Edmund Burke, a famous British representative to Parliament in the 1700s, found himself criticized in a debate for voting on the unpopular side of an issue. He responded that it is the “happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention.”
But, he went on, he should never sacrifice his mature judgment to stay on the popular side of an issue: “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”
This past session was my first as a representative in the Maine House of Representatives. It was a successful session both for the Legislature as a whole, and for me personally. We helped lake organizations like Togus Pond address water quality; transferred state ownership of the Piggery Road youth sports complex to the Capital Area Recreation Association; helped the Maine Veterans Homes to close their budget shortfall; fixed the bottle bill; dramatically expanded affordable housing programs; and much more as well.
But I also voted with my conscience, and against my party, on two high-profile and controversial bills. In the process of finding myself in the crossfire, I learned the practical consequences of following the advice of Edmund Burke.
The first issue was abortion. The governor and my party put forward a bill to remove legal safeguards to third trimester abortions. The intent of the bill was noble: to help women in those rare circumstances in a which a fatal fetal anomaly shows up very late in pregnancy. But the language was broad. I am pro-choice, and in my campaign for office I stated my support for continuing the legal rights which Roe v. Wade once protected. But this language was broader and looser than the Roe v. Wade standard. There was no willingness among the bill’s supporters to consider amendments which would clarify the limited circumstances under which late-term abortions would be allowed. Thus, I became one of only a handful of Democrats not to support the bill.
The second issue was tribal sovereignty. I support the principle that Maine’s tribes should have full access to any and all federal programs that benefit other tribes around the country. But as with the abortion bill, the actual language of the bill before us was broad and open-ended. Might it allow tribes to buy land in a municipality and then ignore local zoning rules under the name of sovereignty? Might it create conflicts among various law enforcement activities? It was hard to say. Gov. Mills thought that it would lead to any number of unintended consequences and years of complex litigation. I agree with her. But I also hope that the governor takes the initiative in the next few months to reach out to the tribes and to find a satisfactory way to enable Maine’s native population to better achieve their goals of cultural dignity and economic development.
When I ran last year, I pledged to be a voice of moderation. I was happy to develop working relationships and friendships on both sides of the aisle. And on the tough choices facing the Legislature this year, I gave the good voters of House District 60 “not my industry only, but my judgment.” I will continue to do so in the future.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
