Delbert A. Reed v. Secretary of State, 232 A.3d 202

The Maine PUC approved the NECEC transmission project in May 2019; opponents filed a direct initiative to reject that approval and submitted 15,785 petitions bearing 82,449 signatures (63,067 valid signatures required).
Clean Energy Matters challenged many signatures, alleging at least eight notaries who notarized circulator oaths also performed nonnotarial campaign services and thus were disqualified under 21-A §903‑E and 4 M.R.S. §954‑A.
The Secretary of State initially invalidated 12,735 signatures for various reasons but said he lacked time to investigate the notary‑service allegations before the statutory deadline; because the remaining signatures exceeded the requirement, he certified the petition.
The Superior Court remanded for additional evidence; on remand the Secretary issued an amended decision invalidating an additional 3,597 signatures after finding several notaries had mixed roles but declining to invalidate signatures notarized before a notary later performed nonnotarial services (and declining a full campaign‑wide fraud probe).
The Business and Consumer Docket affirmed the Secretary’s amended decision; Reed and intervenors appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.
The SJC affirmed: it deferred to the Secretary’s reasonable interpretation of the notary statutes and found no abuse of discretion in declining a broader fraud investigation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Reed)	Defendant's Argument (Secretary)	Held
Whether §§ 903‑E and 954‑A disqualify a notary who at any time (before submission) performed nonnotarial campaign services (temporal reach)	Any nonnotarial service at any time disqualifies the notary and requires invalidation of signatures the notary notarized	Statutes are reasonably read to disqualify a notary only when the notary is providing nonnotarial services at the time of notarization; post‑notarial nonnotarial acts do not retroactively invalidate prior notarizations	Statutes ambiguous; deference to Secretary; affirmed that notaries are disqualified only when a conflict existed at time of notarization (no retroactive disqualification)
Whether the Secretary erred by refusing a full‑scale fraud investigation of the entire campaign	The discovered forgeries and related evidence created indicia of systemic fraud and justified a broader investigation into other circulators and supervisors	Evidence showed fraud only on petition #743 and isolated indicia elsewhere; assertions of systemic fraud were speculative and insufficient to justify campaign‑wide probe	Secretary reasonably declined a broad investigation; isolated fraudulent petition was invalidated and no abuse of discretion shown

Knutson v. Dep’t of Sec’y of State, 954 A.2d 1054 (Me. 2008) (the circulator's oath is pivotal to the circulation process)
Me. Taxpayers Action Network v. Sec’y of State, 795 A.2d 75 (Me. 2002) (Secretary's role in administering direct initiative process and invalidating signatures)
Palesky v. Sec’y of State, 711 A.2d 129 (Me. 1998) (municipal verification and Secretary review requirements for petitions)
Melanson v. Sec’y of State, 861 A.2d 641 (Me. 2004) (deference to Secretary's reasonable statutory interpretation in initiative context)
Hammer v. Sec’y of State, 8 A.3d 700 (Me. 2010) (standard of review for Secretary's decision under Rule 80C)
United States v. Curtis, 107 U.S. 671 (U.S. 1883) (validity of a notarial act is judged by circumstances existing at the time of the act)
Watts v. Watts, 818 A.2d 1031 (Me. 2003) (statutory changes to common law must be clearly expressed by the Legislature)