On June 10, U.S. District Court Judge Mark A. Kearney, an Obama appointee, denied injunctive relief to an independent candidate for U.S. House in Pennsylvania. The candidate-plaintiff, Orlando Acosta, had sued over the requirement that he collect 5,752 signatures to get on the ballot in the Third District. He has asthma and is in a wheelchair, and he said the health crisis made it impossible for him to collect signatures. Acosta v Wolf, e.d., 2:20cv-2528.
Judge Kearney wrote that Acosta needs 1,000 signatures. His opinion has a footnote to the election code reference, but it is to the part of the law that says primary candidates for U.S. House need 1,000 signatures. The order does not mention that independent candidates need a petition of 2% of the winner’s vote in the last election.
Judge Kearney also cited three precedents that he said denied relief to candidates due to the health crisis. But in two of the cases he cited, the court cut the number of signatures. He cited Garbett v Herbert, a Utah case in which the U.S. District Court cut the number of signatures for primary candidates. He also cited Libertarian Party of Illinois v Pritzker and said, “The district court upheld the state’s ballot access framework”, but actually the court cut the number of signatures down to 10% of the normal requirement.
In the third case cited, Murray v Cuomo, a U.S. District Court in New York had denied injunctive relief to a primary candidate for U.S. House. But the reason she lost the case is that all her signatures were collected by someone who is not a registered Republican. The plaintiff, Scherie Murray, had collected 906 signatures, and she only needed 375. But all of her signatures were invalid because her circulators weren’t members of the Republican Party. New York law doesn’t permit non-members to circulate primary petitions.
The Pennsylvania decision completely ignores the point that Pennsylvania requires more signatures for the plaintiff, than the state requires for statewide independent candidates. Pennsylvania statewide candidates need exactly 5,000 signatures, but candidates in the 3rd U.S. House district need 5,752. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1979 in Illinois State Board of Elections v Socialist Workers Party, 440 US 173, that it is unconstitutional for a state to require more signatures for a district office than a statewide office.
Acosta is a pro se plaintiff. The judge said if he files an amended complaint, his case can survive.
Such “mistakes” seem almost intentional on the judge’s part, like he was resorting to bullshit to make it sound like he came to the “right” decision, and hoping nobody would fact check his ruling. It makes me feel even more fortunate that we got fair and competent judges not once, but twice here in Illinois this year. Either way, someone should look into the possibility of getting that judge in PA disbarred/removed.
We need to get Jo Jorgensen elected President so that she can appoint Richard Winger to the Judgeship that he deserves. Judges appointed now by both major parties are idiots.
Hmm? “The Honorable Richard Winger.” Has a nice ring to it but I’d rather President Jorgensen appoint Richard to head of Federal Election Commission. (And when the time comes nominate a libertarian attorney/scholar to the US Supreme Crt.)
Fantasies are nice. Too bad we have to live in reality.
When we have Alice-in-Wonderland judges, we are left with fantasies for hope.
So if the judge said he only needed 1,000 signatures then doesn’t that mean he needs only 1,000 signatures? And could this be cited in the other Pa ballot Access case being currently litigated?