NOTE:
WE ARE MOVING!!! For now, the old Blogger address will bring you to the new location -- but that can change at any time. Please update your Blogroll, Links, and Bookmarks NOW:
Click Here to Blogroll A Big Fat Slob!
Showing posts with label Romanelli. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Romanelli. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Disrespecting Democracy
Over the years, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has put it's intellectual limitations on display with considerable frequency and has given this observer more than a little reason to question the integrity of the Court. Today, with but a few words, it adds cowardice to its long list of inadequacies, short-sheets democracy, and disrespects litigants who face the Court as truly their last resort.
Law, lawyers and the courts are the stuff which keeps society together. In ways large and small, lawyers put together the deals, settle the estates, document the contracts, and litigate the disputes -- in short, day in and day out they labor, mostly unsung and underappreciated, and always subject to ignorant attack, to keep our affairs on an even keel and to keep our fingers from one another's throats. It is respect for the law and the legal process which prevents neighbors from taking up arms to settle their own disputes and keeps anarchy from the streets. When Shakespeare wanted to demonstrate the dangerous intentions of the speaker, he had a character utter that most misused quote about killing all the lawyers. Billy and his buds knew that, take away the lawyers, take away access to justice, and anarchy would follow.
This is why such a high premium needs to be placed on judicial impartiality and integrity; why the courts need not only to actually give each litigant a fair hearing, but to work so they believe that they had their day in court -- even if it the result is against them.
Too often in Pennsylvania we see judges at every level showing the utter disrespect for the important role of the legal process, for the litigants who appear before them, and for the appearance of justice itself. They do this in many ways, sometimes they display overt friendship with one lawyer or another, by demeaning a party or counsel, or by refusing to explain their decisions to the litigants. Judges of Courts across the Commonwealth are more frequently resorting to one sentence, or even one-word decisions, leaving litigants and their counsel left only to guess at the basis. And worse, to assume that there was no rational basis for the decision -- that the decision was based on prejudice, cronyism, or favoritism of some kind.
And now, the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has "led" the way by modeling that behavior. In an important appeal, with grand implications for access to the ballot by third parties, closely watched in political corners near and far, and of more than passing interest to the more than 50,000 Pennsylvania residents who put their names on the line of the Green Party nominations, the Supreme Court refuses to explain itself. They devote but 17 words -- including the date -- in "deciding" the appeal of the Green Party.
"AFFIRMED" is the entire holding, discussion, ruling, and decision of the Court.
Oh, we knew Romanelli would lose, although it was clear that his argument was correct. Apparently, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was unable to come up with any justification for the result which they wanted to achieve, so they did what small minds everywhere do when intellectually overwhelmed -- they just gave the finger to those 50,000 residents, the litigants, and fairness.
Hoo-ray for Pennsylvania.
Law, lawyers and the courts are the stuff which keeps society together. In ways large and small, lawyers put together the deals, settle the estates, document the contracts, and litigate the disputes -- in short, day in and day out they labor, mostly unsung and underappreciated, and always subject to ignorant attack, to keep our affairs on an even keel and to keep our fingers from one another's throats. It is respect for the law and the legal process which prevents neighbors from taking up arms to settle their own disputes and keeps anarchy from the streets. When Shakespeare wanted to demonstrate the dangerous intentions of the speaker, he had a character utter that most misused quote about killing all the lawyers. Billy and his buds knew that, take away the lawyers, take away access to justice, and anarchy would follow.
This is why such a high premium needs to be placed on judicial impartiality and integrity; why the courts need not only to actually give each litigant a fair hearing, but to work so they believe that they had their day in court -- even if it the result is against them.
Too often in Pennsylvania we see judges at every level showing the utter disrespect for the important role of the legal process, for the litigants who appear before them, and for the appearance of justice itself. They do this in many ways, sometimes they display overt friendship with one lawyer or another, by demeaning a party or counsel, or by refusing to explain their decisions to the litigants. Judges of Courts across the Commonwealth are more frequently resorting to one sentence, or even one-word decisions, leaving litigants and their counsel left only to guess at the basis. And worse, to assume that there was no rational basis for the decision -- that the decision was based on prejudice, cronyism, or favoritism of some kind.
And now, the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has "led" the way by modeling that behavior. In an important appeal, with grand implications for access to the ballot by third parties, closely watched in political corners near and far, and of more than passing interest to the more than 50,000 Pennsylvania residents who put their names on the line of the Green Party nominations, the Supreme Court refuses to explain itself. They devote but 17 words -- including the date -- in "deciding" the appeal of the Green Party.
"AFFIRMED" is the entire holding, discussion, ruling, and decision of the Court.
Oh, we knew Romanelli would lose, although it was clear that his argument was correct. Apparently, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was unable to come up with any justification for the result which they wanted to achieve, so they did what small minds everywhere do when intellectually overwhelmed -- they just gave the finger to those 50,000 residents, the litigants, and fairness.
Hoo-ray for Pennsylvania.
Here it is, the whole damned thing:
J-167-2006
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICTIN RE: NOMINATION PAPER OF MARAKAY ROGERS, CHRISTINA VALENTE AND CARL J. ROMANELLI AS CANDIDATES OF AN INDEPENDENT POLITICAL BODY FOR GOVERNOR, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR AND U.S. SENATOR IN THE GENERAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 7, 2006
WILLIAM R. CAROSELLI, FRED R. LEVIN, DANIEL J. ANDERS AND PETER D. WINEBRAKE
APPEAL OF: CARL ROMANELLI
::::::::::::::
No. 106 MAP 2006
Appeal from the order of the
Commonwealth Court at No. 426 MD 2006
entered on 08-24-2006.ORDERPER CURIAM
DECIDED: October 3, 2006
AND NOW, this 3rd day of October, 2006, the Order of the Commonwealth Court is
hereby AFFIRMED.
Romanelli's Supreme Argument
Green Party candidate Carl Romanelli, despite having gathered over 50,000 uncontested signatures of Pennsylvania voters on his nominating petitions, is off the ballot unless he can convince the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that an election is an election.
Romanelli finds himself in this position because, in 2004, Bobby Casey Junior, running against an underfunded "who???", in a Presidential election year which saw the largest voter turnout in Pennsylvania history, picked up alot of votes. The Pennsylvania statute at play (25 P.S. Section 2911(b)) states, in pertinent part, as follows (emphasis added):
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. (That's her photo just below this paragraph.)
Romanelli is challenging the State Election Board's dictation that the 2005 election was not an election, and has recently filed his brief with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (h/t to PoliticsPA). Before referring to Romanelli's brief, however, let us take a look at the primary sources for the argument -- the State Constitution and legislation. The issue appears to come down to the question of whether Newman was a "candidate" in an "election".
