Pennsylvania's Commonwealth Court has received 41 separate challenges to nomination petitions filed by statewide and congressional candidates. Locally, objections have been filed to Taiba Sultana's nomination petition for the State Senate seat held by Lisa Boscola. She is required to have the signature support of 500 registered voters who live in her district, but according to papers filed by Allentown lawyer Ray Lahoud, she only has 484 valid signatures among the 901 people who endorsed her candidacy.
Lahoud, you may recall, paid for campaign signs calling Sultana "CRAZY, CHAOTIC CRIMINAL" when she ran unsuccessfully for State Rep. two short years ago. Sultana responded with a defamation suit, which she lost. There's no love lost between these two.
The actual petitioners are interesting, too. They include Patti Hitzel, a South Side Easton activist who can be seen at every City Council meeting and who was the victim of some ugly attacks by Sultana. They include Easton First Lady Pam Panto, whose husband Sal was rather routinely and unfairly called a bigot and sexist by Sultana.
In addition to the signature challenge, Lahoud contends that Sultana's required Statement of Financial Interests, which must be filed with the nomination petition, is also invalid.
Under the State Ethics Act, a candidate must report all direct and indirect sources of income in excess of $1,300. She must also report her "occupation or profession." She reports that she is "self-employed", but that denies the public the right to know exactly what she is doing. The public is this deprived of knowing the sources of her income.
Although no court has ruled on this question, the Pa Supreme Court threw out a nomination petition filed by a law school graduate who was not yet a practicing attorney. The court concluded that this misled the public. So if someone lists her occupation as self-employed, but fails to state how this person is self-employed, does this mislead the public, too? That's what the Commonwealth Court is being asked to decide.
Lahoud also raised some questions about the circulator affidavits
No comments:
Post a Comment