Emma Davis, Maine Morning Star

Kamala Harris’ husband, Douglas Emhoff, said former President Donald Trump’s questioning of the vice president’s racial identity is an insult meant to distract voters from his policy intentions.

“We’ve got to focus on what they’re really trying to do, which is to destroy our country,” Emhoff said during a campaign fundraiser in Maine Wednesday evening, pointing to the conservative transition plan Project 2025 and recent decisions from the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court, such as overturning the right to abortion.

For the second time in a week, Emhoff visited the Pine Tree State to garner support, and money, for the Harris campaign. On Sunday, the campaign announced it had raised $200 million in the first week after Harris declared she was running shortly after President Joe Biden dropped out and endorsed her.

As Democrats gathered at a private coastal residence in Yarmouth, the second gentleman spoke about what he called a “split screen” between the latest appearances of Harris, who as of Wednesday is the sole candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, and Trump, the Republican nominee.

Earlier Wednesday at a conference of the National Association of Black Journalists, Trump falsely claimed Harris “happened to turn Black” during her political career.

The comment came after ABC News correspondent Rachel Scott asked Trump whether he thought it was acceptable that Republican members of Congress have called Harris, who is the first Black and Asian American woman to serve as vice president, a so-called Diversity Equity and Inclusion hire. Trump didn’t answer the question and, instead, questioned whether Harris was Black, claiming she used to only promote her Indian heritage — even though she’d attended a historically Black college, a moderator pointed out. Her father is Jamaican, and her late mother was an Indian immigrant.

Harris to appear as sole candidate for Dem presidential nomination on virtual roll call

Emhoff described Harris’ message as one rooted in joy and focused on a future where all belong.

Emhoff also recounted how the night prior, following Harris’ campaign rally in Atlanta, he’d opened his phone to a series of texts that read “say it to my face,” as friends echoed remarks the vice president made in response to Trump declining to debate her. The election is a choice between a prosecutor and a felon, Emhoff said, referring to Trump being convicted in May of covering up hush money paid to a porn star.

Harris started her political career as a prosecutor in California and served as district attorney of San Francisco and then California Attorney General. While her record as a prosecutor hurt her previous presidential campaign, the vice president’s history with the criminal legal system is now being touted as an asset.

Harris’ last bid for the presidential nomination did not make it to 2020, nor that year’s election, at least in part because she’d struggled to raise money, which has not been the case this time around.

When Biden announced he was ending his bid and endorsing Harris, the president turned over his campaign infrastructure to her and a surge of new donations immediately followed, with the Harris team raising more than $81 million in the subsequent 24 hours.

“We need to build on the momentum,” Emhoff told the roughly 100 fundraiser attendees Wednesday.

Harris had also struggled last time to stand out among the many contenders for the Democratic ticket. Now, recent polling of Maine voters puts Harris leading in a matchup with Trump, and as more popular than Biden.

According to a University of New Hampshire Survey Center poll released on July 25, 48% of likely Maine voters said they’d vote for Harris, whereas 40% would vote for Trump.

The remainder split between third party and independents, with 4% saying they would vote for independent Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who announced earlier this week he’d turned in the necessary signatures to be on Maine’s November ballot, setting up a potential ranked-choice race.

Green Party candidate Jill Stein, Libertarian candidate Chase Oliver and independent Cornel West each garnered 1% of Maine voters, according to the poll.

However, if likely Maine voters could only vote for Harris or Trump, that difference widened — with 54% for Harris and 45% for Trump.

“The choice could not be more clear,” Emhoff said, “and then you add his little sidekick,” referring to Trump’s running mate, J.D. Vance, who he again called an extremist and opportunist as he had during his first campaign stop in Maine last week.

Three days after Harris announced she planned to seek the Democratic nomination, Emhoff visited Portland to participate in a roundtable on reproductive rights, highlighting the threats to reproductive healthcare he foresees under another Trump presidency.

