This is a guest post from Richard Schwarz, who attended the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court hearing on Tuesday, August 20, on the challenge to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s petition:
The objectors spent most of the hearing arguing that since New York knocked Kennedy off the ballot, PA should do the same for the same reason. The entire transcripts of the New York case were admitted as evidence and the objectors kept harping that RFK was intentionally trying to deceive voters as to his real address.
RFK attorney Paul Rossi argued that NY state has long been Kennedy’s residence, it’s where he’s always been registered to vote, and he was making a good faith effort to provide the proper address to go on the petition papers. He also argued that other states do not require Presidential candidates to provide their home address and making this requirement goes against the constitutions qualifications for running for office. Rossi made good points but the judge refused to allow other states nomination papers into evidence.
As for the following of the 5000 signature requirement instead of election code’s 2% of previous election highest vote getter (currently around 32000), Rossi made good arguments about fair and equal elections and that the 5000 signature requirement which is a temporary number given to the Green, Libertarian, and Constitutional parties should apply to all independents and third parties.
My hunch is that Democratic Commonwealth Court judge Lori Dumas will rule in favor of adhering to the 5000 signature requirement (although Claudia de la Cruz is being challenged on the same point so I expect consistent rulings) but may indeed use the NY case as an excuse to keep RFK off the ballot. I don’t know. She’s described as being “fair” but she seemed particularly harsh on Paul Rossi and I could see he was getting frustrated a couple of times.
I imagine whatever the outcome, it will be appealed.