Will Stevenson Be Included in Reichley-Slattery Debate?

On Wednesday night, at 7 PM sharp, the LV LWV will host a debate between incumbent State Rep. Doug Reichley and challenger Patrick Slattery, a Democrat. It will be at the Clock Building
322 Main Street, Emmaus.

What about independent Carl Stevenson? A Commonwealth Court decision tossing him off the ballot has been sent back by the State Supremes, who were none too pleased that the First Amendment was totally ignored. Stevenson gets a second bite at the Commonwealth Court apple today.

Reichley had challenged Stevenson's nomination papers, claiming he had too few signatures and that he was using a nonresident as a circulator. Since the state is under a federal injunction requiring them to allow nonresidents to circulate nomination petitions, the only question left is whether he has enough signatures.

Carl Stevenson's Ballot Access Challenge Kicked Back to Commonwealth Court

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.

Slattery Asks Reichley to Drop Ballot Challenge

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."

ACLU Appeals Stevenson Ballot Access Case

Last week, I told you about independent Carl Stevenson's battle for ballot access. Commonwealth Court Judge James Kelly has 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.

For some reason, 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."

Yesterday, the ACLU announced it is appealing the Commonwealth Court decision denying Stevenson ballot access.

"Pennsylvania is one of the toughest states for independent and minor-party candidates to get on the ballot because they require such a high number of signatures," said ACLU legal director Witold "Vic" Walczak. "The state shouldn't be able to further handcuff candidates by imposing unwarranted and unconstitutional restrictions on who can collect petition signatures."

Thanks to ACLU, Stevenson Going Into Extra Innings With Reichley

Carl Stevenson, an independent candidate for the state house seat held by State Rep. Doug Reichley in the 134th District, was last week removed from the ballot by Commonwealth Court Judge James Kelley.

Using surrogates, Doug Reichley wanted Stevenson off that ballot. This conservative independent might siphon votes that would otherwise go Doug's way, giving Democratic challenger Patrick Slattery an upset victory.

Stevenson had more than enough signatures. But the person who did most of the circulating, Jake Towne, lives outside the state house district. Now, according to our state election laws, that's a no no. But former Northampton County jurist Franklin Van Antwerpen, who now sits on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled in 2002 that this requirement unduly infringes on free speech and free association rights. Petition circulation is "core political speech" because it involved "interactive communication concerning political change." In fact, he pointed to a Supreme Court decision ruling that circulators need not even be registered voters.

What's even more amazing is that the state elections bureau told other independents, like Manchurian Candidate Jake Towne, that they could use circulators from outside their district. Stevenson supplied me copies of the emails, but get this. He asked me not to use them becaue he has no desire to embarrass state officials who were only trying to help.

I told him they should be mentioned on every page of his brief.

Jake Towne relied on this advice, too. This means that many of his signatures are arguably invalid. But LV Congressman Charlie Dent, who takes no one lightly, filed no challenge. He's willing to let voters make the call. Doug Reichley should have followed Dent's lead, but instead used baseball metaphors, complaining about three teams.

Last time I checked, there's more than two teams in MLB.

It looks like this one's going into extra innings. The ACLU just notified Stevenson they'll appeal on his behalf.