Signature counting stops for Pa. Green Party Senate candidate: 9,000 short

[DeepModem Mom]

AP: Signature counting stops for Green Party Senate candidate in Pa.

HARRISBURG, Pa. - Green Party U.S. Senate candidate Carl Romanelli has fallen about 9,000 signatures short of the number he needs to qualify for the Nov. 7 ballot, said lawyers for Romanelli and state Democrats who are suing to have him thrown off the ballot on Friday.

A review of the signatures Romanelli gathered in his bid to compete against Republican Sen. Rick Santorum and Democratic state Treasurer Bob Casey was suspended Friday under a state judge's order issued earlier in the week.

Romanelli, a railroad industry consultant from Wilkes-Barre, was required to gather 67,070 signatures to qualify for statewide office this year. His candidacy is expected to help Santorum's chances for re-election by drawing votes from Casey.

Casey's campaign and the state Democratic Party have accused Santorum of engineering Romanelli's candidacy. Santorum has openly supported Romanelli's candidacy and Republicans helped bankroll his signature-gathering effort.

Lawrence M. Otter, a lawyer for Romanelli, said Friday he hopes to persuade Commonwealth Court Judge James R. Kelley to allow Romanelli to remain on the ballot when a hearing on his nominating petitions resumes Monday....

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/politics/15585661.htm

[Demit]

1. Encouraging news. Hope Monday cinches it. nt

[skipos]

2. Aw Jeeze, Greens must be bummed they won't get to help Santorum win.

Now they can focus on helping Lieberman in CT.

[w4rma]

3. Good. (nt)

[davidinalameda]

4. good

[brentspeak]

5. Excellent news

[corporatemedia]

6. Groovy. n/t

[Renew Deal]

7. Now prosecute those that forged signatures

and the sort.

[Keefer]

8. Off topic, but...

Why does someone need 67,070 signatures to run for office? You shouldn't need ANY signatures. If you want to run, RUN. Right? This is a barrier that the two major parties have put up to stifle debate, IMHO.

[CGrantt57]

9. It's only 10%, Keefer

And, it's not to stifle anything. It's a monetary consideration.

You have to get 10% of the constituency to support you, otherwise you can't get on the ballot.

Consider how long the ballot would be, and how difficult the election count, if we allowed each and every sane candidate and nutjob a line.

Personally, I think if you can't get 10% of the voters to support you, you don't have any business running anyway.

Regards,

[Keefer]

11. How would it make counting...

more difficult? By not allowing "each and every sane candidate and nutjob a line", does that promote debate or stifle it? Does this apply to dog catcher as well as Senator?

[Mark E. Smith]

12. We could put everyone on the ballot

But wouldn't that be a bit confusing? I mean theoretically it would be very democratic
to allow anybody to get on the ballot by filling out a postcard or something, but then
how would any kind of debate on the issues take place?

I think it makes sense that a candidate needs to show at least some level of support,
if only to spare the voters from having to deal with a ballot that would go on for
pages. And besides, if someone can't even get enough signatures to get on the ballot,
how is he going to get elected? Requiring a candidate to show that he has at least
some support is not an unrealistic request.

And besides, this Carl Romanelli guy is little more than a GOP spoof. The only reason
he is even being considered for the ballot in PA is because of funding arranged by
Rick Santorum.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001256.php

[Mz Pip]

15. Look at the CA recall election

There were about 250 names on the ballot. The recall law was old and had never been used so anyone who could get a few signatures and pay the small fee could be on the ballot. It was nuts. People ran as a joke and there was no way to hold any kind of sane debate with 250 candidates.

We still ended up with Ah-nold. Sigh.

Mz Pip:dem:

[Lasher]

10. Ha ha, that's great!

Good, that's what the pukes get for having hatched this dirty scheme. Whichever way it goes, Santorum is toast anyway. Casey is leading by 10, even with Romanelli on the ballot.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/September%202006/PennsylvaniaSenate.htm

[dicknbush]

13. Well it's good news bad news..

I doubt people who were motivated to vote Green are now going to go out and vote for Casey. I suspect they will just stay home or vote only on local issues and leave the Senators race blank. I really don't think it will make that much of a difference. I think the best part of this is the connection to the "Sanatorium" campaign. If you keep on that message....Santorum will do anything to get reelected even paid for a fraudulant campaign to draw votes away from his opponent well that may motivate folks to get out and send the creep off to home school his cretin kids by himself.

[modrepub]

14. Not worried

Whether there's a green on or off the ballot Santorum is in deep doo doo. He hasn't polled above 40% in any poll I've seen. That's not a good sign. Him blowing up on reporters from the conservative Harrisburg Patriot News only tells me he can see the reading on the wall. Not really overly excited with Casey or the chances the Dems can take the Senate or the House this time around. I'm not sure there's anyone out there with enough clout to turn this country around.