High court hears from Hoffman, Dems

The Maine Supreme Court will rule by Monday on whether independent U.S. Senate candidate Herbert Hoffman can remain on the ballot. They heard arguments today.

The Maine Democratic Party had challenged the petitions of Hoffman on the grounds that he did not physically collect all the signatures, instead using assistants, but still signing his name on the back indicating that he had personally witnessed these signatures.

They first took the case to the Maine Secretary of State, and then appealed to the Maine Superior Court, both ruled against them. The Maine Supreme Court was the final option for appeal.

Hoffman is running against U.S. Rep. Tom Allen, D-Portland, and incumbent Sen. Susan Collins, R-Bangor.

The arguments mirrored those made in Superior Court earlier this month.

Daniel Walker, attorney for the Democrats, argued that three petition sheets should be invalidated. At the initial hearing at the Secretary of State’s office, three people testified that they signed the petitions not in front of Hoffman but in front of an assistant.

Hoffman then signed the oath on the back of the sheet, stating that he had been present and aware of all the signatures made.

Hoffman had explained previously that these instances took place in front of large crowds that he had several people helping him.

Walker argued that since they were able to prove instances on three petition sheets where the oath was violated, the three sheets should be discounted. This would bring Hoffman under the required 4,000.

This wouldn’t be a draconian decision as some have suggested, Walker said, because had Hoffman turned in a greater number of signatures the court hearings wouldn’t be necessary.

Phyllis Gardner, attorney for the Secretary of State’s office, defended the original decision. Attorney John Branson represented Hoffman.

Gardner said Hoffman believed the oath to be true when he signed the petitions, and that his actions qualified as presence and awareness. From that, the office believed that real voters had showed up and signed their own names.

Branson agreed – Hoffman did not believe the oath to be false at the time. A petition sheet can only be invalidated if the oath is dishonest or if there was fraud, neither which apply to Hoffman.

Branson said that because of the resulting consequence – Hoffman being removed from the ballot – striking the petition sheets would be a draconian measure, and the justices should make their decision with the legitimate signers’ interests in mind.

After the hearing, Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap said the court traditionally rules with voter interests in mind. In this case, he said, it would be in the interest of the voters who signed the petition wanting Hoffman on the ballot.

The courtroom was crowded but not quite packed. There were several Hoffman supporters, officials from the Democratic Party, media representatives and state officials. In the back was Steve Abbott, campaign manager for Collins.

Hoffman supporters grumbled at the “undemocratic” actions by the Democratic Party, several noting that if their candidate is removed from the ballot, they will support Collins before they will support Allen.

While the Democrats say that they are only trying to make sure that Hoffman’s candidacy is legit, it is widely believed that they fear he will siphon votes from Allen. The race between Allen and Collins is competitive and closely watched.

How Walker is being paid for the case is a mystery. No expenditures to Walker or his firm, Preti Flaherty, had been reported on the state party’s FEC reports. After Thursday’s hearing, Walker said his fee came from “here and there” and that no expenditures have been made yet by the party.

Spokeswoman Rebecca Pollard said they would not disclose how Walker is being paid.

Branson said he is representing Hoffman pro bono.