[Lnc-business] Fwd: Fw: CPPA v. Aichele: WE WIN!

Tue Jul 28 11:29:12 EDT 2015

>From Oliver Hall re: PA ballot access.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: William Redpath <wredpath at biakelsey.com>
Date: Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:00 AM
Subject: Fw: CPPA v. Aichele: WE WIN!
To: "wredpath2 at gmail.com"

 ------------------------------
*From:* oliverhall at competitivedemocracy.org <
oliverhall at competitivedemocracy.org>
*Sent:* Tuesday, July 28, 2015 10:10 AM
*To:* oliverhall at competitivedemocracy.org
*Subject:* Re: CPPA v. Aichele: WE WIN!

  Folks:

A couple of updates and comments to follow up on Friday’s big win.

First, I’m going to be on WESA 90.5’s Essential Pittsburgh today at noon:
http://wesa.fm/programs/905-wesas-essential-pittsburgh; and on WHYY
Philadelphia’s Radio Times Thursday at 10 AM:
http://whyy.org/cms/radiotimes/.
 I’m going to press for Sen. Folmer’s Voter Choice Act, as well as another
easy legislative fix that would completely eliminate the system of private
parties challenging nomination papers under Section 2937. In brief, the
Secretary of State should be required to validate nomination papers,
instead of private parties. This could be accomplished by changing only one
word of existing law. I’m also going to call for the law firms holding the
judgments against Carl Romanelli and Ralph Nader to relinquish any claim
they have against these candidates.

Second, did everyone see all the good press we already got on this?

   - Philadelphia Inquirer: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/318520501.html
   - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
   http://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-state/2015/07/24/Federal-judge-rules-Pa-third-party-candidate-requirements-unconstitutional/stories/201507240230
   - AP (this ran nationally):
   http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Minor-parties-get-court-win-in-ballot-access-6403867.php
   - WHYY (Philly) (this includes a radio spot featuring GPPA’s Carl
   Romanelli):
   http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/off-mic/84577-court-pa-unfair-to-3rd-parties

 Finally, regarding Judge Stengel’s decision itself, several questions have
been raised about what it means and what happens next. Here is my reading.
Section 2911(b) (imposing the 2% signature requirement) and Section 2937
(authorizing private party nomination paper challenges and the imposition
of costs against defending candidates) are unconstitutional as applied to
minor party and independent candidates (or at least those who are
plaintiffs or in privity with the plaintiffs in this case). That means
these provisions cannot be enforced against CPPA, GPPA and LPPA, or any of
their candidates.

Judge Stengel did note that he was not declaring the 2% signature
requirement, by itself, unconstitutional. Presumably, therefore,
Pennsylvania could enact a new 2% signature requirement, and that probably
would be upheld, as it was before in *Rogers v. Corbett*, 468 F. 3d 188
(3rd Cir. 2006). Unless and until that happens, however, the Pennsylvania
Election Code is silent about what minor parties and independent candidates
must do to gain ballot access.

What that should mean is that the Secretary of State should place on the
ballot any minor party candidate who demonstrates a “modicum” of support.
That standard comes from Supreme Court decisions recognizing that states
are permitted to require such a showing. But “modicum” means a small
amount. So under current law, CPPA, GPPA and LPPA should be able to place
their candidates on the ballot in 2016, provided they each demonstrate some
modicum or small amount of support among the electorate.

I will follow up with opposing counsel and/or the Secretary of State’s
office to ensure that we are in agreement about the effect of Judge
Stengel’s decision and procedures for 2016. But I think we can be confident
that the system of private party challenges is over – at least insofar as
it requires defending candidates to provide their own workers and
potentially pay their challengers’ costs.

I hope that’s clear. And once again, congratulations to all!

Oliver

 *From:* oliverhall at competitivedemocracy.org
*Sent:* Friday, July 24, 2015 9:45 AM
*To:* oliverhall at competitivedemocracy.org
*Subject:* CPPA v. Aichele: WE WIN!

  Good Morning:

Judge Stengel entered the attached opinion this morning. I have not read it
except for the part that says, “For the reasons that follow, I find that
the  statutes are unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs but they
are facially valid.”

What this means is: WE WIN!!!

Judgment entered in our favor on Counts I and II of the complaint. The
judge held the challenged statutes unconstitutional as applied to the
plaintiffs, but denied our Count III claim that Section 2937 is
unconstitutional on its face. (We don’t need to win Count III to get the
relief we seek.)

Congratulations everyone – this is huge.

More later.

Regards,

Oliver Hall
Legal Counsel
Center for Competitive Democracy
1835 16th Street NW, Suite 5
Washington, D.C. 20009
(202) 248-9294 ph.
(202) 248-9345 fx.
oliverhall at competitivedemocracy.org

 *From:* oliverhall at competitivedemocracy.org
*Sent:* Wednesday, November 26, 2014 11:20 AM
*To:* oliverhall at competitivedemocracy.org
*Subject:* Re: CPPA v. Aichele: MTD and Opposition

  Folks:

A bit of good news for Thanksgiving: Pennsylvania withdrew its motion to
dismiss today. As opposing counsel admitted yesterday on the phone, there
was “no way” Judge Stengel could grant it anyway. We have the excellent
Third Circuit opinion to thank for that.

No we will proceed to summary judgment motions in early 2015, after
Pennsylvania files an answer to our Amended Complaint.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Oliver Hall
Legal Counsel
Center for Competitive Democracy
1835 16th Street NW, Suite 5
Washington, D.C. 20009
(202) 248-9294 ph.
(202) 248-9345 fx.
oliverhall at competitivedemocracy.org

 *From:* oliverhall at competitivedemocracy.org
*Sent:* Tuesday, November 04, 2014 7:55 PM
*To:* oliverhall at competitivedemocracy.org
*Subject:* CPPA v. Aichele: MTD and Opposition

  Greetings,

Please see attached the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in *Constitution
Party of Pennsylvnia v. Aichele*, and our Opposition to the motion, which
was filed on Friday.

Now we wait to see how Judge Stengel responds. The Third Circuit provided
him with all kinds of helpful guidance, if he will only follow it.

Thanks,

Oliver Hall
Legal Counsel
Center for Competitive Democracy
1835 16th Street NW, Suite 5
Washington, D.C. 20009
(202) 248-9294 ph.
(202) 248-9345 fx.
oliverhall at competitivedemocracy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20150728/499ec454/attachment-0001.html>