As the 132nd Maine Legislature raced toward adjournment, lawmakers pushed through a wave of major bills in just a matter of days. The final stretch of the session was fast-moving, and decisions were made that will shape Maine’s economy, healthcare system, and tax climate for years to come.
Maine Policy Institute closely tracked many of these proposals, engaging in advocacy efforts and working with lawmakers to improve or stop legislation where necessary. Here’s a look at some of the major bills from the final weeks, and what ultimately happened to them.
LD 2212: The Supplemental Budget and 2% Income Tax Hike
The most consequential development of the closing weeks was the passage of the supplemental budget, an issue MPI has discussed in depth in other blog posts and media. In total, the package adds roughly $519 million in spending, split between one-time withdrawals from the state’s rainy day fund and additional General Fund expenditures.
Included in that spending were $300 “affordability relief” checks, expanded housing initiatives, and a range of new commitments. But perhaps most notably, the budget also incorporated a 2% income tax surcharge on high earners, language that originally came from a standalone proposal, LD 1089. This was a bill that MPI dedicated immense resources to fight this session.
Our opposition included conducting hard-hitting research, creating policy briefs that were sent to all legislators, and leading a public advocacy campaign that led to over 1,600 Mainers emailing legislators urging them to oppose this increase. Likely because of our efforts, the Democrat lawmakers had to resort to underhanded tactics and force the tax hike into the budget in order to get it to pass.
From Maine Policy Institute’s perspective, this budget raises serious concerns. Using one-time funds to finance ongoing spending, while simultaneously increasing taxes, creates long-term structural risks for the state budget. It also sends a troubling signal to job creators and investors at a time when Maine should be focused on improving its economic competitiveness.
LD 2226: Education Funding Reform
LD 2226, a bill aimed at modifying Maine’s school funding formula, had a very complicated path.
In its original form, the bill included several provisions that raised serious concerns, particularly changes that would have increased state education spending and added complexity to the funding formula. However, after much input from interested parties – including Maine Policy Institute -and extensive work in committee, the bill was significantly amended.
Most notably, the final version removed a proposed increase to the special education prevalence threshold and eliminated changes to weight given to economically disadvantaged students, both of which would have likely driven higher and less predictable spending. These changes made the bill far more manageable and preserved key cost controlling mechanisms within the formula.
That said, the amended version is not without its drawbacks. Several positive reforms from the original draft such as stronger cost controls on special education spending and limits on midyear funding adjustments were not included in the final bill. More broadly, the legislation still made structural changes to the funding formula very late in the session without clear evidence that they will improve educational outcomes.
In the end, LD 2226 represents a mixed result. While the measure did pass and MPI did oppose it, it was significantly improved through the legislative process, demonstrating the impact that sustained policy engagement can have, even when an unfavorable bill ultimately becomes law.
LD 307: Moratorium on Data Centers
LD 307, which would have established a temporary moratorium on a large-scale data center development, cleared the Legislature and went to the governor’s desk for her signature. Governor Mills had previously expressed skepticism and concerns that the bill could derail plans for a data center project in Jay at the site of the former mill. Those concerns must have won her over because she did ultimately veto the bill.
The purported goal was to give policymakers time to study potential impacts on electricity costs, grid reliability, and environmental resources. While those concerns could be worth examining, this approach of the government outright banning building data centers for a certain period of time raises broader issues about how Maine handles emerging industries. Maine Policy Institute believes the bill reflects a significant shift toward more centralized, government-driven planning which relies on regulatory oversight and bureaucratic coordination, rather than allowing private investment to respond to market conditions.
Data centers are part of a highly competitive, fast-growing sector, and states across the country are actively working to attract this investment, which can bring jobs and infrastructure improvements. Maine already struggles with high energy costs, and adding additional uncertainty – whether through moratoriums, potential fees, or regulatory hurdles – risks pushing that investment elsewhere.
A more balanced approach would address legitimate infrastructure concerns without broadly halting development. Otherwise, Maine risks sidelining itself in an industry it should be trying to compete for.
While it doesn’t happen often, credit is due here: The Governor made the right call in vetoing this bill. In doing so, she likely avoided a policy that could have undermined Maine’s competitiveness, and instead preserved the opportunity to pursue a more thoughtful and balanced path forward.
The Legislature had an opportunity on April 29 to override the veto with a two-thirds vote, but that also failed meaning the veto was sustained. This decision is good for Maine and will help preserve the state’s ability to attract investment, support job creation, and remain competitive for future economic opportunities.
LD 229: Another Major Tax Hike That Didn’t Make It
While the 2% surcharge ultimately passed through the supplemental budget, another major tax increase proposal thankfully did not.
LD 229 would have restructured Maine’s income tax brackets and raised the top marginal rate to 8.95%. When combined with the surcharge originally proposed in LD 1089, this would have pushed Maine’s top rate to roughly 10.95%, placing it among the highest in the country and significantly increasing the tax burden on many small businesses and professionals whose income is taxed through the individual code.
