Opinion ID: 4532603
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fraud Investigation

Text: [¶23] Reed also contends that the Secretary of State, after being presented with evidence of fraud, erred by failing to conduct a fraud investigation of the entire campaign. The evidence of fraud supplied to the Secretary of State consists of the following: • The affidavits of two individuals whose signatures were forged on petition #743 and copies of petition #743. • An affidavit from a principal of Revolution Field Strategies (RFS), the entity hired to manage the campaign, as well as related correspondence from Reed’s counsel, stating that the predecessor company of RFS had 16 In affirming the Secretary of State’s determination that the initiative proponents presented valid signatures numbering in excess of the constitutional requirement, we do not address any other aspect of the petition, including whether the petition comports with other constitutional or statutory requirements for a direct initiative of legislation. 18 either been involved with or was the victim of canvassers’ fraud in a 2014 initiative campaign in Missouri. • Correspondence from Reed’s counsel asserting that two signatures gathered by St. Peter appeared to be duplicates of—and in different handwriting than—two signatures gathered by another circulator. • Correspondence from Reed’s counsel asserting that another RFS employee17 stated that St. Peter’s supervisor, Melissa Burnham, was aware of St. Peter’s forged signatures and still submitted St. Peter’s petitions for validation. In particular, Reed argues that the Secretary of State had an obligation to investigate St. Peter’s and Burnham’s knowledge of fraudulent activity within the campaign. [¶24] Although Reed presented evidence that Burnham may have been aware of St. Peter’s fraud, no allegations were made of fraud having been committed on any petition other than petition #743, which was invalidated in its entirety, or with regard to any circulator other than St. Peter, whose gathered signatures the Secretary of State already invalidated. Instead, Reed has argued that the forgeries that the Secretary of State had already sussed out “provide indicia of systemic irregularities” and has asserted that other evidence “raises the significant possibility” of other forms of fraud. Based on all of the Reed declined to name the employee in his letter to the Secretary of State but offered to provide 17 it only if the Secretary would hold the information in confidence. We need not reach the question of whether there is any authority for the Secretary to have acceded to that condition. 19 evidence presented, however, combined with the absence of any suggestion of fraud raised by municipal officers,18 the Secretary of State reasonably determined that such broad assertions were insufficient grounds to launch an additional investigation of the entire campaign. See Me. Taxpayers Action Network, 2002 ME 64, ¶ 12 n.8, 795 A.2d 75. Although the Secretary of State certainly could have sought to interview Burnham, the RFS employee who identified Burnham, or both of those people, we cannot, in these circumstances, conclude that the Secretary of State’s failure to do so constitutes an error of law or an abuse of discretion. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. 18 “If the registrar or clerk suspects that a petition was submitted in violation of any provision of this chapter, the registrar or clerk shall immediately notify the Secretary of State and provide a copy of the petition to the Secretary of State.” 21-A M.R.S. § 902-A (2018). None did so in this matter. 20 Joshua A. Tardy, Esq., and Joshua A. Randlett, Esq., Rudman Winchell, Bangor; and Jared S. des Rosiers, Esq., Nolan L. Reichl, Esq. (orally), Joshua D. Dunlap, Esq., and Newell A. Augur, Esq., Pierce Atwood LLP, Portland, for appellant Delbert A. Reed Sigmund D. Schutz, Esq., Anthony W. Buxton, Esq., and Robert B. Borowski, Esq., Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios LLP, Portland, for appellant Industrial Energy Consumer Group Gerald F. Petruccelli, Esq., and Nicole R. Bissonnette, Esq., Petruccelli, Martin & Haddow, Portland, for appellant Maine State Chamber of Commerce Aaron M. Frey, Attorney General, and Phyllis Gardiner, Asst. Atty. Gen. (orally), Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee Secretary of State David M. Kallin, Esq. (orally), Amy K. Olfene, Esq., and Adam R. Cote, Esq., Drummond Woodsum, Portland, for appellee Mainers for Local Power Christopher T. Roach, Esq., Roach Ruprecht Sanchez & Bischoff, P.C., Portland, for appellee NextEra Energy Resources, LLC Patrick Strawbridge, Esq., Consovoy McCarthy PLLC, Boston, Massachusetts, for amici curiae Garrett Mason and Kevin Battle Business and Consumer Docket docket number AP-20-02 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY