalize Recreational Marijuana Next?

Israeli Government Will Pay $2 Million to Fund Medical Cannabis Research

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cannabis in America February 2017: Which State Will Be Next to Legalize? appeared first on Law Street.

After nearly three months of being suspended in legislative limbo, Maine’s recreational marijuana bill officially went into effect on Monday. People 21 and older can now possess up to two and a half ounces of cannabis; they can also grow up to six mature plants, and 12 immature plants. But after Governor Paul LePage signed a moratorium on Friday, retail sales of marijuana will be frozen until February 2018, giving lawmakers time to close any loopholes that appeared in the original legalization measure.

Because Question 1 passed by a slim margin–about 4,000 votes–in November, a group opposing legalization requested a recount in early December. A few weeks later, the recount effort was dropped. “We are satisfied that the count and the result are accurate,” legal counsel for the opposition group said at the time.

Now that the Election Day results have been confirmed, Maine joins California, Massachusetts, and Nevada in legalizing recreational marijuana in 2016. Four other states passed ballot measures that legalized medical marijuana. Roughly one quarter of Americans now live in a state that has legal marijuana measures, either medically or recreationally, in place.

LePage, an early opponent of legalization, was able to suspend retail pot sales until early next year, but he did not succeed in adding two last-minute provisions to the moratorium bill, called “an Act To Delay the Implementation of Certain Portions of the Marijuana Legalization Act.” He requested $1.6 million to hire new staff, and to cover other implementation costs. Lawmakers in the House shot down that provision. 

LePage also wanted to transfer oversight of Question 1 from the Maine Department of Agriculture to the Bureau of Alcoholic Beverages and Lottery Operations. That provision was also shot down, but LePage signed an executive order to ensure that delegation change happens.

“However, no rules will be promulgated until the Legislature allocates money to fund the rule making process,” LePage said on Friday “I sign this bill today to protect Maine children from the dangers of marijuana.” The governor also heavily criticized Speaker of the House Sarah Gideon, a Democrat, for nixing his proposed additions to the moratorium. He said Gideon was guilty of “playing dirty politics.” 

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Recreational Marijuana is Officially Legal in Maine appeared first on Law Street.

Officials in Maine on Monday morning began a recount of ballots from Election Day. Because the state’s recreational marijuana legalization measure, Question 1, passed by a narrow margin (about 4,000 votes), officials wanted to confirm the results of a measure that would have wide-ranging effects in the Pine Tree State. If the results are confirmed, Maine would join three other states–California, Massachusetts, and Nevada–that passed recreational legalization measures on November 8.

The Maine secretary of state’s office has signaled that the recount could take up to a month. The recount–which is taking place in the state capital of Augusta–could cost at least $500,000. State police will be transferring ballots, locked away in password-protected boxes, from 503 towns across the state.

Question 1 would allow Maine residents who are at least 21 years old to possess up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana. Home cultivation would be limited to up to six plants. If the measure passes, state officials would have nine months to construct a regulatory framework.

Governor Paul LePage, in a video released before the vote, said marijuana “can be deadly.” Likening it to heroin, he said, “we do not need to legalize a drug that could lead to more deaths.” LePage, a staunch opponent of the measure, added: “Before you vote, please educate yourself on this dangerous issue.”

The measure was passed by a slim margin, with 381,692 voters supporting Question 1, and 377,619 opposing it. LePage, a Republican, supports the recount, and has said that he would implore President-elect Donald Trump to enforce the federal ban on marijuana. If Trump did respect states’ wishes, however, LePage said he would respect that decision as well.

Election Day was a sizable victory for marijuana advocates, as eight states (nine if the Maine results are confirmed) passed marijuana measures in some form, though marijuana remains illegal at the federal level. Maine residents will have to wait at least a few more weeks to see if their state joins the growing list of states that have legalized the drug since 2012. Maine legalized medical marijuana in 2009.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Recount Begins for Maine’s Recreational Marijuana Ballot Measure appeared first on Law Street.

While people anxiously awaited the results of the 2016 presidential election, Marijuana legalization–one of the nation’s top categories of ballot measures–had a strong and decisive night. Four states joined Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and the District of Columbia in legalizing recreational marijuana for adults 21 years and older. Find out how America voted below!

Arizona

“Arizona” courtesy of Gordon Wrigley; License: (CC BY 2.0)

Results: Rejected

Proposition 205 would have legalized recreational marijuana for those over 21. It would have also created a 15 percent sales tax on marijuana that would be distributed to public health and education services.