The same research, policy analysis, and advocacy that went into opposing LD 1089 was also done to LD 229. Maine Policy Institute worked to highlight how these proposals, taken together, would have compounded the problem, making Maine a clear outlier in the region and creating real risks of driving investment, talent, and economic activity out of the state.
Following sustained public engagement, outreach to lawmakers, and a broader grassroots effort, the bill ultimately stalled. It was left in unfinished business in the House and was never brought forward for a final vote. Its defeat represents a significant win for Maine taxpayers. At a time when the state is already grappling with affordability challenges and a new 2% surcharge tax, avoiding an additional top-rate increase helps preserve a more competitive tax climate and prevents further strain on the very businesses and individuals driving Maine’s economy.
LD 1457: Automated Speed Cameras
Another closely watched proposal,LD 1457, would have authorized a pilot program to install automated speed cameras in highway work zones.
This was an interesting bill politically because it drew both bipartisan support and bipartisan opposition. While some lawmakers viewed it as a safety measure to protect road workers, others raised serious concerns about due process, surveillance, and the broader implications of automated enforcement. The idea of issuing tickets without direct interaction from law enforcement made many uneasy, regardless of party affiliation.
From Maine Policy Institute’s perspective, the bill represented a clear step toward expanded government surveillance and enforcement without adequate safeguards. Automated ticketing systems raise legitimate questions about accountability, accuracy, and the erosion of traditional legal protections.
Despite those concerns, the bill did initially have momentum, but thankfully it was ultimately defeated, and in fairly decisive fashion. That outcome was due in large part to the hard work of Maine Policy Institute in collaboration with the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine. While our two organizations often find themselves on opposite sides of policy debates, this was a case where there was clear agreement on the risks posed by LD 1457.
That unlikely collaboration proved effective. By bringing together voices from across the aisle, opposition to the bill was able to cut across ideological lines and highlight the broader concerns at stake.
In the end, LD 1457’s defeat reflects a strong and bipartisan reluctance to expand automated enforcement in Maine, especially when it raises fundamental questions about privacy and due process.
LD 695: Taxpayer-Funded Security Systems for Legislators
LD 695 proposed creating a new, taxpayer-funded program to install, monitor, and maintain home security systems for members of the Legislature, backed by roughly $450,000 in General Fund spending. While concerns about safety are legitimate, the proposal raised broader questions about fairness, fiscal priorities, and the role of government.
At its core, the bill would have created a benefit available only to elected officials, a benefit not extended to other public servants or private citizens who may face similar risks. At a time when many Mainers are dealing with high costs of living, rising property taxes, and ongoing economic pressures, carving out a new, publicly funded program for lawmakers struck many as difficult to justify. It also risked reinforcing the perception that the government operates by a different set of rules for those inside it.
Many opponents of the bill noted that their districts and regions are already severely understaffed with law enforcement, and argued it was unreasonable to receive additional state funded security measures when their constituents often face long wait times for a police response.
There were also concerns about precedent. Creating a dedicated fund for a narrowly defined group, even with a relatively modest price tag, opens the door to similar proposals in the future, further expanding government spending in ways that may not align with broader public priorities. More targeted approaches, such as addressing specific, documented threats through existing law enforcement channels, were seen as more appropriate alternatives.
Despite these concerns, the bill did initially gain traction and passed both chambers. However, each body approved a different version, and when neither side was willing to compromise, the bill ultimately died in non-concurrence.
LD 2196: Hospital Price Controls
One of the most consequential healthcare proposals this session, LD 2196, would have imposed strict government controls on hospital pricing. Maine Policy Institute and a large coalition of healthcare providers in the state came out in opposition to this bill.
The bill aimed to cap what hospitals could charge, tying prices to a percentage of Medicare rates, and limit how much those prices could grow each year. It would have also expanded regulatory oversight. While framed as a way to reduce costs, these types of price controls do not lower the actual cost of care; they simply limit revenue, often forcing providers to cut services, reduce staff, or delay investments. In a state like Maine, where many hospitals already operate on thin margins, the risks were significant.
According to information Maine Policy Institute received from healthcare insiders, one of Maine’s largest healthcare systems projected losses of roughly $627 million annually under the bill, with the potential to lay off nearly a third of its workforce, around 8,000 jobs.
In a state already facing healthcare access challenges, those impacts proved too great. The bill was ultimately defeated and died in unfinished business, preserving flexibility in the system and avoiding policies that could have reduced access to care, particularly in rural communities.
Final Takeaways
The final days of the legislative session delivered a mix of outcomes.
Some proposals that would have significantly expanded government or imposed new burdens were successfully defeated. Others were improved through the legislative process. And in some cases, most notably the supplemental budget, policies passed that raise serious long-term concerns.
What this end-of-session surge makes clear is that engagement matters. Even in the busiest weeks of the year, sustained advocacy can shape outcomes, improve legislation, and stop harmful proposals.
Looking ahead, Maine Policy Institute will continue working to repeal the 2% income tax surcharge, oppose future tax increases, and advocate for policies that promote economic growth, fiscal responsibility, and individual liberty.
The session may be over, but the work is far from finished.