Section 15 of the Constitution of the Commonwelath of Pennsylvania addresses the retention of judges (emphasis added):
Then we have the legislation which derives from and enacts section 15 of the Constitution (fyi, the Constitution trumps a statute). Chapter 32, section 3153 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes addresses the retention "thing" for judges" (NB the link to the statute is to a private site run by a DJ. It is a travesty that our state government refuses to provide the full text of all laws online):
Romanelli finds himself in this position because, in 2004, Bobby Casey Junior, running against an underfunded "who???", in a Presidential election year which saw the largest voter turnout in Pennsylvania history, picked up alot of votes. The Pennsylvania statute at play (25 P.S. Section 2911(b)) states, in pertinent part, as follows (emphasis added):
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.This statute clearly requires that the touchstone for the third-party nominating petition shall be the largest number of votes received by a successful "candidate" in the preceding statewide "election". For this year's general elections, 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. (That's her photo just below this paragraph.)
Romanelli is challenging the State Election Board's dictation that the 2005 election was not an election, and has recently filed his brief with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (h/t to PoliticsPA). Before referring to Romanelli's brief, however, let us take a look at the primary sources for the argument -- the State Constitution and legislation. The issue appears to come down to the question of whether Newman was a "candidate" in an "election".Section 15 of the Constitution of the Commonwelath of Pennsylvania addresses the retention of judges (emphasis added):
(b) A justice or judge elected under section thirteen (a), appointed under section thirteen (d) or retained under this section fifteen (b) may file a declaration of candidacy for retention election with the officer of the Commonwealth who under law shall have supervision over elections on or before the first Monday of January of the year preceding the year in which his term of office expires. . . .The State Constituion here does two important things -- it makes it clear that the judge seeking to remain in office is (i) a CANDIDATE in (ii) a retention ELECTION. There is no asterisk next to either term in the Constitution, or explanation later that the drafters weren't "serious about that" when they called the judge standing for retention a candidate in an election.
Then we have the legislation which derives from and enacts section 15 of the Constitution (fyi, the Constitution trumps a statute). Chapter 32, section 3153 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes addresses the retention "thing" for judges" (NB the link to the statute is to a private site run by a DJ. It is a travesty that our state government refuses to provide the full text of all laws online):
§ 3153. Retention Elections After Regular Term.
(a) General rule.- A judge elected under section 3131 (relating to selection of judicial officers for regular terms) or retained under this section may file a declaration of candidacy for retention election with the Secretary of the Commonwealth on or before the first Monday of January of the year preceding the year in which his term of office expires. If no declaration is filed, a vacancy shall exist upon the expiration of the term of office of such judge, to be filled by election under section 3131(c).
Oops, they did it again -- there's those words problematic to the anti-democratic forces trying to keep a candidate off the ballot -- "candidate" and "election".
It doesn't end there, as Romanelli's brief makes clear, the various election laws enacted by the Pennsylvania State legislature clearly treat the "retention thing" as what the Constitution says it is -- an election:
But in addition to the plain meaning argument, Romanelli has another forceful one -- the hard rule, long established and oft repeated in election cases in this Commonwealth -- that in every case the election code must be stretched to its furthest reaches to allow for more ballot access, and every presumpotion against restriction granted. Again, as the Romanelli brief summarizes:
I expect that Romanelli will lose a won argument because of the general indifference to law and preference for result-oriented decisions which I think sadly characterize this Court.
It doesn't end there, as Romanelli's brief makes clear, the various election laws enacted by the Pennsylvania State legislature clearly treat the "retention thing" as what the Constitution says it is -- an election:
The judicial code also provides that each judicial officer of the Commonwealth shall be sworn into office and that oath must be taken after a judge’s appointment or election, “and after each retention election….” 42 Pa.C.S. §3151.The Romanelli brief goes further and recounts the sundried absurdities which would necessarily result from a reading of the election code to exclude rentention elections within the definition of elections. From the plain text of the Constitution and the statutes deriving their authority from the Constitution, Newman was a candidate for election to a statwide office and her votes should be the measure for third party candidates.
There are at least four definitions of the word “election” contained in the Election Code itself.
Section 102(f) provides that “the word ‘election’ shall mean any general municipal, special or primary election, unless otherwise specified.” 25 P.S. § 2602(f), (emphasis added).
Sections 1101 and 1101-A, concerning ballot labels on voting machines and electronic voting systems, respectively, both state that an “election” means “all general, municipal, primary, and special elections.” 25 P.S. §§ 3001(12); 3031.1.
The Pennsylvania campaign finance law, Article XVI of the Election Code, states that “the word ‘election’ shall mean any retention, primary, special, municipal or general election at which candidates appear on the ballot for nomination or election . . . .” 25 P.S. § 3241(c).
A judicial officer who is seeking to be retained for another term is a “candidate for election” under both definitions of what constitutes a “candidate” contained in the Election Code. Compare 25 P.S. § 2602(a) with 25 P.S. § 3241(a). Were a judicial retention candidate not a “candidate for election” then the entire campaign finance reporting system, which no one disputes applies to candidates in judicial retention elections, would be rendered meaningless.
But in addition to the plain meaning argument, Romanelli has another forceful one -- the hard rule, long established and oft repeated in election cases in this Commonwealth -- that in every case the election code must be stretched to its furthest reaches to allow for more ballot access, and every presumpotion against restriction granted. Again, as the Romanelli brief summarizes:
"The Election Code is to be liberally construed so as not to deprive a candidate of the right to run for office or the voters of their right to elect the candidate of their choice.” Smith v. Brown, 590 A.2d 816, 818 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991). This construction of the Election Code is a longstanding and established policy. See also In re Nomination Petitions of Fumo, 577 Pa. 496, 846 A.2d 672 (2004); font-style: italic;">In re Nomination Petition of Driscoll, 577 Pa. 501, 508, 847 A.2d 44, 49 (2004)(noting that “in reviewing election issues, we must consider the longstanding and overriding policy in our Commonwealth to protect the elective franchise”); Petition of Cioppa, 533 Pa. 564, 570 626 A.2d 146, 149 (1993) (applying the “spirit of liberality in construing our Election Code” prospectively, and noting that the “power to vitiate a ballot for minor irregularities should be used sparingly, … only for very compelling reasons”) (emphasis added).The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will need to ignore plain text of the Constitution and stautues, and turn away from long-established principle, to kick Romanelli off the ballot. But, in my opinion, our Pennsylvania Supreme Court has before demonstrated the lack of intellect and integrity to permit them to do just that.
I expect that Romanelli will lose a won argument because of the general indifference to law and preference for result-oriented decisions which I think sadly characterize this Court.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
SV: Casey +9; WSJ: Casey +6; Survey USA: Rick 99th Worst
Well, we did say it would be a sad week for Rick Santorum.
The latest poll by Strategic Vision -- a Republican Pollster -- has no good news for the floundering reelection campaign of Pennsylvania's Junior Senator from Virgina.
The latest poll by Strategic Vision -- a Republican Pollster -- has no good news for the floundering reelection campaign of Pennsylvania's Junior Senator from Virgina.
SV's September 2006 Poll puts Casey at 50% and Santorum at 41% in a three-way with Green Party candidate Carl Romanelli (5%) (eeew, Santorum's not the only one who would shudder about such a three-way). A two-way race apparently sends the SV respondents into confusion -- Casey stays at 50%, Santorum drops to 40%, and all of Romanelli's supporters, and the defecting Santorum supporters, all fold into the 10% "idunno" category. This same poll gave Casey a six-point lead a month ago, pegging the Favorite Son's favorite son at 47% to Virginia's son's 41%. So I guess Santorum can tell his pillow "it's okay, I didn't go down".
