Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 21
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 21, § 494 (2026)

Petition requirements

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(REPEALED)
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1969, c. 35, §5 (AMD). PL 1971, c. 65, §§15,16 (AMD). PL 1971, c. 544, §§70-72 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 761, §§23,24 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 425, §2 (RPR). PL 1979, c. 276 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 359, §3 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 301, §§2-4 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 456, §A68 (AMD). PL 1983, c. 360, §§3,4,5 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 161, §5 (RP).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1976–1984 · leading case: Stoddard v. Quinn, 593 F. Supp. 300 (D. Me. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stoddard v. Quinn, 593 F. Supp. 300 (D. Me. 1984). · cites it 6× “In this action plaintiffs Phyllis Ann Stoddard and Kenneth Stoddard challenge the constitutionality of 21 M.R.S.A. § 494 (1983 & Supp.1983-1984), which prescribes requirements independent candidates must meet in order to be placed on the state election ballot.”
Crafts v. Quinn, 482 A.2d 825 (Me. 1984). · cites it 3× “The process of challenge to nomination petitions is designed to prevent circumvention of the petition requirements in 21 M.R.S.A. § 494, and is the only screening of third-party candidates comparable to the nomination/primary/convention testing of major party candidacies.”
Communist Party of the United States v. Gartley, 363 A.2d 948 (Me. 1976). · cites it 3× “21 M.R.S.A. § 494. We find it was not the intention of the Legislature to limit the Secretary’s duty to review petitions merely for those defects on the face of the petitions.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 21, § 494(2) — 1 case
Communist Party of the United States v. Gartley, 363 A.2d 948 (Me. 1976). “21 M.R.S.A. § 494. We find it was not the intention of the Legislature to limit the Secretary’s duty to review petitions merely for those defects on the face of the petitions.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 21, § 494(5)(A) — 1 case
Crafts v. Quinn, 482 A.2d 825 (Me. 1984). “The process of challenge to nomination petitions is designed to prevent circumvention of the petition requirements in 21 M.R.S.A. § 494, and is the only screening of third-party candidates comparable to the nomination/primary/convention testing of major party candidacies.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 21, § 494(6) — 2 cases
Stoddard v. Quinn, 593 F. Supp. 300 (D. Me. 1984). “In this action plaintiffs Phyllis Ann Stoddard and Kenneth Stoddard challenge the constitutionality of 21 M.R.S.A. § 494 (1983 & Supp.1983-1984), which prescribes requirements independent candidates must meet in order to be placed on the state election ballot.”
Crafts v. Quinn, 482 A.2d 825 (Me. 1984). “The process of challenge to nomination petitions is designed to prevent circumvention of the petition requirements in 21 M.R.S.A. § 494, and is the only screening of third-party candidates comparable to the nomination/primary/convention testing of major party candidacies.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 21, § 494(9) — 1 case
Stoddard v. Quinn, 593 F. Supp. 300 (D. Me. 1984). “In this action plaintiffs Phyllis Ann Stoddard and Kenneth Stoddard challenge the constitutionality of 21 M.R.S.A. § 494 (1983 & Supp.1983-1984), which prescribes requirements independent candidates must meet in order to be placed on the state election ballot.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.