519 F.Supp.3d 13
D. Me.2021Background
- Plaintiffs (We the People PAC, Rep. Faulkingham, Liberty Initiative Fund, and a professional circulator) sought to qualify a citizen-initiative in Maine banning non‑citizen voting and contend Maine’s rules blocking out‑of‑state circulators prevented them from collecting sufficient signatures.
- Maine constitutional and statutory law require petition circulators to be Maine residents and to appear on local voting lists (i.e., be registered voters in their municipality); failure to file the circulator affidavit is a Class E crime.
- Plaintiffs had collected ~38,000 recent signatures (90% by out‑of‑state professionals) and say Maine’s residency/registration rules materially reduced the effective pool of circulators, increased cost and slowed collection.
- The Secretary of State defended the laws as protecting petition integrity and the grassroots character of initiatives and argued ample in‑state circulators exist and alternatives (e.g., training, recruiting, in‑state witnesses) mitigate any burden.
- On a paper record (declarations, interrogatories, statements of facts) the district court applied the Anderson/Burdick balancing framework, found the residency and registration requirements impose severe burdens not narrowly tailored to the State’s interests, and granted a preliminary injunction (Feb. 16, 2021) enjoining enforcement of 21‑A M.R.S. §903‑A to the extent it requires circulators be Maine residents or registered voters, subject to out‑of‑state circulators submitting to Maine jurisdiction for investigations/prosecutions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Level of scrutiny for circulator rules | Meyer/Buckley require strict review because petition circulation is core political speech | Use Anderson/Burdick balancing; not automatically strict scrutiny | Court applied Anderson/Burdick sliding‑scale; where burden is severe, applied strict scrutiny |
| Residency requirement (must be Maine resident to circulate) | Excludes experienced out‑of‑state professional circulators, severely reducing pool and likelihood of qualifying; burdens core speech/association | Thousands of Maine circulators exist; residency promotes procedural integrity and grassroots character; alternatives available | Court: residency requirement imposes a severe First Amendment burden and is not narrowly tailored to compelling state interests; likely unconstitutional as applied |
| Voter‑registration requirement (must be registered where listed) | Further narrows pool; registration technicalities (outdated addresses) meaningfully exclude potential circulators | Registration is easy; 97% of eligible Maine voters are registered; requirement enforces residency and adds little burden | Court: registration requirement is a severe burden and not narrowly tailored; likely unconstitutional as applied |
| Preliminary injunction (equitable factors) | Loss of First Amendment freedoms is irreparable; balance and public interest favor protecting speech | Plaintiffs delayed and may retry the 2022 drive; public interest favors petition integrity; injunction harms state administration | Court: Plaintiffs shown likelihood of success and irreparable harm; balance of equities and public interest favor injunction; preliminary injunction granted (subject to submission to jurisdiction requirement) |
Key Cases Cited
- Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988) (petition circulation is core political speech; regulations that exclude effective means of circulation can severely burden speech)
- Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999) (voter‑registration requirement reduces pool of circulators; record‑driven analysis of burden)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (Anderson balancing framework for election‑regulation challenges)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (endorses flexible balancing; severity of burden determines level of scrutiny)
- Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997) (severe burdens on political rights call for narrow tailoring/strict scrutiny)
- Libertarian Party of Virginia v. Judd, 718 F.3d 308 (4th Cir. 2013) (state residency restriction on circulators failed strict scrutiny)
- Nader v. Brewer, 531 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2008) (residency/registration rules can severely burden out‑of‑state supporters’ political speech)
- Krislov v. Rednour, 226 F.3d 851 (7th Cir. 2000) (residency restrictions limit candidates’ ability to disseminate their message)
- Initiative & Referendum Inst. v. Jaeger, 241 F.3d 614 (8th Cir. 2001) (upheld North Dakota residency requirement; stands as a circuit exception)
- Hart v. Secretary of State, 715 A.2d 165 (Me. 1998) (Maine Law Court previously upheld residency requirement; considered by district court but distinguished on facts)
- Jones v. Secretary of State, 238 A.3d 982 (Me. 2020) (Maine Law Court emphasized fact‑intensive nature of registration‑requirement challenges)