PA Bill Number: HB1472
Title: In primary and election expenses, further providing for reporting by candidate and political committees and other persons and for late contributions ...
Description: In primary and election expenses, further providing for reporting by candidate and political committees and other persons and for late contrib ...
Last Action: Referred to STATE GOVERNMENT
Last Action Date: Apr 22, 2024
Federal judge rules Pa. third-party candidate requirements unconstitutional :: 07/26/2015
A federal judge ruled Friday that Pennsylvania’s Election Code set an unconstitutionally high bar on third-party political candidates by both requiring them to gather more signatures than Democrats or Republicans — and to defend those signatures’ validity in court.
“The ability of the minor parties to organize and voice their views has been decimated” by the combination of those provisions, ruled U.S. District Judge Lawrence F. Stengel, of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The ruling was hailed by Ralph Nader, the legendary consumer advocate whose 2004 Green Party presidential bid ran afoul of the laws at issue in today’s ruling. “This is a resounding victory for civil liberties and for civil rights,” he said. “The constitution was reborn in Pennsylvania.”
The news also was welcomed by the three parties that filed the suit: the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party and the Green Party.
“We’re very pleased with this ruling,” said Nick Frollini, who heads media relations for the state Libertarian Party.
The decision “removes a huge obstacle to third-party candidacies,” agreed Mel Packer, a 2010 Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate who withdrew after the Democratic nominee, Joe Sestak, challenged the validity of signatures on his nominating petitions.
“We weren’t going to risk our retirement savings,” Mr. Packer said. “But if my running for Senate helped lead to this decision, I’m extremely happy.”
It is not clear whether Gov. Tom Wolf, who inherited the case from the Corbett administration, will appeal. “The decision is under review at this time,” said Wanda Murren, a spokeswoman for the Department of State.
A spokeswoman for state Republicans said the GOP had no comment Friday afternoon.
Jim Burn, state Democratic Party chairman, said that although the ruling would have little short-term impact on election outcomes, “We’ve seen increasing membership in other parties or people voting independent.” The ruling is a reminder that “major parties need to work hard on outreach.”
Pennsylvania law has required minor-party statewide candidates to garner petition signatures equal to 2 percent of the vote count in the prior statewide election. That number, Judge Stengel wrote, was as high as 67,070 voters in 2006, although it was 16,639 people last year.
By contrast, statewide Democratic and Republican candidates need to furnish only 2,000 signatures to run in the spring primary, the winner of which is guaranteed a ballot spot in November.
Once gathered, a minor-party candidate’s petitions can be challenged in court by major parties with superior resources. Judge Stengel noted that even a successful defense could cost $50,000, money that minor parties rarely have. And he noted that the stakes had grown since 2004, when the state’s Commonwealth Court ordered Mr. Nader to pay $81,102 in court costs “upon a finding of extensive fraud and deception in the signature gathering efforts.”
Mr. Nader stridently denies the allegations about his petitions. “Some people prankishly put ‘Mickey Mouse’ and others will sabotage you by putting fake names on your petitions,” he said. But courts “disqualified thousands of others” for mere technicalities. For third-party candidates, he said, Pennsylvania was “completely the worst: the worst laws, the worst partisan judges.”
“Prior to the [Nader case],” Judge Stengle wrote, minor-party candidates regularly appeared on the general election ballot.“By contrast, no minor or independent candidates appeared in any statewide race in the years 2006, 2010, and 2014.”
As a result, the judge wrote, “With few exceptions ... the electorate has been forced to choose between Democratic and Republican candidates, alone.”
It’s unclear how Friday’s ruling will affect future ballot challenges. The ruling didn’t toss out stringent signature requirements entirely, even as it rejected the way courts have adjudicated them. But the Pennsylvania ACLU legal director, Witold Walczak, said the case will have broad impact.
“If you get another case with similar facts, this will apply,” he said. “And what the court describes here is usually what happens in these cases.”
Lawmakers will have to “go back to the drawing board” and redraft minor-party ballot requirements, said Oliver Hall, who represented the parties as an attorney at the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Competitive Democracy. In other states, he said, nominating papers are reviewed by the secretary of sate, which reduces the threat of lawsuits. Pennsylvania's law “could be remedied easily” by emulating that approach, he said.
Mr. Frollini, the Libertarian, said legislators could enact Senate Bill 495, a measure sponsored by Sen. Mike Folmer, R-Lebanon, to “simplify the nomination process” for minor-party candidates. “Most importantly, it makes the signature requirement equal to that of major parties.”
But some expressed misgivings about the ruling.
“I’m sympathetic that there shouldn’t be a threat of paying lots of money even if you are successful,” said Pittsburgh attorney Clifford Levine, who often represents Democrats in election cases. “But we’ve had cases where page after page of signatures were in the same handwriting,” and proving such fraud isn’t cheap either. In cases of bad faith, he asked, “Is it fair to the challengers to have to hire a lawyer and a handwriting expert?”
Chris Potter: cpotter@post-gazette.com or 412-263-2533.
