After Democrats in Augusta passed a partisan biennial budget for an unprecedented third time in a row, Representative Gary Drinkwater (R-Milford) is pushing back with an initiative for a People’s Veto of the budget. Secretary of State Shenna Bellows has quickly joined in on the partisan fight.

People’s Veto efforts have gone to referendum 29 times in Maine since 1909. The wording of the question that goes on the ballot in each instance is critical to understanding whether they were ultimately successful or not.

Rep. Drinkwater has submitted the required paperwork for a People’s Veto to repeal $11.3 Billion biennial state budget in late March. Recently, he received the wording for the question from Sec. Bellows and he was not pleased with it.

In a Friday morning radio interview with the George Hale/Ric Tyler Show, Rep. Drinkwater said: “The Secretary of State, I like her as a person, but her loyalty needs to be with the Constitution, not the Democratic Party… We don’t want to stop government operations. The question is very leading.”

Drinkwater’s statement is backed up by Sec. Bellows history of partisan actions and leading ballot questions. In 2024 Sec. Bellows was unrelenting in her efforts to bar Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump from the ballot. The Supreme Court of the United States eventually rejected her effort to exclude him, and restored Donald Trump on both the Maine and Colorado ballots for the November 2024 Presidential election.

In 2023, the Cumberland County Superior Court ordered Sec. Bellows to revise a ballot question that she had written. The ballot question was whether or not to create Pine Tree Power, a new consumer owned utility company. The court ruled that the question written by Sec. Bellows could mislead voters and ordered the Secretary of State to revise the wording. Bellows appealed that decision to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court where she also ultimately lost.

In his radio interview, Drinkwater alluded to the misleading Bellows ballot question for Pine Tree Power from 2023.

“We do feel that the wording (People’s Veto) is very leading and just by the way let’s go back down memory lane for a second. Back in March 2023 the people that brought the ballot forward…they felt that their question was very leading. She rejected their compromise. They ended up running to the courthouse and the judge told the Secretary to change the wording,” he told WVOM.

Drinkwater and his team also suggested compromise language to Bellows that was rejected. The People’s Veto ballot question drafted by Secretary Shenna Bellows reads:

“Do you want to stop most state government operations and programs, including new and ongoing state funding for cities, towns, and schools, by rejecting the state’s two-year budget?”

In contrast, the compromise language proposed by Drinkwater and his team put the matter more plainly:

“Shall the 2026-2027 state budget be repealed and replaced with a new budget that prioritizes streamlined spending, eliminates unnecessary expenditures, and focuses on programs and services directly benefitting Maine residents.”

Bellows had ten business days from when the petition was filed to draft the question and deliver it to the petitioners. Appeals of the question’s wording also had to be filed within those ten days. By taking the full ten days to deliver her question, the Secretary of State’s office effectively boxed out the People Veto petitioners from any real time to file an appeal.

In emails obtained by the Maine Wire, Bellows states as much in a reply to Drinkwater’s proposed compromise language:

Share this media

“Dear Representative Drinkwater:

The responsibility to draft the ballot question for a people’s veto is entrusted solely to the Secretary of State under 21-A MRSA §901(4).  I have determined the question provided to you yesterday meets the legal standards for a ballot question and best summarizes the choice that will be presented to voters.  Given that the question has been issued and the 10-day deadline for drafting the question has expired, I will not be revising the question at this point. 

As for your question concerning an appeal, you may wish to refer to 21-A MRSA § 901(7) and the statute cited therein. Note:

7.  Court review.  A voter named in the application under this section may appeal any decision made by the Secretary of State under this section using the procedures for court review provided for in section 905, subsections 2 and 3. 

Under those statutes, appeals must be commenced within 10 days of the date of my decision.”

On the George Hale/Ric Tyler Show, Drinkwater did not rule out legal action to have the question revised via court order in the same manner as the Pine Tree Power question.

“She’s got a lot of power when it comes to the wording, but she has to remember that the court can change the wording. It’s a very leading question,” he said.

Drinkwater pointed out in the interview’s conclusion that the petition he received from Bellows’ office is 46 pages in length, and he only has one copy. Each petition used to gather signatures consist of all these pages because it is required to include a copy of the state’s biennial budget. The petition gatherers will be responsible for bearing the printing costs for each individual petition that they will use to gather the required 67,000 signatures. Those signatures will need to be certified by town clerks and are due to the state’s election division by 5pm on June 18th.

The high cost of printing this particular ballot initiative question is not unlike the high cost of Freedom of Access Act information requests that many Maine citizens face. Often when the public and investigative news organizations, like The Maine Wire, ask for transparency from their government via a FOAA request they are met with a large bill for the costs of fulfilling that request. That cost for printing, researching and the working time of public servants is often priced in the thousands to tens of thousands of dollars.

In recent years, these fees set seemingly arbitrarily by the government often act as a deterrent to people being able to fully participate in the civic process. It would appear that these same deterrents have now also escalated to ballot initiative questions that seek to curb excessive spending by the Mills regime.