376 F. Supp. 3d 125
D. Me.2018Background
- Maine adopted a Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV) Act by popular initiative and applied it to the November 6, 2018 federal elections for Congress. No congressional or congressional-contest rule by Congress preempted RCV.
- Plaintiffs (voters and candidate Bruce Poliquin) voted in Maine's 2nd Congressional District; Poliquin led the first-choice count but no one achieved a first-round majority.
- Secretary of State Dunlap conducted the RCV tabulation (including batch elimination of non-viable candidates and redistribution of preferences) and certified Jared Golden as the winner after subsequent rounds.
- Plaintiffs alleged RCV is unconstitutional (Article I, Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and due process, First Amendment via § 1983), and that RCV/ballot instructions confused voters and diluted Poliquin supporters; they sought injunctive and declaratory relief.
- The court held an evidentiary hearing (Plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Gimpel testified), reviewed ballot-exhaustion statistics (~4.97% exhausted ballots), and considered whether RCV or its implementation deprived Plaintiffs of federal rights.
- The Court consolidated injunctive relief with the merits, rejected Plaintiffs’ claims, denied the requested injunctions, and entered judgment for Defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article I challenge: Does Article I require plurality voting for House elections? | Article I requires a plurality/first-past-the-post rule; RCV is incompatible with the Framers’ intent. | Article I is silent on method; states may prescribe times, places, and manner; RCV fits within state authority. | Court: Article I does not mandate plurality; RCV is permissible under Article I. |
| Equal Protection: Does RCV dilute votes or violate one-person-one-vote? | RCV and ballot exhaustion diluted Plaintiffs’ votes and treated voters unequally. | RCV counts each ballot equally at each tabulation round; exhausted ballots represent voter choice or ballot marking, not unequal weighting. | Court: No unequal weighting shown; RCV as implemented did not violate Equal Protection. |
| Due Process: Are ballots/instructions so confusing that RCV deprives voters of meaningful vote? | Ballot form/instructions caused confusion and many undervotes/overvotes, disenfranchising low-information voters. | Ballot and instructions were adequate; undervotes/overvotes can reflect intentional protest or choice; no evidence of systemic unfairness. | Court: Plaintiffs failed to prove confusion or fundamental unfairness; Due Process claim rejected. |
| First Amendment (via §1983): Did RCV burden expressive rights to support a candidate? | RCV and its effects impaired Plaintiffs’ right to express support for their candidate. | RCV is viewpoint-neutral, encourages expression, and did not prevent Plaintiffs from expressing support; burdens, if any, are minimal and justified. | Court: No First Amendment violation; RCV is nondiscriminatory and did not unduly burden expression. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355 (States may prescribe comprehensive rules for congressional elections under the Elections Clause)
- Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 570 U.S. 1 (Congress’s power over federal election rules can preempt state rules)
- D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (textualist approach to constitutional interpretation)
- Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (equal protection concerns regarding inconsistent standards in ballot counts)
- Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (one person, one vote principle and equality of voting power)
- Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (importance of equal representation in congressional elections)
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (equal protection in the allocation of legislative representation)
- Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (lesser burdens on voting trigger less exacting review; states’ regulatory interests)
- Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67 (limits on filling federal office before uniform federal election day)