On April 13, the Third Circuit heard oral arguments in Constitution Party of Pennsylvania v Aichele, 15-3046. The issue is the unique Pennsylvania system that puts petitioning groups at risk of court costs of up to $110,000 if they submit a petition that doesn’t have enough valid signatures. Last year a U.S. District Court had invalidated the system. On the appeal, the state did not actually disagree with the substance of the lower court decision; instead it argued that the decision should be overturned because the plaintiffs had sued the wrong Defendants. However, the three judges at the Third Circuit oral argument seemed to disagree with the state about that.
There was much discussion about what the remedy should be for the 2016 election. The attorney for the three parties that filed the case (Constitution, Green, and Libertarian) mentioned that the legislature has had a ballot access bill pending. SB 495, since last year. He said the legislature could pass that bill and fill the gap in the law. He mentioned that the Libertarian Party has over 45,000 registered members in Pennsylvania, and surely that shows that party has already shown a modicum of support and should not be required to submit a 2016 petition. The pending bill also uses registration instead of petitions to determine which parties should be on the ballot. The hearing lasted 30 minutes and supporters of the lawsuit were in the audience.
Is there any chance the three parties to the lawsuit could be put on the ballot without a petition requirement this year due to the time involved?
Yes. That is why most of the oral argument was about the remedy.
Would that possibility only apply to The LP, CP and GP or could the Drys use it as well?
I doubt the Prohibition Party could show objective evidence that it has a modicum of support. The three larger parties could do it by pointing out that they have in the recent past placed their presidential nominees on the ballots in a majority of states, and have thousands or tens of thousands of registered members in Pennsylvania.
The best hope for the Drys would be if the judge significantly lowered the signature requirement.
Since I live in Pennsylvania, I would like the opportunity to vote for fellow Pennsylvanian Jim Hedges but if that’s not in the cards I could be satisfied with a chance to vote for Jill Stein or Darrell Castle or Gary Johnson.
I too live in Pennsylvania. I will almost certainly vote LP no matter what, but it would be great to have the Prohibition Party on the ballot.
I’ll drink to that! 🙂
I was at the hearing. All three judges on the panel seemed quite alarmed that Commonwealth fully intends to simply disregard the District Court ruling with one judge saying, “That would be extraordinary.” It would be nice if we could get relief before the bulk of our petition drive is completed but that seems unlikely.