Pennsylvania Court Hearing Doesn’t Settle Ballot Access, but it Will be Settled Later Today

The noon U.S. District Court hearing in the Pennsylvania ballot access case only lasted ten minutes, and did not resolve what the ballot access rules will be in Pennsylvania this year. But attorneys for the state told the judge that the House Rules Committee is working on HB 342, and the bill will probably pass today. But it is likely it will be amended. That is probably why it was sent to Rules Committee, to consider amendments. UPDATE: the House Rules Committee met but did not take up HB 342.

The judge said regardless of what the legislature does, he will issue an order by 5 p.m. today. So if the bill passes, whatever is in the bill will probably take effect. If no bill passes, by the end of today, the judge will say what the rules will be this year.

Pennsylvania Court Hearing Tuesday, June 28, Likely to Decide Ballot Access Rules This Year

U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence Stengel holds a telephone conference call with the attorneys in the ballot access case on Tuesday, June 28, at noon eastern time. He has been holding such telephonic hearings daily, each time seeming to wait to see if the Pennsylvania legislature passes HB 342, a bill that changes the ballot access laws for minor parties and independent candidates.

On June 27, Monday, the Pennsylvania House sent HB 342 to Rules, which seems to mean the House won’t vote on the bill on June 28. Furthermore the legislature’s web page says HB 342 is not scheduled for a vote on the House floor on June 28. Therefore, it seems likely that Judge Stengel will make a decision about what the rules will be this year, probably at today’s court hearing. These hearings usually last approximately an hour.

Constitution Party and Socialist Party Also File Illinois Petitions for President

June 27 is the deadline for Illinois petitions. Besides the Libertarian and Green statewide petitions, the Constitution Party and the Socialist Party also submitted presidential petitions. The latter two did not have as many as 25,000 signatures. However, if no one challenges them, they will be considered valid. A fifth petition was filed by a presidential candidate named Mary Vann, using the label “Human Rights Party.”