Pennsylvania Court Upholds Rigged Election, Bumps Green Party Candidate Running for Senate

Green Party of the United States
www.gp.org

Monday, October 9, 2006

Contacts:
Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624, mclarty@greens.org 
Starlene Rankin, Media Coordinator, 916-995-3805, starlene@greens.org 

Greens outraged at Pennsylvania court decision upholding 'rigged' election after Green running for U.S. Senate is removed from the ballot.

• Democrats succeeded in removing Carl Romanelli because they were armed with rules written by Democrats and Republicans to fix the system to their own advantage, say Greens citing 'grossly unfair' ballot access requirements and punishing legal fees

• Court's ruling is a blow to Pa. voters: without Romanelli, no antiwar prochoice candidate is on the state ballot for U.S. Senate 

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Green Party leaders called a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that upheld the removal of a Green candidate for U.S. Senate from the state ballot and order to pay as much as $1,000,000 in legal costs a serious blow to democracy and fair and open elections.

"Democratic and Republican officials in Pennsylvania have rigged the system in their own favor," said Nan Garrett, Georgia Green and member of the party's Ballot Access Committee. "The removal of Carl Romanelli <http://www.romanelli2006.com> is a defeat not just for Greens, but for all Pennsylvania voters, who will no longer see the name of an antiwar pro-choice candidate for U.S. Senate on the ballot on Election Day."

"Carl's removal isn't a victory for the Democratic Party or for Bob Casey [D]. It's a disgrace to Democrats, the Casey campaign, and to the state of Pennsylvania. Thanks to the court's decision, the cradle of democracy is now the graveyard of democracy. Pennsylvania elections are as rigged as if someone had tampered with computer voting machines or tossed paper ballots in the trash," added Ms. Garrett, who is also Spokesperson for the National Women's Caucus of the Green Party.

As a result of the court's decision in response to Carl Romanelli's appeal of an earlier ruling:

• Mr. Romanelli will not appear on the ballot because Democratic lawyers persuaded the court that enough of the 95,000 signatures he collected were technically invalid to bring him below the state's 67,000 signature requirement. According to the state's ballot access rules, Democratic and Republican candidates must gather 2,000 signatures to get on the primary ballot, while other parties' candidates and independents must gather 67,000. Greens have called the rules grossly unfair, antidemocratic, and evidence of a 'gentlemen's agreement' between Democrats and Republicans to keep other candidates out of state races.

• Mr. Romanelli must pay $89,000 in court costs and all of the Democratic Party's legal bills for the challenge, which are expected to approach $1,000,000, as well as his own legal expenses. In August, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently similarly ordered Ralph Nader's independent 2004 campaign to pay more than $80,000 in legal costs after being knocked off the ballot.

The Romanelli campaign has held that the Democrats' challenge to the ballot petitions was brought in an unconstitutional manner, because the law requires challengers be specific in their charges, and because, even though Mr. Romanelli defeated the challenge a month ago and can demonstrate that his team has defeated the amended challenge, the court would not allow a defense.

"The right to present evidence and a defense is basic in America. Even murderers are given a day in court. After seven weeks, I was not. Yet, the court wants me to pick up the tab," said Mr. Romanelli, who noted that his campaign collected more signatures than any candidate in Pennsylvania history.

"The message of the Democratic Party's challenge and the court's ruling is this: if you're a third party or independent candidate, you risk being punished with personal bankruptcy just for trying to run for office," said Liz Arnone, co-chair of the Green Party of the United States. "Pennsylvania's outrageously prohibitive signature requirement and assessment of legal fees, if the signatures are successfully challenged, are meant to intimidate anyone outside the Democratic and Republican parties from running. Bob Casey and his fellow Democrats have exploited the means to kill democracy in Pennsylvania."

Greens noted that Marakay Rogers and Christine Valente, Green candidates for Governor and Lt. Governor of Pennsylvania, withdrew their petitions because of the threat of legal expenses. Ms. Rogers and Ms. Valente would have had to pay tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees for their own lawyers to defend ballot petitions against a line-by-line challenge by the Democratic Party's staff lawyers, since it would have taken several weeks to review the nearly 100,000 signatures collected by the candidates.

"Supporters of Bob Casey who are rejoicing at Carl Romanelli's removal should be ashamed of themselves," said Steve Kramer, co-chair of the Green Party. "Carl called for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops. He supports national health insurance and full reproductive rights for women. Bob Casey and Rick Santorum [R] support the war on Iraq and continued occupation, corporate power and profit instead of universal health coverage, and ending a woman's right to choose. Whether Casey or Santorum wins on November 7, it'll be a Republican victory."

Casey supporters had claimed that Mr. Romanelli would have siphoned votes away from Mr. Casey, and complained that Mr. Romanelli accepted major campaigned contributions from registered Republicans.

"Carl has no power to take votes away from Bob Casey. Casey doesn't own anyone's vote except his own, and there's no evidence that all antiwar pro-choice voters who support Carl would otherwise vote for prowar, anti-choice Casey," said Paul Teese, Chair of the Green Party of Pennsylvania. "The donations that Carl accepted from Republican friends were entirely legal and carried no quid pro quo. In contrast, Casey and other Democrats take thousands of dollars from questionable sources all the time, and these corporate interests expect and get something in return."

The Green Party noted that Green candidates reject corporate campaign contributions, while Democratic and Republican politicians are notoriously awash in corporate money.

"Democrats have consistently leveled the self-serving 'spoiler' accusation against Greens, but have mostly rejected Green pleas to enact Instant Runoff Voting. If Democrats don't believe in open, competitive elections, why don't they change the name of their party?" Mr. Teese added.

Carl Romanelli, Marakay Rogers, and Christina Valente planned to continue campaigns and compete as write-in candidates; Mr. Romanelli intends to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Pennsylvania Commonwealth and State Supreme Court rulings.

"We are extremely proud of Carl and other Pennsylvania Green candidates and party members for their courage, commitment and the personal sacrifice they have made to promote peace, justice, and democracy," said Liz Arnone.

MORE INFORMATION

Green Party of the United States
http://www.gp.org 
1711 18th Street NW
Washington, DC 20009.
202-319-7191, 866-41GREEN
Fax 202-319-7193

Green campaign listings, news, photos, and web sites http://www.gp.org/2006elections 
Database of 2006 Green candidates http://www.greens.org/elections 
Video clips of Green candidates http://www.gp.org/2006elections/media.shtml 
Green Party News Center http://www.gp.org/newscenter.shtml