Opinion ID: 4580297
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ARA’s Burden

Text: [¶9] ARA’s complaint contends that the challenged statutory provisions are “an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote,” which, pursuant to the Maine Constitution, includes the right to vote absentee, subject to what the Legislature deems “proper enactment” and “reasons deemed sufficient.” Me. Const. art. II, §§ 1, 4; see Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 433 (1992) (“voting is of the most fundamental significance under our constitutional structure” (quotation marks omitted)); Opinion of the Justices, 2017 ME 100, ¶ 49, 162 A.3d 188 (“Voting is a fundamental right, it is at the heart of our democratic process.” (alteration and quotation marks omitted)). ARA “bears a heavy burden of proving unconstitutionality, since all acts of the Legislature are presumed constitutional.” Jones v. Sec’y of State, 2020 ME 113, ¶ 18, --- A.3d --- (alteration and quotation marks omitted). To succeed in its challenge, ARA 7 “must demonstrate convincingly that the law and the Constitution conflict. All reasonable doubts must be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of the enactment.” Id. (alteration and quotation marks omitted). [¶10] Beyond the “heavy burden” of proving that the Legislature’s provisions for accepting absentee ballots are unconstitutional, id., ARA faces another significant burden in seeking the “extraordinary remedy” of a preliminary injunction shortly before a general election. See Saga Commc’ns of New England, Inc. v. Voornas, 2000 ME 156, ¶ 19, 756 A.2d 954 (“historically, the Maine courts have taken a conservative attitude toward injunctions, holding the injunction to be an extraordinary remedy only to be granted with utmost caution when justice urgently demands it” (quotation marks omitted)); Haskell v. Thurston, 80 Me. 129, 132, 13 A. 273, 274 (1888). [¶11] To justify a preliminary injunction in this case, because the requested injunctive relief has “mandatory aspects” and does not simply seek “to preserve the status quo,” Dep’t of Env’t Prot. v. Emerson, 563 A.2d 762, 768, 771 (Me. 1989), ARA must demonstrate that it has a “clear likelihood of success on the merits” of its complaint, id. at 768, 771, and must additionally “demonstrate that (1) it will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted; (2) such injury outweighs any harm which granting the injunctive 8 relief would inflict on the other party; . . . and [(3)] the public interest will not be adversely affected by granting the injunction,” Bangor Historic Track, Inc. v. Dep’t of Agric., Food & Rural Res., 2003 ME 140, ¶ 9, 837 A.2d 129. “Failure to demonstrate that any one of these criteria are met requires that injunctive relief be denied.” Id. ¶ 10. “The fact that appellants are asserting First Amendment rights does not automatically require a finding of irreparable injury.” Respect Maine PAC v. McKee, 622 F.3d 13, 15 (1st Cir. 2010) (alteration and quotation marks omitted). [¶12] Turning to the specific statutory provisions challenged by ARA, we review the trial court’s findings of fact for clear error and its denial of the requested preliminary injunction for an abuse of discretion. Bangor Historic Track, Inc., 2003 ME 140, ¶ 11, 837 A.2d 129; Emerson, 563 A.2d at 768.