CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 10/7/2023 1

Idiosyncratic Preferences for Name on Ballot 

NaPier v. Baldacci (D. Brock Hornby, D. Me. 2:06-cv-151) 

A minor gubernatorial candidate filed a pro se complaint two 

months before the 2006 general election because the state was not 

acceding to his orthographic preferences for his name, including 

the printing of “Phillip” with the letters “i” represented as just dots 

with eyebrows and the double “l” represented with a smile under it. 

The federal judge determined that the case was a matter for the 

state court. 

Subject: Voting procedures. Topics: Pro se party; matters for 

state courts. 

On September 11, 2006, approximately two months before Maine’s gubernatorial election, a candidate for governor filed a federal pro se complaint 

against state officials in the District of Maine.1

 The plaintiff wanted his name 

on the ballot to be “Phillip Morris NaPier—Thu PeoPles Hero,” and he 

wanted “Phillip” written so that the letters “i” were just dots with eyebrows 

and the double “l” had a smile under it.2 He also wanted his party identified 

as the “Pissed Off Patriots.”3 With his complaint, he filed a hand-written motion for an emergency hearing.4

Judge D. Brock Hornby held a hearing two days later, at which the plaintiff appeared pro se with a well-behaved guide dog.5

 Regarding the plaintiff’s 

pleadings as seeking a temporary restraining order, Judge Hornby, on the 

case’s fourth day, denied the plaintiff immediate relief.6

If the plaintiff is entitled to any relief, he should proceed quickly to state 

court. The three-day delay caused by this federal filing should not affect any 

rights he has there. (If he has delayed too long, that delay occurred before 

the federal suit was filed, not in the last three days; if the Secretary of State 

has already taken actions that would prevent relief, they were taken before 

notice of the federal lawsuit, not during the past three days.)7

On September 19, a state court denied the plaintiff injunctive relief.8 Because the plaintiff did not respond to the state’s October 2 motion to dismiss 

the federal action, Judge Hornby dismissed it on October 24.9

1. Complaint, NaPier v. Baldacci, No. 2:06-cv-151 (D. Me. Sept. 11, 2006), D.E. 1; NaPier 

v. Baldacci, 453 F. Supp. 2d 185, 186 (D. Me. 2006). 

2. NaPier, 453 F. Supp. 2d at 186, 190. 

3. Id. at 186. 

4. Motion, NaPier, No. 2:06-cv-151 (D. Me. Sept. 11, 2006), D.E. 2. 

5. Docket Sheet, id. (Sept. 11, 2006) [hereinafter D. Me. Docket Sheet]; NaPier, 453 F. 

Supp. 2d at 186; Interview with Hon. D. Brock Hornby, Aug. 6, 2012 (noting that especially 

with pro se cases it is important to make sure as early as possible that defendants are served 

promptly in emergency cases). 

Tim Reagan interviewed Judge Hornby for this report by telephone. 

6. NaPier v. Baldacci, 451 F. Supp. 2d 256 (D. Me. 2006), amended, 453 F. Supp. 2d 185. 

7. NaPier, 453 F. Supp. 2d at 189. 

8. Opinion, NaPier—Thu Peoples Hero v. Baldacci, No. CV-06-521 (Me. Sup. Ct. Sept. 
Idiosyncratic Preferences for Name on Ballot 

2 Federal Judicial Center 10/7/2023 

19, 2006), attached as Ex. 1, Motion to Dismiss, NaPier, No. 2:06-cv-151 (D. Me. Oct. 2, 

2006), D.E. 13. 

9. D. Me. Docket Sheet, supra note 5.