|
|||||||
|
 |
|
home > radio > maine news > news story Maine NewsDemocrats Take Hoffman Challenge to Maine High Court
The ongoing dispute between the Maine Democratic Party and state election officials over independent U.S. Senate candidate Herbert Hoffman's right to appear on the ballot spilled over to the state's highest court Thursday. Lawyers representing three different parties in the case argued over the validity of several signatures Hoffman collected to qualify for the state's fall ballot and whether he had upheld his sworn oath as a petition circulator. With only slightly more than 100 signatures needed to meet the state's threshold for the ballot, Hoffman could be taken out of the race by an adverse ruling from the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. From the very beginning, the Maine Democratic Party has maintained that its problems with independent Herbert Hoffman's progressive candidacy has nothing to do with any fears that his presence in the race of U.S. Senate might peel off votes from Tom Allen, the Democratic nominee. Instead, party spokeswoman Rebecca Pollard says what's at stake is the integrity of the signature gathering process: "Because of what's at stake in November, in terms of the United States Senate race and the importance of those issues facing our country right now, but also because the integrity of Maine's petition gathering process. We really feel this could be threatened if this law is not clarified?" Such arguments do not hold up with Hoffman: "I believe that the Democratic Party wants me off the ballot." Clearly, Maine Democratic Party officials were not happy with a decision by Superior Court Judge Donald Marden who sided with Secretary of State Matt Dunlap. Dunlap concluded that just three signatures on one of Hoffman's petitions should be thrown out because Hoffman misunderstood the signature-gathering requirements that he had sworn an oath to uphold. The Democratic Party had hoped to have them all disqualified. Dan Walker, a lawyer representing the party, says the secretary of state misapplied the law as it pertains to Hoffman's oath: "This oath is a two part test. The first part is presence. It clearly states that you are in the presence of all of the signatures. The second part connotes awareness to the best of the circulator's knowledge and belief each signature is a signature of the person whose name it purports to be." Hoffman admits he was only standing in the vicinity of three people who signed his petition, and he says he does not object to their names being removed from his total number of signatures. But that solution doesn't go far enough for Walker who says Hoffman's claim of misunderstanding his oath requirements ultimately invalidates the oath itself: "Now, what is the result of a false oath? Section 354, subsection 9 specifically says that - and this is the general rule of the statute - that nomination petition which does not meet the requirements of this section is void." Justice Warren Silver suggested a different path to resolve the party's concerns that would not result in torpedoing Hoffman's candidacy: "When you have sort of a de minimis standard because the result here is so harsh that Mr. Hoffman can't be on the ballot if we agree with you, couldn't there be a de minimis violation that he didn't really do this intentionally, there was no fraud, or just, you know, say 'Okay, he misunderstood in this area.' The Superior Court filings of the secretary off state - they said, 'We didn't really explain it properly, it's not his fault, it's ours.' " Chief Justice Leigh Saufly was concerned about the interests of those who had legitimately signed Hoffman's petition and would have their intentions circumvented should the court side with the party: "So, could I ask you how you get to a remedy that strikes the signatures of all of the other voters whose signatures have been determined to be valid?" Walker maintains it's logical to throw out Hoffman's entire petition and rejected the secretary of state's claim that one could have a partially correct oath that applies to some signatures on the petition, but not others: "In order for this whole system to work it needs to be based on an oath. That oath, and the remedy that we're providing - it's not Draconian, it's not unreasonable, it's not constitutionally suspect - it's to void the petition sheet if the oath is false." The court is expected to reach a decision in the case Monday.
|
|
