Hoffman case: A tale of three petitions

The Kennebec County Superior Court heard arguments today in the Maine Democratic Party's effort to take U.S. Senate candidate Herb Hoffman off the ballot.

Justice Donald Marden said he will have a decision by Tuesday.

The Democratic Party first challenged Hoffman's nominating petition last month, but the Secretary of State's office ruled that Hoffman should stay on the ballot.

The party appealed the case to Superior Court, and today Marden heard arguments at the Augusta courthouse.

Hoffman said previously that he will appeal to the Maine Supreme Court if the case does not come out in his favor. Rebecca Pollard, spokeswoman for the Maine Democratic Party, said the Democrats have not decided if they will appeal.

Attorney Daniel Walker represented the Democratic Party. No other representatives from the party were at the hearing.

The issue revolved around Hoffman using assistants to circulate petitions at the same location as him. Hoffman then signed the oath on these petitions - rather than the assistant. According to the oath and backed up by state statute, Hoffman needed to witness each of the signatures.

The party brought forth three witnesses who testified that they signed one of these petitions without Hoffman in sight. Their signatures were invalidated.

As a petitioner signs an oath for each signature sheet, Walker argued that because the party proved that at least one signature was void, this violated the oath, and invalidated the entire signature sheet.

If the court rules that all three signature sheets are invalid, this will bring Hoffman under the required 4,000 signatures needed to qualify for the ballot.

Phyllis Gardner, attorney for the Secretary of State's office, and John Branson, attorney for Hoffman, both countered Walker's arguments.

Gardner argued that the term "in the presence of," as used in statute, is ambiguous - a comment that was met with skepticism from the judge - but she said it could mean in proximity of, or having awareness of.

Interpretation of the phrase is up to the Secretary of State, she said.

Further, Gardner said, a petitioner does not know if the signer is writing down his or her true identity - even if they are standing right there.

It's the registrar's duty to verify that they are registered voters.

Also, Gardner said, an oath is false only if the one taking it knows it to be false at the time, which was not the case with Hoffman.

Walker later countered: "How can an oath be honest if he doesn't know what he's supposed to attest to?"

Branson and Gardner both warned of the consequences of disenfranchising the voters who signed the petitions correctly. Branson said that if the three petition sheets were to become invalid, it would invalidate Hoffman's whole petition because he would then have less than 4,000 signatures. Branson described this as a severe and draconian outcome, and bad precedent.

Walker, however, said that the three proven cases of Hoffman violating his oath casts a shadow over his whole petition gathering system, and not invalidating it would set bad precedent for election law.

"I'm not going to decide this case based on a shadow," the judge quickly responded.

The Republican Party has been silent on this case until today, when it issued this statement, which called the Democratic Party's actions desperate and un-democratic.

Dan Billings, an attorney specializing in election law, watched the hearing and wrote this column about the case in today's Kennebec Journal. Billings has been the legal advisor on many Republican campaigns.

He said Hoffman's means of gathering signatures are common practice among candidates. He said he sees this case not about the Democratic Party's concern about the petition gathering process, but about politics - keeping Hoffman off the ballot so he doesn't hurt Democratic candidate Tom Allen.