Nevada and Maine could see the number of openly gay state lawmakers triple after Victory Fund-endorsed candidates advanced in primary elections last night.

In Maine House primaries, Andrew McLean and Terry Morrison were unopposed, while Matt Moonen (pictured) convincingly beat his opponent.  All three Democrats are running in Democratic-performing districts.

In Nevada, David Parks was unopposed in his primary for reelection to the State Senate.  Andrew Martin and James Healey won their Democratic primaries for seats in the Nevada Assembly.

“These wins are great news for LGBT Mainers and Nevadans,” said Tiffany Muller, vice president for political affairs at the Victory Fund.  ”Each state is now a step closer to strengthening LGBT representation in their state legislatures.”

UPDATE:  One more big win last night for LGBT candidates, as an out lesbian beat an incumbent state senator in Nevada.  Patricia Spearman will become Nevada’s first and only openly LGBT woman elected to the state legislature, as she faces no Republican opponent this fall.   She will also be one of just a handful of openly LGBT African Americans elected to state legislatures in the U.S.

The two sides in Maine’s marriage ballot fight raised a total of $9.6 million according to AP, making it the second-most expensive referendum in Maine history.  No on 1, which opposed the repeal of the state’s marriage equality law, raised $5.8 million, or about 60% of the total.

Fundraising records were also broken on LGBT ballot initiatives recently in California and Kalamazoo, Mich.

The National Organization for Marriage’s ongoing battle to keep its donors secret has hit another brick wall. The Portland Press Herald reports today that a federal judge has ruled that Maine can compel the anti-gay group to release the identities of its donors and their contributions to the campaign under Maine election law, which requires that any organization which spends more than $500 to affect a ballot proposition must register as a “ballot question committee” and make information on its funding publicly available.

The federal judge did not offer NOM any assurance on its future chances, either, the Portland Press Herald reports:

While a final resolution of the lawsuit is at least several months away, Hornby’s order on Wednesday denied the request for a temporary restraining order, and said the National Organization for Marriage is not likely to succeed on any of its claims.

Hornby said Maine’s ballot question law approaches, but does not cross, the line between essential transparency and protection of an individual’s free speech.

“Maine is entitled to conclude that its electorate needs to know, on an ongoing basis, the source of financial support for those who are taking positions on a ballot initiative,” Hornby wrote in his 32-page ruling.

“I conclude that the state’s interest to provide this information to voters is ‘not only compelling but critical’ to the proper functioning of the system of direct democracy,” Hornby wrote, quoting from a similar case in California in which the National Organization for Marriage is a plaintiff.

Assuming that NOM does not challenge this ruling, Maine’s ethics commission will not take up the issue until Nov. 19, weeks after the election, and a final decision could be months afterward.

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) seems to be fighting battles on two fronts: against marriage equality, and against legally required campaign finance disclosures.  In an apparent attempt to withhold donor identities, NOM has filed a lawsuit against the Maine Ethics Commission, claiming that current finance disclosure laws are unconstitutional.

The commission has been investigating whether or not the organization’s contribution of $500,000 to the anti-gay efforts of Stand for Marriage Maine was in accordance with Maine election laws.  NOM is arguing that these disclosure requirements violate their right to free speech, as reported in the Bangor Daily News:

“The reporting requirements become onerous and burdensome, especially when you are working in several states, and are an infringement of free speech,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s executive director.

Ethics Commission officials declined to comment on the specific case but defended the law, which requires organizations soliciting more than $5,000 for a ballot question campaign to file financial disclosure reports with the state.

(Via The Advocate)

Two of Maine’s largest newspapers have come out against Question 1–the so-called “people’s veto” initiative that seeks to overturn the recently-passed law granting equal marriage rights to all Maine residents. The Portland Press Herald couches its support in the legal necessity of recognizing all couples:

Although the “Yes on One” campaign says that its opposition is not based on religious objections to homosexual behavior, that’s all that’s left when the other arguments are disposed of. People are entitled to their beliefs, but religious teaching alone shouldn’t be the basis of our law.

The vote “no” campaign makes solid arguments that hold up to scrutiny.

While the courts have become increasingly ready to extend family-law protections to same-sex partners in adoption and child custody cases, parents at the head of these families remain legal strangers to each other, causing problems that range from inconvenient to inhumane.

Maine statutes use the word “spouse” 400 times. They use the word “marital” 600 times. There is virtually no way to surgically carve out and tie together all the rights and responsibilities of marriage in a legal relationship that does what marriage does without calling it marriage.

The Bangor Daily News made its argument from a Civil Rights standpoint:

Everyone must be treated equally under the state and U.S. Constitution. Denying civil marriage rights to same-sex couples violates that tenet.

Further, extending the right of marriage to a small segment of the population that has been excluded furthers the state’s interest in promoting stable families and communities. The Maine legislation also took important steps, mirroring the state’s Human Rights Law, to respect religious freedom and traditions. No church will be compelled to perform or recognize marriages that run counter to its faith. This strikes the difficult balance of respecting religious freedom while ensuring equality.