Federal judge: Pennsylvania ballot access law unfair to alternative parties

o-PENNSYLVANIA-VOTING-MACHINE theses dissertation see cover letter examples for human resource coordinator source url essay about college students http://www.conn29th.org/university/website-that-corrects-essays-for-free.htm how long cialis take why boston university essay source sony drama serial adalat full episode how do i change rescue email address on my iphone see url cheap write my essay custom writing services reviews http://v-nep.org/classroom/case-study-research-methodology-pdf/04/ https://tasteofredding.org/12962-cialis-or-viagra-uk/ immigration essay rhine inc descriptive essay definition coffee shop business plan organizational structure kariva similar pills to viagra write an essay about yourselfВ how to write personal essays pollution essay service writing training problem case studies see http://snowdropfoundation.org/papers/cover-letter-position-sales/12/ viagra sample dallas writer resume skills http://www.conn29th.org/university/dissertation-writing-services.htm http://laclawrann.org/programs/where-to-buy-cialis-in-malaysia/17/ The Philadelphia Inquirer reports US District Court Judge Lawrence Stengel ruled Friday “that Pennsylvania unfairly treats its third-party political candidates, likely clearing the way for their return to the ballot after nearly disappearing during the last few election cycles.”

In his opinion, Stengel “wrote that the ‘ability of minor parties to organize and voice their views has been decimated’ by portions of the state’s election code,” specifically taking issue with the rule “that third-party candidates often must gather 10 times the number of signatures required of Republicans or Democrats — and then pay costly legal fees if their petitions are challenged — as they almost always are.”

However, the ruling “did not go as far” as the plaintiffs — “the left-leaning Green Party, the Libertarian Party and the conservative-leaning Constitution Party” — wanted, since Stengel ruled that the election law “is constitutional, just not in the way it’s been applied to the minor parties.”

8 thoughts on “Federal judge: Pennsylvania ballot access law unfair to alternative parties

  1. Jim Polichak from Long Island

    This problem is so intrenched within our system that this ruling is almost sure to be challenged over and over again. To counter that tread each and every minority party should take this ruling on hand and use it as the basis of their own challenges against their own state board of elections.
    Since there are bound to be conflicting rulings in the various Federal districts this matter will have to make it’s way quickly to the Supreme Court.
    At this point the combined strength of the numerous parties should hire the best lawyers in the nation to present their case.
    Anyone buddy-buddy with Ross Perot these days? He might like this sit back and watch how this plays out enough to help finance the efforts.

  2. Richard Winger

    IPR is always very good at finding pictures for each blog post, but it would be more appropriate to show the November 2014 Pennsylvania ballot, which only had Rep and Dem for each statewide office. In November 2014 Pennsylvania, Alabama, New Mexico, New Hampshire, and California were the only states that had only Dems and Reps for all statewide offices.

  3. Mark Axinn

    This is a good decision (from what I see in the article, not having read the actual decision) even if it does not find the law to be unconstitutional per se.

    The application has been so constitutionally offensive, that this holding should benefit all third parties tremendously going forward.

    A finding of unconstitutionality in application can be of tremendous benefit. See, e.g., Credico v. NYS Board of Elections, 751 F.Supp.2d 417 (EDNY 2010) (http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020110603650/CREDICO%20v.%20NEW%20YORK%20STATE%20BOARD%20OF%20ELECTIONS).

    The threat of paying the Republican’s $100,000-plus legal fees succeeded in getting the Constitution Party to back down in 2012. The Libertarians fortunately did not, but then spent a ton of funds and time fighting the challenge.

    Hopefully, the PA statewide petitioning in 2016 will be handled far better than it was in 2012.

  4. paulie

    IPR is always very good at finding pictures for each blog post, but it would be more appropriate to show the November 2014 Pennsylvania ballot, which only had Rep and Dem for each statewide office. In November 2014 Pennsylvania, Alabama, New Mexico, New Hampshire, and California were the only states that had only Dems and Reps for all statewide offices.

    Not my article but let me know if you have a URL for a good picture of that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *