On July 13, U.S. District Court Judge Mark A. Kearney amended his opinion of June 30 in Acosta v Wolf, e.d., 2:20cv-2528. This is the ballot access case filed by an independent candidate for U.S. House in Pennsylvania’s Third District. The June 30 order had denied ballot access relief, and had erroneously said the candidate needs 1,000 signatures. The July 13 correction now has the actual requirement, which is 5,752 signatures.

The July 13 opinion says the conclusion still stands, and that the plaintiff should be denied relief. The July 13 order says nothing about the point that the requirement that the plaintiff obtain 5,752 signatures seems to violate the U.S. Supreme Court opinions Illinois State Board of Elections and Norman v Reed. Both opinions said states can’t require more signatures for a district office than for a statewide office. The Pennsylvania statewide rqeuirement is 5,000, which is less than what is needed for U.S. House, 3rd district.