Green Party candidates won't be on ballot in Pennsylvania, state's highest court rules

Green Party candidates won't be on ballot in Pennsylvania, state's highest court rules.

CBS

Pennsylvania's highest court ruled on Thursday that the Green Party's presidential candidate can't be on the general election ballot because of a failure to closely follow nomination procedures. It's a decision that could help Democratic nominee Joe Biden in the battleground state that President Trump won in 2016 and it comes just days after a similar decision in another key swing state, Wisconsin. 

With all the discussions about mail in voting, voter ID, and diversity and inclusion, I was under the impression that it was the Republican party that was trying to suppress voter choice.

With a 5-2 Democratic majority, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned a Republican Commonwealth Court judge's ruling that Howie Hawkins could stay on the ballot in the state.  

But unfortunately out of Pennsylvania comes a rullling that paints a different picture as a Democratic majority court rules along partisan lines to suppress the Green Party's participation in our presidential election process. A move that will likely aid the courts majority party's candidate for president at the expense of a rival party.

It almost sounds like something you would expect out of a banana republic.

The court ruled that Elizabeth Faye Scroggin, the party's Pennsylvania stand-in candidate, did not properly append a candidate affidavit to her nomination papers, as the state election code requires. Instead, Scroggin faxed to the Bureau of Elections a slightly cut-off copy of an affidavit separate from her nomination papers, and notaries didn't see or print it until after the deadline.

In the age of Covid-19; where we as a society are bending over backward to find alternatives ways to interact through technology why would the Democratic Pennsylvania Supreme Court rule to dismiss a presidential candidate because their fax machine cut off a small portion of a submitted form or because the issue was not discovered by the Bureau of Elections until after the deadline?

Rules are rules one might conclude, and thems the breaks.

But that same Democratic lead Pennsylvania Supreme Court also ruled today that the state could continue to count mail in presidential ballots after election day. A ruling that runs contrary to the states current election laws. We all understand why they made this ruling; the extraordinary times call for relaxation in voting rules to make voting easy for everyone ... but apparently not if you belong to a party that might hurt the Democrats chances of winning; such as the Green Party.

In the same state the executive ordered that it is acceptable for ballot signatures to not match voters signatures on file, as not to disenfranchise voters who can not sign their name consistently ... but one cut off fax is justification for the disenfranchisement of an entire party?

And Pennsylvania isn't alone in this voter suppression tactic.

The decision also follows Wisconsin's highest court ruling earlier this week that the Green Party won't be on their ballot either.  The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Monday that Hawkins and Angela Walker will not be on the Wisconsin ballot. The 4-3 decision cleared the way for clerks to begin sending absentee ballots to voters and means more than 2.3 million ballots will not have to be reprinted. 

I don't know what to believe any more; taken as a whole the goings on out of Pennsylvania today sure makes me question the Democrat Party's community to a free and fair election. I didn't want to believe the "by any means necessary" meme but Pennsylvania Democrats sure are making it look like it might be true after all.

Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are both traditionally blue states that went for Mr. Trump in 2016. In both states, Green Party candidate Jill Stein received more votes than the difference between Mr. Trump and Hillary Clinton, meaning if all votes had gone to Clinton, she would have carried the state. 

By any means necessary indeed.

Voter suppression.
Don't want any PA Leftists not voting for Biden...So take away their choice.

a reply to: DanDanDat

The death of the Green Party was sealed in 2000 when both the Republican Party and the Democrat Party refused to allow Ralph Nader into the presidential debates even as he was polling around 6% at the time.

There was no outcry from the Democrats when Nader was not even allowed in the building during the debates and no outcry from the Republicans when he was escorted by police to a third location away from the attendees.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: DanDanDat

The death of the Green Party was sealed in 2000 when both the Republican Party and the Democrat Party refused to allow Ralph Nader into the presidential debates even as he was polling around 6% at the time.

There was no outcry from the Democrats when Nader was not even allowed in the building during the debates and no outcry from the Republicans when he was escorted by police to a third location away from the attendees.

I don't know if that was the point of death; the Democrats and Republicans have been suppressing third parties for a long time.

Convenient but the effort will fail.

Green supporters will stay home anyway 🦇

a reply to: DanDanDat
Lol
VOTE BY MAIL FOR EVERYONE (except green party)

a reply to: IAMTAT

Wisconsin did the same thing. Let's see how many other states pile on to protect Biden.

a reply to: DanDanDat

Democrats can't have a 3rd Party diluting their vote.

The Green Party is far too Left for your average American, however, they shouldn’t be left out of the process. Let them get their 5-6%. Hell, the new progressive democrats almost make the Green Party look sensible (they’re not).

this is the problem ANY third party has
those in the two major (dem and rep) have set the rules in EVERY STATE and federally to benefit them and make it almost impossible to have a shot.

here are some of the rules, laws, procedures they use.

third party require twice or more signatures to get on the ballot than the regular parties.

when they do get it they are almost ALWAYS challenge them by every legal means necessary. to also add they demand each signature STRICTLY FOLLOW the laws.
to be fair if someone is not liked in the major parties they will challenge them, but that is rare.

the main stream press (hardly "fair and balanced" for over a decade or more) wont cover or give the same amount of free airtime as the two parties.. no matter how popular they are.

the biggest (but not only) is if they do get on the ballot the two main parties can LEGALLY DENY them from the debates.

this is the biggest fraud and imo ILLEGAL thing the can do.

if your on the ballot you SHOULD BE ALLOWED in the debates.. EVERY ONE...

until the feds get off their asses and set/enforce election law nothing is gonna be done

but to be fair expecting them on their own to do this is like expecting the mafia to prevent their members from committing illegal acts.

scrounger

a reply to: DanDanDat

So true. They allowed Perot on stage but that seemed just a bit of tokenism. He formed a party of his own around him but had no real on the ground organization as I recall. The Greens had spent a good amount of time establishing a populist platform and invited Nader to be their candidate. That could not be allowed to happen.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Perot was a "mistake" on the part of the GOP; Bush was having an "out of touch" issue with the bad economy and some foibles he was making within that back drop. It was a different time then now and even 2000 and the GOP made the miscalculation that denying Perot would be more harmful than allowing him in the debate and on the ticket.

After that the GOP and the Democrats saw what a disaster it would be for them if they give third parties to much exposure. Perot is the reason why Nader was not allowed to debate; the Democrats feared he would cost them the election just like they saw Perot hurt Bush's chance.

Stine was then seen as a likely contributer to Clinton’s loss to Trump and now the Democrats are going a step further; not just denying the Greens a chance to debate, but denying them a chance to even compete.