The results show that Tom Allen spent $21 for every vote he received in November, making his run the most costly unsuccessful major-party challenge to an incumbent anywhere in the country, per vote. Allen's votes were cheaper only compared to the candidates in tight races in Alaska and New Hampshire and incumbent Max Baucus' campaign in Montana.
Susan Collins spent more money, but also won a lot more votes, resulting in an expenditure of $17 per vote.
Those numbers pale in comparison to the third party per-vote expenditures. If we accept the totals reported by the Secretary of State and broken down on Herbert Hoffman's website, (which are probably way off) Hoffman spent $76 for every one of his votes while Laurie Dobson (who still probably thinks she's running for something) spent a whopping $528 for each of her 27 votes.
"There is the possibility of running as a write-in candidate," he said. "I am asking my supporters to give me their opinions on what they would like to see me doing."
But a place on the ballot is not an option.
"As far as being on the ballot, that is over," Hoffman said. "The Democratic Party has succeeded in having my name removed."
The AP reports that erstwhile independent Senate candidate Herbert Hoffman is attempting a new legal maneuver to get his name on the ballot.
His filing, on behalf of both himself and 13 supporters who signed his petitions, requests a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to guarantee quick action before the ballot design is finalized.
John Branson, the Portland lawyer representing Hoffman, said the plaintiffs believe their constitutional rights to freedom of political expression and due process were violated by a Maine Supreme Judicial Court interpretation of state election law.
Erstwhile Independent Senate Candidate Herbert Hoffman has has not yet begun to fight, apparently. His lawyer is taking the first steps towards appealing his case to the Supreme Court. MPBN has the story, PolitickerME has more, and here's Hoffman's own release.
How likely is it that the Supreme Court will hear the case in time for the election? Not likely at all, according to Lyle Denniston, author of SCOTUSblog, who has covered the court for the past 50 years. He emailed this response:
The Supreme Court, as a general rule, has shown little interest in recent years in ballot access cases. Unless there is some special situation here, review would not be likely. Unless the would-be candidate files a request for an order to block the ruling and put him on the ballot, there is no chance the Court would act on the case. It is in summer recess now until late September, and will not take up new cases until then -- aside from any application for emergency access to the ballot.
From my understanding as a non-lawyer, Hoffman has only filed for a stay of the court's ruling, not an application for emergency access.
Former independent US Senate Candidate Herbert Hoffman has vowed to appeal his case to the federal level. It's not clear on what grounds.
MPBN looks at what this ruling means for petition gathering in Maine and has comments from Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap opposing the ruling.
The Maine Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Democratic Party, finding that independent candidate Herbert Hoffman violated his oath as a petition circulator and that three pages of signatures are invalid.
This decision dropped him below the 4,000 signatures necessary to gain ballot access. Full decision here.