While the focus of the roundtable had been reproductive rights, Emhoff also took the opportunity to discuss threats to other rights, including fundamental privacy, due process and same-sex marriage — which he again spoke about on Wednesday.

After running through the many freedoms he sees at stake, Emhoff made a plea to fundraiser attendees to do more than donate. “Register people to vote,” Emhoff urged, specifically adding that he wants young people to understand that not voting is a vote for Trump. “Have a voting plan.”

Signs of the whirlwind Harris campaign ramp up were also clear in Yarmouth, as now-dated Biden-Harris signs lined the driveway leading to the fundraiser. Toward the end of his remarks, Emhoff said he’d connected with First Lady Jill Biden before the event, who told him to thank the fundraiser attendees.

“She would’ve been here,” Emhoff joked. “Now, I’m here.”

Describing the last 10 days as surreal, Emhoff said the time he’s spent with Harris since she launched her presidential bid has been fleeting as the two continue to crisscross the country.

“We’re moving,” he said, reflecting on the support that has come for Harris, financial and otherwise. “It is great, but 97 days.”

Maine Morning Star is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maine Morning Star maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Lauren McCauley for questions: info@mainemorningstar.com. Follow Maine Morning Star on Facebook and X.

State representatives voted down a formal impeachment request against Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows on Tuesday for her decision to disqualify former President Donald Trump from Maine’s ballot under the “insurrection” clause of the U.S. Constitution.

With 60 members of the House voting in support and 80 voting against in a mostly party-line vote, the House Order, filed by Rep. John Andrews (R-Paris) last week, failed.

The order asked the House Special Investigative Committee to review alleged misconduct in Bellows’ proceedings, including her “failure to recuse herself for bias,” which Andrews wrote was “evidenced by her serving as a Maine presidential elector for Joseph R. Biden in the 2020 election.”

Following the vote, Bellows told Maine Morning Star that she sees the vote as a signal that the majority of the House recognized that she did her job as obligated by law.

“I am committed to working with everyone regardless of how they voted today to move forward,” Bellows said. “We have important work to do together, regardless of our differences.”

Legislators who supported the impeachment order argued Bellows overstepped her authority and called her ruling a means of voter suppression. Those who spoke out against advancing the impeachment order said the move was an improper remedy for disagreeing with a decision that was made in adherence to the law.

Instead, they pointed to the avenues the legal system affords for such disagreement to be handled — a process currently underway as Trump’s counsel has appealed the decision to the Maine Superior Court.

Next steps in Maine

Bellows sided with citizens who filed challenges to Trump’s primary election eligibility based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits those who took an oath to uphold the Constitution as an officer of the U.S. and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or gave “aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” from holding office again.

Bellows ruled on Dec. 28 that Trump engaged in insurrection because of his involvement in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol and therefore did not meet the qualifications to hold office.

Behind 14th Amendment argument to disqualify Trump: process, reasoning and the role of partisanship

While Maine’s ballot challenge process is distinct from other states in requiring the secretary of state to issue a ruling before the courts, Bellows’ decision came after the Colorado Supreme Court reached the same conclusion. The U.S. Supreme Court has since agreed to review the Colorado ruling.

Earlier this week, Trump’s legal team filed a brief asking the Maine Superior Court to delay its proceedings until the highest court rules on Trump’s appeal of the Colorado decision. Trump’s counsel argued that the court in Maine could stay the decision under its authority to manage its docket efficiently and that doing so would not result in any harm.

Bellows and the former Maine lawmakers who filed one of the two 14th Amendment challenges in Maine disagreed. Each subsequently asked the Superior Court to deny Trump’s request.

Bellows wrote that the court doesn’t have the authority to deviate from the deadline set by Maine statute, which stipulates that it issue its decision within 20 days of the secretary of state’s decision. This means the Superior Court must issue its decision by Jan. 17.

Further, Bellows wrote, “staying this proceeding, as a practical matter, would be unwise and potentially harmful.” If the Supreme Court doesn’t definitively and promptly resolve the matter, there would be an unresolved challenge to the validity of Trump’s primary petition days before the vote, which could put the integrity of the election at risk, she wrote.