This wasn't the Santorum team's game plan when they began spending their huge cash lead in August on television buys, soft image commercials, and lying, devious, attack ads. That's alot of money to spend and not gain an inch in nearly two months. Santorum can run on immigration, he can run on Casey's perennial campaigning, he can run on the subtle bigotry and irrational fear of Muslims, but he can't run from his record, which Pennsylvanians find dismal. The policies he supports are walking around the White House -- and EVERYone knows that. Pennsylvanians think Bush sucks (58% in this SV survey). Santorum's record is Bush's record, and that's broken.
Sliced with or without Romanelli, the meat of the Poll shows Casey winning this race handily.
The SV Poll puts Rendell comfortably ahead of the Republican challenger, Lynn Swann, 55% to 37%, despite 63% seeing Pennsylvania heading in the wrong direction. Hmmm, I wonder which party is in control of the Pennsylvania legislature . . . . oh, yeah, the Rs.
UPDATE 9/28/06: WSJ/Zogby Poll -- Casey up 6 Points
The Wall Street Journal/Zogby Poll released another set of figures today. According to this interactive online poll, Casey leads Santorum 45.8% to 39.8%. This represents a three-point drop for Santorum over the preceding WSJ/Zogby numbers and a one-point fall for Casey. The Poll was conducted between September 19 and 25. Your correspondent participated in the Poll. No other data is made available with these polls. They state that Carl Romanelli was part of the poll, but they do not give his numbers nor the undecided tally. The margin of error is 3.3%. The previous WSJ/Zogby poll, taken August 29 to September 5, had Casey at 47%.
Santorum 43%. Santorum continues to fall in every poll. In the last week, these are the polls we have seen:
Strategic Vision 9/28 Casey 50% Santorum 41%
Quinnipiac 9/26 Casey 51% Santorum 39%
Temple/Inquirer 9/24 Casey 49% Santorum 39%
Rasmussen 9/21 Casey 49% Santorum 39%
Keystone 9/21 Casey 45% Santorum 38%
Issues PA/Pew 9/21 Casey 52% Santorum 31%
Throwing out the 21 point Issues PA/Pew poll (because, we've never seen the actual poll results and it's a little out of line with the rest), the last six polls give Casey and average lead of 9 points. (N.B.: Where available, we used the three-way poll result.)
UPDATE II 9/28/06 -- SurveyUSA Releases September Approval Ratings for All US Senators
Look, we weren't kidding when we said this was gonna be a really, really bad week for Santorum.Survey USA has released its latest Approval Ratings for All US Senators as of September 2006. Santorum is back down at the very bottom of the list, the 99th worst Senator in the United States, ahead of only Conrad Burns. A solid 53% say that they think Rick Santorum is doing a lousy job as their Senator.
This comes a scant month after the Virgina resident scored his highest approval rating in over a year (48%). This month's 53% number isn't as low as he's gone, though. That would be the 57% disapproval score he earned in May, 2006. But we have all the confidence in the world that Santorum can equal or "better" that 57% mark.
Independents (14% of respondents) trash the junior Senator with a 54% disapproval ranking; Moderates (39% of respondents) reject him with a 64% disapproval figure; Regular church goers (36% of survey), 50% disapproval, 45% approve; those never attending college (21%), give him thumbs down with 49% disapproval, 38% approval.
Mmmmmmmm, toasttt!
(PS from the "Ain't We Special Department" -- As near as we can tell, we were the first to bring you these three poll results.)
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Quinnipiac - Casey Up By 12 Points
This is going to be a very sad week for two-term incumbent Republican Rick Santorum.
It started off with the Inky/Pew poll showing the floundering Virginia resident down by ten points, which came on the heals of two polls last week showing the faux Penn Hills resident down by 10 points and 7 points. Now comes the new Quinnipiac poll of likely voters showing Casey trouncing Pennsylvania's junior Senator 51-39% in a three-way race and 54-40% in a head-to-head match up. And it will not be ending there, also due out this week are polls from Strategic Vision and, my favorite, the Survey USA rankings of all United States Senators.
In August, Quinnipiac showed the spread at a mere six points, with Casey at 48% and Santorum at 42% among "likely voters" (Quinnipiac -- despite several requests -- has never said how they determine if a voter is likely to vote. Their cross-tabs do not show that they ask any of the series of questions usually designed to ferret out likely voters. While we are suspect of their "likely voter" claims, they are used here for comparison purposes. The spread among all respondents and likely voters is roughly the same, anyway.)
Quinnipiac was one of the rare polls over the last year which showed Santorum above 40%. Not any more.
The Quinnipiac Poll found that only 38% of the multi-term Senator's constituents think he's been doing a good job -- everyone else thinks he sucks, or is too confused to make up their minds. On the other hand, Casey's favorables are going up, which surprises your truly, but is a good sign for the Favorite Son's favorite son.
Romanelli (4%), as we have long said, is having no impact and, in fact, is pulling support from twice as many Republicans (2%) as Democrats (1%), according to the Quinnipiac numbers.
Santorum is strongest in the Northwest (47-47%) and Central (48% Santorum - 41% Casey) which have the fewest numbers of voters. In heavily populated Allegheny County, Casey is leading Santorum with 57-38% and in Philly Casey is walking away with 75% support.
Santorum is no doubt sending his resume out to his friends on K Street this week.
It started off with the Inky/Pew poll showing the floundering Virginia resident down by ten points, which came on the heals of two polls last week showing the faux Penn Hills resident down by 10 points and 7 points. Now comes the new Quinnipiac poll of likely voters showing Casey trouncing Pennsylvania's junior Senator 51-39% in a three-way race and 54-40% in a head-to-head match up. And it will not be ending there, also due out this week are polls from Strategic Vision and, my favorite, the Survey USA rankings of all United States Senators.
In August, Quinnipiac showed the spread at a mere six points, with Casey at 48% and Santorum at 42% among "likely voters" (Quinnipiac -- despite several requests -- has never said how they determine if a voter is likely to vote. Their cross-tabs do not show that they ask any of the series of questions usually designed to ferret out likely voters. While we are suspect of their "likely voter" claims, they are used here for comparison purposes. The spread among all respondents and likely voters is roughly the same, anyway.)
Quinnipiac was one of the rare polls over the last year which showed Santorum above 40%. Not any more.
While we take issue with any claim that Santorum had any comeback momentum -- he has consistently been looking at the ass-side of 40% throughout this campaign -- it is clear that Casey's support is solidifying. Actually, it may be more correct to say that the anti-Santorum sentiment is solidifying:"Sen. Rick Santorum's comeback momentum has been stopped dead in the water. Santorum's attack ads against Casey have failed to spark voters' support, and 50 percent of voters say the Senator does not deserve re-election," said Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
Among likely voters who back Casey, 55 percent say their vote is mainly against Santorum, while 40 percent say their vote is mainly for the Democrat.You can count your loyal correspondent amongst that 55 percent. (On November 8, we start looking for ways to replace Casey in Washington with a real Democrat. Guess we'll have to draft him to run for Governor.)
