CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 9/11/2023 1

Ballot-Petition Signature Requirements in Maine 

During the Covid-19 Pandemic 

Bond v. Dunlap (1:20-cv-216) and 

Jorgensen v. Dunlap (1:20-cv-272) (Nancy Torresen, D. Me.) 

Because of social distancing made necessary by the global COVID19 infectious pandemic, prospective candidates in Maine’s 2020 general election sought court-ordered modifications to the ballot-petition signature requirements. One candidate’s effort was unsuccessful, and the other’s was mooted by her obtaining a sufficient number 

of signatures without judicial modification. 

Subject: Getting on the ballot. Topics: Getting on the ballot; 

Covid-19; intervention; laches. 

Prospective candidates in the November 3, 2020, general election sought modifications to Maine’s ballot-petition signature requirements in light of social 

distancing made necessary by the global Covid-19 infectious pandemic. One 

case was unsuccessful, and another was mooted by meeting the state’s requirements. 

United States Senate 

A prospective candidate for the U.S. Senate filed a federal complaint in the 

District of Maine on Friday, June 19, 2020, against Maine’s governor, secretary 

of state, senate president, and house of representatives speaker, seeking relief 

from the ballot-petition signature requirements.1 Among other relief, the 

complaint sought a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.2

On the day that the complaint was filed, Judge Nancy Torresen ordered 

service of the complaint on the state and set the case for a telephone conference 

on Monday.3 Judge Torresen’s strategy during the pandemic was to hold as 

telephone conferences proceedings that otherwise would have been held in 

chambers with just the parties’ attorneys, but she would open to the public 

anything that would have been held in open court.4 Judge Torresen ordered 

the plaintiff to seek the immediate injunction by separate motion and ordered 

briefing completed by July 13.5

1. Complaint, Bond v. Dunlap, No. 1:20-cv-216 (D. Me. June 19, 2020), D.E. 1. 

2. Id. at 23; Docket Sheet, id. (June 19, 2020) [hereinafter Bond Docket Sheet] (D.E. 2). 

3. Bond Docket Sheet, supra note 2 (D.E. 5, 6); see id. (minutes, D.E. 7). 

Tim Reagan interviewed Judge Torresen for this report by telephone on September 18, 

2020. 

4. Interview with Judge Nancy Torresen, Sept. 18, 2020. 

5. Bond Docket Sheet, supra note 2 (D.E. 8); see Motion, Bond, No. 1:20-cv-216 (D. Me. 

June 29, 2020), D.E. 11 (noting that the signature-collection period had ended and that ballot 

petitions were due in two days). 
Ballot-Petition Signature Requirements in Maine During the COVID-19 Pandemic 

2 Federal Judicial Center 9/11/2023 

A prospective independent candidate for President moved on July 7 to intervene and obtain similar relief.6

 After resolving the plaintiff’s injunction motion, Judge Torresen denied the intervention motion.7

On July 13, Judge Torresen granted the plaintiff a one-day extension of 

time to reply to the defendants’ brief.8

Judge Torresen denied the plaintiff immediate relief on July 24.9 Because 

of the pandemic, Maine extended the signature submission deadline from May 

25 to June 26.10 Other independent senate candidates were able to meet the 

signature requirements during the pandemic, and the requirement for “wet” 

in-person signatures helped to prevent fraudulent copying of signatures.11

After the election, the parties stipulated dismissal of the case.12

United States President 

A minor party’s candidate for President filed a federal complaint in the District of Maine on July 31, asking the court to require Maine’s secretary of state 

to cut in half the number of ballot-petition signatures needed to get on the 

November 3 general-election ballot.13 With her complaint, the plaintiff filed a 

motion for an expedited hearing, noting, “Nomination petitions must be delivered to the state by August 3, 2020, and the Defendant has indicated that 

they must finalize the Maine ballot by August 28, 2020.”14

Judge Torresen set the case for a telephone conference on August 3, 

providing the parties with call-in information.15 During the conference, Judge 

Torresen decided that preliminary-injunction briefing should be completed 

by August 11.16

On August 10, however, Maine reported that the candidate had qualified 

for the ballot.17 The plaintiff dismissed her complaint voluntarily that day.18

6. Intervention Motion, Bond, No. 1:20-cv-216 (D. Me. July 7, 2020), D.E. 12. 

7. Bond Docket Sheet, supra note 2 (D.E. 25). 

A notice of appeal also moved to expand the case to all fifty states. Notice of Appeal, Bond, 

No. 1:20-cv-216 (D. Me. Oct. 1, 2020), D.E. 27. The court of appeals determined that the appeal was not timely. Order, Bond v. Dunlap, No. 20-1971 (1st Cir. Oct. 27, 2020). 

8. Bond Docket Sheet, supra note 2 (D.E. 20); see Motion, Bond, No. 1:20-cv-216 (D. Me. 

July 13, 2020), D.E. 19. 

9. Opinion, Bond, No. 1:20-cv-216 (D. Me. July 24, 2020), D.E. 24, 2020 WL 4275035. 

10. Id. at 12. 

11. Id. at 9–10, 24–25. 

12. Stipulation, id. (Nov. 19, 2020), D.E. 34. 

13. Complaint, Jorgensen v. Dunlap, No. 1:20-cv-272 (D. Me. July 31, 2020), D.E. 1. 

14. Motion, id. (July 31, 2020), D.E. 5. 

15. Docket Sheet, id. (July 31, 2020) (D.E. 8); see id. (minutes, D.E. 11). 

16. Id. (deadlines reset, Aug. 3, 2020). 

17. Status Report, id. (Aug. 10, 2020), D.E. 13. 

18. Voluntary Dismissal, id. (Aug. 10, 2020), D.E. 14.