Breaking News in the 8th Councilmanic District

The Supreme Court vacated the Commonwealth Court's order and placed Greg Paulmier back on the ballot. The 8th District, as always, should be interesting. There should be some fallout over who Paulmier supports in his Ward for At Large and the row offices. The endorsement has already gone to Miller. With so many candidates it seems Miller has gotten stronger.

I put this on the front page because it's pretty crazy news. -Ray

Ah Greg, working as hard as

Ah Greg, working as hard as possible to try and keep Donna in office.

In his words, "I'll never stop running."

Brady

Bob Brady is also on the ballot

In the 8th?

A five-way race. Jeez, that is one crazy district! I thought Brady lived in Overbrook...

If I was John Braxton, I

If I was John Braxton, I would think about suing.

The opinion will come out

The opinion will come out tomorrow, so then we can see what the differences in the cases were. I believe that the reason that the case was overturned was a technicality involving the fact that the petitioner, Cindy Bass, was never entered into the record or sworn in as a qualified challenger.

Disclosure: I’m supporting Greg

Has any candidate been booted this year?

Has any candidate been booted this year? Milton, Brady, etc. are all on. The Supreme Court doesn't have to distinguish from precedent. It could just say, OK, from now on, we won't be such anal pricks. Substantial compliance is good enough if you fix it later.

Until they change their minds to ....

----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.

Booted candidates

Jesse Brown, Al Sanford, Ray Bailey, Jacques Waumbush, Lorena Marshall Blake

This is what an activist judiciary actually looks like

Maurice Houston, also in the 8th, was successfully removed by a Cindy Bass challenge. He, along with Sanford, Bailey, Brown & Marshall Blake were removed for inadequate valid signatures. Warren Bloom, who filed for the Commissioners race, was removed for improper notarization of petitions.

The only successful SFI challenge was against Whaumbush, who was removed for a pretty egregious omission regarding creditors who had secured judgments against him.

I disagree with Aardhart that it is the judicial role to be anal or not. The law, which came from the legislature, is fairly clear and quite anal: here's the information that you need to provide, and if you don't provide it fully and within the given timeframe, you're off the ballot. I think that's not a good law to have, but it's up to the legislature to fix it. Judges weakening the law through selective enforcement disincentivizes the legislature from fixing the broken law. By the judges trying to fix the law from the bench to make it more fair to candidates and voters, we get horrible precedents like the one that says positions on boards of non-profit organizations don't have to be disclosed, or the Supreme Court saying one year that payments received from the government in the normal course of a governmental employment relationship are not "governmentally mandated payments" and then lower courts ignoring that precedent in future years. And it keeps alive the absurd practice of SFI challenges, which prevents candidates on both sides of those challenges from campaigning on the issues. We can't rely on candidate/voter restraint not to seek to exploit the law in undemocratic ways, and the judiciary is reacting by refusing to enforce not only the law, but sometimes their own previous interpretations of it. It's a big stupid mess.

I did not mean to advocate

I did not mean to advocate either side in the strict-contructionist/substantial-compliance issue. (Yeah, I should have used better words than anal pricks, but you seem to support "the absurd practice of SFI challenges.") I merely meant to explore whether substantial compliance, as was allowed for Brady, could be endorsed by the Supreme Court. Until the next time they change their mind. But it looks like arbitrary random decisions are the prevailing standard for now.

----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.

Sue?

Sue who for what?

I was being sarcastic. But,

I was being sarcastic.

But, John Braxton and Paulmier's cases were identical- they both owned a bunch of properties, yet, did not disclose the addresses of them.

Braxton is kicked off, Paulmier stays.

I know that this is not want

I know that this is not want most want to see, but that really is very helpful to Donna's campaign. It puts a competitor in each area of the District.

It won't have a great impact, but Paulmier will get some votes in his own ward that would go to someone other than Donna.

Lou may remember better than I would, but I can't remember anyone being thrown off and coming back this late.

__________________________________________________________________________
I do not work for/support any candidate for any office in Philadelphia.

Full disclosure

The Hon. Judge Braxton is a good family friend, and we were more than a little peeved to see him booted from the ballot. Now, Paulmier does the same stuff, but that's OK?

Not cool. Not at all.
-Z

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Syndicate content