Analysis: Arizona rejected Prop 205 with 52 percent voting against the measure and 48 percent voting in favor, as of Wednesday morning with 98 percent of the votes reported.

Opponents took issues with the measure’s caveat that would have created a monopoly on the marijuana industry in Arizona. Others argued that the legalization would increase drug trafficking and cause an increase in teen use and deadly car crashes tied to marijuana.

For more information on marijuana legalization state by state, click here for “The State of Weed.”

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Election Results: How Did States Vote on Recreational Marijuana? appeared first on Law Street.

This November, the state of Maine “could change the face of democracy in America,” according to a recent article in Foreign Policy. Lauded as the second-most important election on November 8 by author Larry Diamond, the New England state is predicted to adopt a new voting system where gubernatorial, legislative, and senatorial candidates would be required to earn the majority of votes to secure power. Originally brought forth by a citizens’ initiative with over 61,000 signatures, the Maine Ranked Choice Voting Initiative (Question 5) is currently on the state ballot. If passed, Maine would become the first state to replace plurality with ranked-choice voting (RCV). Considering that Maine has a long history of multi-party elections, this hierarchal arrangement (where candidates are ranked on an ordinal scale) is designed to break away from today’s embedded two-party system–all while encouraging residents to vote for candidates they actually believe in. Not only could this measure set a new precedent for Maine politics, but it could also potentially motivate the rest of the country to redefine statewide elections.  

How It Works

If the referendum passes, the Pine Tree State would become the first to officially veer away from the “winner takes all approach” that has dominated American politics for decades. Also known as instant-runoff voting or preferential voting, Maine’s proposed system would require residents to rank political contenders in order of preference. Supporters of this approach believe it would ensure that the winner actually possesses broad appeal among voters. Already enforced in several U.S. cities and a number of countries (including Australia, Ireland, Malta, and New Zealand), many praise RCV for its potential to strengthen democratic institutions and empower less prominent candidates to fully participate in (and potentially win) political races.

In instances where a candidate does not yield more than half the votes during the first round of tallying, an “instant-runoff” would occur where the person with the least amount of support would be removed from the race. If a voter ranked the eliminated candidate as their top preference, then their vote would go  to their second-highest choice. By enforcing RCV, voters’ opinions won’t be diluted or forced to conform into a single vote. Depending on how many candidates are running, this process would repeat itself until somebody earns more than 50 percent of the votes.

Why is This Relevant to Maine & the Nation

Over the course of Maine’s history, plurality voting has allowed unpopular candidates to win by small margins. Since 1974, only two out of the past 11 elected governors earned a majority vote. During these gubernatorial races, five of these competitors came out victorious with less than 40 percent support. The most recent example of this trend is seen with Republican governor Paul LePage, whose “successes have been largely dependent on splitting the vote between Democrats and independents.” The incumbent governor won the election with 38 percent of the vote in 2010 and 48.2 percent in 2014.

Some also say that he represents a new era in Maine politics based on his hostility toward rival Democrats and racist remarks against people of color. Recently the public official made headlines for attributing Maine’s heroin crisis to black and Hispanic people, as well as vowing to veto every bill from Maine’s Democratic legislature until they approve his motion to eliminate the state income tax.

Seeing that LePage draws many comparisons to Donald Trump, it’s interesting to note that the Republican presidential nominee did not earn over 50 percent of the popular vote during the primaries and caucuses–instead he won the plurality of votes. Based on a report by FairVote, it’s possible that Trump wouldn’t have won the Republican contest if RCV was utilized based on simulated Super Tuesday results.

Possible Outcomes

A recent poll by the New Hampshire Survey Center saw that 48 percent of Maine voters were in favor of the referendum, while 29 percent were opposed to the measure and 23 percent were undecided. If implemented, ranked choice voting would restore the fundamental tenants of majority rule, requiring that officials earn an absolute majority (50 percent, plus one vote) to hold office. Voting “yes” on Question 5 would therefore make bipartisan elections less predictable by giving third parties more of a viable opportunity to participate in statewide general elections. Citizens would no longer feel dissuaded from “throwing away a vote” by voting for third-party candidates, which has been a common sentiment throughout this year’s presidential election. Instead of feeling obligated to vote for a candidate you don’t completely condone, RCV safeguards a diversity of public opinion.

