Monday, September 25, 2006

Romanelli's Fate Rests with PA Supreme Court

As has already been widely reported (it having been announced on PCN right before the debate between Romanelli and Santorum), the Democrats were successful in challenging the signatures, gathered by Republican operatives and money, on Carl Romanelli's nominating petitions. A State Court decided today that Romanelli fell short of the required 67,000 signatures and ordered him off that ballot. The decision is being appealed.

Meanwhile, Romanelli is challenging the State Election Board's statutory interpretation which led to the 67,000-signature requirement, which Romanelli missed by about 9,000. An appeal from an adverse Commonwealth Court decision was filed in late August, and is proceeding apace before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, with briefs due on Thursday this week.

If you've been paying attention, you know that minor parties in Pennsylvania need to submit petitions bearing the number of signatures equal to at least 2% of the highest vote-getter in the statewide election immediately preceding the general election for which they seek to nominate a candidate.

The Pennsylvania statute (25 P.S. Section 2911(b)) states, in pertinent part, as follows:
Where the nomination is for any office to be filled by the electors of the State at large, the number of qualified electors of the State signing such nomination paper shall be at least equal to two per centum of the largest vote cast for any elected candidate in the state at large at the last preceding election at which State-wide candidates were voted for.
The State Board designated the 2004 election of Casey as "the largest vote cast for any elected candidate in the state at large at the last preceding election at which State-wide candidates were voted for", leading to the 67,000+ signature requirement for this year's minor party candidates.

But, there was a statewide election in 2005 -- the judicial retention election of Justice Sandra Schultz Newman. She won retention with about 800,000 votes, meaning that Romanelli would need submit slightly less than 16,000 signatures. Based on today's ruling, Romanelli far exceeded that number of valid signatures.

The Commonwealth Court sided with Casey's party in rejecting Romanelli's argument and it is from that decision which Romanelli has now appealed. The Commonwealth Court ruled that a retention election was not an "election" within the meaning of the statute. Romanelli's argument to the Supreme Court is multi-faceted, but the central point is made obvious by this quote from his appeal:
Objectors to the Romanelli nomination papers argue that the Pennsylvania Election Code does not apply to the retention elections held in the Municipal Election or General Election. The absurdity of their position is exposed when taken to its logical conclusion. If the Election Code does not apply to retention elections then the prohibitions against stuffing the ballot box, 25 P.S.§ 3535 Repeat voting at elections, Bribery, 25 P.S. § 3539, Bribery at elections, among other things, are now perfectly legal with respect to judicial retention elections. This is hardly the legislative intent or judicial interpretation one would expect in a government of laws. Common sense has to prevail here.
From a reading of the statute, it is clear that the legislature did not draw any distinction between retention elections and any other statewide election. To rule in favor of Casey's party, the Commonwealth Court had to read that distinction into the law because a facial reading required a ruling in favor of Romanelli. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will have to decide if it wishes to write the law or to simply apply it as the legislature wrote it. As my two readers know, I don't hold much faith that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will reach the correct result.

As a policy matter, I fail to understand why a Party who can gather 50,000 valid signatures can't get on the ballot. It seems awfully unDemocratic to require that many in the first place or to have someone thrown off who can get that many people to sign the petitions.

What Rick Santorum did here, in (however incompetently) funding and arranging the petitions drive was cynical, desperate and shameful. But there is enough shame to go around in this debacle.

(Thanks to Gary at Declarations for alerting me to the decision!)

3 comments:

LVDem said...

I'd feel more comfortable with Romanelli's interpretation if it was in effect from the beginning of the circulation period b/c as it is, I think more candidates would be placed on the ballot, not just for this race, but also for the governor's race. I just don't like the idea of changing the rules after the deadline. I do agree that the standard is far to high but as a "rule of law" person, I don't like moving targets. If everybody would have aimed for the target, I think this would have resulted in a far right challenge to santorum.

A Big Fat Slob said...

It's not a matter of changing the rules. The law is what it is and it isn't Romanelli's gault if the Election Board got it wrong.

Anonymous said...

The target had always been steady in mid-term and presidential years -- always 20,000 to 30,000 signatures -- until this year, when the Pennsylvania Department of State moved it sky-high to 67,000+. All the minor parties and independents took notice, and certainly they must all considered gathering the correct 16,000 number and then suing, as Carl Romanelli has done. But none of them did.

If the threshold had been set correctly, the involvement of conservative donors would have never happened. The Pennsylvania Greens have collected the 20,000 or 30,000 signatures successfully three cycles in a row -- 2000, 2002, and 2004 -- and never been challenged. (In 2004 it was for their presidential candidate David Cobb. Nader was not with the Greens that year.) The Pennsylvania Greens certainly could have collected 16,000 this year. I wouldn't be surprised if at least 16,000 of this year's valid signatures were collected by Green volunteers, not professionals paid for with the large contributions.

In the end, the irony is that if the Republican legislature (especially under Tom Ridge) would have lowered the signature requirements years ago, Santorum's friends could have donated their money to Santorum instead of the professional signature gathering that came up short in the end anyway!