An earlier version of this post erroneously stated that the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court had removed Howie Hawkins from the Pennsylvania ballot. Actually there is no court opinion yet. It will be released on September 9, Wednesday. I mistakenly confused the brief of the objectors with the opinion. Thanks to the commenters who figured this out. I really get help from commenters!
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
Wow. Unbelievable the Greens would make that mistake. Of course the Libertarians did it correctly. I’ve been doing these filings since 1992.
C’mon Demo Rep. I’m waiting patiently for your rant about Biden and Trump and the Greens. … and morons and other jiberish.
I can only ask that the greens not give up
The libertarian party is here with you
If it doesn’t happen, lessons learned for future years.
Please consider helping support our libertarian candidates (including write ins). Our fight for ballot access is your fight as well
(Not is Reid initials comment posted)
I can only ask that the greens not give up
The libertarian party is here with you
If it doesn’t happen, lessons learned for future years.
Please consider helping support our libertarian candidates (including write ins). Our fight for ballot access is your fight as well
I’m unclear on a few things however. According to the court dockets, it doesn’t show the Commonwealth Court opinion as having been filed yet and the Philadelphia Inquierer ran a story today stating the Commonwealth Court decision would be due by tomorrow, September 9. Also there is no mention of a state supreme court appeal anywhere, but maybe I’m missing something. The Commonwealth Court docket (and Philadelphia Inquierer) do report that the statewide offices for the Greens other than President/Vice-President have been ordered on the ballot as the objectors withfrew their challenges on those candidates.
https://www.inquirer.com/politics/clout/green-party-presidential-candidate-howie-hawkins-pennsylvania-ballot-20200908.html
Richard Schwarz, re Richard Winger and the post, agreed and I too am unclear. The Aug. 24 document he links is only the filing by the Democrats doing the challenge, not the ruling, at least from what I see.
SG, the ruling by the court is on the last page of the document. It is very short. I am hopeful the Supreme Court will overrule the Commonwealth Court, but I have my doubts, as PA has been hostile to third parties in its history.
JB – esp for U —
Prez candidate’s name on ballots vs 2-1/12 Amdt Prez Electors.
One more reason to abolish the ANTI-Democracy minority rule EC and ALL the ROT with it.
—
Rave on useless trolls and their gross ignorance of conlaw, laws and legal history.
Curt Boyd, I saw that but I don’t think that last page is the ruling. I just think that was put there by the objectors in hoping that would become the ruling. Notice it isn’t signed.
This is a BS decision, but it will certainly benefit Jo Jorgensen.
I think Jorgensen has a very good possibility of breaking 1 million votes, maybe an outside chance of breaking 2 million votes.
The closeness of the race between Biden and Trump is going to make this a bad election for minor party and independent candidates. Jorgensen is the only other candidate who will be on all 50 states plus DC ballots. Howie Hawkins will be on in 30 something states plus DC, and all of the other candidates will be on in less than 30 states. So Jo Jorgensen will pick up most of the protest votes.
Richard Schwarz, I didn’t notice it wasn’t signed. Thank you for pointing that out.
By the looks of the signs I am seeing, Biden is headed towards finishing third, right behind “Yard Sale.” Anybody know what their party platform is?
Sounds like it would be green.
Curt, yes, what Richard Schwarz said. I saw no signatures and etc.
I have been too busy of late to post much of anything anywhere. This is the only place I have posted any comments lately. I will return to ATPR as soon as my schedule permits.
http://www.pacourts.us/courts/commonwealth-court/court-opinions/
check later today
Hey Richard Winger, could you please re-post your link to the brief? Thanks much.
RS –
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
______________________________
IN RE: NOMINATION PAPER OF
ELIZABETH FAYE SCROGGIN ET
AL.
______________________________
No. 460 M.D. 2020
Objections of Paul Stefano and
Tony C. Thomas – Objectors
APPLICATION FOR SUMMARY
RELIEF PURSUANT TO PA.R.A.P
1532
******
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………….. 1
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND……………………………………….. 2
III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ………………………………… 5
IV. LEGAL ARGUMENT………………………………………………….. 6
A. The Standard for Summary Relief Under Pennsylvania Law…….. 6
B. The Right to Relief Is Clear ………………………………………. 7
1. Candidates Scroggin and Gale’s failure to file candidate’s
affidavits is a fatal defect that requires this Court to set
aside their Nomination Papers. ……………………………………….. 7
2. Because Ms. Scroggin and Mr. Gale were never duly
nominated, any purported “substitution” of other
candidates was ineffective. …………………………………………… 9
3. The Nomination Papers contain fatal defects that
deceived the electorate and must be set aside. …………………….. 12
4. The Nominations of the Statewide Row Office
Candidates Also Should be Set Aside. ……………………………….. 13
V. CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………. 15
————
New Age Ballot Access = a W-A-R event —- in many super rotted statist tyrant regimes.
—-
Const Amdt – 1 voter forms for EQUAL nominations.
DR, I’m hoping for a link to the entire document. Thanks.
Thank you for the link to the Commonwealth Court, Mr. Rep.
https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/AppellateCourtReport.ashx?docketNumber=460+MD+2020&dnh=RORqrS35pAUYKS6sBOjDpA%3d%3d
Ballot access WAR docs — see bottom.
But NOOO link to any PDF
Greens also have a brief.
460 MD 2020 case number in search stuff
http://www.pacourts.us/news-and-statistics/cases-of-public-interest
case M-A-Y show up [???]
DR, yeah that’s the docket. Richard Winger posted a link to the brief when he ran this story yesterday. Today he updated the story and didn’t include that link so I’m hoping he’ll repost it.
It looks like none of the candidates below Hawkins for ballot access are even going to have 25 states. This will be the least competition a Libertarian Party presidential candidates has ever had in terms of ballot access.