Pennsylvania Election Laws That Have Been Struck Down, But Which Remain in the Election Law

Pennsylvania is unique for its failure to update its election code when election laws are struck down (or when state election officials determine that a law would be struck down and therefore won’t be enforced). Here is a list of eleven such laws.

1. In 1984, in Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania v David, m.d., 84-0262, the state conceded that the May petition deadline for minor party and independent candidates is unconstitutionally early. The state consented to accept petitions up until August 1 of any election year.
2. In 1993, in Patriot Party of Pennsylvania v Mitchell, 826 F.Supp. 926 (e.d.), the number of signatures required for minor party and independent petitions in odd years, for statewide office, was struck down. That was because the turnout in even years is so much higher, and the requirements for odd years were based on even-year elections, so that the petitioning burden was far higher in odd years than in even years.
3. In 1999, in Reform Party of Allegheny County v Allegheny County Dept. of Elections, 174 F.3d 305, the ban on fusion between two unqualified parties, or between a qualified party and an unqualified one, was struck down.
4. In 2001, the lawsuit Public Interest v Armstrong County Bd. of Elections, w.d., 01-1616, enjoined the law that said an unqualified party could not nominate someone who had not been a member for the past several months. The basis was that the restriction did not apply to qualified parties.
5. In 2002, Morrill v Weaver, 224 F.Supp.2d 882 (e.d.), the requirement that circulators for a candidate running for district office must live in that district was struck down.
6. In 2003, in Belitskus v Pizingrilli, 343 F.3d 632 (3rd circuit), the failure of the state to provide any alternative to filing fees, at least for poor candidates, was declared unconstitutional.
7. In 2006, the Pennsylvania Attorney General instructed the Department of State to stop requiring candidates to sign a statement that they are not “subversive persons.”
8. In 2015, in Green Party of Pennsylvania v Aichele, e.d., 2:14cv-3299, the law requiring petitions to be notarized was struck down.
9. Also in the 2015 decision, the law forbidding voters from signing only one general election petition (for any particular office) was struck down.
10. Also in the 2015 decision, the ban on out-of-state circulators was struck down.
11. In 2016, in Constitution Party of Pennsylvania v Cortes, e.d., 5:12cv-2726, the state agreed that it would not require statewide petitions to be signed by more than 5,000 voters.


Comments

Pennsylvania Election Laws That Have Been Struck Down, But Which Remain in the Election Law — 10 Comments

  1. How many zillion gigabytes in the BAN database of unconstitutional laws and acts/omissions of HACK officials ???

    SUE for BIG $$$ damages to bankrupt ALL the hacks involved.

    — and Demand criminal prosecutions of them.

  2. Was the 15% registration requirement for major party recognition ever struck down, or was it similar laws in other states that have been knocked out?

  3. No, the 15% registration membership for true party ballot status has never been attacked directly in any lawsuit.

  4. In Wisconsin, every candidate needs the same number of signatures, whether he or she is petitioning for a place on a primary ballot or the November ballot.

  5. The 2 RW items should be in the *useful Information* on the top left of the BAN masthead —

    in a FAQ.

  6. In Wisconsin a voter could sign a petition for a Democrat for the state senate, and a Republican for the state assembly, but could only vote for one in the primary. How can that be considered to equal ballot access.

    Shouldn’t election laws have a modicum of common sense?

  7. The ENTIRE election systems in most regimes of the USA are late DARK AGE stuff.

    AREA gerrymanders.
    UNEQUAL ballot access tests.

    Result – worse and worse monarch/oligarch A to Z machinations

    — obviously heading for a Stalin versus Hitler type WAR / tyranny.

    Save Democracy —
    PR and AppV

  8. Jim Riley, Wisconsin allows write-in votes in primaries. So your hypothetical Wisconsin voter could cast a vote in the primary for both his or her favored candidates.

  9. So if you supported the election of Bernie Sanders, but were voting in the Republican primary for other offices, you could write-in Sanders name for the Republican nomination? How in the name of Debbie Wasserman Schultz is that not rigged?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.