The Quinnipiac Poll found that only 38% of the multi-term Senator's constituents think he's been doing a good job -- everyone else thinks he sucks, or is too confused to make up their minds. On the other hand, Casey's favorables are going up, which surprises your truly, but is a good sign for the Favorite Son's favorite son.
Romanelli (4%), as we have long said, is having no impact and, in fact, is pulling support from twice as many Republicans (2%) as Democrats (1%), according to the Quinnipiac numbers.
Santorum is strongest in the Northwest (47-47%) and Central (48% Santorum - 41% Casey) which have the fewest numbers of voters. In heavily populated Allegheny County, Casey is leading Santorum with 57-38% and in Philly Casey is walking away with 75% support.
Santorum is no doubt sending his resume out to his friends on K Street this week.
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:
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:
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!)
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!)
Sunday, September 24, 2006
New Poll -- Casey up by 10
A new poll, released today, shows Democratic challenger Bob Casey leading Republican incumbent Rick Santorum by ten points among likely voters. The poll was conducted by Temple University for the Philadelphia Inquirer among 666 (nice touch) likely voters. Respondents gave Casey 49% support, Santorum was stuck below 40% again, at 39%, and Green Party candidate Carl Romanelli pulls in an insignificant 3%.Even if Rick picks up all of the undecideds, he loses. More likely, as we move closer to election day, the undecideds will break towards Casey. Santorum is seeking his third term -- these voters know where he stands better than most of the people who live on their own street. When a multi-term incumbent is unable to make a solid case for himself a scant month before election day, an "undecided" vote is already a vote against the incumbent.
From the Republican faithful, you'll start hearing the myth about Santorum coming from behind. Don't let those talking points worry you -- at this point in his last reelection campaign, Santorum was trouncing Ron Klink, 43-24%. The challenger managed to pull in most of the undecideds over the last month of the campaign, ending up with 46% of the vote on election day in 2000.
As the Inquirer article points out, the last ten polls we've seen (which goes back to August 6th), give Casey an average lead of 9 points. Santorum has been looking at the underside of 40% virtually throughout this campaign. In the 25 public polls since April, Santorum has broken 40% on only six of them, and never by very much. There is no evidence that he has moved any Casey support to his side of the ledger and, with only 8% undecided at this point, he is unlikely to do so.
NOW it's time for the butter, Mabel!
Monday, September 18, 2006
Romanelli Gets PA Supreme Court Review
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear the appeal of Green Party candidate Carl Romanelli. The appeal is limited to the issue whether the "2005 Judicial Retention Election or the 2004 General Election constitutes 'the last preceding election in which State-wide candidates were voted for' under 25 P.S. § 2911(b)."
The Supreme Court did not set an argument date, but did direct the clerk to set an expedited briefing schedule.
(h/t Politics PA)
The Supreme Court did not set an argument date, but did direct the clerk to set an expedited briefing schedule.
(h/t Politics PA)
Romanelli on PCN -- See it Now.
Green Party candidate for the US Senate, Carl Romanelli, was on the PCN-TV call in show on September 12. I missed it live and haven't had a chance to review the entire program yet. If you'd like to watch it, you can do so here. I'm not sure how much longer it will be available; PCN doesn't keep their stuff up through the entire election cycle.
I'm hoping Larry Smar will watch it, since he thinks Santorum and Romanelli stand for the same thing. (Okay, I know he doesn't truly believe that -- but that's the lie he's promoting. I'm not sure if it would be worse if he was really stupid enough to believe that, or if he thinks other people are stupid enough to believe it.)
(PS -- If you'd like to see PCN leave its election-related coverage up though the election, please join me in suggesting that to them here.)
I'm hoping Larry Smar will watch it, since he thinks Santorum and Romanelli stand for the same thing. (Okay, I know he doesn't truly believe that -- but that's the lie he's promoting. I'm not sure if it would be worse if he was really stupid enough to believe that, or if he thinks other people are stupid enough to believe it.)
(PS -- If you'd like to see PCN leave its election-related coverage up though the election, please join me in suggesting that to them here.)
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Romanelli - I'll "Clean Casey's Clock" in Debates
Casey campaign chief Larry Smar says Casey won't take part in the debates because Romanelli "is a representative of the Santorum campaign." Romanelli, for his part, says Casey is “not policy-equipped and he’s a terrible debater . . . .Why on earth would he want to go up against me? Because I’ll clean his clock!”
Smar's comment is (take your pick) silly, sophomoric, a lie, cynical. Romanelli makes a couple of good points in his. I can't recall any debate in his career in which Casey came out on top -- and his clock was cleaned in the primary (worse in the two primary debates for which he showed than in the ones for which he stayed at a fundraiser in Chicago, or California, or wherever he was hiding from his opponents).
It is inappropriate for Casey to continue to duck debates. Romanelli is a candidate and deserves to participate. Casey should stop his tiresome whining about how Romanelli became a candidate and just get on with the race. Santorum's placement of Romanelli on the ballot was the cynical, inappropriate, and desperate action of a losing candidate. Casey's cynical, inappropriate, and desperate attempts to avoid debating Santorum and Romanelli pegs him as a loser, regardless of the outcome of the vote.
Smar's comment is (take your pick) silly, sophomoric, a lie, cynical. Romanelli makes a couple of good points in his. I can't recall any debate in his career in which Casey came out on top -- and his clock was cleaned in the primary (worse in the two primary debates for which he showed than in the ones for which he stayed at a fundraiser in Chicago, or California, or wherever he was hiding from his opponents).
It is inappropriate for Casey to continue to duck debates. Romanelli is a candidate and deserves to participate. Casey should stop his tiresome whining about how Romanelli became a candidate and just get on with the race. Santorum's placement of Romanelli on the ballot was the cynical, inappropriate, and desperate action of a losing candidate. Casey's cynical, inappropriate, and desperate attempts to avoid debating Santorum and Romanelli pegs him as a loser, regardless of the outcome of the vote.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Abbott and Costello Take to the Road
Get ready, Pennsylvania, the odd couple of Keystone politics is planning a road trip. Carol Romanelli, who never had a viewing from the QEFTSG fellas, claims that he and Your Rick are taking to the streets."We will travel from Erie to Philadelphia and everywhere in between," Romanelli said. "The senator has assured me he will go forward in debate, even in the absence of Bob Casey's willingness to participate."
But not so fast, I feel a qualification coming . . . .
"Sen. Santorum looks forward to joining with Mr. Romanelli and Mr. Casey for a series of debates between now and Election Day," Davis said, adding that the details are still being determined.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Romanelli Files Appeal with PA Supreme Court
As expected, Carl Romanelli has filed an appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court from the decision of the Commonwealth Court rejecting his argument that the retention election of Justice Newman was the last statewide election on which his signature requirement should have been based.
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:
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.
