Hammer v. Secretary of State
8 A.3d 700
Me.2010Background
- Hammer sought to be on the November 2010 Maine governor ballot as a non-party candidate and preferred submitting signatures electronically.
- Secretary of State invalidated hundreds of Hammer's signatures based on interpretation of 21-A M.R.S. § 354 requiring original petitions be delivered to local officials for certification.
- Hammer delivered 175 properly certified petitions, 70 petitions with no proper municipal certification, and 70 petitions lacking any certification.
- Secretary determined Hammer failed to obtain the minimum 4,000 certified signatures to qualify for the ballot.
- Superior Court affirmed the Secretary's decision; Hammer appealed under M.R.Civ.P. 80C; the matter was expedited due to proximity to the election.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 354(7) requires original petitions for certification | Hammer argues delivery may include electronic copies. | Hammer's method violates the statute which contemplates original petitions. | Secretary's interpretation correct; original petitions required. |
| Whether the Secretary properly interpreted § 354(7)(B)-(C) to bar electronic delivery | Electronic delivery should be permissible to handle multi-town petitions. | Statute contemplates delivery of originals to each municipality; electronic delivery is not authorized. | Defer to Secretary; interpretation reasonable and upheld. |
| Whether the Petitioner obtained enough certified signatures under § 354(5)(A) | Despite some defects, many signatures were certified; total should meet threshold. | 70 petitions lacked proper municipal certification, totaling insufficient valid signatures. | Hammer fell short of 4,000 certified signatures; petition denied. |
| Standard and scope of review for the Secretary's interpretation | Court should review de novo for statute interpretation. | Court should defer to Secretary's reasonable interpretation under prior Maine authority. | Court deferentially upheld the Secretary's interpretation as reasonable. |
| Whether the late timing of Hammer's appeal affects jurisdiction | Appeal timely under some provisions; timing not fatal if properly filed. | Timeliness and jurisdiction are unclear; dismissal possible. | Court did not reach on timeliness; judgment on merits stands; concurrence separately notes timeliness issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Knutson v. Sec'y of State, 954 A.2d 1054 (2008 ME 124) (defers to Secretary's interpretation when language ambiguous; outlines standard of review)
- Arsenault v. Sec'y of State, 905 A.2d 285 (2006 ME 111) (statutory interpretation and election-law framework; Legislature sets policy)
- Sephton v. FBI, 442 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2006) (courts may refrain from repeating lengthy lower-court analysis when rulings are comprehensive)