Ever since July 10, the Green, Libertarian and Constitution Parties of Pennsylvania have been waiting for the 3rd circuit to rule on the ballot access lawsuit. There is still no opinion.

However, on August 21, the Pennsylvania Green Party filed a new lawsuit in state court in Harrisburg. A hearing will be held on August 22, in the afternoon. The case is “In re: Nomination Paper of Carl Romanelli,” 426 M.D. 2006. The new case argues that the state miscalculated the number of signatures needed by minor party and independent statewide candidates this year. The law says the number of signatures is 2% of the vote for the highest vote-getter in the last statewide election. Normally Pennsylvania elects State Supreme Court Justices, or Commonwealth Court Judges, in partisan elections in odd years. But in November 2005, there was no such partisan election for either type of statewide judge. Therefore, the state used data from the November 2004 election, and said 67,070 signatures are required in 2006.

The new Green Party lawsuit argues that the state should have used the 2005 judicial retention election, to calculate the number of signatures for 2006. The 2005 judicial retention election was an election in which two incumbent members of the State Supreme Court were on the ballot, with a “yes” box, and a “no” box next to their names. If this election were used, with the “yes” total standing in for the vote total, only 15,494 signatures would be needed in 2006.

The new Green Party lawsuit also argues that the state cannot require qualified parties to submit any signatures for their nominees (this is the same argument pending in the federal case). Alternatively, the lawsuit argues that the number of signatures needed (67,070) is so great that it violates the State Constitutional mandate that “elections be free and equal.” Finally, the new Green Party lawsuit argues that the current challenge being made to the Green Party’s statewide petition is procedurally flawed, since the Democratic Party objections to the signatures were too general, and they should have been more specific.