Question 1 is written in a deceptive, confusing way. There are multiple different issues in one question.
What if a voter wants to allow the New England Clean Energy Connect project to go forward but is horrified at the idea of “retroactive voting”? The question should simply be “yes” or “no” on the corridor.
It’s common knowledge that many Mainers hate Central Maine Power and would vote “yes” on any question that would hurt the company. Maybe that’s why the language of “retroactive law changing” was inserted into a “yes” vote to ban high impact electric transmission in the upper Kennebec region. Do the writers think that Maine voters won’t notice that extra question?
I ask people to think about it. This “retroactive law” would cause total chaos. Democrats would enact a law and Republicans, when in power, would just change the law to suit themselves and vice versa. People’s votes and laws on high-impact electric transmission lines could be overridden every time politicians from the opposite party come into power. Our votes would be meaningless.
If “retroactive law changing” is allowed on this issue, who knows what other laws and regulations could eventually be retroactively changed?
If people want our past votes and laws to continue in effect and not be changed by politicians against people’s wishes, they should vote “no” on Question 1.
Ellen Field, New Gloucester
Send questions/comments to the editors.
