The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has asked that all briefs in Carl Stevenson’s ballot access lawsuit be submitted by September 8, no later than 1 p.m.  This is the case over Pennsylvania’s in-district residency requirement for circulators.  Carl Stevenson is an independent candidate for State House, 134th district.  He would be on the ballot, except some of his signatures were collected by someone who doesn’t live in his district.  The Commonwealth Court had therefore removed him from the ballot, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is hearing his appeal.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court doesn’t normally provide for oral argument in election law cases, so a decision will come shortly after the Supreme Court receives the briefs.  The Pennsylvania in-district residency requirement for minor party candidates was held unconstitutional in federal court in 2002 in Morrill v Weaver, 224 F Supp 2d 882 (eastern district).  However, the Commonwealth Court said Morrill v Weaver doesn’t apply, because the plaintiffs in that case were Green Party nominees, and Stevenson is an independent candidate.  But, there is no difference whatsoever in the petitioning process in Pennsylvania between the nominees of unqualified parties, and independent candidates.  Parties in Pennsylvania are not ballot-qualified for the November ballot unless they have registration membership of 15% of the state total.  So there is no difference between minor parties and independent candidates, for the mechanics of getting on the ballot.