“We need a system that works–where candidates with the best ideas, not the biggest bank accounts have a fighting chance,” said Dick Woodbury, who is part of The Committee for Ranked Choice Voting in Maine. “You should never have to vote for the ‘lesser of two evils’ when there is another candidate you really like.”

For candidates to have successful campaigns, they will also be required to appeal to a wider range of constituents in order to receive more general support. Essentially this would eliminate strategic voting (voting for one candidate to ensure the other one loses) and discourage politicians from investing in negative campaigns against their competitors, according to the Committee for Ranked Choice Voting in Maine.

Critiques Against the Referendum

A prominent argument made against RCV involves its alleged complexity. After decades of utilizing plurality rule, voters may need to acquaint themselves with new procedures and logistics. Since RCV functions best with multi-party elections, this system would also require voters to be better educated about candidates and their platforms. Nonetheless, this could require voters to invest more time and effort in order to make informed decisions. Certain opponents, such as Maine Republican State Representative Heather Sirocki, also consider RCV to be unconstitutional based on Maine law. Sirocki argues that plurality is woven into the Maine constitution, saying that the election of governors and state senators or representatives require “a plurality of votes” to determine the winner. 

“Until recently, I assumed that all measures placed on the ballot were lawful. I was wrong,” wrote Sirocki in an op-ed featured in The Maine Wire. “Blatantly unconstitutional questions may appear on the ballot as long as enough valid signatures are certified by the Secretary of State.”

An additional constitutional concern for RCV is the manner in which the votes will be calculated. It is specified in the Maine constitution that votes must be tabulated at a municipal level. The implementation of RCV, however, could require a different process for counting ballots. Critics are particularly disapproving of this caveat due to the inflated levels of time and money required to facilitate a election. Enacting RCV would likely cost more than Maine’s current $248,000 budget for elections.

Conclusion

With the legal challenges surrounding Question 5 laid out on the table, the referendum would certainly necessitate an amendment to Maine’s current constitution. In the event that Maine votes “yes” on the initiative, its final application would be contingent upon a two-thirds approval of Maine’s legislature and voter approval at a state-wide referendum. As far as legality goes, Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap remains confident that his state’s legal framework can be altered via statewide plebiscites or the legislative process.

“It’s a matter of opinion,” said Dunlap. “Formally, everything considered and passed either by the people directly or through their representatives in the Legislature is considered to be constitutional unless and until challenged successfully before the Law Court. The folks in the black robes have final say on constitutionality.”

There may be a ripple effect throughout the country if Mainers decide to pass Question 5. As the national election quickly approaches, many Americans seem dissatisfied (not to mention misanthropic) over this year’s outcome. Simply put, neither the Republican or Democratic nominee are well-liked among a majority of citizens. The federal incorporation of RCV, however, would alleviate two major criticisms of the American electoral system: ensuring that the winner truly has the approval of the electorate and empowering voters to support their first choice–regardless of whether or not they are truly capable of winning or not. If RCV were to be federally implemented someday, candidates like Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein and Gary Johnson would possibly be better equipped to someday compete against today’s uncompromising bipartisan culture.

Resources

Ballotpedia: Maine Ranked Choice Voting Initiative, Question 5 (2016)

Bangor Daily News: Maine Group Launching Campaign for Ranked-Choice Voting

Bangor Daily News: LePage: I’ll Veto Every Democratic Bill Until Legislature Agrees to Kill Income Tax

FairVote: Simulating Instant Runoff Flips Most Donald Trump Primary Victories

Foreign Policy: The Second-Most Important Vote on Nov. 8

League of Women Voters of Maine Education Fund: Ranked Choice Voting Basics

The Maine Wire: Ranked Choice Voting: Wrong for Maine & Blatantly Unconstitutional

New York Times: How Controversial is Gov. Paul LePage of Maine? Here’s a Partial List

Portland Press Herald: Our View: Ranked-Choice Petition First Step Towards Reform

Portland Press Herald: Ranked-Choice Voting: Costly, Complicated, Undemocratic 

Portland Press Herald: Question 5 Advocates Try to Allay Confusion About Ranked-Choice Voting

Vox: Maine Could Become the First State in the Nation to Have Ranked Choice Voting

 Editor’s Note: This article was updated on 10/31/2016 to clarify language on the possible ramifications of Ranked Choice Voting in Maine. 

