On October 22, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a one-sentence order, affirming the decision of the Commonwealth Court in Baylor v Cortes, 3 MAP 2009. One member of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Justice J. Michael Eakin, wrote a four-page dissent, saying the Supreme Court should have heard the case.
The plaintiff was on the ballot in November 2008 as the nominee of the “No-Party Party” for State Senate in the 29th district. He got 2.2%, but he got enough votes in two of the counties in the district to meet Pennsylvania’s definition of ballot-qualified party within that district. Normally, a party that meets the vote test does not get automatic ballot status in the next election (unless 15% of the voters in the entire state are registered as members), but in special elections, all parties that meet the vote test are on the ballot automatically. Pennsylvania held a special election in that same State Senate district on March 3, 2009, but the State refused to put the “No Party-Party” on the ballot in that case. The creator of the party, Dennis J. Baylor, had then brought his lawsuit, but it was dismissed in the lower court because of a technicality involving court procedure.
Baylor had asked the State Supreme Court to hear the case, but that court has now refused, although Baylor has asked for reconsideration. His issues are (1) how the vote test applies when a party meets the vote test in some of the counties but not all of them; (2) alternatively, if his party should not have been on the ballot automatically, whether it was constitutional for him be required to re-petition in just three weeks in harsh winter weather; (3) whether the State Constitution really says that voters don’t need to be registered voters to sign ballot access petitions, just that they need to be eligible to register.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court also refused Carl Romanelli’s rehearing request on October 17, in the matter of the 2006 Green Party statewide petition. As noted previously in an earlier blog post, it also refused Ralph Nader’s request for rehearing from the 2004 election on October 23.
Hmm, aren’t members of the state supreme court running against a third party candidate this year?
The Libertarian on the statewide ballot next month, Marakay Rogers, is running for Superior Court Judge, not Supreme Court Justice. There is one seat up for Supreme Court Justice. There are two seats up for Commonwealth Court Judge. And there are four seats up for Superior Court Judge. All these 7 races are statewide partisan races.