Background
On March 24, 2026, the Town of Clifton held a municipal election for a one-year Select Board seat. The two candidates were Steve Armenia and Cynthia Grant. Due to a clerical error, two absentee ballots that had been properly received and accepted before polls closed were not counted on election night. The certified results showed Grant winning 114 to 113.
When the Town Clerk discovered the error the following morning and resumed counting on March 27, 2026, a member of the public named Gregory Newell challenged both absentee ballots at the resumed count. Newell completed a handwritten affidavit asserting, in substance, that the voters had not properly applied for absentee ballots and citing statutory provisions restricting issuance of ballots to candidates. The Town, acting under 21-A M.R.S. § 696(1), forwarded the petition, affidavit, challenge certificate, and sealed ballots to the Supreme Judicial Court, which has original jurisdiction over ballot challenges that could affect an election result.
Because the two disputed ballots could change the outcome of the one-vote race, the full seven-justice court sat as the trial court to assess the validity of the challenge.
The Court’s Holding
The court unanimously dismissed the petition, holding that Newell’s affidavit failed to contain sufficient information that, if true, could invalidate either ballot. Under 21-A M.R.S. § 673(1), a challenger must state both the reason a particular individual may be ineligible to vote and the specific source of the challenger’s information or personal knowledge. Newell’s affidavit cited statutory provisions — including the restriction on issuing absentee ballots to candidates other than their own ballot — but provided no facts explaining how those provisions applied to these two voters or why either voter was ineligible.
The court also identified additional formal defects in the affidavit: it lacked an oath administered by the Election Warden, a jurat, a statement of the challenger’s status as a registered voter in the municipality, and a statement that the challenger understood that a false affidavit is punishable as perjury — all of which are required by § 673(1). Because the affidavit was both factually bare and formally deficient, the court dismissed the petition and ordered that the two absentee ballots be counted.
Key Takeaways
- A ballot challenge affidavit under 21-A M.R.S. § 673(1) must include specific facts explaining why the challenged voter may be ineligible and the source of the challenger’s knowledge — citing a statute alone, without supporting facts, is insufficient.
- The affidavit must also satisfy formal statutory requirements: an oath administered by the Election Warden, a jurat, the challenger’s registered-voter status, and a perjury-penalty acknowledgment.
- Where a petition is dismissed for an insufficient affidavit, the challenged ballots must be counted rather than set aside.
- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court sits with original jurisdiction as the trial court when challenged ballots could affect the election result, acting pursuant to 21-A M.R.S. § 696(1).
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that ballot challenge procedures in Maine are not a low-barrier mechanism to delay or block the counting of absentee ballots. The court’s strict reading of the affidavit requirements under § 673(1) makes clear that challengers must come forward with concrete, particularized facts — not bare statutory citations — or the challenge will fail at the threshold, and the ballots will be counted.
For election administrators and practitioners, the decision also serves as a practical checklist: a defective challenge affidavit that lacks an administering oath, a jurat, or the required certifications will be dismissed on those grounds alone, independent of whether there might otherwise be a substantive basis for the challenge.