Talk Elections

Actually, he might be thrown off the ballot because the signatures the staffer collected might not be valid (because she might not be allowed to circulate for Altmire due to residency requirements) but the title I chose grabs your attention.  ;)


http://www.timesonline.com/news/local_news/challenge-to-altmire-s-petition-hinges-on-staffer-s-home/article_a8330c1a-eb0c-587a-a139-8a4f3b234309.html (http://www.timesonline.com/news/local_news/challenge-to-altmire-s-petition-hinges-on-staffer-s-home/article_a8330c1a-eb0c-587a-a139-8a4f3b234309.html)

Congressman Critz has challenged 942 of Altmire's 1,651 signatures. Altmire's camp withdrew over 300 suspect signatures. The aide in question submitted 385 signatures. If a judge rules that she does not actually reside in the district and, therefore, cannot circulate for her boss, the signatures she obtained would be thrown out and Altmire would be off the ballot pending an appeal.

A ruling is expected tomorrow - Monday, March 5th. Oh, the drama... :)

So who is Santorum going to be voting for on Tuesday?

Even if the judge rules against Altmire, he can appeal to federal court, because residency requirements for petition circulators are unconstitutional. They've been struck down in a bunch of states.

This is probably the stupidest thing I've heard all year.

Neither. He lives in Virginia.

I know that. My point is that Santorum won't be able to vote for himself, because he's not on the ballot there.

No idea what the joke is here. Enlighten me.

Yeah the law is utterly inane if as written. So this doesn't surprise me:

Weak reach at a residency joke.

Lolpennsylvanians.

Yes, but signatories to a petition must live in the district, so it may not be unconstitutional for the circulator of that petition to also be a resident. I'm curious if there's a federal case on this question.

Judge rules in Altmire's favor.

The law for residency requirements are dumb, but it's even dumber that the campaign didn't catch this before.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_michael__070105_pennsylvania_has_mor.htm

Morrill v Weaver is almost exactly on target, other than it applied to a minor party.  In Pennsylvania, minor parties do not qualify directly, but rather their nominated candidates  petition to get on the general election ballot in a way parallel to independent candidates.  The party qualifies based on the success of the party candidates (it might just be governor).

In the case of Morrill v Weaver, the Green Party was trying to get on the ballot, and the gubernatorial was gathering signatures for his run, but couldn't witness signatures for district candidates unless they happened to be in his county.

In collecting signatures to get on a primary ballot it is somewhat different in that potential candidates are competitors.  It makes sense to require signatures to be collected by someone who is affiliated with the party.  Otherwise, an opposition party could run a primary candidate.  Whether someone who resides in another district could be considered an outsider, is another question.

In Pennsylvania, they determined that the person who collected the signatures lived with her parents (in the district) even though she had rented an apartment.