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:
h/t to PoliticsPA for the Appeal.
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.
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 rentention 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.
h/t to PoliticsPA for the Appeal.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Romanelli Threatens Legal Action to Join Debates
Carl Romanelli isn't taking the Casey announcement that he will not be invited to participate in debates and joint appearances lightly. Two days ago, we broke the exclusive report that Larry Smar, Casey's campaign chief, said that Casey will not permit Romanelli to participate in the debates. In reply, we have another breaking news item to exclusively report -- Romanelli is prepared to take legal action against any media group which does not let him participate in joint appearances with Casey and Santorum.
In an email to the Slob, Romanelli said "I will file legal actions against any media that does not include me in the debates. Including NBC"!
The Green Party candidate accused the Casey camp of trying to duck Casey's conservative policy positions and of being fearful that the inclusion of a real liberal in the debates would expose him. In his email to the Slob, Romanelli said:
Romanelli also told the Slob that his campaign has been trying to contact Meet the Press for three weeks, but that the producers have ignored him. The Slob has similarly sent numerous emails to the MTP producers since August 1, when Romanelli filed his petitions. MTP has refused to respond to our inquiries, also (imagine that). We are contacting them and the other debate/appearance sponsors for their reactions.
Stay tuned. This is starting to get fun!
[UPDATE (8/24/06): The League of Women Voters has confirmed that one campaign is insisting that Romanelli be invited and the other is insisting that he be excluded. They did not say which was which, but we already know that, don't we? It looks like Romanelli is going to be invited to at least one debate (if he remains on the ballot).]
In an email to the Slob, Romanelli said "I will file legal actions against any media that does not include me in the debates. Including NBC"!
The Green Party candidate accused the Casey camp of trying to duck Casey's conservative policy positions and of being fearful that the inclusion of a real liberal in the debates would expose him. In his email to the Slob, Romanelli said:
"Larry Smar's name should be Larry Smear. I am frustrated by the media acting like I need Bob Casey's permission to debate. Casey is the one who is trying to hide his Santorum-like positions on the important issues. Please note that Bob Casey has taken tons of Republican PAC money, yet they try to destroy my campaign. Regarding my appearance on the ballot, I am on. Casey has to PROVE that my signatures are no good. They can't and I will beat them in Harrisburg on this attempt to further shorten my campaign season."Take that!
Romanelli also told the Slob that his campaign has been trying to contact Meet the Press for three weeks, but that the producers have ignored him. The Slob has similarly sent numerous emails to the MTP producers since August 1, when Romanelli filed his petitions. MTP has refused to respond to our inquiries, also (imagine that). We are contacting them and the other debate/appearance sponsors for their reactions.
Stay tuned. This is starting to get fun!
[UPDATE (8/24/06): The League of Women Voters has confirmed that one campaign is insisting that Romanelli be invited and the other is insisting that he be excluded. They did not say which was which, but we already know that, don't we? It looks like Romanelli is going to be invited to at least one debate (if he remains on the ballot).]
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Decision Upholding Signature Law Not Relevant to Romanelli Petition Issues
Contrary to the implication by a bunch of uninformed caseyphiles elsewhere, today's decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upholding Pennsylvania's signature requirement for minor party candidates has no bearing on either the Democratic attempt to keep Green Party candidate Carl Romanelli off the ballot nor on Romanelli's legal action challenging the State Board of Elections' application of that law.
The Third Circuit decision came in the case of Marakay Rogers, The Green Party, and others, who challenged the constitutionality of the state law requiring minor party candidates to obtain signatures equal to 2% of the most votes cast for a candidate in the statewide election preceding the general election in which the minor party seeks to nominate a candidate. While there were a number of arguments presented to the Third Circuit on the constitutional issues, a prior decision of the United States Supreme Court, which upheld even more onerous requirements, was controlling.
Romanelli's legal challenge to the signature requirement does not challenge the constitutionality of the statute. Therefore, a Federal Court decision on the constitutionality of the statute is irrelevant to the state court proceeding. In Romanelli's petition, he contends that the Board of Elections erred in selecting Bobby Casey's vote total as the basis.
The Pennsylvania statute (25 P.S. Section 2911(b)) states, in pertinent part, as follows:
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. His argument is not unpursuasive:
[UPDATE (8/24/06): Those buffoons are at it again. They repeated their story today and again insisted that this decision will knock Romanelli off the ballot. They are so intent on getting their guy elected that they abandon all objectivity, and, from all appearances, anysemblancee of intelligence. Credibility is hard to develop and easy to lose. They either don't know what they are talking about, or think that their readers don't. Regardless which it is, being an advocate is fine and fair play; but being the fool, or treating your audience like one, is just, well, foolish.]
[UPDATE (8/24/06): The Patriot-News is reporting that the judge hearing the Romanelli petition is expected to rule by the the end of the day tomorrow. THAT would be the relevant case. The judge, Commonwealth Court President Judge James Collins, will have to decide if the rentention election of Justice Newman in 2005 was an "election". If so, it would be her votes which would form the basis for the Green Party's signature requirements this year, as opposed to the Casey vote in 2004. That would have the result of reducing the Green Party signature requirement from nearly 70,000 to around 16,000. Everyone pretty much agrees that if Romanelli wins that case, he is on the ballot for good. If he loses, he has to defeat the Democrat's challenge to his signatures. By reports, that is looking doubtful.]
The Third Circuit decision came in the case of Marakay Rogers, The Green Party, and others, who challenged the constitutionality of the state law requiring minor party candidates to obtain signatures equal to 2% of the most votes cast for a candidate in the statewide election preceding the general election in which the minor party seeks to nominate a candidate. While there were a number of arguments presented to the Third Circuit on the constitutional issues, a prior decision of the United States Supreme Court, which upheld even more onerous requirements, was controlling.
Romanelli's legal challenge to the signature requirement does not challenge the constitutionality of the statute. Therefore, a Federal Court decision on the constitutionality of the statute is irrelevant to the state court proceeding. In Romanelli's petition, he contends that the Board of Elections erred in selecting Bobby Casey's vote total as the basis.
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. His argument is not unpursuasive:
The Election Code states that the word "election" shall mean any general, municipal, special or primary election . . . . A general election is defined as an even year election and a municipal election as an odd year election. . . . "The Election Code is to be liberally construed so as not to deprive a candidate of the right to run for office or the voters of their right to elect the candidate of their choice." Smith v. Brown, 590 A.2d 816, 818 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991). This construction of the Election Code is a longstanding and established policy. . . . The Department of State erred when it set the 2% signature requirement based upon the 2004 statewide results in the TreasurerÂ’s race and has ignored the 2005 statewide race for judicial retention wherein Justice Sandra Schultz Newman won the retention election with 797,465 votes cast by the citizen electors of the Commonwealth on November 8, 2005.Today's decision by the Third Circuit didn't address the sole issue raised by the Romanelli petition -- whether a judicial retention election is, well, an "election". Any suggestion to the contrary, that the Third Circuit decision means we can kiss Romanelli goodbye, is just silly and entirely uninformed. But, considering the source, we're not surprised they got it so wrong.
