Troy Jackson, the 58-year-old Democrat nominated to challenge Sen. Susan Collins in Maine, has been in a long-term relationship with his second cousin, and his campaign's only response was to blame Collins.

Independent journalist Steve Robinson published a report revealing that Jackson and his partner, Lana Pelletier, share the same great-grandparents. Robinson unearthed genealogical records establishing that Jackson's maternal grandmother, Albertine Pelletier O'Leary, and Pelletier's paternal grandfather, Louis A. Pelletier Sr., were siblings. That makes Jackson's mother, Colleen McBreairty, and Pelletier's father, Louis Jr., first cousins, and Jackson and Pelletier second cousins who have never legally married but share two adult sons.

Jackson, a onetime logger and former president of the Maine State Senate, grew up in Allagash, a village near the Canadian border with a population of 237 as of the 2020 census. He and Pelletier both attended Fort Kent High School. Robinson noted in his report that such relationships are legal under Maine law and not uncommon in the rural North Maine Woods region, where small, isolated communities have overlapping family trees.

None of that stopped the revelation from landing awkwardly for a candidate the Maine Democratic Party just installed as its Senate nominee on July 25 at a special convention. Jackson replaced Graham Platner, who withdrew from the race after an ex-girlfriend accused him of rape, an allegation that upended the party's plans to flip Collins's seat.

Jackson's campaign pivots to Collins instead of addressing the report

Asked for comment, Jackson's campaign emailed a statement to the New York Post that never addressed the substance of Robinson's findings. Instead, it attacked the incumbent Republican:

"Susan Collins will do anything to distract from the fact that she votes with Trump 96% of the time and has sold out working people in Maine."

The statement added that "personal attacks on Troy's family are shameful and desperate." Jackson himself has not spoken publicly about the report. Neither has Pelletier.

The Maine Democratic Party and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee did not immediately return the Post's requests for comment. The silence from both organizations is notable given how much national money and attention Democrats have invested in the Collins race.

Maine law permits the relationship, but the politics are another matter

Robinson's report acknowledged that Jackson and Pelletier's relationship breaks no law. Since 1985, Maine statute has prohibited marriages between parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren, siblings, and aunts or uncles and their nieces or nephews. The original law also banned first-cousin marriages, but an amendment passed roughly two years later carved out an exception: first cousins may marry if they present a certificate of genetic counseling, signed by a physician, certifying that their potential children face an acceptably low risk of physical deformity or cognitive impairment.

Second-cousin relationships fall outside even these restrictions. Locals told Robinson the couple has never been legally married, though Jackson has described Pelletier as his wife in the past.

Legality and electability, of course, are different questions. Maine Democrats already had to scramble once this cycle when Platner's candidacy collapsed under the weight of rape allegations. That replacement process was rocky enough before Robinson's genealogical research introduced a new set of uncomfortable questions about the man the party chose as its fallback.

A pattern Democrats cannot afford to ignore

Jackson is the second consecutive Maine Democratic Senate nominee to face damaging personal revelations. Platner dropped out of the race on July 8, just two days after his ex-girlfriend's accusation became public. Even Stephen King's public defense of Platner drew bipartisan backlash rather than shoring up support. By the time Jackson was formally nominated at the July 25 convention, the party had already burned weeks of a competitive cycle managing fallout instead of campaigning.

Now Jackson's campaign faces questions it plainly does not want to answer. Its statement to the Post did not dispute Robinson's genealogical findings. It did not explain why Jackson has at times referred to Pelletier as his wife despite locals saying the couple never legally married. It offered no biographical context, no personal statement from the candidate, and no engagement with the facts Robinson laid out. It simply changed the subject to Susan Collins.

That deflection strategy has a shelf life. Voters can decide for themselves whether a legal, long-term relationship between second cousins in a remote rural community matters at the ballot box. But a candidate who refuses to address straightforward questions about his own family, while accusing his opponent of "distraction", is not projecting the transparency voters tend to expect.

Robinson, for his part, posted his findings on X, where they quickly circulated. Warning signs about Democratic candidates in this race have surfaced from multiple directions this cycle, and the party's vetting process has drawn scrutiny each time.

Maine is not the only state where Democratic recruits have faced uncomfortable questions about their personal lives. An Arizona Democratic candidate drew scrutiny over an undisclosed 16-day marriage, raising similar concerns about transparency and candidate vetting within the party.

Collins remains the target, but Democrats keep handing her ammunition

Sen. Collins, the four-term Republican incumbent, has survived tough races before. Democrats poured enormous resources into defeating her in 2020 and failed. This cycle was supposed to be different, a fresh candidate, a favorable environment, a disciplined campaign focused on pocketbook issues.

Instead, the Maine Democratic Party has now cycled through two nominees in a matter of weeks. The first left the race under the shadow of a rape allegation. The second faces questions about a family relationship his campaign will not discuss on the merits. Neither situation is illegal. Both are politically damaging. And both suggest a party apparatus that either failed to vet its candidates or decided the risks were acceptable.

Jackson's campaign wants voters to focus on Collins's voting record. Fair enough, that is what campaigns are for. But voters also get to ask who a candidate is, how he lives, and whether he will give them a straight answer. So far, Jackson's answer has been to point at someone else.

When your best defense is "look over there," you have already told voters everything they need to know about how you handle accountability.