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Citizens’ Initiative in Maine Calls for Ranked-Choice Voting appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Jessica Alba Thinks Honest Company Lawsuits are NBD

Jessica Alba’s Honest Company, which produces home and personal care items like detergent and soap has been under fire for…well, for being not that honest. But during an interview with the “Today” show yesterday, Alba explained she’s not too worried about the suits, saying:

If an organization wants to bring awareness to their cause, I’m an easy target and our brand is an easy target obviously, because I get a different kind of attention than other brands would. We stand by our ingredients, the effectiveness of the products and we’re pretty optimistic that we’re going to win every case.

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 26, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

I hereby award a special prize to Vermont, the first state for which I could find no dumb laws backed up with proper citation. Good for you, Vermont. You are hereby deemed the state with the most common sense.

Nicely done, Vermont!

New Hampshire came close to earning the same honor as its neighbor–but not quite as it still has some of the dumbest laws in the country. The Granite State attempts to keep its residents and visitors as authentic as possible: it is illegal to check into a hotel under an assumed name. Also, no matter how delicious you may find seaweed, you cannot pick up the oceanic goody on the beach to munch on (or use for any purpose, for that matter).

In cemeteries in Claremont, many actions are illegal. No one under the age of ten may enter one at all, and no matter what your age, you may not get drunk or picnic among the graves.

Now for this post’s main event: Maine. Did you like that little play on words, Main and Maine? Me too.

Perhaps the city of Biddeford had issues with airport travelers losing all of their money prior to flights, as that town went ahead and made it illegal to gamble in airports. I wonder if that is restricted to big-time gambling in proper casinos or if it includes playing poker with a $5 buy-in while waiting at your gate?

Biddeford also made it illegal to roller skate on the sidewalk. Maybe there were too many collisions between pedestrians and renegade roller skaters.

This is fine, as long as they keep off the sidewalks!

In Ellsworth, they seem to think their laws are above those at the federal level. There, if any part of the city ordinances are more stringent than federal laws, even though they may be in conflict with them, they will prevail.

Freeport, Maine bans the sale of mercury-containing thermometers, which I find totally logical considering the toxicity of the substance. However, most places these days don’t even sell them anymore in the first place.

Moving on to the city of Waterboro, a place that really redefines being kept on a short leash. There, dog leashes may not be over eight feet long. Not sure how happy PETA would be about that one.

Deer in Wells, Maine better not count on humans to obtain sustenance, as it is illegal for anyone to feed one. Also, the city really wants to ensure respect for the dead, as advertisements may not be placed in cemeteries.

I’ve saved the best for last in my oh-so-humble opinion. In South Berwick, Maine, there is a long list of places where one may not park. Included on that list is a specific Dunkin Donuts. But… how will doughnut lovers everywhere get their fix?! Walking?!

Thank you for joining me for this week’s post, tune in next time!

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dumbest Laws of the United States: Vermont, New Hampshire, & Maine appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I like to keep an open mind about our government and how different states run differently, but there are some things that I feel like would make more sense if every state did them the same way. Maine’s Governor, Paul LePage (R), has reinstated a policy that would make people have to work for food stamps. No more sitting around on your ass waiting for that welfare check to come in, nope, you have to actually work for the money.

“People who are in need deserve a hand up, but we should not be giving able-bodied individuals a handout,” LePage said in a statement. “We must continue to do all that we can to eliminate generational poverty and get people back to work. We must protect our limited resources for those who are truly in need and who are doing all they can to be self-sufficient.”

I think that this is one of the greatest ideas ever, but I also wonder why they have to reinstate such an idea, and why aren’t other states doing the same thing? Wasn’t the original idea of food stamps and welfare just to help people who are down on their luck and trying to find a job? When did we allow welfare to become a way of life? In fact, when did we start allowing people on welfare to become lazy and just accept a handout without having to work for it? I can’t say  that I remember a time when everyone understood the value of a dollar and what a good work ethic is because I’ve never lived in a time where that held true, but I know that at one point in this country our citizens knew what they had to do in order to get by. Nowadays you can pop out a couple of kids, get on welfare, and just sit around waiting for that money to be deposited in your account. You don’t have to actively look for a job, volunteer, or commit to attend a workforce program. You can just say you need the money and the government will hand it on over, the more kids you have the more money you get.

I am no stranger to the ways in which some people have found to manipulate the system. I’ve heard stories of people who will get on food stamps or welfare, take the government’s money, and buy themselves a brand new iPhone or a new pair of Jordans or any other material thing that you don’t need when you are living off of welfare. Do you know where that “government money” is coming from? That money is coming from my pocket. That money is coming from the guy who works a 50-hour work week on minimum wage trying to make ends meet because he understands what hard work and supporting his family are really all about.

