Resolve, to Establish the Commission to Study the Constitution of Maine
LD132 is a resolve that would create the Commission to Study the Constitution of Maine. The commission would be made up of 12 voting members, including legislators from both chambers and both major parties, a constitutional law scholar or experienced Maine Bar member, a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe in Maine, a representative of a civil liberties organization, and the Secretary of State or designee. The chairs could also invite a judicial branch member to serve in a nonvoting advisory role.
The commission would be authorized to meet up to 12 times to review the Maine Constitution and recommend changes and amendments it considers necessary and desirable. The resolve specifically identifies several topics for study, including strengthening the Declaration of Rights, removing procedural details from the Constitution, enabling popular election of constitutional officers, establishing four-year Senate terms, reducing the size of the Legislature, creating a unicameral Legislature, allowing citizen-initiated constitutional amendments, and reviewing constitutional resolutions introduced in the 132nd Legislature. The commission would report its findings and recommendations to the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary by November 4, 2026, and the Judiciary Committee could then submit related legislation to the 133rd Legislature in 2027.
If enacted, the resolve would not directly amend the Constitution, but it would create a formal study commission and set in motion a process that could lead to future constitutional resolutions. It would also require the Legislative Council to provide staffing support when the Legislature is not in session and establish appointment and convening procedures for the commission. The practical effect would be to place constitutional reform proposals under structured legislative review and potentially generate recommendations for significant changes to Maine’s governing document.
The available voting history suggests the bill did not advance, as the Senate voted 29-6 on June 2, 2025 to accept the Majority Ought Not To Pass report. No committee transcript is available here, so the recorded sentiment is limited to the vote itself. That vote indicates substantial opposition or at least insufficient support for moving the study commission forward, even though the bill’s subject matter concerns broad constitutional review rather than a single policy change.
The main point of contention appears to be whether Maine should create a commission to revisit foundational constitutional questions, including structural changes such as a unicameral legislature, shorter or different legislative terms, direct citizen amendment power, and the election of constitutional officers. Supporters of study commissions typically frame them as a careful, deliberative way to examine long-term reforms, while opponents may view them as unnecessary, too open-ended, or as a vehicle for controversial constitutional changes. The inclusion of politically significant reform ideas likely made the proposal more divisive than a narrower technical study.
The resolve would create a new legislative study commission and authorize the Legislative Council to support it, but it would not itself change substantive constitutional or statutory law. Its legal effect would be to establish a formal process for reviewing the Constitution of Maine and to create a pathway for the Judiciary Committee to introduce future legislation or constitutional resolutions in the 133rd Legislature based on the commission’s report. It would also shape future consideration of constitutional reform topics by identifying specific issues for study and by involving legislators, legal experts, tribal representation, civil liberties representation, and the Secretary of State in the review process.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available record is negative or at least insufficiently supportive, as the Senate later voted 29-6 to accept the Majority Ought Not To Pass report. Because there are no committee transcripts provided, there is no detailed discussion to show support or opposition arguments, but the vote suggests the chamber was not persuaded that the commission should be established. The bill’s broad constitutional reform agenda likely generated caution among lawmakers, even though the proposal was framed as a study rather than an immediate amendment.
The most notable contention is over the scope and purpose of the proposed commission. The bill invites study of major structural reforms, including a unicameral legislature, reduced legislative membership, four-year Senate terms, direct initiative of constitutional amendments, and popular election of constitutional officers, any of which could be politically sensitive. Another likely point of debate is whether a broad commission is the right mechanism for constitutional review at all, especially when the Legislature can consider targeted constitutional resolutions directly. The inclusion of a tribal representative and a civil liberties organization representative may also reflect an effort to broaden perspectives, but could still raise questions among opponents about the commission’s composition and agenda.