On October 23, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court once more rejected Ralph Nader’s legal case against the $80,000 that he was ordered to pay after his petition was found insufficient in 2004. Nader had tried to get the case re-opened on the grounds that last year, the Pennsylvania Attorney General had indicted some of the people who challenged Nader’s 2004 petition, on the grounds that they were state employees on state time, using state government computers and other resources. In the challenge states, challenges are supposed to be brought by private individuals at their own expense. UPDATE: also on October 23, it was revealed that some of the state employees who were indicted by the Attorney General last year will plead guilty. See this story. Thanks to Larry Otter for the link.
In one sense, this final rejection by the state courts may benefit the federal case now pending that charges the system of charging candidates for the costs of checking their petitions, when those petitions are rejected, violates the U.S. Constitution. There is no longer the slightest doubt that the Pennsylvania state courts are unwilling to address the constitutional issue; they have failed to do so at every chance they were given.
Richard, I hope your right. I must say this Pennsylvania Supreme Court is BS. This system needs to be straightened out. Onward Ralph Nader… PS; Was this a written decision that can be printed out? Sebastian McGarigle
It’s just a one-sentence order, saying the appeal is dismissed.
It seems to me that the rejection neither helps nor hinders “the federal case now pending.” It certainly was a terrible decision that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court made. However, it is very typical of how “third party” and/or independent candidates are treated in this country.
Just how low can Pennsylvania go? You’re always welcome where I live, Ralph. Always right near an international border, of course. Hang tough, Ralph.
There’s no room for ‘competition’ in corporate, downtown Washington, nor anywhere else in “corporate-occupied territory” in America.
Maybe we could reduce the national debt by simply auctioning off seats in Congress and the White House every 2/4 years like they do seats on stock exchanges? At least the whole process would be that much more transparent.
AD
Winsted, CT