Staying the court’s proceedings and staying Bellows’ decision are not one in the same. Bellows already stayed her decision pending appeal, so Trump will remain on the ballot until the Superior Court — and then pending further appeal the Maine Supreme Judicial Court — issues its decision.

Bellows said she will implement whatever the final ruling is from the courts.

“Voters can be confident that they will receive ballots in a timely way and will have full and fair information as they cast those ballots,” Bellows said. “Maine law has procedures for what happens if a candidate is placed on the ballot and later found to be disqualified, just as if a candidate were to pass away or withdraw. Our job as election officials is to follow the law and ensure the smooth administration of our elections.”

Legislators speak for and against impeachment

The vote on Tuesday within the Democratic-controlled legislature largely fell along partisan lines. Republican members voted in support and Democratic members voted in opposition, with the exception of Rep. David Woodsome (R-Waterboro) joining the Democrats. Woodsome did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication. There were ten absences and one vacancy.

Legislative Republicans launch process to impeach Maine Secretary of State Bellows

Accusations of bias against Bellows wove throughout statements made by representatives who urged their colleagues to vote in favor of the impeachment order on Tuesday.

Rep. Michael Soboleski (R-Phillips) said Bellows should have recused herself as presiding officer of the hearing because she served in 2020 as an elector of Biden, who is considered the other frontrunner alongside Trump in the 2024 election, setting up a potential rematch.

“It would seem that Secretary Bellows did not act ethically and instead did what was best for her preferred candidate in the Democrat Party instead of the voters of the state of Maine,” Soboleski said.

In response to these accusations of bias, Bellows told Maine Morning Star on Tuesday, “I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and follow the law without bias or any regard for my personal views, or even my safety.” Following her decision, Bellows has received threats, one of which led to police swatting her home.

Legislators who spoke in favor of moving forward with impeachment proceedings also characterized Bellows’ decision as an affront to voters’ rights.

“We are no longer free to vote for whom we choose,” said Rep. Edward Polewarczyk (R-Wiscasset).

Rep. James Thorne (R-Carmel), who was the first to speak on Tuesday, said, “I find the secretary of state guilty of voter suppression, and I also find her guilty of suppression of free speech.”

Rep. Joseph Underwood (R-Presque Isle), who said he personally collected signatures for Trump to get on the ballot, expressed his disappointment that his efforts were for naught. “As far as I’m concerned,” he said, “this is election interference.”

Those who came to Bellows’ defense criticized the characterization of her as biased.

“Throughout her time in office, she has gone above and beyond to carry out her duties with integrity and professionalism, often working across the aisle to ensure our democracy is strong,” said Rep. Laura Supica (D-Bangor), who spoke out in opposition to the impeachment order.

Agreement with Bellows’ decision is irrelevant in whether it is a valid decision, several representatives argued.

“Simply making this decision, while it might not be popular for some, does not constitute engaging in partisan politics,” said Rep. Maureen “Mo” Terry (D-Gorham), “and most importantly does not meet the high threshold for removal from office via impeachment as outlined in the Maine constitution.”

Rep. Adam Lee (D-Auburn), who has practiced law for 17 years, said he has received hundreds of opinions he disagreed with. He has never thought impeachment to be a proper remedy and does not think so in this case either, he explained.

“First, because no matter how terrible I thought a decision was, I understood that the person making the decision was simply making the decision they were charged to make by the law-making body,” Lee said. “And second, because the beautiful thing about our legal system is it affords numerous appeals and other mechanisms by which we can filter out erroneous decisions.”

Lee urged representatives who have criticized Bellows’ proceedings to take issue not with her but the body that established Maine’s ballot challenge proceedings — the state legislature.

“If the process is so problematic and so scurrilous,” Lee said, “I’d imagine that one of us could perhaps convince a state legislator to put in a bill that places the decision with somebody else.”

