Home General Pennsylvania Hearing on Romanelli Lasts 5 Hours
formats

Pennsylvania Hearing on Romanelli Lasts 5 Hours

Published on January 13, 2007, by in General.

On January 9, a Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court held a trial on whether the Green Party’s candidate for U.S. Senate in 2006 should be required to pay almost $89,668. This amount represents court costs, witness fees, and attorneys’ fees, for the process that removed Romanelli from the November 2006 ballot.

The head of the Pennsylvania Elections Department was on the stand, and admitted that Philadelphia County, among others, failed to record any write-ins for Romanelli or anyone else.

Romanelli’s attorney made arguments that the whole idea that a candidate can be forced to pay, violates the U.S. Supreme Court filing fee precedents, but the judge refused to hear the constitutional arguments. However, if an appeal is necessary, the constitutional arguments can be raised again. It was important that they were introduced at the trial level. One of the weaknesses of Ralph Nader’s parallel case on this same issue (which the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear on January 8, 2007) was that the constitutional issues hadn’t been raised in the courts below.

3 Responses

  1. Sebastian McGarigle

    Apparently those in power in Pennsylvania don’t believe in demoracy. They’re so afraid. Their political power extends over the Judges there also. Sad! Shame on them. They’re all a bunch of phonies.

  2. Blyden Potts

    Not to mention that there is little doubt that over 70,000 real Pennsylvania registered voters did sign Carl Romanelli’s nomination papers in good faith and that he was “disqualified” only by virtue of applying rather stringent and legalistic requirements on which signatures would be accepted as valid. It is an affront to the democratic concept that he was pushed off the ballot.

  3. These judges(A euphemism for dumb lawyers)are nothing more themselves ,or less, than “straw men” ? Take the U. S. Supreme Ct. rule that requires the type to be “greater than 12″ , it is nothing more , or less than a “straw man” to set some dumb lawyer up to making a mistake on the size of type , so that he can be easily thrown out ! They make their own dumb rules , cal them “straw men”?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>