On January 29, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to hear Baylor v Cortes, over whether the “No Party Party” should be on the ballot in the special State Senate election in the 29th district, to be held March 3. The case is Baylor v Cortes, 3 MAP 2009.
Pennsylvania is one of the states in which it is possible for a party to be ballot-qualified in just part of the state. Although being a “qualified party” doesn’t yield many benefits in normal elections, the benefits of being “qualified” are valuable in the case of special elections. All “qualified parties” are on the ballot automatically in special elections. By contrast, in regular elections, only parties with membership of 15% of the state are automatically on.
The “No Party Party” polled 2.2% of the vote in the State Senate election, 29th district, in November 2008. The definition of a party in just part of the state requires that it poll 5% of the winning candidate’s vote. Although the No Party Party didn’t meet that standard in the entire district, it did meet it in two counties in the district, Lehigh and Northampton. Therefore, the No Party Party argues that it should be treated as a qualified party for the entire district. The No Party Party is the creation of Dennis Baylor, the party’s only candidate in 2008. Baylor is representing himself pro se. The lower court had refused to adjudicate this case because of a technical error in his brief.
In 2003, there was a Special Election for Pennsylvania State Senate in a District encompassing all or parts of Columbia, Montour and Northumberland Counties. My 2002 Congressional run vote count qualified the Reform Party of PA as a qualified party in Monroe, Carbon & Columbia counties. The Reform Party of PA named its candidate and he was on the ballot for the 2003 Special Election without petitioning.