[UPDATE (8/24/06): Those buffoons are at it again. They repeated their story today and again insisted that this decision will knock Romanelli off the ballot. They are so intent on getting their guy elected that they abandon all objectivity, and, from all appearances, anysemblancee of intelligence. Credibility is hard to develop and easy to lose. They either don't know what they are talking about, or think that their readers don't. Regardless which it is, being an advocate is fine and fair play; but being the fool, or treating your audience like one, is just, well, foolish.]
[UPDATE (8/24/06): The Patriot-News is reporting that the judge hearing the Romanelli petition is expected to rule by the the end of the day tomorrow. THAT would be the relevant case. The judge, Commonwealth Court President Judge James Collins, will have to decide if the rentention election of Justice Newman in 2005 was an "election". If so, it would be her votes which would form the basis for the Green Party's signature requirements this year, as opposed to the Casey vote in 2004. That would have the result of reducing the Green Party signature requirement from nearly 70,000 to around 16,000. Everyone pretty much agrees that if Romanelli wins that case, he is on the ballot for good. If he loses, he has to defeat the Democrat's challenge to his signatures. By reports, that is looking doubtful.]
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Casey: Romanelli Not Invited to Debates
Larry Smar provided a fast reply to my inquiry about the participation of the Green Party candidate in the upcoming Senatorial debates: 'no way'.
After posting the article today about the upcoming debates and joint appearances, I sent an email to the Casey and Santorum Campaign chiefs asking:
At the time, I thought it was wrong of Santorum to exclude the third-party candidates from the debates. It is wrong for Casey to do so now.
As an aside, that same article quoted the Santorum campaign as having already agreed to three debates and willing to schedule at least three more (they ended up doing five). Casey should follow that practice and agree to at least five debates (as in "debates" not joint appearances like MTP and KYW radio's "Breakfast with the Candidates".)
[UPDATE (8/23/06 am): The Santorum and Romanelli campaigns were invited to respond to Smar's comments about the Green Party participation in the debates. They have not.]
[UPDATE (8/23/06 pm): Apparently, I sent the invitation to the Santorum campaign to comment to a general email box, although I thought I had sent it to Vince Galko. Virginia Davis, the Santorum Campaign press secretary has sent in this response to Larry Smar's comments:
The story may be apocryphal, but the legend goes that a pre-politician Abe Lincoln was arguing a case before the circuit court one morning and won. That afternoon, he had a second case to argue which involved the same issue of law but on which Lincoln's client was on the opposite side. The chief justice asked him if he didn't advocate the other side of the question in the morning, to which Lincoln responded, "Yes, Your Honor. But the vital difference is that, this time, I am right."
I guess that's something like what we have from the Santorum camp. They aren't willing to directly answer Smar's charges, either.
And, by the way, it is a fiction that Casey's father was not given speaking time at Clinton's convention because he was anti-choice -- several other speakers at the convention were also anti-choice. The big difference -- Casey, Sr. refused to support Bill Clinton.]
After posting the article today about the upcoming debates and joint appearances, I sent an email to the Casey and Santorum Campaign chiefs asking:
Assuming that Mr. Romanelli is still on the ballot at the time of the two October debates now scheduled, what are your respective positions on inviting him to participate.Within minutes I had the following reply from Larry Smar, Casey's spokesperson:
If the challenge to Mr. Romanelli's petition is not determined by September 3, what is your position on his participation in the joint appearance on Meet the Press?
From: Larry SmarWith the appended 2000 AP article, Smar fairly reminds us that, when Santorum faced a challenge from Ron Klink and three conservative minor-party candidates, Santorum blocked their participation in the debates. (Incidentally, the Libertarian Party candidate that year was John Featherman, who was ousted from his primary challenge to Santorum when he didn't have the money to finance a defense to the Republican challenge to his petitions.)
To: A Big Fat Slob
Date: Aug 22, 2006 12:24 PM
Subject: RE: INQUIRY on Debates
We have a rule: only one representative from each campaign on stage. Rick Santorum bought and paid for Romanelli because Santorum is afraid to face Bob Casey one-on-one.
In 2000, Santorum didn't want third-parties in debates. See the end of the 2000 AP article below.
At the time, I thought it was wrong of Santorum to exclude the third-party candidates from the debates. It is wrong for Casey to do so now.
As an aside, that same article quoted the Santorum campaign as having already agreed to three debates and willing to schedule at least three more (they ended up doing five). Casey should follow that practice and agree to at least five debates (as in "debates" not joint appearances like MTP and KYW radio's "Breakfast with the Candidates".)
[UPDATE (8/23/06 am): The Santorum and Romanelli campaigns were invited to respond to Smar's comments about the Green Party participation in the debates. They have not.]
[UPDATE (8/23/06 pm): Apparently, I sent the invitation to the Santorum campaign to comment to a general email box, although I thought I had sent it to Vince Galko. Virginia Davis, the Santorum Campaign press secretary has sent in this response to Larry Smar's comments:
Tens of thousands of citizens have spoken out that they want real debate on the key issues that matter to the future of our Commonwealth and our nation. Yet Bobby Casey is going to great lengths to silence the voice of a candidate who shares this commitment. One might recall when Governor Robert Casey, Bobby Casey Jr.'’s father, was silenced from the 1992 Democratic National Convention because some feared that his pro-life views would conflict with their political agenda. Isn't it ironic that 14 years later, Casey Jr. is trying to silence a candidate who, too, has an interest in expressing opposing views? What exactly is Casey Jr. afraid of?While I agree that, if on the ballot (and he is at the moment), Romanelli should have full participation rights in all joint appearances and debates, the response from the Santorum camp doesn't try to deal with the apparent hypocrisy.
The story may be apocryphal, but the legend goes that a pre-politician Abe Lincoln was arguing a case before the circuit court one morning and won. That afternoon, he had a second case to argue which involved the same issue of law but on which Lincoln's client was on the opposite side. The chief justice asked him if he didn't advocate the other side of the question in the morning, to which Lincoln responded, "Yes, Your Honor. But the vital difference is that, this time, I am right."
I guess that's something like what we have from the Santorum camp. They aren't willing to directly answer Smar's charges, either.
And, by the way, it is a fiction that Casey's father was not given speaking time at Clinton's convention because he was anti-choice -- several other speakers at the convention were also anti-choice. The big difference -- Casey, Sr. refused to support Bill Clinton.]
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Santorum and the Art of Distraction
Doesn't Bob Casey's campaign get it?
Santorum and his peeps have political smarts. They know that Carl Romanelli will have the same impact on this race that a 7 year old relieving himself in the waters off Wildwood Crest has on the ocean levels. Santorum realizes Romanelli isn't going to siphon enough voters off Bob Casey to make any real difference.
