David Hughes of Lewiston, ME The individuals did not testify that Hoffman wasn't present, they testified that Hoffman did not see them sign. A very distinct difference between the legal definition of "presence" and the common usage of the word.

Tell me Sam, what do you call a pattern of attempts to keep people off the ballot on bogus and obviously frivolous claims?

The SOS is charged with implementing the law. Part of that charge is interpreting any unclarity or ambiguity in the law. So long as the SOS interpretation of the law does not contradict the law his interpretation of the law will stand. That is a settled matter of case law.

There is nothing in the SOS interpretation of the law that contradicts the law. Case law from Maine and other states supports the SOS interpretation. Just because an alternative interpretation of the law exists is not enough to overturn the SOS.

What is underhanded is bringing an appeal that has absolutely no chance of success. Something that should be obvious to any lawyer dealing with any part of government administration law.

The dems should be made to pay court costs.report abuse

Sam of So Portland, ME I am not in any need of a consolation. I don't care a wit how this case is decided. I'm not a Democrat and haven't decided who I will vote for yet. I don't like any of the options. I just don't understand why people are pretending this whole case is something that it is not.

There were individuals who testified that the petitioner was not present when they signed. That is why their signatures were invalidated.

The SOS is not a lawyer nor a judge. The courts should decide legal issues and they will. So why scream that something underhanded is going on? It isn't.report abuse

David Hughes of Lewiston, ME Sam, I think BIllings' point is that since the Nadar affair of 2000 Democrats have been pre-emptively making sure that no votes that the Dems deem as "theirs" get cast for anyone else. We saw it in 2004 with Nadar ( dems lost the challenge ), we saw it again in 2006 for a state legislative race ( dems lost again ) and we're seeing it again with Hoffman ( dems will lose this one too ). It's a pattern of ensuring that the none of the Dems votes stray to someone else.

The law, as articulated on the petition forms, states "...all the signatures to this petition were made in my presence...". What does presence mean? In the same room? Within earshot? 10 feet? 5 feet? Looking at the signer as they sign? The form does not say "witnessed" if it had then the Dems might have a case. Unfortunately for the dems it doesn't say "witness" it says "presence".

Case law, both in Maine and elsewhere, supports the SOS in that individual signatures should be invalidated, not the entire petition. What is humorous is that a case cited in support of their claims the Dems in their filing with the court was , on appeal, over turned with the same reasoning and result that the Maine SOS applied to Hoffman's case. Now that's funny.

Bare in mind that the SOS had to make an interpretation of the law. So long as the law doesn't explicitly call for a different interpretation the courts almost always will defer to the administrative interpretation. Meaning, again, that the Dems don't have a case based on the well known case law.

The dems should be charged court costs for bringing such a frivolous action. Maine case law on the matter is quite clear and appealing to the courts is a case of wishing for a miracle.

I do expect the legislature to fix the law next session if that is any consolation for you.report abuse

Sam of So Portland, ME This has nothing to do with dirty tricks and not a single vote has been cast that anyone is trying to trow out. What a twisted bunch of bs has been listed here to try to make this issue seem like something it is not.

One guy collecting signatures signed a couple of petitions where it said he was attesting to the validity of all of the signatures and that he witnessed them ALL. It was later proven that he did not witness them all. The legal question is whether that invalidates his signature for the entire petition (because he was attesting to a lie) or just for the signatures PROVEN to have been falsely attested to.

It is a legal question and appropriately is being addressed by the courts.

Calling it something else is just pure political spin, spin, spin. I guess I don't expect a whole lot more from a "Republican activist and commentator" but this guy is supposedly a lawyer? Hey Billings - the LAW says that all laws get enforced, not just the ones you like best!report abuse