Party for Socialism and Liberation Loses Pennsylvania Ballot Access Case

Posted on by August 21, 2024

On August 20, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled against the Party for Socialism and Liberation, which had petitioned in Pennsylvania to get on the ballot for president.  In re Nomination Petition of Claudia De la Cruz, Commonwealth Court, 380 MD 2024.

Some of the party’s candidates for presidential elector were registered Democrats, and the law requires candidates who petition for the general election under the independent procedure not be members of a qualified party.  However, the party argued that even if some of its elector candidates were not eligible, there is no law that requires a presidential candidate to have a full slate of electors.

The court said Article II of the U.S. Constitution requires presidential candidates to have a full slate of electors, but that does not follow logically at all.  The Commonwealth Court did not mention the evidence that in the past, Pennsylvania has permitted minor party presidential candidates to be on the ballot even though they did not have a full slate of electors.  The Commonwealth Court did not mention a New York precedent from 1968, Application of Horowitz, that came to the opposite conclusion.

The Court could have taken judicial notice that there isn’t a one-in-million chance that Claudia De la Cruz would have carried Pennsylvania in November, so there is no harm done if she doesn’t have a full slate of electors.  In the past, in many if not most states, it was common for parties that did not expect to win the election to have an incomplete slate of electors.  In Minnesota, before the 1960’s, the state required a separate petition for each candidate for presidential elector, so even powerful minor parties typically ran only a single candidate for presidential elector, to save the bother of circulating multiple petitions.

Here is the decision.  It says near the beginning that the requirement for all statewide candidates is 5,000, which is good news, because some of the objectors have been claiming that the requirement is 5,000 only for the Green, Constitution and Libertarian Parties.

Comments

Party for Socialism and Liberation Loses Pennsylvania Ballot Access Case — 24 Comments

  1. Crazy. In 1992 we, the Libertarian Party, were specifically told by the current director of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Elections that we did not need all of our Presidential Electors, that if any of them had incomplete or improper affidavits it would only mean we lost that elector, but not ballot placement for our candidate.

    This year before submitting our petitions I requested confirmation and clarification on this issue. I was told all 19 presidential electors had to fulfil all requirements in order for our Presidential candidate to appear on the ballot. Noting the difference from what we were told now vs. what we were told in 1992 I repeatedly asked, did the law change or did your interpretation of the law change? No one could answer.

  2. On one hand, it looks weak that she and her campaign could not find 19 unaffiliated supporters in Pennsylvania to be their electors.

    On the other hand, Judge Leadbetter’s argument is nonsense with regards to having a complete slate of electors. The constitution says:

    Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature
    thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the
    whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which
    the State may be entitled in the Congress. . . .

    Let’s say Trump wins Pennsylvania… is it his responsibility to appoint electors? Is it the Republican Party’s? No, of course not, it’s the State’s responsibility. The judge’s concern about Pennsylvania potentially ending up with fewer electors has nothing to do with who wins the election! Either the State finds a way to have a full slate, or it stupidly fails. If Pennsylvania does not allow substitutions or filling an unfilled slate later on, that’s a State-imposed barrier.

  7. THAT CERTAIN STUFF HAPPENED IN THE PAST AND WAS N-O-T ATTACKED IN A COURT MEANS ZERO.

    EXAMPLE – A-L-L THE MINORITY RULE GERRYMANDERS USED SINCE 1868 UP TO 1962-1964.

    SEE CONST ANNOTATED – ESP FOR SCOTUS ELECTION LAW OPS — LATER OVER-RULED.

  11. Pennsylvania Democrats, who control the Courts, are trying to knock off every leftwing candidate that takes votes away from the Democrat puppets for president. That’s been clear for some time.

  12. And not just leftwing candidates, either. In Pennsylvania the Democrats going after the Constitution Party as well. They are blindly throwing punches at everybody, hoping to land some hits regardless of whether it will work to their advantage or disadvantage. The Democratic Party of Pennsylvania isn’t very smart – but I repeat myself.

  13. What kind of political party can’t appoint 19 electors to gain ballot status.
    When you vote for the president of the United States you actually vote for the slate of electors. The state does not appoint there own electors.
    SOCIALISM DOESN’T WORK You just proved it.

  14. RS- POST 1 TODAY ABOVE —

    WHATEVER ELECTION HACKS SAY IS WORTHLESS

    THE LAW IS THE LAW – IN THE COURTS
    BUT EVEN THAT CAN BE CHANGED BY A LATER COURT

    IE ROLL A DIE TO KNOW FOR SURE ABOUT ANY POSSIBLE *DISPUTED* ELECTION ITEM

  15. https://electionlawblog.org/?p=145244

    “Top court rules NY’s early mail-in voting law is constitutional”
    August 20, 2024, 7:20 pm absentee ballots RICK HASEN
    Times-Union:
    New York’s highest court upheld a law Tuesday that allows ballots to be mailed in during the early voting period ahead of an election, soundly rejecting arguments from Republicans that the statute violates the state constitution.

    The ruling means the mail-in voting option will be allowed in this November’s election and future elections in New York unless the law faces another legal challenge….
    —-
    ANY PART OF ANY ELECTION LAW SYSTEM IN THE USA N-O-T IN A COURT CASE THIS YEAR ???

  17. What a fluffy constitutional analysis by the judge.

    Pennsylvania election law provides that there must be 19 write-in lines for presidential elector on the ballot. Even if a judge fantasized that a voter must write-in 19 names, there is no guarantee that all voters would write in the same names.

    Elsewhere, the election code provides that each elector candidate associated with a presidential/vice-presidential candidate receives the same number of votes. The 12 elector candidates should receive the same number of votes as De La Cruz. If they finish in the Top 19 they would be appointed as presidential electors along with 7 other electors.

    The National Archives (and the Pennsylvania SOC) should have past certificates of ascertainment. Those from 2012-2020 show all presidential candidates with a full slate of electors, but that is not evidence of past practice.

  18. Being constitutionally eligible, having an eligible running mate, and submitting a full slate of electors should be the only requirements to get on the ballot.

  19. How many petition signatures did the Party for Socialism and Liberation submit in Pennsylvania? I wonder what their validity rate is.

    Did they have other candidates besides a presidential ticket?

  20. I hope that PSL appeals this. Not just to regain their ballot line, but to prevent this misinterpretation of the law from gaining a foothold.

  23. RS posted:

    “Noting the difference from what we were told now vs. what we were told in 1992 I repeatedly asked, did the law change or did your interpretation of the law change? No one could answer.”

    They don’t want the law to be clear and unambiguous. They want it to be flexible, and open to interpretation, so they can apply it as it suits them.

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.