As is well-known to most readers, Pennsylvania is the only state in which the validity of petitions can only be determined by a court, and the proceedings for statewide petitions in court runs to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Back on March 13, 2013, but not previously noted here, a Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court issued a 14-page opinion, explaining why the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania cannot recover court costs from the people who objected to the party’s statewide petition, even though the Libertarians won the court case and did appear on the ballot.
Page ten of the opinion says “Although the large number of erroneous challenges (by the people who challenged the Libertarian petition) is disturbing, it does not by itself show bad faith by Objectors where Objectors also affirmatively cooperated to resolve the validity disputes by stipulation and there was a substantial amount of error on both sides.” This decision tends to illustrate how arbitrary the Pennsylvania system is, on the variable of when court costs are or aren’t awarded. It also shows how vague the system is on the variable of when the winning side must request payment. Thanks to Tom Stevens for the link to the opinion.
Gosh, what a surprise!
Gee – are ALL of the gerrymander minority rule regimes totally arbitrary — NO different than arbitrary regimes like the Hitler and Stalin regimes ???
What sayeth the ghosts of the 4 July 1776 folks in Independence Hall in Philly, PA ???
mr. winger,
great post and analysis about the arbitrary pennsylvania commonwealth judge’s stupid ruling and reasoning. I’m curious tho, what are some of those ‘substantial amounts of error on the LP side’ and do u think they are that substantial?
Seems even if the LP’s errors are pretty bad it still doesn’t offset the “people’s” errors and false accusations that triggered the whole court involvement to begin with.
I wonder if other parts of that state’s laws force a challenged party in court to pay court costs if they loose.
btw- how many other states demand a petitioning group pay for their state’s election authority’s time and trouble in checking signatures.
Perhaps when the Penn LP gets a bill in he mail they should demand an independent audit to check to see if they were overcharged and exactly how the court priced their “services.”
Could someone compare this to the Pennsylvania court cases where Green Party candidate Carl Romanelli, and Ralph Nader were ordered to pay legal fees based on their petitions and challenges, etc. Anyone know an update on the Romanelli and/or Nader cases in Pennsylvania?
We really need a loser pays law in this country. You lose the case, you pay the court costs. Period.
During the 1920’s, 1930’s, 1940’s, and 1950’s, the NAACP filed hundreds of lawsuits against school segregation and against unequal schools in states that had segregated school systems. If there were a “loser pays” the NAACP would have been bankrupted over and over and all the hard work done by the NAACP would have been smothered. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the right of people to petition their government, and to me that includes access to the courts for all, not just people who can afford the risk of losing and being bankrupted.
Seems to me the opinion boils down to “BECAUSE FUCK YOU THAT’S WHY!” Nobody should have to pay because the regime parties want to prevent free elections. This is sick.
I guess one positive to come from this is that it sets a legal precedent that minor parties can use in the future if they lose a petition challenge. If the Minor party cannot collect legal fees when they win a challenge, why should they pay legal fees if they lose?
Because they are minor parties. It’s bullshit but if you read the election code you’ll see that “argument” used all the time.