Legislative Update: Maine Legislature - May 23, 2025 Windham Independent
Legislative Update - Maine Legislature
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued a 7-2 ruling in Libby vs. Fecteau, allowing Maine Representative Laurel Libby to return to the floor of the House and vote while her legal case is still in a federal court of appeals.
This debacle started on February 17, when a biologically male trans girl won Maine’s girls pole vaulting state championship, one year after placing 5th in the regionals while competing as a male.
Rep. Libby posted two public pictures of that athlete (one from this year, one from the previous year) to make a point in the vigorous debate about whether allowing biologically male students to compete in girls’ sports is fair or not.
Maine House Speaker Fecteau (D), asked Libby to remove the post. When Rep. Libby refused, the Democrats passed a partisan resolution censuring Libby.
Where things get sticky (and VERY unconstitutional) is that Maine’s House rules state that Libby is not allowed to vote or speak on the House floor until she apologizes for the conduct that resulted in her censure. Since she refused, her constituents have lost their representation in the state house, because their elected representative is no longer allowed to do their job.
The Supreme Court already made it CLEAR in their 1966 Bond v. Floyd decision that the First Amendment requires that legislators be given the widest latitude to express their views on issues of policy.
This is not complicated - the First Amendment and its case law both make it clear that offensive speech IS protected from government censorship. After all, almost all we say is repulsive to someone out there - either offensive speech is protected, or no speech is.
Surprisingly, a federal district judge ruled against Libby on the grounds that the legislature’s decision to sanction her is protected by legislative immunity, and an appeals court also denied Libby an emergency order reinstating her voting rights.
The federal district judge argued that Bond v. Floyd does not apply to the Libby case because Libby was merely sanctioned until she apologizes instead of being removed, which is an irrelevant distinction - unconstitutional activity is not limited to permanently removing a lawmaker from their office, it very much applies to a lawmaker being removed from the office indefinitely like Rep. Libby was.
While the final outcome of this case is still in the balance, I would hope that courts do the right thing in this case or in any similar cases. A legal precedent enshrining the ability of a majority of a legislature to indefinitely suspend a member of the opposition party in our case law is NOT a good idea.
What if the Maine legislature found something objectionable said by every individual Republican representative and indefinitely suspended all of them? What if the New Hampshire House did the same thing to their Democrat minority members?
How many bills that failed to become law because of a close vote would have become law because the representatives that voted against them would have been indefinitely suspended, just like Rep. Libby was this spring? How would that have been fair?
These kinds of political games are corrupt and corrosive, and no legislative body should ever play them. Keeping a minority representative suspended indefinitely for doing their job is wrong, regardless of which side they are on. Their constituents deserve to be represented by the person they elected to do that job, whether the majority party or the rest of the state likes that or not.
Please reach out to me at 603 267 4142 (call or text), or by email at dpmwindham@gmail.com (a quick call or text after emailing me would ensure I never miss an email from you) with any questions or concerns.
Daniel Popovici-Muller
Windham State Representative,
Vice Chairman, Finance II Committee
Education Funding Committee