Maine Morning Star is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maine Morning Star maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Lauren McCauley for questions: info@mainemorningstar.com. Follow Maine Morning Star on Facebook and Twitter.

Rep. John Andrews (R-Paris) filed formal impeachment orders against Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows for her decision to disqualify former President Donald Trump from the primary ballot in Maine, House Republican leader Billy Bob Faulkingham (R-Winter Harbor) said Wednesday.

Faulkingham and Senate Republican Leader Harold “Trey” Stewart (R-Aroostook) called her decision extraconstituional and a partisan move during a press conference following the start of the session, surrounded by dozens of members of Senate and House caucuses who attended in support.

“She is in fact, the best thing that Donald Trump has going for him right now, by helping to stir up our base and motivate our folks,” Stewart said. “I can tell you that the Republican base remains incredibly energized over this.”

Maine is the second state, joining Colorado, to remove Trump from the presidential primary ballot based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Bellows, a Democrat, ruled on Dec. 28 that this Civil War-era insurrection clause, which prohibits anyone who took an oath to uphold the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office in the U.S., prohibits Trump from the ballot because of his involvement in the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Bellows suspended her decision pending appeal, which Trump’s counsel filed Tuesday. Maine’s ballot challenge process differs from other states in that voters are required to file challenges with the Secretary of State rather than going right to court, which was the case in Colorado.

Stewart objected to Bellows’ ruling on the basis that Trump has not been formally convicted for insurrection and claimed that the evidence considered in the ballot hearing would not be permissible in court. Faulkingham additionally argued that Bellows did not fully consider the 14th Amendment in her decision.

“She’s ignoring the most important part of the 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, which is the right to every person to due process,” Faulkingham said, “and she’s completely violated Donald Trump’s right to due process.”

Bellows made her decision solely and exclusively on the facts in the hearing record, the laws and the Constitution, she said in response during an impromptu media briefing.

Maine officials react to Bellows’ decision to disqualify Trump from presidential primary ballot

“The attacks of January 6 were unprecedented,” Bellows said. “They were tragic, and they were an attack not just on the Capitol and members of Congress and the former vice president, but they were an attack on a peaceful transfer of power. They were an attack on the rule of law.”

She continued, “The evidence demonstrated that those attacks occurred at the behest with the knowledge and support of the outgoing president, and under the United States Constitution, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, that is disqualifying.”

Legislative Republicans did not dispute Bellows’ authority to issue the decision on Trump’s ballot eligibility — a dispute repeatedly made by Trump’s counsel during proceedings — but rather the conclusion she reached. “Does she have the ability to do this? Yes,” Stewart said, “Should she have done it? Absolutely not.”

Stewart and Faulkingham described Bellows’ decision as a political move. “This speaks to the absolute partisanship of the Office of the Secretary of State,” Faulkingham said. Stewart added, “She chose to go down this road in order to try to make national headlines for some sort of political agenda and future mission that she has.”

When asked about her political ambitions and intentions, Bellows said she was focused on doing the work of the Secretary of State.

“I made my decision grounded in my oath to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law,” Bellows said. “Neither considerations for the political consequences nor my personal safety could or did enter into it.”

Bellows said she, her family and staff have and continue to receive threats. Two days after she issued her decision, Bellows’ home was swatted after someone claimed to have broken into her home.

Bellows’ decision is only the start of the process. “Now, Mr. Trump has appealed to the Superior Court, as is his constitutional right,” she said.

The Superior Court has until Jan. 17 to issue a decision in order to get ballots out to Maine voters ahead of the primary on Super Tuesday, March 5.

Maine Morning Star is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maine Morning Star maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Lauren McCauley for questions: info@mainemorningstar.com. Follow Maine Morning Star on Facebook and Twitter.

Those challenging former President Donald Trump’s primary election eligibility in Maine see the decision out of the Colorado Supreme Court this week as validation of their argument and urge Maine to reach an identical ruling.

