1. Maine to use ranked-choice voting in presidential election
2. U.S. Supreme Court will hear case challenging Federal Housing Finance Agency structure
3. Lucas resigns from New Hampshire House of Representatives, creates 10th chamber vacancy

Maine to use ranked-choice voting in presidential election

Last week, I wrote about the use of ranked-choice voting (RCV) in the Republican primary for Maine’s 2nd Congressional District. The district held the first congressional election in U.S. history decided by RCV in 2018. Now, Maine will be the first state to ever use RCV for a presidential election after a veto referendum campaign did not file enough signatures. 

The Maine Republican Party sought to place the law establishing RCV in presidential elections on the general election ballot as a veto referendum (also known as a people’s veto). The GOP-backed effort filed 72,512 signatures on June 15. At least 63,067 signatures needed to be valid. Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap (D) stated that 61,334 signatures were valid—1,733 signatures less than the requirement. 

If the required number of signatures had been verified, it would have suspended the law until the election, meaning RCV would not have been used for the presidential election this November.

Demi Kouzounas, chairwoman of the Maine Republican Party, responded to the announcement that not enough signatures were valid. Kouzounas said, “This fight is not over. It is abundantly clear that the secretary of state used every trick in the book to throw out enough signatures through a litany of technicalities to keep this question off the ballot. … we will fight to make sure every Maine voter is heard and every legitimate signature is counted.” 

When the secretary of state determines there aren’t enough valid signatures, Maine law allows proponents to challenge the decision in Superior Court with appeal to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. As of July 15, Kouzounas did not say whether the campaign would challenge the secretary’s order.

Currently, Maine is the only state using ranked-choice voting in state and federal elections. In November, voters in Alaska and Massachusetts will decide ballot measures on ranked-choice voting. Signatures are also being verified for an RCV initiative in North Dakota. Maine has four electoral votes.

Learn more

       

---

U.S. Supreme Court will hear case challenging Federal Housing Finance Agency structure

The U.S. Supreme Court just wrapped up its 2019-2020 term, but we’re already looking ahead to the upcoming term. On July 9, SCOTUS agreed to hear Collins v. Mnuchin, which asks whether the structure of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is unconstitutional. 

The FHFA is an independent agency that regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored entities that deal in mortgages, and the Federal Home Loan Bank System. The president appoints the agency's director to a five-year term, subject to Senate confirmation. The president may only remove the director for cause.

The case began when shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac sued the FHFA. The plaintiffs allege that because the single director can only be removed for cause, and does not depend on congressional appropriations, it’s structurally unconstitutional. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled en banc that the structure of the FHFA was unconstitutional because it “limits the President’s removal power and does not fit within the recognized exception for independent agencies.” The U.S Supreme Court established that exception for agencies with multi-member boards in the 1935 case Humphrey's Executor v. United States. The Fifth Circuit held that court precedent does not support removal protections for single-director agencies like the FHFA.

The Fannie and Freddie shareholders appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing, "While the Fifth Circuit correctly held that FHFA’s insulation from at-will presidential removal power unconstitutionally dilutes the President’s Article II authority, the court failed to carry out the Article III responsibilities that follow from that finding."

Just 10 days before agreeing to decide Collins v. Mnuchin, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Seila Law that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was unconstitutional. The president was barred from firing the CFPB's director at-will. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that such a restriction violated the separation of powers doctrine because it limited presidential use of executive power.

And don’t forget, our SCOTUS wrap-up briefing is this Thursday, July 23, at 11:00 am CDT. We’ll be reviewing the most important aspects of the term, including the pandemic's impact, the decision trends we're seeing, and the latest data on reversal rates. Click here to sign up.

Lucas resigns from New Hampshire House of Representatives, creates 10th chamber vacancy

States use a variety of different methods to fill legislative vacancies. Yesterday, a Democratic committee selected Nikema Williams to replace the late Rep. John Lewis (D) on the ballot this November for Georgia’s 5th Congressional District. The committee had one business day from Lewis’ death to replace him on the ballot, per Georgia election code.

On the state legislative side of things, Rep. Gates Lucas (R) resigned from the New Hampshire House of Representatives on July 14 due to moving outside the district. In New Hampshire, state legislative vacancies are filled by special election. A town or city without a House member seat must make a formal request to the governor and executive council for a special election. The governor and council then approve or deny the request within 21 days.

Lucas’ resignation created the tenth vacancy in the chamber. The other vacant House districts are:

• Cheshire 4 
• Grafton 9
• Grafton 12 
• Hillsborough 7 
• Hillsborough 23 
• Hillsborough 27 
• Hillsborough 37 
• Hillsborough 43 
• Strafford 10 

Eight of the 10 vacancies occurred this year.

Ballotpedia depends on the support of our readers.

The Lucy Burns Institute, publisher of Ballotpedia, is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. All donations are tax deductible to the extent of the law. Donations to the Lucy Burns Institute or Ballotpedia do not support any candidates or campaigns.