Nader Again Asks Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Re-hear 2004 Case on $80,000

On November 6, 2009, Ralph Nader again asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to rehear the 2004 case over whether it was proper and constitutional for that Court to order him to pay approximately $80,000 to the people who challenged his 2004 petition. In re Nomination Paper of Nader, 94 MAP 2008. Here is the succinct 5-page brief, which makes two points that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has never addressed: (1) the people who challenged Nader’s petition did so in a criminal conspiracy, and some of them have already pleaded guilty; (2) the U.S. Supreme Court, and lower courts, have established over the last 44 years that states cannot charge candidates for the costs of administering elections, except for the limited purpose of keeping ballots uncrowded.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has one new member, elected earlier this week, although she hasn’t taken the oath of office yet.


Comments

Nader Again Asks Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Re-hear 2004 Case on $80,000 — 2 Comments

  1. IT’S IMPORTANT THAT THE PA. SUPREME COURT, AND ALL OF OUR POLITICOS, MAKE SURE THAT WE THE PEOPLE HAVE NO CHOICE OTHER THAN THE CURRENT, 2-PARTY MONOPOLY. JUST KEEP SADDLING CHALLENGERS, NEW PEOPLE WITH GOOD IDEAS, FELLOW AMERICANS, WITH EXPENSIVE AND TIME-CONSUMING COURT CHALLENGES AND THEN WITH THE COSTS OF SEEKING RELIEF FROM THIS NONSENSE FROM THE COURTS AND, LO AND BEHOLD….THE 2-PARTY MONOPOLY CONTINUES. DEMOCRATS WHO CLAIM THIS AS A ‘WIN’ SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES.
    FOR MORE THAN A MAJORITY OF US WHO NO LONGER VOTE, DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA HAS BECOME A SAD JOKE. FOR MR NADER, FORTUNATELY, WHO KEEPS TRYING, HIS WIN WOULD HERALD A NEW BEGINNING IN AN AMERICA WHERE WE MIGHT BEGIN TO AGAIN BELIEVE IN ‘FREEDOM OF CHOICE’ IN THAT MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF OUR AMERICAN LIVES: CHOOSING OUR LEADERS AND FORMING OUR GOVERNMENT.
    HERE’S HOPING THE PA. SUPREME COURTS RULES IN FAVOR OF FREEDOM, AND FOR MR NADER AND FOR ALL OF US.

  2. Not mentioned here is that the corporate law firm which organized this campaign against Nader’s ballot access
    treated their work as pro bono service for those denied access to legal help in Pennsylvania, not as a favor to
    those rich clients who keep the firm in business.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.