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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 21-A, § 356 (2026)

Review and challenge of petitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Review.  When presented with a nomination petition, the Secretary of State shall review it and, if the petition contains the required minimum number of certified names and is properly completed, shall accept and file it. If a petition contains more valid signatures than the maximum set forth in section 354, subsection 5, the Secretary of State may not validate any signatures above the maximum.  
[PL 2025, c. 397, §24 (AMD).]
2.  Challenges.  The procedure for challenging the validity of a nomination petition or of names upon a petition is as follows.  
A. Only a registered voter residing in the electoral division of the candidate concerned may file a challenge. The challenge must be in writing and must set forth the reasons for the challenge. The challenge must be filed in the office of the Secretary of State by 5 p.m. on the 5th business day after the final date for filing petitions under section 354, subsection 8‑A.   [PL 1989, c. 166, §4 (AMD); PL 1989, c. 502, Pt. D, §17 (AMD).]
B. Within 5 business days after the final date for filing challenges and after due notice of the hearing to the candidate and to the challenger, the Secretary of State shall hold a public hearing on any challenge properly filed. The challenger has the burden of providing evidence to invalidate the petitions or any names upon the petitions.   [PL 2025, c. 397, §25 (AMD).]
C. The Secretary of State shall rule on a challenge within 5 business days after the completion of the hearing described in paragraph B.   [PL 2025, c. 397, §25 (AMD).]
D. [PL 2025, c. 397, §25 (RP).]
E. Any aggrieved party may appeal the decision of the Secretary of State to the Law Court, on questions of law, by filing a notice of appeal within 3 business days of that decision in the same manner as an appeal taken from a judgment of the Superior Court in a civil action. The appeal must be conducted in accordance with the following procedures.  
(1) Any person who participated in the hearing held under paragraph B, and who is adversely affected by the final decision of the Secretary of State, is considered a party for purposes of taking an appeal. On motion, the court may allow other parties to the hearing before the Secretary of State to participate in the appeal.  
(2) When a law or rule regulating the taking of an appeal from the Superior Court in a civil action uses the terms "the court," "the clerk," "the clerk of the courts" or a similar term, for purposes of an appeal from the Secretary of State, those terms mean "the Secretary of State" or other appropriate term.  
(3) The notice of appeal must be accompanied by a brief statement of the nature of the proceeding before the Secretary of State, a copy of the decision, order or ruling complained of, a statement of the grounds upon which the decision, order or ruling is claimed to be unlawful and a certificate that the attorney for the appellant is of the opinion that there is probable grounds for the appeal as to make it a fit subject for judicial inquiry and that it is not intended for delay.  
(4) The Law Court has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals under this paragraph.  
(5) Upon receipt of a notice of appeal under this paragraph, the Law Court shall issue a scheduling order that allows for final disposition of the appeal no later than 35 days after the date of the decision by the Secretary of State.  
(6) An appeal under this paragraph does not automatically stay the ruling on appeal. The Chief Justice or, in the Chief Justice's absence, any other justice may enjoin or stay the effect of the ruling upon the terms and conditions as the Chief Justice determines proper.  
(7) Upon motion by a party filed within 3 days of the filing of the administrative record, the court may order additional evidence it determines necessary for the determination of issues to be taken before the Secretary of State upon the terms and conditions the court determines proper. A motion to take additional evidence must be accompanied by a detailed statement, in the nature of an offer of proof, of the evidence intended to be taken. The Secretary of State may, after hearing the evidence, modify or add findings as to facts and amend the original decision or order by reason of the additional evidence taken, and the Secretary of State shall file with the court that amended decision or order and those modified or new findings. If the Secretary of State modifies findings or amends the original decision or order, the appealing party or any other party aggrieved by the modified findings or amended decision or order may file with the court, within such time as the court may allow, a specification of errors claimed to have been made by the Secretary of State in the amended decision or order, and the specification of errors must be considered by the court in addition to the errors asserted in the original complaint on appeal. Upon granting a motion to take additional evidence, the court shall establish deadlines that allow for final disposition of the appeal within 35 days of the Secretary of State's original decision.  
