765 F. Supp. 2d 38
D. Me.2011Background
- Maine’s ballot question committee law imposes registration and ongoing reporting requirements on groups that fund or advocate regarding ballot questions, with a two-page registration form and multi-tier reporting (initial, quarterly, pre-election, and final) plus recordkeeping for four years and penalties for noncompliance.
- NOM and APIA sued, challenging First Amendment rights to free speech and association as applied to ballot questions; NOM contributed to Stand for Marriage Maine and engaged in solicitations and fundraising timing around Question 1, while APIA planned ads but avoided activities due to registration burdens.
- Maine’s Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices administers these laws, providing guidance and access to information to the public; the case is a cross-motion for summary judgment, with APIA alleging mootness and NOM alleging ongoing constitutional concerns.
- The court had previously denied TRO relief; the decision here incorporates that prior analysis and ultimately concludes the statute is constitutional as applied to ballot question committees.
- The 2010 legislative amendments replaced “ballot question” with “campaign” language, but the court finds the amendment does not affect outcome and applies the prior framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of Maine’s registration/reporting requirements | NOM/APIA contend PAC-like burdens chill speech | Maine’s regime is narrowly tailored and informational | Constitutional under exacting scrutiny |
| Treatment of ballot question committees as PACs | Ballot question committees are improperly burdened like PACs | Registration/reporting are less burdensome than PAC regimes and serve compelling interests | Not likely to succeed; regime constitutional |
| Major purpose requirement applicability | Buckley major purpose test should limit regulation | No need for major purpose test in state ballot-question context | No error; need not apply Buckley major purpose test here |
| Vagueness and overbreadth of subsections B and C (contribution definitions) | Subsections B/C vague and overly broad | Standards are objective and sufficiently clear | No vagueness or overbreadth; constitutional. |
| $100 reporting threshold is narrowly tailored | Small donors’ disclosures have little value and burdensome | Disclosures of small donors aid voters; threshold is tailored | Threshold narrowly tailored and constitutional. |
Key Cases Cited
- New Hampshire Right to Life Political Action Committee v. Gardner, 99 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (sui generis electoral challenges; timely review for elections)
- Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (U.S. 2010) (exacting scrutiny for disclosure requirements)
- Human Life of Washington, Inc. v. Brumsickle, 624 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (registration and disclosure upheld; informational importance to voters)
- Sampson v. Buescher, 625 F.3d 1247 (10th Cir. 2010) (discussion of disclosure in relation to thresholds; noted distinction)
- Getman v. City of New York, No official reporter citation provided (N/A) (not included due to lack of official reporter citation)
- Nat'l Org. for Marriage v. McKee, 666 F. Supp. 2d 193 (D. Me. 2009) (district court ruling on PAC-like requirements)
- Nat'l Org. for Marriage v. McKee, 723 F. Supp. 2d 245 (D. Me. 2010) (summary judgment decision applying exacting scrutiny framework)
- Alaska Right to Life Committee v. Miles, ( Ninth Circuit discussion cited) (N/A) (referenced as not significantly burdensome; not binding here)
- Human Life of Wash., Inc. v. Brumsickle, 624 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (reiterated above; informational interest to voters)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1976) (major purpose discussion; framework for regulation)