LINCOLNVILLE, Maine — While Nebraska Republicans are considering changing state law to give Donald Trump an extra electoral vote this fall, Maine Democrats have few tools to balance the books.
The only two states that apportion electoral votes by congressional districts, Republican-leaning Nebraska and Democratic-leaning Maine, play unusual roles in presidential elections because their systems give each party a chance to win one electoral vote in a state where it would get none under the usual winner-take-all system.
In 2020, Trump won one electoral vote from the 2nd Congressional District, which is based in rural Maine, and is very likely to win it again this time, while Joe Biden won one electoral vote from the 2nd Congressional District, which is based in Omaha, Nebraska.
Nebraska Republicans, citing concerns that the system makes Nebraska a more important player on the national political stage and that Maine Democrats would negate their efforts by moving to winner-take-all, have tried unsuccessfully for years to change the state’s rules. And they failed this spring despite pressure from President Trump and other national Republicans.
But the latest Republican push for winner-take-all in Nebraska, where Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-N.Y.) is lobbying state lawmakers on President Trump’s behalf, comes after a key deadline in Maine that will make it nearly impossible for blue states to counter red-state efforts.
Maine has 90 days from the time a bill becomes law to take effect, but Thursday marked 89 days until the Electoral College is scheduled to meet on Dec. 17. That means it’s already too late for the Maine Legislature to change to a winner-take-all system under the usual rules.
State law allows for “emergency” legislation to take effect immediately, but requires a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress to activate its provisions.
Democrats control both houses of the Maine Legislature, but they’re far from a supermajority in the House: Even if every Democrat in the state House wanted to challenge Nebraska (not a certainty), they would still need at least a dozen Republicans to join them to reach the two-thirds threshold.
Democrats hold a majority in the Maine 35-seat Senate, but they would still need to vote on all 22 Democrats, plus at least several Republicans.
And Maine’s Republican leaders have already signaled they won’t help Democrats repeal the state’s unusual method of allocating electoral votes.
“Maine has the highest standards for its procedures for electing president of the United States,” House Minority Leader Billy Bob Faulkham told the Bangor Daily News on Thursday. “Rather than changing to a winner-take-all system like other states, we should persuade other states to adopt a more representative system like ours.”
It’s unclear whether Trump allies in the Nebraska Legislature will ultimately have the votes needed to change the law, especially since Republican leaders abandoned a similar plan just months ago when they realized they didn’t have enough support. But supporters of the effort say they believe some pressure, especially from Trump, could help override some of their opponents.
If Nebraska can change its rules and Maine can’t, Trump could win an additional electoral vote, creating a specific close-race scenario that could result in a tied Electoral College vote and set in motion the arcane process of deciding the president in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
This scenario is plausible: If Vice President Kamala Harris wins her strongest battleground states, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, according to current polls, and loses the others, she would win 269 electoral votes, one short of the 270 needed to win the presidency.
For now, Harris’ best chance of finding the extra votes she needs comes from Omaha’s closely contested congressional district, which Biden won by nearly 7 points four years ago.
But if Nebraska Republicans were to switch to a winner-take-all system, the same scenario — in which Harris wins Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin but no other battleground states — would result in a 269-269 deadlock in the Electoral College and no winner would be determined.
The Constitution says that in the event of a tie in the Electoral College, Congress will break it after the November election and the new president is sworn in. The Senate will select the vice president and the president will be voted for by the House of Representatives, which is different from the usual rules.
Instead of each member having one vote in the House, each state delegation has one vote, and whoever wins a majority of state delegations (at least 26) becomes president. Regardless of who controls the House next year, Trump will have an overwhelming advantage. Republicans control the majority of state delegations and are expected to maintain that advantage even as control of the House itself is under contest.
Meanwhile, Republicans are expected to win the Senate this year, giving President Trump’s running mate, Republican Senator J.D. Vance of Ohio, an unlikely candidate, an advantage if the Senate decides on the vice president.
None of that may come true.
Conservatives in Nebraska have tried repeatedly and unsuccessfully in the past to change the state’s voting system to a winner-take-all system, most recently this spring, when they lacked enough support to overcome a congressional filibuster.
“I think they’re just a few votes away, so it’s going to be tough,” Rep. Don Bacon, a Republican from Omaha, Nebraska, said Thursday in Washington.
Bacon said Nebraska and Maine’s methods for allocating electoral votes are good in theory but not in practice because they are the only two states to do so, and he supports Nebraska switching to a winner-take-all system.
“I think it would be fair if every state did it, but it’s a disadvantage that we’re one of two states in a 60-40 Republican state,” he said. “If you’re a Democrat, you’re happy about it. It brings in a lot of money. If you’re a Republican, you’re wondering why we’re not doing what the other 48 states are doing.”
And unlike previous Republican attempts to change the rules in Nebraska, there no longer seems to be a good way for Maine, or by extension, national Democrats, to fight back.
“Whether we can retaliate or not, that’s exactly why we voted to bring Maine into the National Popular Vote Compact,” Democratic state Rep. Dan Unkeless said Thursday on the X. “Because this drama is a ridiculous and unfair way to choose a president.”
Alex Seitz Wald reported from Lincolnville and Ben Kamisher from Washington, D.C.