On August 18, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court again upheld the unique Pennsylvania practice of charging candidates for the costs of removing them from the ballot. UPDATE: see this news story in the Wilkes-Barre newspaper. The Court issued a one-sentence order in the 2006 Green Party case, affirming that the Court’s prior opinion stands, and that the Green Party’s candidate for U.S. Senate in 2006 and his attorney must pay approximately $80,000 to the people who challenged their petition.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not issue any order in the parallel Nader case; it is still pending before them.
The refusal of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to ever have written a decision discussing the constitutional problems with the Pennsylvania system will perhaps bolster the pending federal court case against that system, which is pending in the eastern district. That case is called Constitution Party of Pennsylvania et al v Cortes.
This is disgusting.
I hope this WILL pressure the Federal Court to address this extraordinarily evil situation, but I doubt it. The Judges take care of their Judge buddies. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court judges are afraid to speak up against the Two “big” Parties (Dems & Rep). After all they can’t. So the Feds are under the same constraints. “No guts, no glory” No Ethics. Sebastian McGarigle
Democracy is dead in America.
Federal courts are better than state courts. Federal courts have struck down at least one state ballot access law (in a lawsuit brought by a minor party or independent candidate) in all states except Alaska, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana and New Hampshire.
Charging candidates who lose signature challenges is a way of intimidating people out of running for office. This is a sick practice.
Pennsylvania Judges above the Common Pleas (County Court level) are elected in partisan primaries and listed by party on the November ballot. In most cases the party leadership endorses judicial candidates in the primary. These Judges serve a ten year term then they face a “retention election”. Only one state wide Judge has ever lost a retention election. So endorsement by the party leadership can easily result in a job for life. And as one Commonwealth Court Judge stated a few tears back, from the bench – the State has the duty to protect the two-party system (no transcripts at this level in Pennsylvania courts).
“These Judges serve a ten year term then they face a ‘retention election’. Only one state wide Judge has ever lost a retention election. So endorsement by the party leadership can easily result in a job for life. And as one Commonwealth Court Judge stated a few tears back, from the bench – the State has the duty to protect the two-party system (no transcripts at this level in Pennsylvania courts).”
This is an example of why I support the right of citizens to do recall petitions (and it also relates to why I support citizens initiative and referendum).
These judges definitely deserve to be recalled.
Is “Pennsylvania” a term in a Native American language for “judicial misconduct”?
Funny comment, #8! most of us were taught in school that Pennsylvania is Latin for “Penn’s woods.”