512 F.Supp.3d 74
D. Me.2021Background:
- Plaintiffs (We the People PAC, Rep. Billy Bob Faulkingham, Liberty Initiative Fund, and out-of-state circulator Nicholas Kowalski) challenge Maine constitutional and statutory provisions that require petition circulators to be Maine residents and registered voters.
- Plaintiffs seek to circulate a direct initiative banning non-citizen voting; Secretary of State approved the petition form in August 2019; plaintiffs must submit 63,067 signatures by February 26, 2021.
- Plaintiffs filed suit and moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) on December 31, 2020, asking the court to enjoin enforcement of the residency and voter-registration requirements so they could hire out-of-state and unregistered circulators (including Kowalski).
- Defendants (Maine Secretary of State and Deputy Secretary) argued the requirements serve important state interests (verify residency, ease of locating circulators, preserve grassroots character) and emphasized Maine’s high voter-registration rate and prior state-court decisions upholding the rules.
- The district court applied the Anderson–Burdick balancing framework, found the factual record sparse and plaintiffs’ filing delayed, concluded plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success or imminent irreparable harm, and dismissed the TRO motion without prejudice.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voter-registration requirement for circulators | Buckley controls; requirement severely burdens core political speech by shrinking the circulator pool and triggers strict scrutiny; easier, narrower alternatives (e.g., address affidavits) exist | The burden is slight in Maine (≈97% registered), registration is easy and verifiable, and Maine precedent supports the rule; plaintiffs provided insufficient factual proof of harm | Applied Anderson–Burdick balancing; on the sparse record the court could not find a severe burden or likely success; TRO denied for lack of evidence and delay |
| Residency requirement for circulators | Many federal appellate courts have struck similar bans; nonresidents can submit to state jurisdiction to address enforcement concerns; rule excludes large numbers of potential speakers | Residency furthers compelling interests in legal enforcement, quick post-filing investigation (30-day review), and preserving grassroots character; Maine precedent upholds residency | Applied Anderson–Burdick; though several circuits view residency bans as severe, the court found the record too thin to show likely success and denied TRO (also noting plaintiffs’ delay) |
Key Cases Cited
- Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988) (petition circulation is core political speech entitled to heightened First Amendment protection)
- Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999) (struck Colorado voter-registration requirement for circulators; emphasized record-based inquiry)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (articulated balancing framework for evaluating burdens on ballot-related speech)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (endorsed sliding-scale balancing approach for election regulation challenges)
- Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997) (regulations imposing lesser burdens may be upheld by important state interests)
- Jones v. Secretary of State, 238 A.3d 982 (Me. 2020) (Maine Law Court upheld registration requirement on the facts before it and emphasized fact-intensive review)
- Hart v. Secretary of State, 715 A.2d 165 (Me. 1998) (Maine Law Court upheld residency requirement; emphasized integrity and enforceability of initiative process)
- Krislov v. Rednour, 226 F.3d 851 (7th Cir. 2000) (found voter-registration/residency restrictions severely burden speech)
- Libertarian Party of Virginia v. Judd, 718 F.3d 308 (4th Cir. 2013) (found residency restrictions on circulators merit close scrutiny)
- Nader v. Blackwell, 545 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2008) (applied balancing and found Ohio’s requirements burdensome)
- Yes On Term Limits, Inc. v. Savage, 550 F.3d 1023 (10th Cir. 2008) (applied strict scrutiny to residency-related restrictions on circulators)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (movant must show likelihood of irreparable harm to obtain preliminary relief)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) (loss of First Amendment freedoms constitutes irreparable harm)