On November 3, 2015, Pennsylvania voters will elect there new State Supreme Court Justices in partisan elections. There will be three Democrats, three Republicans, and probably one independent candidate. The independent candidate is Paul Panepinto, who switched his registration from Republican to independent in March 2015. He needs 16,639 valid signatures by August 3, 2015. A news story of July 27 says he has 22,000 signatures.

The last time a minor party or independent candidate for Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was on the ballot was in November 1993, when Patriot Party nominee Robert Surrick qualified. Surrick was somewhat famous as a long-time advocate of reform for Pennsylvania state courts, but he only polled 5.4%. Assuming Panepinto gets on the November 2015 ballot, the straight-ticket device will impede his chances for winning. He has been rated qualified by the Bar Association and has been a judge on the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas for several decades. See this story.

This article from Presidential Debate News summarizes what has been said on several important television public affairs programs recently, about the Commission on Presidential Debates and its exclusionary rule on who gets invited to debate.

On July 20, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an opinion in Petition to Submit Ballot Question to Concord Township Voters, no. 126 MAP 2014. The issue was how to construe a Pennsylvania election law that governs local initiative petitions for a second class township to consider switching to first class township status.

The initiative petition had enough valid signatures, but it was rejected on the grounds that it was not filed in the correct year. The petition was submitted in 2014 by some voters in Concord, a township in Delaware County.

The law says, “At the first general or municipal election occurring, at least 90 days after the ascertainment that any township of the second class has a population density of at least 300 inhabitants to the square mile, and after a petition signed by at least 5% of the registered voters of the township has been filed, the question of whether such township of the second class shall become a township of the first class shall be submitted to the voters.”

The lower state courts had interpreted this law to mean that such a petition can only be filed in the first year after the census results are known, which would have been 2012. The proponents of the initiative read the law to mean that the election should be held as soon as the population data is known and as soon as an initiative petition has been submitted. The Supreme Court agreed with the latter interpretation by a vote of 3-2.
Here is the dissent, which believes that the last time that law was revised, the drafters made a drafting error involving commas.