Major Democratic Presidential Candidates on Opposite Sides on Internal Democratic Party Rules

Posted on by January 26, 2008
Reply

On January 25, Hillary Clinton said she will work to seat Michigan and Florida delegates to the Democratic National Convention, but shortly afterwards, Barack Obama’s campaign criticized her for that stand. John Edwards’ campaign has not yet commented on the issue.

Florida has 210 delegates, and Michigan has 156 delegates, out of the total of 4,048 delegates. The Democratic National Committee had said those two states may not have any delegates, because they broke national party rules on the timing of their presidential primaries. Clinton said, “I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan. I know not all of my delegates will do so.”

Obama’s campaign manager David Plouffe responded by saying, “It seems like Hillary Clinton will do or say anything to win an election.” See this story about the Obama campaign’s response. Thanks to Tony Roza for this news.

Pennsylvania Lower Court Bounces Romanelli Matter Back to State Supreme Court

Posted on by January 25, 2008
Reply

On January 24, 2008, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth re-did its January 24, 2007 order, in the matter of how much money Carl Romanelli is supposed to pay to the people who challenged his 2006 Green Party petition. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on November 20, 2007, had told the Commonwealth Court Judge to amend his order. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court wanted “an assessment of costs referenced by category and amount assessed as well as a statement of rationale behind the imposition of these costs.”

The amended Commonwealth Court order merely reiterates everything that was in the original order. Now it will go back to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to see if the amended order is good enough for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

One of the ironies in this case is that the Commonwealth Court Judge, James R. Kelley, is being represented in an entirely different matter by the same attorney who is representing Carl Romanelli. In other words, the attorney for the judge is also the attorney for someone who has a case before that judge! It had been thought that Judge Kelley would recuse himself from this latest action, but he did not.

Pennsylvania Won’t Honor Morrill v Weaver for Presidential Primary Petitioning

Posted on by January 25, 2008
Reply

In 2002, a U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania ruled that state law, telling circulators for district office that they cannot work outside of the district they live in, is unconstitutional. The case was Morrill v Weaver, 224 F Supp 2d 882. The state did not appeal.

Notwithstanding that, the state still is not permitting circulators to work outside their home U.S. House district, if those circulators are circulating a presidential primary delegate petition. The state is using the technicality that the 2002 court victory related to the Green Party’s petition to get various candidates on the November ballot. Of course, the decision was based on the First Amendment right of individuals to petition their government and to engage in political speech. In this context, there is no meaningful distinction between district petitions for minor party ballot access to the November election, and district petitions to the primary ballot.

Jonathan Marks, Chief of the Pennsylvania Elections Division, denied the request to let presidential primary delegate petitions be circulated outside the circulator’s home district on January 25. It is not known if any presidential candidate will sue to overturn the ruling. Pennsylvania requires presidential primary candidates to submit a statewide petition of 2,000 names, and then separate petitions of 200 signatures for delegates in each US House district.

Pennsylvania Won't Honor Morrill v Weaver for Presidential Primary Petitioning

Posted on by January 25, 2008
Reply

In 2002, a U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania ruled that state law, telling circulators for district office that they cannot work outside of the district they live in, is unconstitutional. The case was Morrill v Weaver, 224 F Supp 2d 882. The state did not appeal.

Notwithstanding that, the state still is not permitting circulators to work outside their home U.S. House district, if those circulators are circulating a presidential primary delegate petition. The state is using the technicality that the 2002 court victory related to the Green Party’s petition to get various candidates on the November ballot. Of course, the decision was based on the First Amendment right of individuals to petition their government and to engage in political speech. In this context, there is no meaningful distinction between district petitions for minor party ballot access to the November election, and district petitions to the primary ballot.

Jonathan Marks, Chief of the Pennsylvania Elections Division, denied the request to let presidential primary delegate petitions be circulated outside the circulator’s home district on January 25. It is not known if any presidential candidate will sue to overturn the ruling. Pennsylvania requires presidential primary candidates to submit a statewide petition of 2,000 names, and then separate petitions of 200 signatures for delegates in each US House district.