Pennsylvania Supreme Court Explains Why It Kept Two Libertarians Off Ballot Last Year

On January 19, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an opinion in In re: Nomination Papers of Kosin and Avery, 92 MAP 2022. The case concerned how to interpret the “sore loser law”. Caroline Avery and Brittany Kosin had submitted petitions to run in the 2022 Republican primary, for U.S. House and State House. But they withdrew those petitions and then filed new petitions to be Libertarian candidates in the general election. However, they were both challenged and the challenges had been upheld by lower state courts. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion says that the lower courts were correct to keep the candidates off the ballot. The Pennsylvania “sore loser law”, the Court explains, covers candidates who submitted petitions to run in a primary, even if they withdrew those primary petitions later.

There had been an old precedent in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that came to a different conclusion, but the new opinion finds some technical differences between the old precedent and the new situation. Here is the opinion.


Comments

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Explains Why It Kept Two Libertarians Off Ballot Last Year — 18 Comments

  1. I agree. People who mess with the GOP, deserve to get cancelled. (I wanted to use another word instead of mess which, I don’t know if it is allowed here).

  2. Yeah, screw those libtards. Shoulda stayed GOP kids! I hope you learned your lesson!! In 2024 we’re all going Republican!!!

    GOP!!! GOP!!! GOP!!! TRUMP!!! TRUMP!!! TRUMP!!! USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!

  3. DUMP THE TRUMP TYRANT NOW AND FOREVER.

    HAD HIS EVIL CHANCE TO OVERTHROW THE USA CONST AND WESTERN CIVILIZATION ON 6 JAN 2021 AND FAILED

    = ALL TIME L-O-S-E-R.

    MERE 2 YEARS MORE OF BIDEN TYRANT MORON RULE.
    —-
    PR
    APPV
    TOTSOP

    — TO END TRUMP/BIDEN TYPE TYRANT MORONS.

  4. You’re an idiot. The real coup on 6 January 2021 succeeded. You have everything exactly and completely backwards, but then what else is new?

  5. How are sore loser laws permissible? Why shouldn’t someone be able to run on another party? I’m tired of special protections for the two major parties. That’s discriminatory and hurts voters.

  6. Sore loser laws make sense. At least wait one election cycle before switching parties midstream.

  7. So applying for a license to be the nominee of a political party (state agency?) is irrevocable and that makes you a sore loser. Participating in the duopoly parties already makes you a loser. It is the party officials who get sore when spurned. What fascist election cartel?

  8. QUESTION: Does the Sore Loser Law apply to a candidate who ran as a write-in candidate in the primary election for a school board seat? Could this candidate run as a Independent in the general election in PA?

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.