Trump’s counsel says the Colorado decision isn’t relevant, arguing that decision is not “final” and that Maine challenges are a separate matter since they were brought under different state laws and procedures.

In briefs filed Thursday evening, litigants weighed in on whether, and how, the Colorado decision should impact the ruling expected to be issued by Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows early next week.

The Colorado Supreme Court ordered Trump to be barred from the state’s 2024 presidential ballot on Dec. 19, under a Civil War-era insurrection clause in the 14th Amendment that two of the three challenges to Trump’s eligibility in Maine have also cited.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits anyone who took an oath to uphold the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office in the U.S. The challengers argue Trump cannot hold office because he engaged in insurrection when he incited people to attack the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Proceedings for Maine’s hearing, which began Dec. 15, had essentially wrapped by the 19th, when the challengers and Trump’s counsel had submitted their closing arguments as briefs. After Colorado’s decision, however, Bellows invited the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing the impact, if any, the Colorado decision has on the arguments they’ve presented.

The burden of proof falls on the challengers, who must provide “sufficient evidence” in order to invalidate the petition. The other challenge in Maine argues Trump is ineligible under the 22nd Amendment, which outlines term limits, because the former president has maintained that he won the 2020 election.

Several other states have also seen challenges to Trump’s eligibility, mainly citing the 14th Amendment argument, but Colorado is the first to rule in favor of challengers. The ruling in Colorado is expected to be appealed to the nation’s highest court.

Colorado’s relevancy in Maine, as argued by both sides

Counsel for the former Maine elected officials who submitted one of the 14th Amendment challenges filed a brief Thursday night outlining why they believe Colorado’s decision should impact what happens in Maine. This challenge came from former Portland mayor Ethan Strimling, a Democrat, and former Republican state Sens. Kimberley Rosen and Thomas Saviello.

Counsel for Trump — Portland attorney Benjamin Hartwell and outside representation Scott Gessler and Gary Lawkowski — also filed a brief Thursday, arguing the opposite.

Both the challengers and Trump’s counsel focused largely on the issue of collateral estoppel in their briefs.

Sec. of State Bellows hears arguments for and against challenges to Trump’s ballot eligibility

Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, prevents the relitigation of factual issues already decided in an earlier proceeding.

The challengers argue the U.S. Constitution requires Maine to apply collateral estoppel to the judgements of other state courts and therefore requires Bellows to follow the Colorado courts’ factual determinations.

Trump’s counsel argues collateral estoppel does not apply, because the challengers in Colorado and Maine are different, as are the state laws and procedures under which the challengers sought relief.

The fairness and finality of the Colorado decision also factored into the argument from Trump’s counsel. His counsel argues that Colorado’s ruling shouldn’t be considered a “final judgment” because it included a stay of the court’s order until Jan. 4, or until the outcome of a widely anticipated appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is decided.

The ruling from Colorado read, “If review is sought in the Supreme Court before the stay expires on Jan. 4, 2024, then the stay shall remain in place, and the Secretary will continue to be required to include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, until the receipt of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court.”

Additionally, Trump’s counsel argues in their brief that Trump did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the facts in the Colorado case, so collateral estoppel does not apply. Quoting dissent from the majority opinion in Colorado, they wrote, “the truncated procedures and limited due process provided by [Colorado law] are wholly insufficient to address the constitutional issues currently at play.”

Separately, counsel for Trump outlined an argument as to why the Colorado case should have no bearing in Maine that has nothing to do with the Colorado case at all.

Trump’s counsel wrote in their brief that Maine law does not allow the Secretary of State to remove Trump from the ballot. Instead, they argue, only the three qualifications for the office of the presidency matter — a point his counsel also emphasized during the Dec. 15 hearing when they asked the challengers whether they believed Trump met those qualifications of age, residency and natural born citizenship.

Aside from the collateral estoppel arguments from the challengers, their brief also argued that the Colorado decision is the “best persuasive authority” on the matter. Because the challengers used much of the same evidence as the Colorado case, including the same expert witness, Bellows should reach an “identical or substantially similar” conclusion, the challengers wrote.

