Maine Governor Backs Competing Measure to ‘Red Flag’ Referendum

Maine Governor Janet Mills is weighing in on the fight over a “red flag” referendum that will be on this November’s ballot, urging her fellow Democrats in the legislature to allow a competing measure to go before voters as well.

That measure, authored by State Rep. Jennifer Poirier, would greatly expand opportunities for mental health care, particularly in rural parts of the state, while directing additional funding to law enforcement for use with the state’s existing “yellow flag” law. That law, while still far from perfect, at least requires a mental health evaluation for the subject of an order, as well as restricting who can file a petition to law enforcement. The law offers more due process protections than the “red flag” proposal, which is a big reason why the anti-gunners are hoping to repeal and replace the “yellow flag” language. 

Democrats in the legislature need to act, though, before Poirier’s measure can be placed on the ballot alongside the “red flag” referendum. So far they’ve not taken any steps to do so, but there’s hope that with the governor weighing in, that might now change.  

The Legislature’s Judiciary Committee needs to hold an additional meeting on Poirier’s bill before members send it to voters. The statement from the governor, which was forwarded to the Bangor Daily News by David Trahan, the alliance’s executive director, appeared to be part of an effort from the governor to get legislative Democrats to move on the issue. 

“The proposed competing measure enhances the current law without putting a burden on families and neighbors who want to keep themselves and others safe without putting themselves on the line,” Mills said.

The swift process would result in the November election ballot featuring multiple options for changing the current yellow flag law that requires police to initiate the process by taking people deemed dangerous into protective custody before they receive a medical evaluation and then go before a judge who decides whether they temporarily lose access to their weapons.

Will the Democrat-controlled Judiciary Committee actually consider this competing measure? After all, they dragged their collective heels on holding a public hearing on the “red flag” referendum even though one was specifically required under state law. Instead, they bizarrely claimed that they could ignore state law because the state Constitution is silent about the issue. 

Poirier said Tuesday she spoke with House Speaker Ryan Fecteau, D-Biddeford, last week about holding a Judiciary Committee work session on her bill but that Fecteau has since indicated he will not direct another meeting to occur Wednesday, when lawmakers are back in Augusta to wrap up other work. Poirier called it “great news” that Mills is supporting her plan.

“It improves our yellow flag law that is working well,” Poirier said in a text message.

Fecteau did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday.

From what I’ve heard, while Fecteau didn’t promise Poirier that the committee would hold a hearing on her competing measure, he indicated there was plenty of time for the language to be considered at today’s work session. Now, though, it looks like no meeting will take place at all… unless Democrat lawmakers bend to the pressure from the governor and groups like SAM. 

If the “red flag” language is as popular as supporters claim, why are they so afraid to have a competing measure on the ballot this November? These anti-gun Democrats have gone to extraordinary lengths to block the public from weighing in before Election Day, and are now working as hard as they can to prevent voters from choosing to expand mental health services instead of enacting a “red flag” law. 

No matter if the competing measure appears on the ballot or not, Mainers need to remember the contempt of the “red flag” supporters when they head to the polls. Hopefully Poirier’s language will appear on the ballot as well, but if not voters need to overwhelmingly vote against the “red flag” proposal; to protect the right to keep and bear arms, to repudiate the authoritarian tactics of Democrat lawmakers, and to encourage the legislature to focus on improving access to mental health care instead of relying on the false promises of safety offered by Extreme Risk Protection Orders.