(8) The clerk of the Law Court shall certify the result of the appeal to the Secretary of State no later than 35 days after the decision of the Secretary of State.   [PL 2025, c. 397, §25 (AMD).]
F. Only a voter of the county establishing a charter commission may challenge the nomination petition for county charter commission member. The challenge must be in writing and must set forth the reasons for the challenge. The challenge must be filed in the office of the Secretary of State before 5 p.m. on the 55th day following the order of the county officers under Title 30‑A, section 1321, subsection 1, or the receipt of a certificate of sufficiency under Title 30‑A, section 1321, subsection 4.   [PL 1987, c. 737, Pt. C, §§63, 106 (AMD); PL 1989, c. 6 (AMD); PL 1989, c. 9, §2 (AMD); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §§8, 10 (AMD).]
[PL 2025, c. 397, §25 (AMD).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1985, c. 161, §6 (NEW). PL 1987, c. 737, §§C63,C106 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 6 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 9, §2 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 104, §§C8,C10 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 166, §4 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 502, §D17 (AMD). PL 2009, c. 253, §22 (AMD). PL 2011, c. 342, §10 (AMD). PL 2025, c. 397, §§24, 25 (AMD).
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 10 cases, 2004–2020 · leading case: Dobson v. Dunlap, 576 F. Supp. 2d 181 (D. Me. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dobson v. Dunlap, 576 F. Supp. 2d 181 (D. Me. 2008). · cites it 6× “The voters focus on the absence of a remedy under 21-A M.R.S.A. § 356. Under § 356(2), “[ojnly a registered voter residing in the electoral division of the candidate concerned” may challenge the validity of a nomination petition or of names upon a petition in an administrative…”
Knutson v. Dep't of Sec'y of State, 2008 ME 124 (Me. 2008). · cites it 4× “80B and 21-A M.R.S. § 356(2)(D) (2007), urging the court to conclude that Hoffman's oath was not in compliance with section 354(7)(A) because *1058 Hoffman could not accurately aver that the three signatures had been provided in his presence as required by 21-A M.”
Melanson v. Sec'y of State, 2004 ME 127 (Me. 2004). · cites it 2× “Melanson and another individual 3 challenged that decision in accordance with the procedure set forth in 21-A M.R.S.A. § 356 (1993). Melanson asserted that the petition was invalid for several reasons, such as the inclusion of an incorrect first name of an elector on several…”
Hammer v. Sec'y of State, 2010 ME 109 (Me. 2010). · cites it 4× “Michaela Murphy Justice, Superior Court NOTES [1] Although, pursuant to 21-A M.R.S. § 356 (2009), there may be a colorable issue of the timeliness of Hammer's appeals both to the Superior Court and to us, because the Secretary of State does not challenge the appeal on that…”
Hoffman v. Sec'y of State of Maine, 574 F. Supp. 2d 179 (D. Me. 2008). “” 21-A M.R.S.A. § 356(2)(A). Mr. Knutson’s position as chairman is therefore irrelevant to my analysis.”
Dobson v. Dep't of the Sec'y of State, 2008 ME 137 (Me. 2008). “See 21-A M.R.S. § 356(2) (2007). [¶ 3] We do not reach the constitutional challenge raised for the first time by Dobson in her appeal to this Court.”
Libertarian Party of Maine v. Dunlap, 659 F. Supp. 2d 215 (D. Me. 2009). “21-A M.R.S.A. § 356(2)(A). A hearing on the challenge is held within seven days, and the Secretary of State in turn must issue a decision within five days.”
Bond v. Dunlap (D. Me. 2020). “” 21-A M.R.S.A. § 356(1). Any registered voter in the electoral district who wishes to contest the validity of a nomination petition must file a challenge by 5:00 pm on the fifth business day after the petition filing deadline, thereby initiating an administrative hearing and…”
Melanson v. Dep't of the Sec'y of State (Me. Super. Ct 2004). “, Respondent-Intervenors This matter comes before the court on appeal’ pursuant to 21-A M.RS.A. § 356(2)(D) and MLR. Civ. P.”
