The ACLU of Pennsylvania argues that in 2002, federal court found that an electorate district residency requirement for nominating petition circulators is unconstitutional, although Commonwealth Court says federal court rulings are not binding in our state.  The independent candidate will be represented in his appeal to the state Supreme Court by two ACLU attorneys.

Read “Independent Candidate Challenges Commonwealth Court on Ballot Access Ruling,” by Eric Boehm of the Pennsylvania Independent (8/31/10).

State Senator Mike Folmer

In July of 2008 state Senator Mike Folmer introduced the “Voters’ Choice Act,” which would require all candidates for an election to garner an equal amount of nominating petition signatures for ballot access.  In the wake of all six third-party candidates for statewide offices being struck from the ballot by the powerful resources of the two majority parties, Sen. Folmer is again publicizing the need for ballot access reform.

This year’s statewide third-party candidates were required to solicit nearly 20,000 signatures, while the major party candidates needed only 10 percent as many.  Even worse was the case in 2008 when some third-party candidates needed 68,000 signatures for ballot access, while Republicans and Democrats were only required the traditional 2,000.  But since there are no third-party legislators, the bill has not come up for vote to enable more fair ballot access for the competition.

Sen. Folmer’s two-year-old bill would also require a political body to claim only 0.05 percent of registered Pennsylvania voters to be classified as a minor party for future ballot access.  State Rep. candidate Dennis Baylor has pushed for similar ballot access laws in the state’s high court, encouraging reforms not only for minor party qualification, but also for signature and ballot qualification requirements as well.  But unless constituents begin to speak out, the two-party system has more than enough resources at its disposal to keep third-party ballot access reform at bay.

For more information see “Rep. calls for fix of Pa. election rule,” from ABC 27 WHTM (8/23/10).

To read Dennis Baylor’s 2008 campaign post “Voters’ Choice Act Introduced,” click

September 24, 2008 — Current election procedure mandates that minority party candidates (those who are not Democrat or Republican) must overcome some quite insurmountable obstacles in order to have their names appear on the ballot, in comparison to majority party candidate rules. Sen. Mike Folmer (Rep.) proposed a more fair election process in July with the “Voters’ Choice Act,” which would demand that all party candidates gain the same amount of signatures to appear on the ballot, and would also make the method of qualifying a political body as a minority party more simple, requiring claim of 0.05% of registered voters in the Commonwealth.

The proposal of this act bolsters the ongoing efforts of state Senatorial candidate Dennis Baylor (Ind.) to enact an impartial election process. In June, Mr. Baylor filed suit in federal court that disputes the current practice of gathering petition votes to appear on the ballot, highlighting that our election code does not require signatures of registered voters, but of “qualified electors,” or those who are eligible to register to vote. Mr. Baylor also argues that minority party candidates should be able to establish ballot qualification before Aug. 1, as is the current practice, which can leave a campaign in limbo for months. [Baylor v Cortes, cv-08-1060]

Mr. Baylor’s lawsuit and Sen. Folmer’s proposed act arose in the wake of U.S. Sen. Bob Casey’s 2006 massive win. Election procedure dictates that minority party candidates need to obtain 2% of the highest vote in the previous election, forcing some statewide candidates to gather 68,000 signatures to appear on the ballot. Republican and Democrat candidates required only 2,000 signatures.
For candidates like Mr. Baylor, who do not subscribe to a majority party, Sen. Folmer’s Voters’ Choice Act would facilitate a more non-biased ballot process. In a Channel 69 WFMZ-TV broadcast, Sen. Folmer, despite being a Republican, remarks that he “just want[s] to make it easier” for minority party candidates. “It shouldn’t be that hard.” Mr. Baylor said that there should be more choice for everyone. “People need more than two proposed solutions to a lot of modern day problems.”

Libertarians Douglas Jamison, Kat Valleley and Marakay Rogers withdrew their court defense on Wednesday due to insurmountable signature reviews.  Each candidate had filed more than 5,000 extra signatures on their nominating petitions.  Mel Packer and self-proclaimed “tea party” candidate John Krupa dropped their bids on Monday.  GOP spokesman Mike Barley cited non-registered voter signatures as a major problem with the petitions.

