240 A.3d 45
Me.2020Background
- Plaintiffs (Alliance for Retired Americans, Vote.org, and two Maine residents) sued Maine Secretary of State and Attorney General challenging (a) the statutory absentee-ballot receipt deadline (21‑A M.R.S. § 755 / polls close 8 p.m.) and (b) statutory verification/rejection procedures, seeking orders to count ballots postmarked by Election Day but received within a short grace period and to require notice/cure before rejecting ballots.
- Case arose in the COVID‑19 pandemic context with dramatically increased absentee voting and documented USPS delays; plaintiffs waited 44 days after filing before moving for a preliminary injunction; Superior Court denied the motion; plaintiffs appealed; Maine Supreme Judicial Court expedited briefing and oral argument and affirmed.
- The Secretary had issued extensive guidance: clerk notification procedures (email/phone), an online ballot‑tracking system, multiple non‑mail return options, and cure mechanisms (duplicate ballots, phone verification, challenged‑ballot procedures).
- The majority applied the Burdick balancing framework and Purcell restraint (and related precedents), held the absentee‑receipt deadline imposes only a modest burden in 2020, and concluded the State’s interests in orderly elections and finality justify the deadline; plaintiffs failed to show a clear likelihood of success or irreparable injury warranting extraordinary preliminary relief.
- The court also held the Secretary’s notice-and-cure procedures provide sufficient procedural fairness to satisfy due process concerns as applied; it declined to rewrite the statutory deadline and emphasized separation of powers and the risk of judicially created election disruption.
- Justice Jabar dissented: she would have granted an as‑applied preliminary injunction extending the receipt deadline two days for ballots postmarked by Election Day, reasoning the pandemic + USPS delays impose a burdensome restriction on the Maine‑constitutional absentee‑voting right and that the limited administrative burden of a short extension is outweighed by voters’ constitutional rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Justiciability / death‑knell exception to final‑judgment rule | Imminent election makes interlocutory review necessary to avoid irreparable loss of voting rights | Courts should enforce final‑judgment rule absent diligence concerns | Court accepted death‑knell exception here (but criticized plaintiffs’ delay) and reached merits |
| Validity of absentee‑ballot receipt deadline (as‑applied in pandemic + USPS delays) | Deadline unduly burdens absentee‑voting right; must count ballots postmarked by Election Day and received within a short grace period | State interest in orderly, timely, and trustworthy elections (counting, challenges, certification) justifies deadline; Purcell cautions against last‑minute changes | Deadline imposes only a modest burden; State’s interests justify it under Burdick balancing; plaintiffs not likely to succeed |
| Verification/rejection procedures & due process (notice and cure) | Current procedures risk erroneous deprivation; demand a post‑Election Day cure window and affidavit cure option | Secretary’s guidance provides timely notice, tracking, multiple cure options, and challenged‑ballot protections | Procedures provide sufficient fundamental fairness and reduce erroneous deprivation risk; no likelihood of success |
| Remedy / separation of powers (court‑crafted deadline extension) | Short, temporary judicial extension is necessary to protect constitutional voting rights in this emergency | Judicially imposing new deadlines substitutes court policymaking for Legislature and risks disruption/confusion | Court declined to rewrite statute; remedy inappropriate given modest burden, cure procedures, and separation‑of‑powers concerns (dissent would extend 2 days) |
Key Cases Cited
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (U.S. 1992) (balances magnitude of voting‑rights burden against state interests; severe burdens demand narrow tailoring)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (U.S. 1983) (framework: assess character/magnitude of injury and legitimacy/necessity of state interests)
- Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2006) (counsels against last‑minute judicial changes to election rules)
- Republican Nat’l Comm. v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 140 S. Ct. 1205 (U.S. 2020) (stayed district court order; reaffirmed Purcell principle)
- Lindemann v. Comm’n on Governmental Ethics & Election Pracs., 961 A.2d 538 (Me. 2008) (prudential standing in unique election contexts)
- Blanchard v. Town of Bar Harbor, 221 A.3d 554 (Me. 2019) (standing and prudential considerations)
- In re Child of Lacy H., 212 A.3d 320 (Me. 2019) (three‑factor procedural‑due‑process fairness test)
- Emerson, Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. v. Emerson, 563 A.2d 762 (Me. 1989) (preliminary injunction: mandatory relief requires clear likelihood of success)
- Bangor Historic Track, Inc. v. Dep’t of Agric., 837 A.2d 129 (Me. 2003) (standard of review and injunction factors)
- Respect Maine PAC v. McKee, 622 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2010) (First Amendment claim does not by itself show irreparable harm)
- Crafts v. Quinn, 482 A.2d 825 (Me. 1984) (caution about death‑knell exception and plaintiffs’ diligence)
- Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (U.S. 1974) (election regulation balancing; results turn on degree and factual circumstances)