I've told you that the ACLU has taken up Carl Stevenson's banner in his quest for ballot access to the state house seat held by incumbent Doug Reichley. Briefs were filed yesterday. But Reichley's Democratic opponent, Patrick Slattery, is calling on Reichley to withdraw his challenge to Stevenson's nomination petition.
This challenge is based on a complaint that Stevenson's petition was circulated by a nonresident. But Judge Frankin S VanAntwerpen has ruled, in a federal case, that a residency requirement unduly infringes on free speech and free association rights. Petition circulation is "core political speech" because it involves "interactive communication concerning political change."
In his news release, Slattery argues, "If that’s enough for the federal courts, it should be enough for Mr. Reichley." Of course, Slattery is hopeful that Stevenson will draw Reichley votes and Reichly is just as obviously worried by that possibility.
But Rick Orloski said it best. "Voters should decide elections, not judges."
18 comments:
Bernie -
I'm no fan of Doug Reichley, but it the courts are where people go to settle their differences.
I have no problem with him continuing his challenge, if that is what he believes and the path he wants to take.
Bernie,
The rules are the rules and it isn’t a good sign when a candidate for public office is either ignorant of them or chooses to ignore them. As with the other requirements for inclusion on the ballot there are sounds reason to require those who circulate candidate petitions to actually reside in the district. If we allow these time tested rules to be flouted or thrown out by a judge then the ballot could become a colossal and nonsensical collection of local eccentrics, legitimate candidates, lunatics, haters, nare do wells…
The oblgation that one jump through a few hoops to get on the ballot makes sense; it is unfortunate that the judge doesn’t understand this. I commend Doug Reichley for pursuing this matter up.
Scott Armstrong
Scott,
The first and foremost of these rules in the U.S. Constitution, and Judge VanAntwerpen ruled that petition circulation is core political speech. The independent informed himself of the rules and got a green light to use a nonresident.
Ballott access for an independent is already diffcut, but the major parties want to make it impossible.
Reichley is making a bad decision to pusue this. Most people are more fair-minded and less partisan and it's shocking that he would continue this challenge, knowing that the elections office itself is responsible for the use of a nonresident.
Jake Towne used nonresidents to cirulate his petition, but Dent filed no challenge bc he believes voters, and not judges, should make those decisions.
If this were a clear breach, I could see your point. But in this case, I think an independent candidate has a right to rely on the elections office.
Agree. The major parties create rules to keep control of elections. I oppose open primaries. But access to the general should not be impeded. The system should err on the side of of challengers. Incumbents are re-elected in the high 90% range in every cycle. They've institutionalized huge advantages.
But Rick Orloski said it best. "Voters should decide elections, not judges."
As I mentioned in a previous comment, does Orloski and others feel the same way about Prop 8? The courts are now looking to overturn the vote of the people - and the liberals are cheering. Can't have it both ways.
Bernie,
How did this independent get a "green light" to flout the rule that petition circulators must reside in the district that they are circulate? Forgive me if I am not up to speed on this particular case but I do have many hours of experience in this same activity.
Scott Armstrong
Bernie -
If the issue is so clear cut, it should be a very quick court decision.
My gut feeling is that it is not quite as simple as you present it to be. Whether or not an election worker gave the independent candidate a "green light" to use non-residents is irrelevant.
Reichley is in the proper venue (the courts) to have the issue resolved, pro or con.
Scott & Patrick McHenry,
The first and foremost rule of all is the Free Speech Clause if the US Constitution. In addition to the 2002 decision by former Northampton County Judicial Heavyweight Franklin Van Antwerpen, there are numerous decisions from other federal courts concluding that petition circulation is fundamental free speech. It is difficult to imagine any setting where there is more interactivity about specific candidates. Requiring a circulator to live within the confines of a specific jurisdiction hampers that basic right, and there is no rational basis for the requirement.
Given this clear federal law, the state elections office has told people who ask them that a circulator need not be a resident of the jurisdiction. And in Carl's case, that's exactly what he was told. He had phone conversations as well as some emails to back him up.
So essentially, Reichley is going against overwhelming federal authority to enforce some goofy rule that has no rational basis. Moreover, he will have to contend that candidates are unable to rely on advice from the state elections office.
Perhaps he does not know all these details. Reichley is very conservative, but has always struck me as a reasonable man who will listen to a good argument. So I suggest Scott, that you may want to ask him to think about asking his proxis to withdraw their challenge.
I am unwilling to speculate how the state supremes will handle this matter, but if they follow the law, he's got a loser and will look even worse than he does now. He's better off taking the high road.
I'll bet Rick Orloski and Bernie don't have a problem with courts overturning the election results that passed Arizona's Prop 8. "Let the people decide, unless they disagree with me. Then the courts should get immediately and actively involved."
You're making a silly argument. That has been challenged for the same reason that Carl believes he belongs on the ballot - the Constitution. As I have said from the onset, the Constiution is the most basic rule of all.
Bernie,
The rule that petition circulators should reside in the district that they are circulating for is far from “ridiculous.” It is simply common sense. We are supposed to be electing “representatives” who will “represent” “our” interests in “government.” Therefore the rule makes absolute sense.
It matters little to me that a judge at one point thought differently. History is full of flawed judicial decisions, this was one of them, and it is time to correct the error.
Scott Armstrong
Actually, it's a very good and detailed decision, and one you obviously have not read or you would not have slammed it. It is consistent with the overwhelming majority of cases confrontiong this issue. One court has in afact ruled that a circulator need not even be a registered voter.
The deciding judge, VanAntwerpen, is a former Northampton County jurist. he was named to the District Court by Bush. And Buish 43 named him to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. He is only one step below the US Supreme Court, and incidentally, is a conservative Republican.
Stevenson has a very strong case, and it's unfortunate that Reichley would be so scared of the votes he picks up that he would try to trip him up on a technicality that the elections office itself said is immaterial.
Scott, I know you are being a good little "captain" for the LC Republican party, but a really good soldier will never fight a battle that he just may lose. Reichley is a smart guy. Tell him to pull the plug on this before he ends up with egg on his face.
"Scott, I know you are being a good little "captain" for the LC Republican party, but a really good soldier will never fight a battle that he just may lose. Reichley is a smart guy. Tell him to pull the plug on this before he ends up with egg on his face.”
Wow what a cheap shot Bernie.
Scott Armstrong
Scott, Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are a Captain of your local party, a soldier. You likely think your role is to fight this kind of battle, even when it is bereft of reason. My pint is that neither you nor Reichley should fight battles like this, that you may end up losing. When you do that, you could end up losing the war.
Bernie,
You are a major disappointment.
Scott Armstrong
If I'm a "major" disappointment, then I must outrank you.
We are a nation of laws. The guy stays off the ballot because he's not above the law. And everybody claims protection under The Constitution. Bernie's flipped it twice for his benefit in this post alone. That's why courts exist to referee.
State election law specifically states that in order to circulate ballot petitions a person must live within the legislative district of the candidate they are circulating for.
This is explicitly stated on the back of the petitions that are circulated.
Mr. Stevenson has stated repeatedly that he thinks the federal government is wrong when it supercedes the authority of the states.
If he truly believes this, how can he with any form of integrity call for federal government intervention in the way the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania deems fit and appropriate to conduct its elections for state legislature?
With respect to Bernie, this does not seem logically consistent on Mr. Stevenson's part.
Post a Comment