Adam Waldron, a newcomer to politics, has made what seems to be a a fatal error in his quest for a seat on Bethlehem City Council. His nomination petitions include plenty of good signatures from his supporters. But he failed to include a circulator's affidavit from a person who witnessed the signatures, which is required under the Election Code.
Nominating petitions with technical defects in the affidavit can be amended with the court's permission. But the complete absence of circulator affidavits will likely end Waldron's campaign before it begins if any of the other candidates file objections. I understand that might happen.
Today's one-liner: "The shortest way to the distinguishing excellence of any writer is through his hostile critics." Richard LeGallienne
Local Government TV
▼
Friday, March 15, 2013
12 comments:
You own views are appreciated, especially if they differ from mine. But remember, commenting is a privilege, not a right. I will delete personal attacks or off-topic remarks at my discretion. Comments that play into the tribalism that has consumed this nation will be declined. So will comments alleging voter fraud unless backed up by concrete evidence. If you attack someone personally, I expect you to identify yourself. I will delete criticisms of my comment policy, vulgarities, cut-and-paste jobs from other sources and any suggestion of violence towards anyone. I will also delete sweeping generalizations about mainstream parties or ideologies, i.e. identity politics. My decisions on these matters are made on a case by case basis, and may be affected by my mood that day, my access to the blog at the time the comment was made or other information that isn’t readily apparent.
That's a shame.
ReplyDeleteWhat if he circulated the petitions himself?
ReplyDeleteCandidates who challenge petitions will not get my vote. Which candidate will challenge this guys petitions?
ReplyDeleteWouldn't that say a lot about the other candidates if they challenge him .... They would nit pick ever issue instead of moving forward and resolving BIGGER issues.
ReplyDeletewow, he can't even get the petitions done right.
ReplyDeleteI suspect Adam did circulate the petitions himself, and thought his affidavit as candidate was all he needed. I agree this is unfortunate. The Election Code should be construed liberally to protect the right to vote, but I don't think ignoring it completely can be tolerated. The complete absence of a circulator affidavit is not a mere technicality, but is instead a complete disregard for the Election Code, which is designed to prevent fraud.
ReplyDeleteHe looks too much like Geeting anyway.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, I do feel bad for the kid, and his background would be an interesting one to have as a Council member. But rules are rules.
Hope he runs again.
You post as if his removal is definite. Someone still needs to challenge it.
ReplyDeleteSomeone needs to challenge, and by Tuesday. His removal is by no means definite. He could win a ballot challenge. But his petition is defective. Is it fatal? I think so, but that's a judge's call.
ReplyDeleteB.O.,
ReplyDeleteScary stuff. I was, literally, told by 3 different people during different occasions about things that were needed for the petitions. They spoke about places that needed to be signed, lines that needed to be filled, locations that needed to be notarized; and even on the DAY of the event, the kind lady in the Government Center pointed out a missing location that needed to be entered on all of the petitions. When it comes to politics, you really DO depend on the kindness of others... especially when it comes to INFORMATION (which is priceless). Good luck, everyone!
Alfonso Todd
www.votealfonsotodd.com
This is a tough one. On one hand I do not want him off the ballot. The voters should decide. On the other hand, why have the rule if it isn't enforced? How could he not have done this right when everyone else did? Big mess up!
ReplyDeleteIt is unfortunate. No challenge has been filed at this point. I looked over the petitions on Friday, and they were full of well-respected names. I agree completely that "voters should decide elections, not judges," as Att'y Orloski likes to say. But this appears to be substantive. If it were a missing date, or a voter who signs with a nickname, I am sure a judge would allow the technical defect to be cured. A complete absence of an acknowledgement by a circulator, however, is clearly in violation of the Election Code.
ReplyDelete