James Schneller, an independent candidate for U.S. House in Pennsylvania’s 7th district, will appear on the November ballot. His ballot label is “American Congress Party.” The 7th district is centered on Delaware County, next to Philadelphia.
Schneller’s petition had been challenged on the basis that many, if not most, of his circulators were Democrats, and that they were motivated to help Schneller because they believe that Schneller will receive votes from people who would otherwise vote for the Republican nominee, Pat Meehan. The challengers said the petitioners had a duty to inform potential signers of their motivation. The Commonwealth Court did not agree, and ruled against the challenge. The challengers have decided not to appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. See this story.
The incumbent in the 7th district is Joe Sestak, but he is not running for re-election because he is the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate. In 2008, Sestak defeated his Republican opponent by 209,955 to 142,362.
Other candidates who will appear on the Pennsylvania ballot for U.S. House, and who are not Democratic or Republican nominees, are: Vernon Etzel, a Libertarian in the 5th district; Ed Bortz, a Green in the 14th district; and independent Jake Towne in the 15th district.
Case was prosecuted by former president judge of the same Appellate Court, and he had entered recent decisions negative to rights of minor/non-party candidates.
Case also charged that 3600 signatures on 90 pages had affidavits that were notarized with the circulators not present (dismissed).
Case brings hope after 9 Libertarian, Green, and other Pennsylvania candidates were subject this summer to wholesale malicious suits of the same sort, all or nearly all resulting in withdrawal from races due to recent horrendous rulings granting costs and fees to winning parties in these suits, coupled with biased and partial decisions in conflict with standing law – i.e. kangaroo courts ensuring cleansed ballots through unfair decisions and awarding of attorneys fees charged to the candidates subjected to these losses of cases.
So I guess this means the challenger had to pay court costs?
Under the PA Election Code, just as a candidate can be ordered to pay the objectors’ costs when the stricken candidate has been found to have acted in bad faith, the successful candidate is free to ask Commonwealth Court to order the unsuccessful objectors to pay the candidate’s litigation costs if the objectors acted in bad faith.