Knutson v. Dep't of the Sec'y of State (Me. Super. Ct 2008). “§ 356(2)(D)1 petition for judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision denying the petitioner's challenge to the validity of Herbert Hoffman's nomination petitions to be placed on the ballot for the US. Senate seat. Herbert Hoffman as an interested party has intervened.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 21-A, § 356(1) — 2 cases
Dobson v. Dunlap, 576 F. Supp. 2d 181 (D. Me. 2008). “The voters focus on the absence of a remedy under 21-A M.R.S.A. § 356. Under § 356(2), “[ojnly a registered voter residing in the electoral division of the candidate concerned” may challenge the validity of a nomination petition or of names upon a petition in an administrative…”
Bond v. Dunlap (D. Me. 2020). “” 21-A M.R.S.A. § 356(1). Any registered voter in the electoral district who wishes to contest the validity of a nomination petition must file a challenge by 5:00 pm on the fifth business day after the petition filing deadline, thereby initiating an administrative hearing and…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 21-A, § 356(2) — 2 cases
Dobson v. Dunlap, 576 F. Supp. 2d 181 (D. Me. 2008). “The voters focus on the absence of a remedy under 21-A M.R.S.A. § 356. Under § 356(2), “[ojnly a registered voter residing in the electoral division of the candidate concerned” may challenge the validity of a nomination petition or of names upon a petition in an administrative…”
Dobson v. Dep't of the Sec'y of State, 2008 ME 137 (Me. 2008). “See 21-A M.R.S. § 356(2) (2007). [¶ 3] We do not reach the constitutional challenge raised for the first time by Dobson in her appeal to this Court.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 21-A, § 356(2)(A) — 2 cases
Hoffman v. Sec'y of State of Maine, 574 F. Supp. 2d 179 (D. Me. 2008). “” 21-A M.R.S.A. § 356(2)(A). Mr. Knutson’s position as chairman is therefore irrelevant to my analysis.”
Libertarian Party of Maine v. Dunlap, 659 F. Supp. 2d 215 (D. Me. 2009). “21-A M.R.S.A. § 356(2)(A). A hearing on the challenge is held within seven days, and the Secretary of State in turn must issue a decision within five days.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 21-A, § 356(2)(D) — 4 cases
Knutson v. Dep't of Sec'y of State, 2008 ME 124 (Me. 2008). “80B and 21-A M.R.S. § 356(2)(D) (2007), urging the court to conclude that Hoffman's oath was not in compliance with section 354(7)(A) because *1058 Hoffman could not accurately aver that the three signatures had been provided in his presence as required by 21-A M.”
Melanson v. Sec'y of State, 2004 ME 127 (Me. 2004). “Melanson and another individual 3 challenged that decision in accordance with the procedure set forth in 21-A M.R.S.A. § 356 (1993). Melanson asserted that the petition was invalid for several reasons, such as the inclusion of an incorrect first name of an elector on several…”
Melanson v. Dep't of the Sec'y of State (Me. Super. Ct 2004). “, Respondent-Intervenors This matter comes before the court on appeal’ pursuant to 21-A M.RS.A. § 356(2)(D) and MLR. Civ. P.”
Knutson v. Dep't of the Sec'y of State (Me. Super. Ct 2008). “§ 356(2)(D)1 petition for judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision denying the petitioner's challenge to the validity of Herbert Hoffman's nomination petitions to be placed on the ballot for the US. Senate seat. Herbert Hoffman as an interested party has intervened.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 21-A, § 356(2)(E) — 2 cases
Knutson v. Dep't of Sec'y of State, 2008 ME 124 (Me. 2008). “80B and 21-A M.R.S. § 356(2)(D) (2007), urging the court to conclude that Hoffman's oath was not in compliance with section 354(7)(A) because *1058 Hoffman could not accurately aver that the three signatures had been provided in his presence as required by 21-A M.”
Hammer v. Sec'y of State, 2010 ME 109 (Me. 2010). “Michaela Murphy Justice, Superior Court NOTES [1] Although, pursuant to 21-A M.R.S. § 356 (2009), there may be a colorable issue of the timeliness of Hammer's appeals both to the Superior Court and to us, because the Secretary of State does not challenge the appeal on that…”
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.