But, if the Casey camp has to spend some of its (far less than Rick's) cash on hand and force some of its top people to waste precious manhours and devote strategy sessions to the "Green problem", for a couple of weeks, while Rick goes off to beat the drum on immigration or some other hot-button issue, then what an accomplishment for the Santorum campaign. As a bonus, they've now got people -- bloggers, press, and real folk -- talking about Romanelli and how much Casey is hurt by this. Casey looked, to most of the people on the street, at least, fairly unstoppable. But, by not spending a dime of its own cash on hand, the Santorum campaign has managed to create an impression of vulnerability in the Casey drive to November, and gotten the press to talk about "Casey's Romanelli problem", instead of Casey's message (whatever that is).
The Patriot-News has an editorial today creating some sympathy for the poor Greens, which can't help the Casey cause as they are preparing to challenge the Green petitions:
Santorum and his peeps have political smarts. They know that Carl Romanelli will have the same impact on this race that a 7 year old relieving himself in the waters off Wildwood Crest has on the ocean levels. Santorum realizes Romanelli isn't going to siphon enough voters off Bob Casey to make any real difference.
But, if the Casey camp has to spend some of its (far less than Rick's) cash on hand and force some of its top people to waste precious manhours and devote strategy sessions to the "Green problem", for a couple of weeks, while Rick goes off to beat the drum on immigration or some other hot-button issue, then what an accomplishment for the Santorum campaign. As a bonus, they've now got people -- bloggers, press, and real folk -- talking about Romanelli and how much Casey is hurt by this. Casey looked, to most of the people on the street, at least, fairly unstoppable. But, by not spending a dime of its own cash on hand, the Santorum campaign has managed to create an impression of vulnerability in the Casey drive to November, and gotten the press to talk about "Casey's Romanelli problem", instead of Casey's message (whatever that is).
The Patriot-News has an editorial today creating some sympathy for the poor Greens, which can't help the Casey cause as they are preparing to challenge the Green petitions:
There is a lot to be said in be half of the two-party political system. But it becomes too much of an old-boy, incumbents' protection club when third-party candidates are required to overcome a very stiff challenge to get on the ballot. Indeed, it is just plain wrong that it requires a mere 2,000 qualified signatures for Republican and Democratic statewide candidates to get on the ballot, while third-party candidates have to come up with a whopping 67,070 this year. That's anti-democratic and eliminates candidates and ideas that could lend interest to races that turn off millions of Pennsylvanians who find no inspiration compelling enough to bother to vote. . . . The Green Party appears to have reached that threshold by collecting more than 90,000 signatures, reportedly with the aid of supporters of Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, who is running well behind Casey in the U.S. Senate race. Santorum could be helped if Green Senate candidate Carl Romanelli can siphon some votes away from Casey.
From CityPaper.net comes this report of Washington Post's Pulitzer-Prize winning columnist David Broder's warnings at the Eastern Regional Conference of the Council of State Governments in Philadelphia:
A Goolge search for Carl Romanelli turned up 75,000 hits today. I didn't think to save the searches I've done before all this hit, but it was a boatload less. I think it's pretty fair to say that Romanelli would not have gotten any of this attention if Casey had responded like Romanelli was irrelevant. Instead, CASEY has managed to make him a factor.
Is now a bad time to remind Democrats what happened when Casey had that 26-point lead over Rendell with 8 weeks to go in the 2002 Gubernatorial primary?
Addressing Pennsylvania's U.S. Senate race, Broder said, "Casey should not take his current lead for granted. And if he does, he may be in for a surprise because Santorum is a fighter."Will Bunch is talking about the unusual situation of uber-conservatives giving big bucks to the decidedly left of center Romanelli and how Casey can be hurt by this:
Federal Election Commission records show that all $66,000 of the money raised by the Green Party came from donors who back conservative causes or GOP candidates, particularly Santorum. And it's Santorum who benefits if liberal voters desert Casey for the Greens.His compatriot, Attytood, gives Romanelli's positions full play, lists Casey's conservative credentials, and talks about the harm to Casey:
For a guy who's positioned himself as the candidate of the left in the Pennsylvania Senate race, Carl Romanelli has some very strange bedfellows on the far-right side of the mattress. The Green Party candidate -- who'll likely siphon some votes from liberals angry at Democrat Casey's conservative views on abortion, gun control, and other issues -- has a real shot at making the fall ballot thanks to an effort funded with $66,000 in donations to the Green Party of Luzerne County (where Romanelli lives) that paid for his petition drive. As you may have read over the last couple of days, it's now being reported that many of these donors are allies of GOP Sen. Rick Santorum, who will benefit if disaffected Democrats defect to the Green Party. A most brazen ploy indeed, yet that doesn't even begin to capture the stunning level of cynicism here.And in every news report on the issue, Romanelli talks about how hard it was to get on the ballot with the oppressive signature requirement, Santorum talks about inclusiveness, and Larry Smar (Casey's brain), sounds like he's whining. This from the AP:
"I think I've demonstrated the fight I've brought to this campaign, because we weren't going to let a system bully us out of an election," Romanelli said yesterday. . .
Casey campaign spokesman Larry Smar said Santorum was actively encouraging Romanelli's candidacy to hurt Casey. "This is about stealing votes from Bob Casey," Smar said. . .
Santorum campaign spokeswoman Virginia Davis said Santorum welcomed Romanelli's candidacy because he is willing to debate the senator. . . . "We welcome participation by a third-party candidate who shares a commitment to sharing his views on the issues," Davis said.It is hard for me to see what Casey gains from challenging Romanelli. If Casey boots Romanelli, it will still cost him a coupole of weeks of message and manpower. If he loses, his overreaction elvates Romanelli's status.
A Goolge search for Carl Romanelli turned up 75,000 hits today. I didn't think to save the searches I've done before all this hit, but it was a boatload less. I think it's pretty fair to say that Romanelli would not have gotten any of this attention if Casey had responded like Romanelli was irrelevant. Instead, CASEY has managed to make him a factor.
Is now a bad time to remind Democrats what happened when Casey had that 26-point lead over Rendell with 8 weeks to go in the 2002 Gubernatorial primary?
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
PA Dems to Challenge Green Party Petitions
Well, that didn't take long. Claiming that the company hired to gather many of the signatures has a history of forgery and fraud when it comes to nominating petitions, Pa Dem boss T.J. Rooney said that the state party is preparing to challenge the Romanelli nominating petitions, filed yesterday.
When the petitions were filed, it was widely reported that Santorum & Co. had labored to raise the money, some sources said $100,000, used by the Green Party to collect the signatures.
The company, JSM, Inc. out of Florida, was hired by Nader to get on the ballots in 2004. They had a lot of problems in Ohio, where they needed 5,000 signatures. Despite having turned in 15,000, they came up short after all but 3500 or so were invalidated. JSM is a Republican-connected firm. Nader had to use them after the Democrats warned off their contractors. JSM used sub-contractors to get the job done nationally and they were successful in most challenges brought against them -- Ohio being a pretty egregious example of an unsuccessful effort.
The Green Party press release said that they had filed 100,000 signatures, or over 30,000 more than the 67,000 required. Others said the figure was 90,000+. Regardless, if the Greens submitted that many signatures over the minimum, the Democrats should have solid evidence that every third signature is a forgery. They have had plenty of time to spot check 1,000 signatures by now -- by contacting the voters listed and asking whether they have signed. If they've done that and they have several hundred questionable signatures, then fine, I'll support their challenge.
