On November 20, the law firm that is trying to persuade Ralph Nader’s bank to seize almost $80,000 from Nader’s account and give it to the people who challenged his 2004 Pennsylvania petition, filed a response in court. The case is pending in the District of Columbia because that is the location of Nader’s bank account. The case is Serody v Nader, 2007 CA 003385F, D.C. Superior Court.

Nader had filed a motion in that case, alleging that the law firm which represents the protestors acted unethically. Nader’s motion said that one of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices who heard the case was simultaneously being represented by the same law firm. Also, one of the other justices had once been given an unlimited offer to be hired by that firm at any time, an offer that the future justice received in 1985 and accepted in 1991. Finally, Nader said that 3 other justices had received campaign contributions from that law firm.

The law firm’s response admits that these allegations are all true. But, it says, there was nothing wrong with any of those activities. Alternatively, it says that even it there was something wrong, Nader should have raised these points while his case was pending in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, not now. Of course, Nader raised them now because he only learned about them this year, not in 2005 when the case was pending.

In related Pennsylvania legal news, Carl Romanelli, who is facing a similar judgment for a similar amount from his attempt to get on the ballot in 2006, plans to ask the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for reconsideration. The brief will be filed November 26 or November 27. Romanelli will raise the federal constitutional objections to requiring petitioning candidates to pay the costs of removing them from the ballot.

At the November 6, 2007 election, two Working Families Party nominees for Hartford, Connecticut, city council, were elected. They are Luis E. Cotto and Larry Deutsch.

Hartford, like some other Connecticut and Pennsylvania cities and counties, as well as Washington, D.C., provides that for certain multi-winner elections, no political party may run a full slate. Hartford was electing nine city councilmembers (at large), but provides that no political party may run more than six nominees. At the November 2007 election in Hartford, 6 Democrats, 1 Republican, and 2 Working Families Party nominees were elected.

On November 24, Michigan House Speaker Andy Dillon, a Democrat, said he expects to bring HB 4507 up for a vote in the Michigan House on Monday, November 26. This bill changes the criteria for listing candidates in major party presidential primaries. The existing law requires such candidates to file. The bill alters this, so that the Secretary of State automatically places presidential candidates on the ballot if they are mentioned in the news media as candidates. No one may withdraw unless he or she swears to not being a candidate.

If this bill passes, it will have the effect of adding such candidates as Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Bill Richardson to the Michigan Democratic ballot. They had not filed because the Democratic National Committee considers the Michigan primary illegitimate because of its early (January 15) deadline.

The bill passed the Senate on November 8, but not with the required two-thirds to take effect immediately. If the bill passes the House with two-thirds on November 26, then it will return to the Senate for another vote. In the meantime, Michigan presidential primary ballots are still not being printed. When they are printed, the state will be in violation of a federal law that requires overseas absentee ballots to be mailed in time for those overseas voters to return their ballots in time to be counted.