A year ago, Babette Josephs was kept on the ballot despite obvious flaws in her financial statement (the same flaws that justified Braxton's removal the year before). In ruling for Josephs, Commonwealth Court Judge Rochelle Friedman held that the court could not consider the financial statement because the objector's attorney had not moved to enter the document into evidence.

Today, in an appeal of Al Sanford's removal, the same judge presented with the same issue reached a completely contradictory conclusion. The objector's failure to move the disputed financial statement into evidence would not, Friedman ruled, preclude the court from relying upon it as a basis for removing Sanford from the ballot.

Perhaps the appellate courts should simply be honest and write a guide for election lawyers entitled "Procedural rules governing incumbent vs. non-incumbent challenges." At least then there would be some predictablility.

Anyone expecting justice or evenhandedness in the Brady appeal should view the Sanford case as a reason not to be overly optimistic.