Posted in The Philadelphia Inquirer – Lightning Round:
A Pennsylvania appeals court may have gotten the law exactly right in rebuffing former presidential candidate Ralph Nader’s legal challenge over an $81,000 bill for court costs. But it just doesn’t seem fair.
There’s no question that Nader campaign supporters scuttled their own candidate’s chances of making the 2004 Pennsylvania ballot. They filed nominating petitions with signatures from the likes of Mickey Mouse, Fred Flintstone and other fictitious signers.
But State Attorney General Tom Corbett has since indicted a dozen Harrisburg Democratic operatives for drawing state salaries – paid as bonuses – while waging the court battle over the petitions of Nader and other candidates. But for the petition challenge, Nader wouldn’t have been assessed court costs.
In rejecting Nader’s latest appeal, Commonwealth Court focused solely on the shoddy petition effort by his campaign. Since there was “wanton deficiency” in the petitions, Judge Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter says Nader still owes the money even if the petition challenge was tangled up in the so-called bonusgate scandal.
Nader has asked for a well-deserved review of the decision, and that gives the courts another chance to make this right somehow. Otherwise, it will appear that Nader – whatever the petition-gathering bungling by his campaign – is being made to pay dearly for others’ alleged criminal deeds.
In our comments, Richard Winger of Ballot Access News writes,
Nader is not to blame for the fact that certain voters who were intensely hostile to him in 2004 deliberately signed his petition with obviously phony names. Furthermore, the Pennsylvania Court has NOT got the law exactly right. The US Supreme Court has ruled several times that states can’t make voters or candidates pay the costs of election administration, yet the Pennsylvania state courts refuse to even discuss the constitutional point. A new federal lawsuit is likely to be filed to force the constitutional issue.
Kudos to Independent Political Report for finding and reporting on this story.
That’s pretty easy. Google news search for “Ralph Nader.” Everything that google scours is delivered to my email on an ongoing basis.
But I must say, even though I welcome the editorial, it sure is mediocre. Nader is not to blame for the fact that certain voters who were intensely hostile to him in 2004 deliberately signed his petition with obviously phony names.
I agree. Nor is he responsible for some screwups getting through the cracks in a last minute rush to get enough signatures.
Furthermore, the Pennsylvania Court has NOT got the law exactly right. The US Supreme Court has ruled several times that states can’t make voters or candidates pay the costs of election administration, yet the Pennsylvania state courts refuse to even discuss the constitutional point. A new federal lawsuit is likely to be filed to force the constitutional issue.
Thanks. I’ll incorporate your comment.
Kudos to Independent Political Report for finding and reporting on this story. But I must say, even though I welcome the editorial, it sure is mediocre. Nader is not to blame for the fact that certain voters who were intensely hostile to him in 2004 deliberately signed his petition with obviously phony names. Furthermore, the Pennsylvania Court has NOT got the law exactly right. The US Supreme Court has ruled several times that states can’t make voters or candidates pay the costs of election administration, yet the Pennsylvania state courts refuse to even discuss the constitutional point. A new federal lawsuit is likely to be filed to force the constitutional issue.