Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

[PA] Supreme Court upholds ruling barring Nader from Pa. ballot
WNEPTV / AP ^ | 10-19-4 | AP

Posted on 10/19/2004 3:56:42 PM PDT by Petronski

HARRISBURG, Pa. The state Supreme Court today upheld a lower court ruling that ordered Ralph Nader off Pennsylvania's presidential ballot. The one-page order, released this afternoon, did not include any explanation.

The intermediate level Commonwealth Court ruled last week that Nader's nomination papers left him more than six-thousand signatures short of the more than 25-thousand needed by registered voters to be listed on the ballot as an independent candidate.

Nader's lawyers had appealed to the state Supreme Court.

(Excerpt) Read more at wnep.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: ballotaccess; nader
Nader kept off ballot (affirming decision of 10-14 by lower court).
1 posted on 10/19/2004 3:56:42 PM PDT by Petronski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Petronski

This is not good news. Pennsylvania might have shifted out of reach with this.


2 posted on 10/19/2004 3:57:51 PM PDT by okstate (I'm John Kerry, and I approved this message... before I decided against it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

I don't care anymore. Just get those absentee military ballots printed and mailed now. It's October 19th for crying out loud


3 posted on 10/19/2004 3:58:49 PM PDT by NeoCaveman (John Kerry mispoke, he meant to say she was a thespian.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okstate

That's ok, I counted out PA about 3 weeks ago.

OHIO!


4 posted on 10/19/2004 3:59:06 PM PDT by Lunatic Fringe (http://www.drunkenbuffoonery.com/mboards/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: okstate

I'm not concerned, but I can't really say why. I suppose it would be good to have Penna, but I think it's out of reach. No matter what happens, Philly will provide enough votes for a 2-3% lurch win.


5 posted on 10/19/2004 3:59:24 PM PDT by Petronski (I'm not always cranky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dubyaismypresident

Agreed.


6 posted on 10/19/2004 4:01:17 PM PDT by Petronski (I'm not always cranky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Nadar supporters be advised. In all 50 states you may by write in for your candidate of choice. Good luck.law


7 posted on 10/19/2004 4:03:18 PM PDT by Wardawg (Hanoi John Forgery le Kerrie was here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Can't Nader's supporters write his name in the ballot? Nader needs to get on the ball and start screaming at the top of his lungs that his voters are being disfranchised!!
8 posted on 10/19/2004 4:03:41 PM PDT by RoseofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RoseofTexas

Yes, write-ins are perfectly kosher...legibility and spelling are important.


9 posted on 10/19/2004 4:04:29 PM PDT by Petronski (I'm not always cranky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RoseofTexas
Can't Nader's supporters write his name in the ballot?

Nader supporters can barely write their own names. C'mon, now...

10 posted on 10/19/2004 4:05:30 PM PDT by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard (Got crack?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle; brityank; Physicist; WhyisaTexasgirlinPA; GOPJ; abner; baseballmom; Willie Green; Mo1; ..

ping


11 posted on 10/19/2004 4:07:27 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

This doesn't bode well. He also got knocked off in Ohio, with only the state supreme court decision still coming. Last I heard he was on in florida.

The John Edwards team of amubulance chasers is skewing the election already.


12 posted on 10/19/2004 4:11:24 PM PDT by orangelobster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Nader couldn't find 25,000 signatures when he knew they were required? What a loser.


13 posted on 10/19/2004 4:16:11 PM PDT by Neanderthal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RoseofTexas

I think you can cast a write in but you're not writing in the candidate's name. You have to write in the names of electors. So that isn't easy. If someone just writes in "Ralph Nader," that vote doesn't count, but it's not a Kerry vote either.


14 posted on 10/19/2004 4:33:47 PM PDT by TNCMAXQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Neanderthal
Nader couldn't find 25,000 signatures when he knew they were required? What a loser.

Nader was kept off the ballot in Oregon by the Democrat Sec of State, Bill Bradbury, even though he had plenty of valid signatures. When Bradbury found that Nader had plenty of valid signatures, Bradbury just changed the rules for numbering the petition pages. Voila! Nader was off the ballot.

Nader supporters filed a lawsuit and won their case in district court. But Democrats appealed to the state supreme court (intentionally not capitalized) and they essentially said that it was perfectly okay for a Democrat Sec of State to engage in felony election tampering in the State of Oregon. I hope that's remembered when voters see Bradbury's name on the current ballot.

Just another morality story from Vera Katz's little cradle of Islam on the Willamette.

15 posted on 10/19/2004 6:11:19 PM PDT by Siegfried (Volunteers needed to help torture survivors!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson