On June 2, an independent candidate for the Pennsylvania Senate filed a lawsuit in federal court, challenging several aspects of Pennsylvania ballot access procedures. The candidate, Dennis Baylor, is representing himself, but the complaint is very well-drafted. The election code does not actually require petition signers to be registered voters, but merely “qualified electors”. The term “qualified electors” has long been defined in Pennsylvania to mean people who are eligible to register (whether they are actually registered or not). The Baylor complaint asks that state officials be required to live up to this definition. It also complains that independent and minor party candidates who complete their petitions early have no means to establish that they are now ballot-qualified. Current practice sets the petitions aside until after the August 1 deadline, which leaves candidates who petition for the general election in limbo, sometimes for months. The case is Baylor v Cortes, cv-08-1060, Middle District.
A more far-reaching federal lawsuit against some other Pennsylvania ballot access practices should be filed soon, by several minor parties. It will challenge Pennsylvania’s practice of putting candidates in jeopardy for tens of thousands of dollars, should their petitions not have enough valid signatures. It will challenge the failure of some Pennsylvania counties to count write-ins votes. Finally, it will attack the state’s insistence that petition forms must say that the signers are “nominating” the candidates listed on the petition form, when actually those candidates have been nominated by their own political parties, at party conventions.
ANY lawyers with some brains capable of detecting that —
SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL ???
Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954 — a mere 54 years ago.
I am a lawyer, and I would like to think I have some brains. The exact quote from _Brown_ is: “Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”
Gee — could it be that —
Separate ballot access laws [for new parties, old parties, large parties, small parties, independents] are inherently unequal ??? Duh.
Is every election NEW with ZERO to do with any OLD election ???
NOT brought up in Williams v. Rhodes 1968 — a mere 40 years of screwed up ballot access cases due to LOTS of lawyers with NO brains — especially the Donkey / Elephant party hack appointed Supremes who continue to mystify the EQUAL in the EQUAL protection clause.
Gee — was the EPC added to try and protect even the Republican Party folks (black and white) in the ex-slave States who had remained loyal to the Union during the Civil War — at the TOTAL RISK to their lives, liberties and property in fighting the slavery monarchs / oligarchs ???
I.E. like being members of the Resistance in France in fighting the nazi occupation in 1940-1945.
The whole UNEQUAL ballot access mess is totally OUTRAGEOUS and INTOLERABLE — regardless of any wonks.
The Supreme Court is ultimately responsible for establishing federal ballot access precedents. So if they have “no brains,” then what is the point of making “brainy” arguments?
(I take it that the “brainy” position is that every ballot access case can be resolved on the basis of a educational desegregation case we all learned about in high school.)
I hope that this gentleman succeeds, It is sad that he even has to file such a suit. The State Constitution art I section V clearly states elections shall be free and equal. Why is that so difficult to understand or follow?