By GARY REMAL
Staff Writer Sunday, April 29, 2007

The affidavit was part of Carter's successful legal challenge to Maine's decision to identify Carter as "James Earl Carter" on the 1976 presidential ballot rather than his better-known moniker, "Jimmy."

Chandler got ahold of the one-page legal document because he represented Carter's campaign in Kennebec County Superior Court while working as a lawyer for the Maine Democratic Party.

"This was an exhibit that was entered into evidence in the hearing we had," Chandler told PBS Antiques Roadshow appraiser Mike Gutierrez of Scottsdale, Ariz., during a Feb. 12 broadcast. "When the hearing concluded, I simply asked the judge if I could have his permission to substitute a copy for the original. No problem. It's done all the time in lawsuits and so, as a result, I have the original. It's hung on the wall of my office for a while and it's just been a family keepsake."

State officials and Superior Court Justice David Nichols, who presided at the hearing and overruled state election officials, apparently didn't recognize the affidavit's significance 30 years ago. But Gutierrez said the document's monetary value reflected its significant role in presidential politics.

After the Feb. 12 national broadcast, the story flashed through the well-worn grapevine of the Maine court system and piqued the interest of history buffs.

State Archivist James Henderson said his agency went looking for the copy of the document in the files of the secretary of state.

After some searching, neither state archive nor court officials were able to find the document.

"It's really an important piece of history," Gutierrez told Chandler on the air during the show's visit to Arizona, where the former Maine judge retired. "Valuewise, Jimmy Carter's signature really goes for about $100. But, you take an affidavit like this that could have changed a whole presidential race, my feeling is that in an auction atmosphere, a document like this could go for $4,000 to $5,000-plus."

Reached last week by telephone at his Arizona home, Chandler downplayed the historical importance of the affidavit. And he questioned the monetary value Gutierrez placed on it.

Chandler said he views the document and the court case itself more as novelties of Maine politics, rather than important turns in national history.

"I thought it would be something my kids would like to see so I asked the judge if I could substitute a copy," he explained. "(Antique Roadshow officials) got all caught up in the idea that it changed the course of history and that's all nonsense. It got him on the ballot in Maine, which the last time I saw did not have a whole pile of electoral votes.

"I'd like to think how Carter appeared on the ballot would not have made much difference in the election," Chandler added.

But during his interview on Antiques Roadshow, Chandler recalled that Carter himself was very concerned that use of any other name besides Jimmy could confuse voters and use of "James Earl" could have reminded the public of Martin Luther King's assassin, James Earl Ray.

"We contacted the Carter campaign to see if this was important or not," he told his interviewer. "They said it was not only important, but that Mr. Carter absolutely refused to go on the ballot as anything other than Jimmy Carter."

During the interview, Chandler explained that as the lawyer for the Maine Democratic Party during the 1976 presidential campaign, he was charged with going to court to challenge the secretary of state's ruling that Carter must appear on Maine's ballot as "James Earl Carter."

Carter explained in the affidavit he had always been known in public life as Jimmy. He said he had signed as Jimmy Carter for Federal Election Commisson eligibility to receive more than $21 million in campaign subsidies. And he promised to use the name Jimmy if elected president.

Present-day Court Administrator James Glessner said the Judicial Department has a records retention policy that determines how long different kinds of court files are stored before being destroyed.

But Glessner said the policy has no provision for picking out historic documents like the Carter affidavit if some keen-eyed court clerk doesn't save it. And the judge's decision to return the document to Chandler was within his "judicial discretion."

"Somebody would have to get lucky to pick up on something like that" even today, Glessner said. "When you think about it, it may actually be better if someone has an interest in it to have retained it rather than have it shredded."

Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap, however, said the Carter affidavit is only the latest example of the state's need to do a better job of recognizing and preserving its own history and documents.

"The courts do not have a consistent history of retaining their records," he said.

Technically, the state archives, which fall under the secretary of state's control, can only dictate the handling of documents from Executive Branch agencies, he said.

But Dunlap said state records belong to the public whether they originate in the courts, Legislature or executive state departments and should be preserved with the same rules.

"It's not just because they're cool or valuable or neat, it's because they're important to the standing of our society," said Dunlap, who authored a state law when he was in the Legislature which permits state officials to recover some state documents from private hands. "Maybe this guy is legally entitled to have it, but he shouldn't be."

On the show, Chandler told Gutierrez the monetary value of the one-page document was little more than a curiosity to him. He was more interested in the part it played in his own history as a lawyer.

"I've never been terribly concerned about the financial worth of it because it's just so interesting and a part of my history as well as the country's," Chandler said on the PBS show.

Chandler said he plans to keep the former president's affidavit in his family.

"It's been hanging on my office wall or in my home office, and I intended to give it to my son or my daughter when I'm done with it," he said. "I'm not sure who will want it."

The former Maine Superior Court justice said he and his wife drove the 25 miles from their home to Tucson where the show was taped. The couple took two antique chairs they thought might garner more interest but didn't, and included the framed Carter affidavit almost as a lark.

On-air host Mark Walberg said the show's appraisers looked at about 10,000 objects to select the handful that appeared on the program.

Chandler said he and his wife waited all morning and into the afternoon before his interview, but enjoyed looking at the variety of items others had brought as well as the chance to observe the show's production.

"You had a chance to look at all the other stuff people brought in," he said. "Some of it was really interesting, some of it was just weird. It was a fun day."

Dunlap said if Maine had been more careful about preserving its historic documents, they might answer questions that still linger today.

For instance, the secretary of state said, questions are still raised about which execution led to the end of the death penalty in Maine and why. The official records that would resolve the issue have not survived.

In England, he pointed out, complete court records and transcripts go back more than 300 years and can still be reviewed today, some even over the Internet.

"The British government actually saved their records and you can go and look them up," the Maine secretary of state said. "We haven't done such a good job."

Gary Remal -- 621-5642

gremal@centralmaine.com