239 A.3d 628
Me.2020Background
- Movants David A. Jones, Jonathan Kinney, and Joshua Morris asked the Maine Supreme Judicial Court to stay the effect of its mandate in Jones v. Sec’y of State (2020 ME 113) pending a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing a people’s veto petition had enough valid signatures to block ranked-choice voting (RCV).
- The Committee for Ranked Choice Voting and the Secretary of State opposed the stay; the Court applied the standard for injunctive relief (irreparable harm, balance of harms, likelihood of success, public interest).
- The Secretary produced affidavits showing ballot templates were finalized, over one million ballots printed, RCV ballots mailed to military/overseas voters, and more than 1,800 ballots already returned; Jones did not dispute these facts.
- The Court emphasized a strong public interest in preserving the voting rules already implemented for the November election and invoked Purcell to caution against last-minute changes.
- On the merits Jones challenged Maine’s petition-circulator residency requirement as a First Amendment violation (arguing affidavits would suffice and citing federal cases applying strict scrutiny); the Court relied on Hart v. Secretary of State (1998), which upheld Maine’s residency rule under strict scrutiny, and other U.S. Supreme Court precedents.
- The Court denied the stay, finding Jones failed to show irreparable injury outweighing the harm to others or a substantial possibility of success on the merits, and noted that unlike prior cases where templates were not finalized, ballots here had been printed and distributed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for stay | Jones: Court should stay mandate pending certiorari to preserve review | Secretary/Committee: Stay subject to injunctive relief factors | Stay requests judged by injunctive standard; movant must satisfy four-factor test; Jones failed overall |
| Irreparable harm & public interest | Jones: Implementation of RCV before certiorari would irreparably harm petitioners because veto signatures were sufficient | Secretary: Ballots printed/mailing underway; strong public interest in not changing rules close to election | Harms and public interest weigh against granting a stay |
| Likelihood of success on merits (circulator residency) | Jones: Residency requirement is overly restrictive; affidavits would suffice; federal cases require strict scrutiny | Secretary: Hart upheld Maine residency under strict scrutiny; federal cases are distinguishable; verification needs to be timely and reliable | Jones has not shown a substantial possibility of success on the First Amendment challenge |
| Practical election administration | Jones: If mandate vacated, ballots could be tabulated by counting first-choice votes only | Secretary: Ballots include RCV instructions and were already printed/distributed; vacatur would cause confusion and noncompliance | Printing/distribution make a stay inappropriate; unlike Knutson, templates and ballots are finalized |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999) (addresses constitutional limits on regulation of petition circulators and burden analysis)
- McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) (protects political expression and anonymous speech under the First Amendment)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (articulates balancing test for evaluating burdens on voting)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (applies balancing approach to election regulation challenges)
- Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974) (sets standards for evaluating election regulations)
- Hart v. Secretary of State, 715 A.2d 165 (Me. 1998) (upheld Maine’s circulator residency requirement under strict scrutiny)
- Knutson v. Dep’t of Sec’y of State, 954 A.2d 1054 (Me. 2008) (granted a limited stay when ballot templates had not been finalized)