But, if they haven't done that. If they are playing politics with my electoral system, then they are flat out, dead wrong to waste their time, and everyone's money, trying to save Casey from having to face someone who talks more like a Democrat than a Republican.
I don't think there is any chance for Romanelli to affect the outcome of this election. But he could have a salutary effect by forcing Casey to move a little left (which would take him towards the center) as he tries to shore up the Democratic base in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. If that happens, that would be a bonus, as far as I am concerned.
But, if he does affect the outcome, it will not be Santorum's fault nor Romanelli's -- the fault lies in the Democratic leadership. Those among them who pushed Casey -- at Rendell's suggestion to Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid -- they are the ones that the Democrats would have to thank for blowing yet another US Senatorial election.
Rooney's statement makes it sound as though the Democrats are challenging the petitions based on fear and speculation. If that's the case, it is shameful.
When the petitions were filed, it was widely reported that Santorum & Co. had labored to raise the money, some sources said $100,000, used by the Green Party to collect the signatures.
The company, JSM, Inc. out of Florida, was hired by Nader to get on the ballots in 2004. They had a lot of problems in Ohio, where they needed 5,000 signatures. Despite having turned in 15,000, they came up short after all but 3500 or so were invalidated. JSM is a Republican-connected firm. Nader had to use them after the Democrats warned off their contractors. JSM used sub-contractors to get the job done nationally and they were successful in most challenges brought against them -- Ohio being a pretty egregious example of an unsuccessful effort.
The Green Party press release said that they had filed 100,000 signatures, or over 30,000 more than the 67,000 required. Others said the figure was 90,000+. Regardless, if the Greens submitted that many signatures over the minimum, the Democrats should have solid evidence that every third signature is a forgery. They have had plenty of time to spot check 1,000 signatures by now -- by contacting the voters listed and asking whether they have signed. If they've done that and they have several hundred questionable signatures, then fine, I'll support their challenge.
But, if they haven't done that. If they are playing politics with my electoral system, then they are flat out, dead wrong to waste their time, and everyone's money, trying to save Casey from having to face someone who talks more like a Democrat than a Republican.
I don't think there is any chance for Romanelli to affect the outcome of this election. But he could have a salutary effect by forcing Casey to move a little left (which would take him towards the center) as he tries to shore up the Democratic base in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. If that happens, that would be a bonus, as far as I am concerned.
But, if he does affect the outcome, it will not be Santorum's fault nor Romanelli's -- the fault lies in the Democratic leadership. Those among them who pushed Casey -- at Rendell's suggestion to Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid -- they are the ones that the Democrats would have to thank for blowing yet another US Senatorial election.
Rooney's statement makes it sound as though the Democrats are challenging the petitions based on fear and speculation. If that's the case, it is shameful.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Green Party Files for PA Sen -- This Could Get Interesting
The Green Party of Pennsylvania announced that it had filed 100,000 signatures to place Carl Romanelli on the ballot alongside incumbent Republican Rick Santorum and Democrat Bob Casey.
Among other things, Romanelli is pro-choice, favors universal health care, advocates an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, equal marriage rights, and the elimination of pension benefits for members of Congress.
News reports say that Santorum and his Republican pals ponied up most of the $100,000 that Romanelli and the Greens spent to collect the required signatures. The Casey campaign is whining about that tactic and the Santorum camp is issuing "no comments" on it.
Many liberals in Pennsylvania are simply pissed off that the Party greased the slide for the Casey nomination on Rendell's recommendation to Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid. Polls show a small backlash, of about 3-5% who may not vote in this election because they do not want to support a pro-war, anti-choice Democrat. Santorum, flagging in the polls for over a year, has been humoring Romanelli and encouraged his supporters to help get the Green Party on the ballot. Like Nader before him, Romanelli will draw nearly all of his support away from Casey. Santorum is obviously hoping to squeak in with a plurality.
It's doubtful that the Greens can draw that much, but they already have 100,000 votes (presumably) and this election, for all of its national hype, may not be that well attended. Certainly, Romanelli is hot to take Santorum up on the 10-debate demand. Santorum is already on the record that Romanelli should get full participation in the debates. It will be interesting to see if Santorum agrees to debate Romanelli one-on-one if they can't get Casey to commit. We also wonder if Santorum is going to insist that Meet the Press invite Romanelli to join Casey and Santorum on September 3, when they are achedule for a joint appearance (Russert calls them "debates").
Casey ran from five of the primary debates, showing up only for two in the most remote locals he could snag. Sandals and Pennacchio debated each other while Casey ran off to fundraise in California, Texas, and Chicago. Of course, that was after Santorum's Republican friends (without Santorum protesting in the least) bounced a moderate Republican challenger off the primary ballot to give Santorum the nomination unopposed. Romanelli is expecting to receive similar treatment from the Democrats. In the Green Party press release announcing the filings, Romanelli said,
Among other things, Romanelli is pro-choice, favors universal health care, advocates an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, equal marriage rights, and the elimination of pension benefits for members of Congress.
News reports say that Santorum and his Republican pals ponied up most of the $100,000 that Romanelli and the Greens spent to collect the required signatures. The Casey campaign is whining about that tactic and the Santorum camp is issuing "no comments" on it.
Many liberals in Pennsylvania are simply pissed off that the Party greased the slide for the Casey nomination on Rendell's recommendation to Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid. Polls show a small backlash, of about 3-5% who may not vote in this election because they do not want to support a pro-war, anti-choice Democrat. Santorum, flagging in the polls for over a year, has been humoring Romanelli and encouraged his supporters to help get the Green Party on the ballot. Like Nader before him, Romanelli will draw nearly all of his support away from Casey. Santorum is obviously hoping to squeak in with a plurality.
It's doubtful that the Greens can draw that much, but they already have 100,000 votes (presumably) and this election, for all of its national hype, may not be that well attended. Certainly, Romanelli is hot to take Santorum up on the 10-debate demand. Santorum is already on the record that Romanelli should get full participation in the debates. It will be interesting to see if Santorum agrees to debate Romanelli one-on-one if they can't get Casey to commit. We also wonder if Santorum is going to insist that Meet the Press invite Romanelli to join Casey and Santorum on September 3, when they are achedule for a joint appearance (Russert calls them "debates").
Casey ran from five of the primary debates, showing up only for two in the most remote locals he could snag. Sandals and Pennacchio debated each other while Casey ran off to fundraise in California, Texas, and Chicago. Of course, that was after Santorum's Republican friends (without Santorum protesting in the least) bounced a moderate Republican challenger off the primary ballot to give Santorum the nomination unopposed. Romanelli is expecting to receive similar treatment from the Democrats. In the Green Party press release announcing the filings, Romanelli said,
"The Democratic Party seems to show an aversion to political competition. Greens want the ballot in the hands of the voters, not the Democratic Party machine. Their lawyers will now look for any technicality to subvert the will of our signators."Casey's campaign has been mum (there's a shocker) on this issue. Time will tell. Challenges must be filed by August 8.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
