[EL] obscure question

[Goldfeder, Jerry H.]

Issue becomes whether state law is trumped by federal law or US constitution in presidential election context.  Anderson v Celebrezze

Jerry H. Goldfeder
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan
180 Maiden Lane
New York, NY 10038
212-806-5857
917-680-3132
JGoldfeder at Stroock.com<mailto:JGoldfeder at Stroock.com>
www.stroock.com/goldfeder<http://www.stroock.com/goldfeder>

On Jul 30, 2012, at 11:17 PM, "Adam Bonin" <adam at boninlaw.com<mailto:adam at boninlaw.com>> wrote:


Happened to me in a case this cycle, and this is hornbook PA law. Candidate had someone fill in the year for signers who omitted it (and claimed it was too cold outside a supermarket in Erie in February to ask signers to stay); they were all tossed. See also In re Fitzpatrick, 822 A.2d 859, 860-61 (Pa. Commw. Ct., 2003):



The trial court struck the following five signatures because of a missing date: page 1, line 15; page 4, line 2; page 14, lines 17 and 20; and page 21, line 39. Fitzpatrick argues that the defect is immaterial because the date of signing is apparent from the other dates appearing on these pages. We disagree.



Section 908 of the Election Code, Act of June 3, 1937, P.L. 1333, as amended, 25 P.S. § 2868, states that each signer of a nomination petition shall add the date of signing. Our supreme court has held that the failure to add the date of signing invalidates the signature. In re Nomination Petition of Silcox, 543 Pa. 647, 674 A.2d 224 (1996). Therefore, as a matter of law, the defect is not immaterial.

--Adam Bonin

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Winger
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 10:06 PM
To: law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] obscure question

Today the Libertarian Party submitted 42,000 signatures to be on the ballot in Pennsylvania.  The Elections office immediately examined all the signatures and lined out all the signatures in which the signer had not put "2012" in the date column.  In other words, one-third of the signers (14,000) just put the month and day, but not the year.

However, the state-printed form says at the bottom "Revised Jan. 2012", and Pennsylvania law did not permit the petition to circulate until February 2012.

Does anyone happen to be aware of any precedents on whether signatures on petitions are invalid, just because the form asks for the date and the signer puts only the month and day but not the year?

Pennsylvania requires 20,601 valid signatures this year.

Richard Winger
415-922-9779
PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147


_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

________________________________
IRS Circular 230
Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS in Circular 230, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachment that does not explicitly state otherwise) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.