Comments on: Penn. Supreme Court Rules Against Green Party

By: Darryl W. Perry

Darryl W. Perry — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 04:35:41 +0000

The problem is that the Court is saying that a Retention vote for Supreme Court does not constitute an election under State law, thus all the “yes” & “no” votes on retention of a judge aren’t votes for a candidate. So, one needs to look at the highest vote count for Statewide “candidate” in the last “election”, which would be the 2004 Treasurer Race, won by Bob Casey – ironic, huh?

By: John S

John S — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:35:52 +0000

Perhaps the fluctuations themselves could be found unconstitutional? In that making ballot access harder in 2006 (and odd-numbered years) but not in other even-numbered years represents no valid state interest?

By: charles

charles — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 17:08:16 +0000

Not only does this ruling continue the tradition of missreading the law, it also reafirms an unreasonable standard that fluctuates irradically based on the highest vote in an unspecified election in the last year, or maybe two years. The pool of signers is held to currently registered voters who have kept their registration information up-to-date, who sign legibly using their full name, who provde their current address (as it is written on their registration), their political municipality (not their postal office town), and the current date, all written out by thier own hand with no ditto marks. Repeat 20,000, 30,000 or 67,000 times depending on the year and the stars.