In Re Nader

865 A.2d 8
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedOctober 13, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 865 A.2d 8 (In Re Nader) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Nader, 865 A.2d 8 (Pa. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

865 A.2d 8 (2004)

In Re: Nomination Paper of Ralph NADER and Peter Miguel Camejo as Candidates of an Independent Political Body for President and Vice President in the General Election of November 2, 2004.
Linda S. Serody, Roderick J. Sweets, Ronald Bergman, Richard Trinclisti, Terry Trinclisti, Bernie Cohen-Scott, Donald G. Brown and Julia A. O'Connell, Petitioners.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued September 27 through October 12, 2004.
Decided October 13, 2004.

*12 Jeffrey J. Bresch, Pittsburgh, William S. Gordon, Philadelphia, Christopher K. Walters, Philadelphia, Daniel I. Booker, Pittsburgh, Ira S. Lefton, Philadelphia, Jeremy D. Feinstein, Pittsburgh, Milind Madhukar Shah, Philadelphia, Barbara Kiely, Philadelphia, Efrem M. Grail, Pittsburgh, Nicholas R. Sabatine, III, Wind Gap, Cynthia E. Kernick, Pittsburgh, James M. Doerfler, Pittsburgh, Andrea B. Simonson, Philadelphia, Melissa J. Oretsky, Philadelphia, Mark L. Tamburri, Pittsburgh, John M. McIntyre, Pittsburgh, Kim M. Watterson, Pittsburgh, Lisa M. Campoli, Pittsburgh, James P. Williamson, Philadelphia, Brian A. Gordon, Philadelphia and Gregroy M. Harvey, for Petitioners.

Michelle Stirman Pierson, Wexford, Marcus J. Lemon, Harrisburg, J. Matthew Wolfe, Philadelphia, Ronald L. Hicks Jr., Pittsburgh, Andrew L. Noble, Pittsburgh, Michael E. Barrett, Pittsburgh, Basil Culyba, Washington, DC, for Respondents.

Ross A. Dreyer, Sausalito, CA, Sujay Mooss, Brooklyn, NY, Jonah Paisner, Lake Oswega, OR, James L. Cook III, Pittsburgh and Louis L. Boyle, Harrisburg, for Respondents.

Before COLINS, President Judge, MCGINLEY, J., SMITH-RIBNER, J., PELLEGRINI, J., FRIEDMAN, J., LEADBETTER, J., COHN JUBELIRER, J., SIMPSON, J., KELLEY, S.J., FLAHERTY, S.J., MIRARCHI, S.J., and JIULIANTE, S.J.

CONSOLIDATED FINDINGS, OPINION AND ORDER

COLINS, President Judge.

On September 20, 2004, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania remanded this matter to this Court with directions to review every signature contained in the nomination papers of Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo (Candidates) to determine whether the Candidates had gathered a sufficient number of valid signatures to be listed on the Commonwealth's general election ballot. With the general election scheduled for November 2, 2004, and the 67 counties of this state waiting patiently to print their ballots, this Court, immediately upon receipt of the Supreme Court's directive, *13 dispatched 11 of its 13 judges[1] to various counties to review the challenges to the signatures submitted by the Candidates.

