On August 18, one judge on the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled that independent candidate Carl Stevenson should not be on the November ballot as a candidate for State Representative, 134th district. The basis for the decision is that one of the candidate’s circulators doesn’t live in that district.
However, in 2002, a U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania ruled that the residency requirement for circulators is unconstitutional. That case is Morrill v Weaver, 224 F.Supp.2d 882 (eastern district). Stevenson had asked the state Elections office if he could use an out-of-district circulator. The Elections office replied in an e-mail that he could, and told Stevenson about the Morrill precedent. However, the Elections office also asked Stevenson not to submit a copy of that e-mail into evidence if he were challenged. Stevenson was challenged, and the Commonwealth Court judge said that Morrill v Weaver doesn’t apply to Stevenson, because Stevenson is an independent candidate and the Morrill decision was won by several Green Party candidates. This is absurd, because there is no legal difference between the Green Party candidate-plaintiffs and any independent candidates. Pennsylvania treats them alike for purposes of petitioning for the general election ballot. Also, the constitutional principles in all the winning lawsuits against residency requirements for circulators involve the free speech rights of circulators. It is completely immaterial what kind of petition is involved.
Stevenson represented himself pro se in the Commonwealth Court and cannot afford any attorney for any appeal. He is hoping to find a pro bono attorney. He needed 577 valid signatures and he has enough valid signatures except for the residency issue.
Another lovely decision in the People’s Republic of Pennsylvania. Jeez, this place is getting more like North Korea every day!
I’m sure you’ve seen the parliamentary fights in Tiawan.
If you haven’t, the music is great too. Clink on the US Parliament’s link below.
–James O. Ogle [Free Parliamentary]
Volunteer Vote Counter
http://usparliament.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=42&sid=80fa716916b9a511e34ee185b61dc7b4
Pennsylvania = two candidates
Communism / Fascism = one candidate
What? No democracy in Pennsylvania? I’m shocked!
Did the Elections office tell Stevenson “do not submit this e-mail as evidence” or was it a general disclaimer to the effect that you can’t legally rely on anything we say or write, and should seek your own legal counsel?
Just because the Elections office is permanently enjoined from enforcing the district residency provisions does not mean that they are competent to interpret the law.
Is the state judge acting in an administrative capacity when hearing a petition challenge?
The elections office said, “Please don’t introduce this e-mail into evidence.”
If you win in federal court the commonwealth typically will not appeal to the US Supreme Court. The commonwealth court judge will tell you the state courts are not bound by the decisions of lower federal courts beyond the limits of the exact participants in the original federal case. If it goes to the US Supreme Court then they would be bound by the US Supreme Court decision. This was how the Commonwealth Court Judge explain it in the Zulick case when the Reform Party of PA tried to cross file a county judge candidate. the Judge admonished the Bureau of Elections for allowing Zulick to circulate nomination papers based upon Patriot (Reform) Party v Allegheny County Board of Elections.
Still looking into the feasibility of an appeal. Still can’t believe that the Commonwealath Court doesn’t seem to understand “UNCONSTITUTIONAL” and “Permanent Injunction!!!!!”
Spend a good deal of time today on the phone and e-mailing back and forth with ACLU-PA and the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School (who litigated the Morrill v. Weaver case sucessfully).
Still no final answer if they (either/or/and) will represent me, but I’m hopefull.
If anyone knows anyone of influence at either/both, please lobby them.
This about FAR more than me. We must have the rule of law and respect and obey the Constitution, else we are all ultimately lost.
Carl
p.s. Richard, thanks SO much for the referrals you provided.
OK Carl, thanks for the update.
I just received an e-mail from the Legal Director for ACLU-PA informing me that they would represent me on appeal.
The battle isn’t over!