On October 28, 2010, the Maine Supreme Court agreed with the lower court, that the election laws do not permit candidates to transmit their petition signatures electronically to the various town clerks. Alex Hammer collected enough valid signatures to be on the ballot as an independent candidate for Governor. But some of his signatures were not counted because he scanned them at high resolution and e-mailed them to the various town clerks.
Thus, Maine continues to require candidates and parties to physically take their signatures to the various town clerks, and then collect them after they have been checked by the town clerks, and transmit them to the Secretary of State. The decision is only three pages and is Hammer v Secretary of State, 2010 ME 109.
The Maine Supreme Court has been consistently hostile to ballot access recently. Every ballot access case that has reached it during the last five years has resulted in a decision keeping the candidate off the ballot.
So what else is new?
Hammer’s problem was that some of his circulators collected signatures from bunches of towns on the same petition (the forms have room for 45 signatures, and he claimed that some had signatures from 15 to 20 towns on a single sheet. Since he was able to get most of his petitions certified, most of his circulators apparently had the good sense to use different forms for each town.
Hammer wanted the town clerks to go to a file sharing website, download selected files, and then verify that particular signatures were from their town.
Why would someone expect the Supreme Court to overrule a lower court and the Secretary of State, when Hammer not only did not file a timely appeal, but did not file an appeal brief?
He was pro se, and he did a good job. Courts give leniency to pro se litigants, generally, on court procedures.
Sooooo — where are the constitutional amendment petitions to have E-petitions ???
i.e. have the voters voting 24/7 on issues ??? — to perhaps even get rid of ALL legislative bodies = Direct Democracy.
Pending which —
P.R. and App.V.
#3 I think you miss my point.
The district court had already considered his arguments and turned him down. Why would you expect the Supreme Court to overturn the lower court decision when Hammer didn’t even bother to offer an explanation as to why that decision might be in error?
It’s not like it is impossible for an independent candidate for governor to qualify in Maine or even be elected.
It kind of sounds like Hammer was arguing that because the SOS office told him it was OK to make copies of the petition blanks – that it should allow him to make copies of the hand-signed petitions.
Jim,
You are blatantly misinformed. Call me at (207) 945-5240 and I’d be glad to discuss.
Thank you.
#6 I have read the opinion of the Maine Supreme Court, which included the opinion of the district court. The Supreme Court in essence said that we agree with the district court, and have nothing to add, so we’ll just attach the district court’s opinion.
If the Supreme Court had additional information, or arguments why the lower court’s decision was in error, it is not apparent from the Supreme Court’s opinion.
I don’t interpret that decision as exhibiting hostility toward ballot access as Richard Winger characterized it, but rather respect and deference towards the lower court, the Secretary of State, and the legislature.
It is not unreasonable to organize elections by towns, or to have town election officials have the have the original petitions when they make their determination of petition validity.
Maine has had more independent or minor party candidates elected governor than any other State over the past few decade, and it had two independent gubernatorial candidates this year, one of whom performed quite credibly. Am I misinformed?
The district court opinion did go into considerable detail about the discussions between you and the Secretary of State’s office about providing you with additional petition blanks, and an explanation that you could make copies of the blank forms. The only reason that I could see to go into such detail would be to contrast with their decision to forbid copying of the signed petitions prior to examination by town election officials.
If you want a change in policy, why don’t you petition the legislature?
Thanks Jim. Here’s a link to get you started.
http://new.bangordailynews.com/2010/10/12/opinion/blocked-out-of-the-race/ (after editing)
Both courts essentially ignored the presented evidence (legal precedents and arguments, etc.)
Feel free to call, as mentioned. Thank you.
#8 Is your legal brief for the district court on line?
No, but I would be willing to send it to you if we talk first and I understand where you are coming from. We had three separate filings in District Court.