Do people not realize that when it comes from the government it’s actually coming from the people!? That’s why we pay taxes, so our government can supplement the many things that we need as a nation, and part of that goes to supporting those who are on welfare. If you are an able-bodied person who can work and is on welfare then there should be a stipulation that says you have to be doing something rather than sitting at home watching Real Housewives of New Jersey or hanging out with your friends. Why not volunteer or participate in a skills training program? Be an active member of society, be a part of your community in a positive way, and teach your kids that a handout is something to be ashamed of. Teach your kids good work ethic and respect for our government.

Under Maine’s new policy people capable of working would be limited to three months of food stamp benefits over a three-year period unless they work a minimum of 20 hours a week, volunteer a certain number of hours for a community agency, or participate in a state skills-training program. This was the point of welfare: to help you out until you can get back on your feet and support yourself and your own family again. Reinstating this policy is something that all states should think about doing (if they aren’t already)!

Way to go Governor LePage and good luck to the people of Maine!

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Steve Hopson via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post You Actually Have to Work for Food Stamps in Maine appeared first on Law Street.

I can’t count how many times I’ve heard people complaining about ‘career politicians’. Many people feel that term limits can help fight against this trend by allowing new people to run for office. However, recently there has been talk of getting rid of term limits.

Governor LePage of Maine has brought the issue of term limits into the spotlight again. In a speech made on March 20, 2014, LePage stated that he wants to do away with the term limits imposed on Maine’s state legislators. He explained that they create an influx of “young people with firm agendas” and make legislators feel rushed. The Governor called for an overhaul of the legislation from 1993 that prohibited legislators from serving in office for more than four two-year terms. While LePage made these comments perhaps without any solid argument, the issue remains important. Term limits have come up in many political debates, and 15 states currently have some kind of term limit laws on the books.

So what are some real arguments for and against term limits, and are they valid?

1.Term Limits Give More Power to Lobbyists.

It has been argued that creating term limits for legislators only allows lobbyists to gain more influence over those in office. Because term limits can cause a loss of experienced legislators who have lived out their terms in office, there will be a greater number of newer and younger members of state assemblies and senates. Having less political experience, newer members of state legislatures could turn to lobbyists for expertise on certain issues, giving non-elected individuals power over the actions of legislators.

This argument does have some support; research by the National Conference of State Legislatures found that in their 2006 study, imposing term limits on state lawmakers did increase the influence of lobbyists and other non-elected individuals.

However, the same study also found that term limits also worked against the efforts of lobbyists. Term limits created shorter relationships between legislators and lobbyists. Additionally, the report noted that new legislators bound by term limits tended to be more suspicious of lobbyists. So, really it’s a mix bag theory. 

2. Term Limits Increase Diversity

Some believe that term limits are able to increase diversity among membership in state legislatures. It is known that incumbents have an extremely high likelihood of reelection, and this can preclude legislatures from increasing the number of women and minorities in public office. Instituting term limits, it is believed, can mitigate this problem by opening up more seats for candidates of different genders, ethnicities and backgrounds.

Despite this belief, it has not been proven that term limits are integral in increasing the diversity of state legislators. The 2006 National Conference of State Legislatures found no significant increase in diversity of state legislatures that had instituted term limits. While term limits may have opened up more seats in state houses and senates, the amount of diversity in state legislatures also depends upon the candidates running for office and their opportunities, which can affect who runs for and wins seats.

3. Term Limits Prevent Inefficiencies Like Big Spending.

Another myth is without them, there will inevitably be more inefficiencies in government like increased spending. The argument is that with term limits, the greater amount of newer legislators will have less tenure and therefore vote to reduce spending. This view was made popular in the 1990s when there was growing support for term limits. 

However, empirical evidence suggests there isn’t a real correlation between term limits and government spending. A study that compared the fiscal policies of the states showed that there were little differences in spending between the fourteen states with term limits and the rest of the states without term limits. The same study also found that states that repealed term limits did not significantly increase spending. Therefore, while theories suggest term limits may allow for a decrease in government spending, this hypothesis has not been proven true in practice.

So if arguments for and against term limits haven’t been validated, what’s the point?

If it has not been proven that the existence of term limits make a serious impact on the workings of state legislatures, should we continue to waste time worrying about whether or not to have term limits? I would argue that we shouldn’t.

