The Maine State Legislature’s Housing and Economic Development Committee heard public testimony Tuesday on a bill that would make it illegal to discriminate against someone “in housing or public accommodation” for receiving public assistance. Just as it is currently against the law to discriminate against someone for being a member of a protected class, this law would prohibit discrimination based one’s status as a recipient of “federal, state or local public assistance.” For the purposes of this law, “public assistance” is defined as “a source of income, including medical assistance and housing subsidies and the individual’s having to meet any requirements for the individual to use the income.” This bill, LD 1036, was sponsored by Rep. Ambureen Rana (D-Bangor) and cosponsored by several other Democrat lawmakers. When introducing this bill to the Committee, Rep. Rana argued that “discrimination should not be an added hindrance” to those seeking housing in an already strained market. Rep. Cheryl A. Golek (D-Harpswell) argued that Maine needs this law due to “source of income discrimination,” suggesting that “it should go without saying that housing discrimination is discrimination.” Testifying in opposition to this bill, Dan Bernier of the Central Maine Apartment Owners Association raised concerns that this bill could result in landlords being forced to comply with additional requirements as a result of accepting funds distributed through government programs as a source of income. “This is not about discrimination, this is about whether you will be required to give special conditions to people who have a housing voucher,” Bernier said. The Committee will continue to consider LD 1036 at a currently unscheduled work session before eventually reporting out their recommendations to the full Legislature. Click Here for More Information on LD 1036 This, however, is not the only bill up for debate this year that seeks to make income source discrimination illegal in Maine. Right now, the Judiciary Committee is considering a bill that would make income source discrimination unlawful under the Maine Human Rights Act. If approved, this law would prevent anyone looking to sell or rent a property from refusing to rent to, or engage in housing negotiations with, individuals because of their income source, so long it is legal and rightfully obtained. For example, landlords and property owners could not discount potential tenants or buyers because a portion of their income is sourced from a public assistance program, non-governmental organization (NGO), or the Social Social Security Administration. This prohibition, however, would not apply to an owner of less than four “residential dwelling units held for rental purposes.” The proposed law would also block property owners from excluding housing subsidy amounts when determining a potential tenant’s financial eligibility. In other words, a potential tenant’s eligibility to rent an apartment may not be calculated based on the entire amount of the monthly rent when a portion of that rent would be subsidized. A public hearing for this bill was held on March 10 before Committee members took a preliminary vote on this bill several days later. By the end of March, however, the Committee decided to reconsider this legislation, so it is not yet known what their recommendations will be to the full Legislature. Click Here for More Information on LD 847 During the previous legislative session, lawmakers approved a bill to study housing discrimination in Maine, but Gov. Janet Mills (D) ultimately refused to sign it into law alongside the thirty-five other bills sent to her desk on Veto Day. The final day of the Legislative session in Maine — colloquially referred to as “Veto Day” — is typically set aside for lawmakers to consider whether or not to overturn any vetoes that have been issued by the governor. Last year, however, lawmakers also used this time to approve a handful of new bills that were subsequently sent to Gov. Mills for consideration. In a letter shared with members of the Legislature, Mills explained that she would not be signing any of these measures into law, irrespective of her stance on their objectives. Consequently, the study proposed in this bill never came to fruition.