President Judge Colins, Judge Smith-Ribner, and Senior Judge Mirarchi[2] presided over the Philadelphia signature review, reviewing the signatures contained in Volumes A, B, C, D, E, and F of the Objections to the Candidates Nomination Papers. Judge McGinley and Judge Pellegrini presided in Allegheny County and reviewed the challenges involving Allegheny County. Senior Judge Kelley reviewed the challenges for the nomination papers circulated in the counties of Armstrong, Beaver, Blair, Butler, Cambria, Centre, Clearfield, Fayette, Fulton, Indiana, Jefferson, Somerset, Washington, and Westmoreland, and later assisted in the Philadelphia review. Senior Judge Jiuliante presided over the review of signatures for the nomination papers circulated in the counties of Clarion, Crawford, Elk, Erie, Lawrence, Mercer, Venango, and Warren; while Judge Friedman presided over the review of nomination papers circulated in Bucks County, and Judge Leadbetter presided over the nomination papers circulated in Montgomery County, later completing the review of Volume F of the Philadelphia challenges. Judge Cohn Jubelirer presided over the review of nomination papers circulated in Adams, Lancaster, Lebanon, Lehigh, Luzerne, Lycoming, Monroe, and Schuylkill Counties. Judge Simpson presided over the nomination papers circulated in Berks, Bradford, Columbia, Cumberland, Dauphin, and Lackawanna Counties, as well as those circulated in Montour, Northampton, Perry, Susquehanna, Wyoming, and York Counties. Senior Judge Flaherty presided over the signature review for those nomination papers circulated in Delaware and Chester Counties. There were four counties to which no challenges to the nomination papers were filed. Those counties are Carbon (total signatures 3), Franklin (total signatures 1), Greene (total signatures 3), and Bergen County, New Jersey [sic] (total signatures 1), for a total of 8 unchallenged signatures.

This line-by-line review of individual signatures was both exhaustive and exhausting. Several Judges of this Court worked nonstop, 16 hours a day in order to complete the Supreme Court's mandate within a reasonable timeframe. Our final review indicates that 1,183 pages of nomination papers were filed, containing a total of 51,273[3] signatures submitted by the candidates.

By this Court's Order of August 20, 2004, both sides were directed to be prepared to present their case in the various forums commencing Monday September 27, 2004 and were told that cooperation from both sides was necessary if the review were to be done in anything approaching a timely manner and that the Court would not tolerate intemperate or obstructionist conduct on the part of either the Candidates or the Objectors. The Candidates, through then counsel Samuel Stretton, Esq., were warned that a *14 review of over 50,000 signatures was an ominous undertaking requiring a great deal of manpower and expense and that the Candidates' pre-hearing cooperation in examining challenged signatures with the Objectors, such that potentially valid and invalid signatures could be stipulated to, would be essential to an efficient and timely review. The Candidates chose to ignore this Court's warning and proceeded to do as little as possible prior to the hearings, in an initial attempt to prevent an accurate tally of the signatures.

The review of signatures in Philadelphia was conducted in three ad hoc courtrooms that were made available to the Court by the Philadelphia Voter Registration Division of the Philadelphia City Commissioners. With the assistance of Commonwealth Court's Computer Department, each courtroom contained three computer monitors on which could be displayed voter registration information and scanned copies of voter signatures contained in the voter registration database of the Voter Registration Division. A fourth courtroom was subsequently added. The voter registration data reviewed by the Court was a true and accurate record of voter information contained in the Voter Registration Division's database as attested to by the Commission's Urban Registration Administrator, Robert Lee. A civil service employee of the Voter Registration Division operated a computer terminal in each courtroom. The Objectors provided the Court and the Candidates with three exhibits filed with the petitions to strike exhibit 1, being a six volume document detailing the Philadelphia Objections; exhibit 2 set forth the "Global"[4] challenges; and exhibit 3 set forth the forgery challenges. Exhibit 1 was distributed among President Judge Colins, who was initially assigned Volumes A and B, Judge Smith-Ribner, who was initially assigned Volumes C and D, and Senior Judge Mirarchi, who was initially assigned Volumes E and F.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. v. Jocelyn Benson
119 F.4th 464 (Sixth Circuit, 2024)
Green Party v. Aichele
89 F. Supp. 3d 723 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 2015)
Nader v. SERODY
43 A.3d 327 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2012)
In Re Nomination Petition of Farnese
17 A.3d 375 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2011)
In Re Nomination Petition of Morrison-Wesley
946 A.2d 789 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2008)
In Re Nomination Petition of Payton
945 A.2d 279 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2008)
In Re Petition to Set Aside Nomination Petitions of Benkoski
932 A.2d 1023 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
865 A.2d 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-nader-pacommwct-2004.