I've told you about independent Carl Stevenson's battle for ballot access. About a month ago, Commonwealth Court Judge James Kelly nixed his nomination petition challenging State Rep. Doug Reichley because 97 petition signatures were obtained by Jake Towne, who does not live in the district ... or on Planet Earth, for that matter.Using surrogates, Doug Reichley challenged Stevenson's nomination papers. A conservative independent, Stevenson might siphon votes that would otherwise go Doug's way, giving Democratic challenger Patrick Slattery an upset victory. For that very reason, Slattery became a Stevenson champion.
Reichley defended his maneuvers, arguing that allowing Stevenson to stay on the ballot would be like having three teams in a baseball game. But this is no baseball game. Under our electoral system, there can be numerous candidates for one office.
In removing Stevenson, Judge Kelly ignored a federal case decided by Northampton County's very own Franklin S. Van Antwerpen, who now sits on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, just one notch below the U.S. Supreme Court. VanAnterpen ruled that petition circulation is "core political speech" because it involves "interactive communication concerning political change."
The ACLU took up Stevenson's banner, and yesterday, the Court of Final Error vacated Judge Kelly's decision and ordered an immediate hearing on whether Stevenson has enough signatures. "The court never entered any substantive evaluation of First Amendment principles to support its rejection of appellant’s argument, and the cases it cites likewise do not engage the merits of appellant’s First Amendment argument." Judge Kelly was chastised for striking Stevenson from the ballot "without engaging his arguments in meaningful fashion."
The Court did avoid making a Constitutional determination because "we do not have responsive advocacy addressing the merits of the First Amendment challenge to the statute. However, recognizing the importance of the question, its potential to recur, and uncertainty," the High Court retains "jurisdiction to issue a supplemental decision, or direct further briefing, if such course proves advisable upon further consideration of the issue."
So Stevenson gets a do over, and Reichley has egg on his face.
"...like having three teams in a baseball game", is the worst analogy ever and based solely on that Reichly deserves to lose and rot in bad analogy hell.
ReplyDeleteyou have to understand that Doud was captain of his intramural badminton team in High School and College. His sports acumen isn't the greatest.
ReplyDeleteThe only one to have egg on his face is Stephenson. He allowed an out of "Towner" to gather signatures for him and then cried foul when he got caught. How do we expect this person to represent the people when he can't abide by even the simplest of election rules?
ReplyDeleteStevenson specifically asked the eldctions office if he could use a nonresident and was told to go ahead. That point is mentioned by the Pa. Supreme Court, although I doubt you read the opinion. This was a nomination petition that should never have been challenged, and Reichly should do the right thing and ask his surrogats to withdraw their complaint
ReplyDelete