For more information read “Libertarians withdraw from statewide races,” by the Associated Press, published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (8/18/10).

The GOP alleges that the gubernatorial Tea Party candidate John Krupa received help gathering signatures from the Dan Onorato (D) campaign, which incidentally is not against the law.  The national organization Tea Party Patriots has also challenged Krupa’s petitions, claiming that the candidate is not affiliated with the Tea Party, as he was originally nominated in March by the Constitution Party.

James Schneller, reportedly an American Congress Party candidate, will defend his petitions in court against the Republican 7th District Representative candidate Patrick Meehan, who says that Democrat Brian Lentz helped him gather signatures as well.

U.S. Senate candidate Joe Sestak, a Democrat, is challenging Green Party Mel Packer’s petitions.  Third-party candidate Tom Lingenfelter’s petitions for the 8th Representative District will be challenged by a group of mostly Republicans.  And Republicans are also challenging Libertarian petitions for governor, lieutenant governor and U.S. Senate candidates.

Each time that a worthy third-party candidate is removed from the ballot, voters are denied another choice for representation by the very ones who seek to usurp their support.

For more information on the challenges read “GOP activists in Pa. file 3rd-party challenges,” by Peter Jackson of the Associated Press, published in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (8/10/10).

“No Party” Party candidate Dennis Baylor has filed the necessary nominating petitions in Harrisburg to place his name on the general ballot for state Representative of the 125th district.  His opponents are incumbent Tim Seip (D) and Mike Tobash (R).  Forty-four third party candidates have filed sufficient signature requirements for Pennsylvania offices, these are a few that have been in the news:

Governor — Opposing Tom Corbett (R) and Dan Onorato (D)

• Marakay Rogers, Libertarian Party; and Libertarian running-mate Kat Valleley

• John Krupa, Tea Party

U.S. Senate — Opposing Pat Toomey (R) and Joe Sestak (D)

• Douglas Jamison, Libertarian Party
• Mel Packer, Green Party

U.S. Representatives

14th Congressional District — Opposing incumbent Mike Doyle (D) and Melissa Halusczak (R)

• Ed Bortz, Green Party

15th Congressional District — Opposing incumbent Charlie Dent (R) and John Callahan (D)

• Jake Towne, Independent Party

*Paul Culbreth, Independent candidate for the state Representative 96th District seat to oppose incumbent Mike Sturla (D) and Thomas Garman Jr. (R) was unable to file his signatures — despite having hundreds of extras — due to a technicality.  Read details in “Sturla challenger bounced from ballot,” by Tom Murse of the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal (8/3/10).

Also see the following articles for more information on these third-party candidates:

“Towne files papers to get name on ballot,” by Nicole Radzievich in the Allentown Morning Call (8/2/10).

“Third-party candidates cite difficulties of getting on a Pennsylvania ballot,” by Tom Infield in the Philadelphia Inquirer (8/3/10).

“Third party contenders on Sen., Gov. ballots,” by Daniel Malloy in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (8/2/10).

Carl Romanelli

Carl Romanelli’s name was withheld from the U. S. Senate ballot in 2006 because enough of his nominating petition signatures were challenged and eliminated by House Democratic members and staffers.  He alleges in a suit filed Monday that at least 30 House employees were paid to use state resources to keep his name from the ballot to help secure Democrat Bob Casey’s win.

The Green Party candidate is seeking at least $300,000 plus attorney’s fees from state Rep. DeWeese (D), former state Rep. Veon (D), the House, the House Democratic caucus and dozens of state employees.  Mr. Romanelli says that two former caucus members taught 30 staffers to review petitions in Rep. DeWeese’s office, and then as many as 100 staffers spent considerable time in striking his name from the ballot on the taxpayers’ dime.

Read the full story “Candidate knocked from ballot sues Veon, DeWeese,” by Tracie Mauriello in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (7/14/10).

“No Party 125th District candidate Dennis Baylor wants to reform government.”

In the farewell address to his troops, George Washington cautioned a new nation about the ills of partisanship from his concern about the development of factions in our young nation:

“I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”