Wabanaki Leaders Oppose Maine’s Question 1, Cite Voting Barriers

The Wabanaki Alliance has voiced strong opposition to Question 1, a proposed measure on Maine’s ballot for November 4, 2024, claiming it would create barriers for Indigenous voters in the state. The initiative, which seeks to enforce stricter photo identification requirements, has raised concerns among Indigenous leaders about its potential discriminatory impact.

According to lead petitioner Alex Titcomb, the measure was initially intended to include tribal identification cards as acceptable forms of ID. However, the final proposal restricts the list to “the most common” government-issued IDs, which does not encompass tribal IDs. “It feels discriminatory to us, it feels wrong,” stated Maulian Bryant, executive director of the Wabanaki Alliance, an organization advocating for tribal sovereignty in Maine.

Proponents argue that Question 1 aims to enhance election security by mandating voters present photo identification before casting their ballots. The measure also seeks to limit municipalities to a single drop box for absentee ballots and eliminates the option for voters to request absentee ballots via phone or have family members do so on their behalf. Acceptable forms of ID would include a Maine driver’s license, a U.S. passport, and military identification cards, among others.

While Titcomb maintains that obtaining valid ID is not a burden, he acknowledged that current practices allow Native Americans to use tribal IDs to register to vote. However, under Question 1, they would be unable to use those same IDs to vote, creating a disparity. Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows highlighted that such inconsistencies defy common sense, emphasizing that studies indicate strict voter ID laws can disproportionately affect voters of color and minority groups.

Currently, Native Americans can use tribal IDs, which are recognized for other purposes in Maine, to register to vote. Bellows pointed out that this new measure could create confusion among tribal members, as they could register with tribal identification but be barred from voting with the same ID.

Data on how many Mainers rely solely on tribal IDs remains unclear, raising questions about how many voters might need to acquire new forms of identification if the measure passes. Titcomb noted that the Legislature could amend the ID list post-approval, acknowledging the petitioners’ limited foresight regarding potential impacts.

Should voters pass the referendum, Maine would join 36 other states with voter ID laws, becoming one of the few states that do not accept tribal IDs. Statistical data from Bellows’ office indicates that absentee ballot usage in tribal communities lagged behind the state average during the 2024 general election, with participation rates between 6% and 14% on the Passamaquoddy reservations and the Penobscot Nation, compared to 47% of voters statewide.

Despite the proposed measures, Bryant expressed concern about the implications for Wabanaki communities, particularly for elders and caregivers who utilize absentee voting. “Why make it harder for even one person to vote?” she questioned, highlighting the historical significance of voting rights for Indigenous peoples. The Wabanaki people were barred from voting in state elections until 1967, making the right to vote especially sacred.

As the election approaches, the debate surrounding Question 1 continues to intensify, with advocates for Indigenous rights urging voters to consider the broader implications of the proposed identification requirements on their communities.