www.Jim4US.com    Press Release



Saturday, August 21, 2010    10:00 AM (EST)
Contact : Press office | 610-688-9471 | info@Jim4US.com

    Jim Schneller, Candidate for Congress - Penna. 7th District, Has Challenged The Constitutionality of the Pennsylvania Election Code



    The Jim for Congress campaign filed on Friday a new motion to dismiss the G.O.P. challenge to the Schneller nomination papers, in the Commonwealth Court, and the motion includes a claim of  unconstitutionality of sections of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Election Code, claiming that the law and it's unconstitutional aspects have directly deprived Jim Schneller and numerous other candidates of their rights to ballot access, free and fair election, due process, and equal treatment, which are guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions.

     The motion first claims unconstitutionality, that results from the requirement to collect signatures in the amount of 2 % of the total vote in the prior election in the same district, in order to become a candidate. This formula inflicts on the relevant categories of candidates, a signature requirement exceeding that required for big-party nominations by 300 % to 500 % or more. 25 P.S. §2831, 25 P.S.§2911

     The motion also claims unconstitutionality, resulting from the law's requirement to create a party name, and by way of the language required to be used in nomination papers, which defines a candidacy to be a sort of a nomination by citizens, whereas a candidate, if truly free to run for office as guaranteed by the constitution, ought to just as well be allowed to run without any party, as is the case with Jim Schneller.  

    Likewise, a candidate should not be corralled by the language of a nomination paper, into obtaining signatures from citizens which may be seen as support for some new party, where,  for instance, many citizens do not want a third or fourth party, rather, they would readily support a third and fourth candidate, and might therefore be reluctant to sign the petition out of fear of supporting a "party" with which they are unfamiliar, or disapprove.  Likewise, rather than stand as support for the candidate, beyond a wish to see the candidate on the ballot in the interests of democracy, a signature ought to alternately simply represent a citizen's approval of candidacy.   The "nomination by citizens" format establishes far too strict, complex,  and arbitrary a requirement. 25 P.S. §2831, 25 P.S. §2936.  

   Thus, claims Mr. Schneller, the "nomination" format is biased from the start, and this is abundantly the case, even on the basic level, since the founders of our Country and State did not intend that parties predominate in our  election processes, so that to have to name a party and to claim nominating signatures under that party name, is contrived, obstructive to liberty, and wrong !   In combination with the high number of requirements, and with the corruption that is now a festering illness of the system, original candidates have less chance than ever to run, yet the Constitutions intended large ballots, and that was the case for many years.


    The Jim for Congress campaign also filed on Friday a motion to Vacate a discovery schedule or for a directive to the G.O.P. to adjust the deposition schedule, complaining of complete lack of avenue given the campaign to participate in the processes of discovery, and an intent to stretch out the litigation in order to cause the Jim for Congress campaign additional needless loss of time and resources, or even a fictionalized appearance of sluggishness.

    The G.O.P.'s depositions address a nonexistent issue as to whether a notary public was physically present when many Jim4Congress circulators had their petitions notarized, at a notary-gathering held August 1, 2010, the day before the final date to file nomination papers.

    Says Schneller: "Plain fact. This is the Jim Schneller campaign and Jim is an independent.   If this campaign was forced to use only independent signature collectors, that would be another hugely unconstitutional limitation on ballot access and freedom to vote for a fair and realistic assortment.  The case against us does not give any details about any misdeeds and we have claimed that such charges are frivolous.

     I have, and will continue to have, much support from this District  because of my policy of not accepting contributions from any big-boy donors.   

     Mud slinging and gentleman's agreements between other candidates to quibble about non-existent signature gathering issues tells me that both parties fear my candidacy."

    As to any eventuality of succes of the G.O.P. claims regarding collecting, the only way that fraud or illegality enters into signature gathering is when a prevailing lie or lies are stated to the public in support of getting the signatures. This, even if it had occurred in the Jim Schneller signature gathering, would be so expensive to prove, that even the two-party monster seeking to end Jim's campaign could not afford it. 

    Amazingly, the G.O.P. attorney does, nevertheless, claim up to present, that the alleged Democrat-installed collectors, caused, just by their presence, a fraud on the public.  But this is purely theatrics, and, as we see, some media have taken up the line, stating that the collector allegations are the gist of the case.    In reality, any attempt to drag in witnesses to say "they told me this" and "they told me that" would turn the proceeding into a fiasco, because Jim's campaign would then bring in witnesses to recount how Jim and other collectors explained Jim's platform to potential signors accurately, and so the trial would go, until it would resemble a battle of citizen recollections, that, if let proceed by a Judge, could only snowball into a farce.


    All are reminded that the crux of this challenge is the number of signatures, not the artificial claims about how connected Democrats allegedly signed on as signature collectors, or about what claims Schneller signature gatherers made to voters as they collected signatures.  When  this weeks depositions prove that all 82 notarizations are lawful and proper, the case will become so weak as to astonish !   Will the power brokers nevertheless continue with the case and try to nullify 3950 or more signatures on a picayune line by line basis ?  Time will tell.  One thing is certain - they are already grazing the fine line between real litigation and frivolous "fishing expedition" litigation, and so must be paying some large consultant fees in order to carefully approach the situation.

     The Jim for Congress campaign encourages the Meehan campaign to sue the Bryan Lentz campaign next, so that both parties can sink their teeth into each other and end their poorly-disguised efforts to keep Jim Schneller from getting Republican and Democrat votes.

____________________


Jim Schneller for Congress campaign asserts unconstitutionality of Pennsylvania Election Code - August 21, 2010

Candidate Jim Schneller's initial observations on the GOP petition to set aside candidacy - August 12, 2010


Candidate Jim Schneller on claims of improper Democrat petition strategy - August 5, 2010


Candidate Jim Schneller adds to pledges for good governing - July 5, 2010