These supplemental briefs from both sides of the litigation are the last filings expected before Bellows will issue her ruling on Trump’s eligibility for Maine’s presidential primary election, scheduled for March 5, or “Super Tuesday.”

Maine Morning Star is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maine Morning Star maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Lauren McCauley for questions: info@mainemorningstar.com. Follow Maine Morning Star on Facebook and Twitter.

Mainers are challenging former President Donald Trump’s primary election eligibility.

Two challenges filed with the state claim Trump action’s in relation to the Jan. 6 insurrection on the U.S. Capitol bar him from taking office again. One challenge takes an alternate approach: Since Trump maintains he won re-election in 2020, he is ineligible to seek a third term as president.

The Maine Secretary of State’s office received three challenges to block Trump’s participation in the state’s Republican primary on March 5, after announcing the candidates on Dec. 2.

A consolidated hearing on the three challenges is set for Friday.

The challenges

Both challenges to Trump’s election eligibility focus on constitutional violations.

Lawyer Paul Gordon filed a challenge with the state based on the 22nd Amendment, which reads, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” Gordon wrote in his challenge that because Trump maintains that he won the 2020 election — a claim that has been widely disproven — he is ineligible to seek reelection because he has reached his two-term limit.

“When a candidate makes a factual representation that disqualifies him from the office he seeks, he cannot appear on the ballot,” Gordon wrote. “However, Mr. Trump may be able to remove this obstacle of his own creation. If he were to submit a letter worn under penalty of perjury acknowledging that he lost the 2020 election and repudiating all previous statements undermining the integrity of that election, the question of the 22nd Amendment would no longer be relevant.”

The other two challenges invoke reasoning that has been cited in challenges to Trump’s eligibility in other states involving the 14th Amendment.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits anyone who took an oath to uphold the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office in the United States.

One of the challenges citing the 14th Amendment violation came from former elected officials in Maine: former Portland mayor Ethan Strimling (a Democrat) and former state Sens. Kimberley Rosen and Thomas Saviello (Republicans). The other challenge based on the 14th Amendment came from Winterport resident Mary Ann Royal.

This argument has been used in challenges to Trump’s ballot eligibility in other states, including Colorado. Colorado is awaiting a ruling from its state Supreme Court but in November a district court judge ruled “Trump incited an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021 and therefore ‘engaged’ in insurrection within the meaning of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.”

However, the judge ultimately sided with a legal theory put forward by conservative scholars and cited by Trump’s attorneys that Section 3’s reference to individuals who have “taken an oath” as an officer of the U.S. does not include the presidency, as reported by Maine Morning Star’s sister site Colorado Newsline. Gerard Magliocca, a scholar of 19th-century constitutional law called to testify on behalf of the plaintiffs, argued that the position is “so far in the minority” among academics who have studied the question.

The 14th Amendment “insurrection” clause has been enforced only a handful of times since being ratified in 1868 — with at least one court using it explicitly in connection to the Jan. 6 insurrection. Last year, a New Mexico court cited it in ruling to remove a Republican county commissioner from office who had participated in the attack on the Capitol.

The hearing

Secretary of State Shenna Bellows will serve as the presiding officer for the hearing on these three challenges on Dec. 15 and will rule on the validity of the challenges by Dec. 22.

During the hearing, which will occur at 10 a.m. in room 228 of the Maine State House, the challengers must provide “sufficient evidence” in order to invalidate the petition. The challengers and Trump will have the opportunity to present oral testimony of witnesses, add documentary evidence and make oral arguments in light of that evidence.

Once Bellows’ ruling is handed down, challengers or Trump can also appeal the decision to the Superior Court, whose decision can then be appealed to the Law Court.

Maine Morning Star is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maine Morning Star maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Lauren McCauley for questions: info@mainemorningstar.com. Follow Maine Morning Star on Facebook and Twitter.