7/17/2008 - Maine Democratic Party Statement on Appeal to the ME Supreme Court Regarding the Petitions of Mr. Herbert Hoffman
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: THURSDAY, JULY 17, 2008
CONTACT: REBECCA POLLARD 207-772-4353
STATEMENT FROM SPOKESWOMAN REBECCA POLLARD
We have decided to go forward with an appeal to the Maine Supreme Court in our case against the Secretary of State's Office, and we have decided to do so for two reasons.
First, in its ruling Monday, the Superior Court left open the door on what is an acceptable legal process for collecting petition signatures. We believe an oath by definition must be truthful and that any court case that ratifies false oaths will undermine the legitimacy of our democratic process. The precedent that Justice Marden's ruling would create could change the way petition signatures are gathered in Maine, and we fear that if the process is not clarified and resolved, it will only lead to similar confusion-and ultimately more legal cases-in the future. With other petition challenges likely, we believe the State Supreme Court must clarify and settle the law in this matter.
Second, what's at stake in this November's election is simply too important to have someone on the ballot who did not obtain enough valid signatures. We still maintain that, while perhaps not intentional, Mr. Hoffman was not in the presence of enough individuals who signed his petitions to put him over the 4,000 signature threshold that the Legislature created to ensure that a candidate has at least a small measure of support.
Throughout our process of reviewing Mr. Hoffman's petitions, we uncovered numerous errors in those petitions. As the Bangor Daily News pointed out in a June 25, 2008, editorial titled, "Better review process of petition signatures needed," the newspaper asserted that our legal challenge has "revealed troubling shortcomings in the state's validation process."
Without our review-which included entering petitions onto a computerized spreadsheet -- numerous instances of duplicate signatures, unregistered voters, and other illegitimate signatures on Mr. Hoffman's petitions would never have been caught.
In its ruling, the Superior Court affirmed our arguments, but did an about-face in its conclusion by saying that false oaths are acceptable as long as there is no fraudulent intent, and that the law is so ambiguous that it would accept the Secretary of State's decision.
Well, we believe that the law is not ambiguous, and the courts must follow Maine statute, which requires that a petition sheet is void if the circulator swears a false oath. We will appeal.
