UPDATE: We are getting word that Merrifield is dropping out of the race. This will leave Nass to face off only against Pam Gerry, a former Republican County Commissioner, who is running as an Independent. Word on the street is that Gerry is a Tea Party/Ron Paul candidate. Either way, a Democrat will not be winning this seat.
—-
UPDATE 2: I received the following statement from Anya Trundy, the Caucus Director of the Maine House Democratic Campaign Committee:
Bethany Merrifield became aware late last week she now resides in District 142–she had until a recent move resided in District 144 part of Sanford. She immediately determined the necessity to withdraw from the race to which she’d been nominated to run; she has sent her withdrawal to the Secretary of State. This was an honest mistake and the matter will be quickly resolved once the Secretary of State receives Bethany’s letter of withdrawal.
Issue settled as far as I am concerned.
—-
Today, writing to Secretary of State Matt Dunlap on behalf of Representative Joan Nass and the Maine GOP, Republican attorney Dan Billings accused Bethany Merrifield, the Democratic nominee for House District 144, of not living in the district she is running in.
In the letter to Dunlap, Billings claimed that Merrifield has a legal residence, and is registered to vote, in an address that would put her in District 142, not 144. He notes that Merrifield listed her address as 65 Terry Drive in Sanford on her nomination papers, and that her voter registration is in that same location.
Indeed, one look at the map indicates that he is correct:
You will notice District 143 in the upper left hand corner of this map, and the small area that is not labeled on the far left is the bottom portion of District 144. Not only does she live in 142, but she’s right in the heart of 142.
The reason this is coming to light now is that Merrifield is a replacement candidate. Only July 7, the previous Democratic nominee – Larissa Crockett – withdrew her candidacy, allowing the Democrats to choose a replacement.
The problem here is that there is a loophole regarding certification by municipalities. Billings explained when I contacted him for further comment:
For someone who files nomination papers, the law requires the clerk in the municipality where the candidate lives to certify that the candidate is registered to vote in the district and in the party. There is no such requirement for replacement candidates. The party committee and the candidate complete the forms and certify the residency. I don’t know if the SoS checks anything.
Essentially this means that “normal candidates” have to be vetted by town clerks to verify they are qualified to run in the district, while replacement candidates are more or less “vouched for”. Billings explains the situation further:
It is important to note that this is not a case where someone is alleging that the candidate does not live where she says she does. The address that she listed as her residence is outside the district. There is no dispute that she is registered to vote at the same address, which is outside the district. By looking at the document that was filed, it can be determined that the woman is not qualified to be a candidate in that district.
In this case, that “vouching for” was done by the Democratic party apparatus when she was chosen as a replacement candidate. It seems unlikely that the Secretary of State was aware of this issue or was doing any independent verification of her legal residence.
Now that the matter has been brought to Dunlap’s attention, he should not include Merrifield’s name on the ballot. But this is apparently in doubt, as the Secretary of State’s office is claiming they do not have the authority to deal with this situation. Again, Billings provided the context:
I am told that [the Secretary of State's office is] not sure they have the authority to address the situation and have referred to Arsenault v. Secretary of State, a case from 2006 in which I represented Mr. Arsenault. In that case, the SoS argued that Mr. Arsenault had not changed his party enrollment in time to be the replacment GOP nominee to the State Senate. The Law Court held that there was no requirement for replacement nominees to change their registration by a certain deadline and that the SoS was wrong to deny Mr. Arsenault a place on the ballot. I don’t see how Arsenault has any bearing here because, in this matter, we are talking about the constitutional qualifications. In Arsenault, the question was one of statutory interpretation.
If somehow this lingers and the SoS somehow punts authority on making a call on this issue, it betrays a major hole in election law in the state of Maine. This should be a very simple issue requiring virtually no work. Replacement candidates should have their eligibility verified in the same way that normal candidates do, and in the event of any kind of dispute – such as this – the Secretary of State should conduct a quick and easy investigation and make a ruling on a candidate’s status.
Politically this is important because the district is relatively competitive.
Representative Nass is running for her fourth term in the House, and in her 2008 contest, she squeaked out a narrow 74 vote victory. It is important to note, however, that this was during the heaviest Democratic wave in decades, and given the opposite being true this year it seems likely that she would be able to win another term (her previous two elections were more lopsided, both having winning margins of more than 10%). None the less, local elections are notoriously hard to predict and quirky, so it is hard to say that this would be a slam dunk for her.
Pine Tree Politics will stay on top of this issue when the Secretary of State moves on it.
Below is the letter Billings sent to Dunlap: