Reported on Ballot Access News

October 25th, 2008

On October 21, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court refused to re-open the question of whether the 2006 Green Party U.S. Senate candidate must pay approximately $80,000 in costs to the people who challenged the party’s statewide petition. The vote was 5-1, with one Justice not voting. Only Justice Saylor would have re-opened the matter. Therefore, the party’s candidate for U.S. Senate, along with his attorney, are still liable for the payment, even though it is uncontradicted that the challenge to the party’s statewide petition was a criminal enterprise. On November 5, two Pennsylvania state employees who worked on the challenge to the party’s 2006 petition are expected to plead guilty. Challenges in Pennsylvania to petitions are brought by private individuals, not by any arm of the government. Yet, in fact, the challenges were brought by people using state employees, state computers, and state payroll hours.

On the somewhat similar matter involving Ralph Nader’s 2004 petition, that matter had not been in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court; it had been in the Commonwealth Court. It is still pending.

Among the comments offered to this post:

There is a major court bias against ballot access rights. It is not getting better. Some judges have and are building their careers by promising to protect the two major parties and always vote against the rights of voters, candidates, 3rd parties and independents.

With one Supreme Court vote GUARANTEED to always vote against democracy, the cards are stacked against us, and many lower court judges are following in his footsteps.