The Otter Now Aiming at Patrick Slattery With Defamation Lawsuit

This just in, from state house candidate Patrick Slattery:

Yesterday, Republican activists and former political candidates Mr. Otto Slozer and Mr. John Donches filed a defamation of character suit against me in Lehigh County Court. If you follow the trail of this frivolous lawsuit, it leads right to the backrooms of Harrisburg. The attorney representing Mr. Slozer and Mr. Donches, Mr. Larry Otter, has done extensive work for the House Republican Campaign Committee to remove Democrats from ballots across the commonwealth.

This is the kind of baseless, desperate, and political stunt my opponent, Mr. Ryan Mackenzie, and his friends in Harrisburg use to win elections when voters are rejecting their policies which invade our privacy, allow oil companies to drill wherever they want in our communities, and slash funding to our schools

Mr. Slozer and Mr. Donches are also hosting tonight’s C.E.P.T.A. debate between Mr. Mackenzie and myself. The events of the last 24 hours are proof that an impartial and unbiased debate on the issues is impossible as long as these two men are involved and I will not dignify their partisan circus with my attendance. The event cannot go on as scheduled and should be cancelled immediately. I am willing to debate Mr. Mackenzie any place and any time he sees fit as long as an open and fair exchange can be guaranteed.

If Otter is involved, it has to be frivolous.

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."