In a day and age when so many districts are gerrymandered along party lines, does it really matter whether there is a new or old face representing a primarily Republican or Democrat district? And whether or not term limits are enacted into law or done away with, there hasn’t been any evidence suggesting that the amount of time a person can serve in a legislature truly makes an impact on how legislatures function. It’s understandable that people desire their representatives to be more accountable to citizens, but the implementation or deletion of term limits probably won’t fix that problem. Let’s stop worrying about term limits and focus greater attention on methods to increase the accountability of whomever sits in public office, whether they can continue to run for that office or not.

[Bangor Daily News] [Washington Post] [Legislative Quarterly]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Again, with Term Limits: Debunking 3 Myths in the Media appeared first on Law Street.

Thursday, January 30, 2014 saw a huge victory for the rights of transgender students. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, overturning a decision made by a lower court, held that being transgender does not inhibit the right of equal access to restrooms in public buildings.

Nicole Maines’ rights were violated in the fifth grade, when she was told by school administrators that she must use the staff bathroom instead of the girl’s room at Asa Adams School in Orono, Maine. The case was first brought to Penobscot County Superior Court. Nicole was represented by lawyers of the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, who argued that the student had been deprived of her rights under the Maine Human Rights Act, which requires equal access of all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation and other identifications, of public accommodations. However, the court held for the school district, claiming that a 1983 law that mandated schools to have separate bathrooms according to sex outweighed the provision in the Human Rights Act.

The state supreme court noted that the old law really was meant to provide access for all people, regardless of gender, to sanitary facilities in public buildings, including schools. With this interpretation, the court found there was a violation of the Human Rights Act: by prohibiting Nicole from using a female restroom though she identified as female, the school district discriminated against Nicole because of her gender identity.

Other cases around the country hint at further progress on the issue of transgender bathroom use. Two individuals in Iowa, both of whom were born as males and identify as females, won the right to use women’s public restrooms. In June, in Colorado, six year old Coy Mathis’ family won their case against the Fountain-Fort Carson School District that had barred Coy’s use of a female restroom. Now, the Maines case can be added to the list of successes in furthering the rights and acceptance of transgender individuals.

This court decision, the first to invoke an amendment to Maine’s Human Rights Act that protected transgender persons in schools, will have great importance for transgender students across the country. Nicole Maines is certainly not the only individual that has faced hardship in schools due to being transgender. Adolescence can be a difficult time for any pupil, and the problem of bullying has grown in visibility throughout the country. Students like Nicole need the support of their teachers and school officials in the face of adversity, and singling Nicole out as different by requiring her to use a unisex bathroom hardly helps. Children don’t just learn from their teachers in the classroom; they set an example for certain behavior. If school officials, through their actions, show students of transgender identity to be different than others, what’s to stop other students of thinking the same?

The seemingly minor issue of which bathroom to use can mean a lot to a transgender individual. The majority opinion of the court addressed this when it stated, “it has been clearly established that a student’s psychological well-being and educational success depend upon being permitted to use the communal bathroom consistent with her gender identity.” The choice of what bathroom to use reaffirms a person’s notion of their sex. Denying someone the ability to use a bathroom associated with the gender they identify with in effect denies acceptance of their chosen gender.

Moreover, requiring a transgender person to use a separate unisex bathroom not only denies him or her the recognition of their sex identity but makes their private issue into a public one. For instance, Nicole Maines was given access to the staff bathroom but was escorted by a teacher whenever she had to use the facility.  This policy was extremely unfair to Nicole as it clearly made visible the fact that she was transgender, something that, like the choices and beliefs of other individuals, is a personal matter. The school district directly interfered with Nicole’s freedom of expression in disallowing her use of a female restroom, though despite the genes she was given, Nicole is a female. The treatment that Nicole Maines was given in her public school should not have to be experienced by any other transgender individual in the future, and her case’s outcome displays progress in how schools can accommodate the needs of all of their students.

It is hopeful to know that, in fighting the school’s policy, Nicole did not only have the support of her family and lawyers, but many of her fellow classmates. Students reportedly cheered in Nicole’s high school when the verdict was declared. Teenagers evidently understood that a policy was discriminatory when adult school officials did not. Activists like Nicole and her like-minded family and peers give hope that similar discriminatory policies across the country may be reversed in the coming years.

[NPR] [Press Herald] [Maine Legislature] [Daily Mail] [USA Today] [CNN]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Susan Sermoneta via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post The Significance of Restrooms: Transgender Rights Upheld in Maine appeared first on Law Street.