238 A.3d 982
Me.2020Background
- Proponents submitted a people’s veto petition to the Secretary of State seeking to refer P.L. 2019, ch. 539; 63,067 valid signatures were required; Secretary initially found only ~61,334 valid.
- Jones filed a Rule 80C challenge to the Secretary’s determination; the Superior Court remanded for additional factual development; Secretary issued amended determinations disqualifying some signatures because circulators were not registered voters in their municipality of residence at the time of circulation.
- On the limited administrative record, the Superior Court vacated the Secretary’s determination, holding that Buckley v. A.C.L.F. rendered the circulator-registration requirement unconstitutional and that 988 signatures had been improperly invalidated.
- The Secretary of State and the Committee appealed. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court granted review and considered (1) whether Maine law requires circulators to be registered in their municipality of residence at the time of circulation, and (2) whether that requirement violated the First Amendment on the presented record.
- The Supreme Judicial Court held the constitutional and statutory language unambiguously requires municipal registration at the time of circulation, and, on the limited record (showing <2% of circulators here were unregistered when circulating), Jones did not carry his heavy burden to prove a First Amendment violation. The Superior Court judgment was vacated and remanded with instructions to affirm the Secretary’s invalidation of the contested signatures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maine Constitution/statutes require a circulator to be a registered voter in the circulator’s municipality of residence at the time of circulation | Jones: requirement is not impermissible or is ambiguous and should not bar these signatures (or is unconstitutional) | Secretary: constitutional text, statute and legislative history require municipal registration at time of circulation | Court: text/history unambiguous; circulator must be on municipal voting list when circulating |
| Whether that municipal-registration requirement violates the First Amendment | Jones: relying on Buckley, registration reduces pool and burdens core political speech; invalidation of signatures violates First Amendment | Secretary: state interest in verifying residency and efficiently locating/subpoenaing circulators is important; burden is not severe on the record | Court: on limited record burden not shown to be severe; state interests suffice; requirement upheld as constitutional in this case |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Found., Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999) (invalidated Colorado circulator-registration rule under ballot-access analysis)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (adopts balancing framework for election regulations)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (requires weighing character/magnitude of burden against state interests)
- McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) (distinguishes pure-speech limits from ballot-access regulations)
- Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988) (petition circulation is core political speech)
- Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997) (discusses state regulatory interests in elections)
- Me. Taxpayers Action Network v. Sec’y of State, 795 A.2d 75 (Me. 2002) (applied balancing test to petition-circulator identification and registration)
- Hart v. Sec’y of State, 715 A.2d 165 (Me. 1998) (upheld Maine residency requirement for circulators)
- Mowles v. Comm’n on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices, 958 A.2d 897 (Me. 2008) (applied strict scrutiny where regulation imposed content-based restriction)