Petition challenges

==Media==
===Spring 2012===
====Two-Man Race in 24th Legislative District after Two Contenders Stricken from Ballot====
: By Nancy Hart nancy@urbanmediatoday.com
Of the four original candidates who filed petitions to be placed on the ballot to represent the 24th district in Pennsylvania’s House of Representatives , only two remain.
Following two separate hearings in Commonwealth Court in March, 2012, President Judge Dan Pellegrini declared that the names of candidates Will Anderson and Todd Elliot Koger will be removed from ballots after having their petitions challenged by supporters of fellow candidate Ed Gainey .
Incumbent Representative Joseph Preston, Jr. narrowly survived the Gainey team’s challenge to his petitions, remaining on the ballot by Pellegrini’s declaration of 308 legitimate signatures to meet the 300-minimum required.
In order to be listed as a candidate for the Pennsylvania General Assembly on the ballot in the April 23, 2012, primary, petitions must be submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of State which contain the signatures of 300 electors, their printed name, complete address and the date on which they signed the petition. Electors may only sign one petition of a potential candidate running for office in the district in which they are registered to vote, and must share party affiliation with that candidate.
The March 2012 hearing resulted from the contention of Gainey supporters that two entire pages of signatures supporting Preston’s candidates appeared to be “blatant forgeries.” They also claim that Preston signed an affidavit claiming to have personally witnessed the signatures of one full page of signatures. In addition to the forgeries, the Gainey supporters also claimed the petitions were signed by individuals not registered to vote, who were not registered Democrats, who live outside of the 24th Legislative District, or who provided incorrect addresses, nicknames or other incorrect information.
Prior to the hearing, Preston’s campaign withdrew 223 of the 806 signatures initially submitted on petitions containing up to 50 signatures each, including the two alleged to be entirely forged. 
Jay Walsh , attorney for the Gainey camp, began by issuing “global challenges,” calling into question large blocks of signatures whose accompanying data appeared to be false, for example, completed in a different handwriting from the signers’, or which appeared to be written over by another hand. 
Karen Baloban , a Harrisburg attorney representing the Preston campaign, attempted to “rehabilitate” the integrity of these signatures by calling several circulators of questionable petitions to account for the apparent variables. 
One circulator, Abdar Rahman Shareef , testified that he had filled in addresses on some lines at the request of electors, who he says were elderly or disabled in such a way that completing the information would be too difficult. He says he told them to “fill out as much as you can, and I’ll fill in the rest of it.”
Baloban then called witnesses whose signatures were in question on what was referred to as “page 5,” asking them to examine the information accompanying their signatures. While two of the four witness specified that they did not give permission to Shareef to complete their information, one, Clifford McBride, said “I filled out whatever he told me to fill out. I didn’t give permission, I said he could take care of the rest.”
Another witness, Kevin Amos , said that when presented with the petition, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania was already filled in on the line he was to sign. He did indicate that he granted permission to the circulator to fill in the remaining information.
These testimonies caused the entire “page 5” petition to be stricken as invalid, because the lines were “not completely filled in by the hand of the person who signed,” according to Pellegrini. After several hours of testimony regarding these “global” challenges, Pellegrini determined that Preston still required 65 additional “good” signatures to reach the requisite 300 to remain on the primary ballot. “The purpose of this hearing is not to disenfranchise electors for making a mistake,” said Pellegrini. “But I’d rather have a big win than a close victory. I like when someone wins big or loses big.” Walsh then began a deliberate, line-by-line challenge to electors’ signatures or other information the campaign considered questionable. Baloban was given the opportunity to respond to each challenge, but appeared unaware that electoral districts have different boundaries than indicated by zip codes, causing further delays as Allegheny County Bureau of Elections officials were repeatedly caused to return to their offices to obtain copies of voter registration cards indicating electors’ legislative districts. After reviewing nearly every line on 26 petitions, Pellegrini and the attorneys concluded Preston had achieved 308 valid signatures, and would thus be permitted to remain on the primary ballot. “I would congratulate you on winning,” Pellegrini said to Baloban, “but your petitions were just terrible.” Walsh commented, “I won over 500 challenges, and still lost.”
On Tuesday morning, Walsh was back before Pellegrini to review challenges to petitions submitted by Democrat Will Anderson . After a brief hearing, Pellegrini determined that Anderson did not submit enough valid signatures to remain on the ballot, and must be removed.
Tuesday afternoon, Pellegrini again took the bench in Commonwealth Court to hear Walsh present challenges on behalf of the Gainey campaign to petitions submitted by Todd Elliott Koger , an attorney who represented himself at the hearing.
Of the 500 signature lines submitted by Koger, Walsh challenged 366. When Koger refused to agree to stipulate that some of the challenged signatures were in fact invalid, Pellegrini told Koger his “inability to ‘stipulate’ causes inconvenience to the court and is not appreciated.”
Koger responded that Walsh “has challenged almost every signature for the same three reasons, which are not at issue.”
Koger claimed he had “over 200 affidavits which attest to signors putting their mailing address, rather than their registered address,” and asserting that “whether or not individuals used their registered addresses, they still live within the district.”
Pellegrini declared that unregistered addresses were defects which could not be amended by the affidavits, but Koger asked to have a standing objection recorded to the decision.
The electors who signed his petitions, said Koger, “don’t want others who sign a publicly-circulated document to become aware of their addresses due to safety concerns.” He also contended that a number of his electors signed affidavits swearing that they had attempted to officially change their addresses with the county Bureau of Elections through other state agencies’ participation in “Motor-Voter” programs which allow those agencies to submit address change information directly to the Pennsylvania Department of State, but that the changes had not been made as requested. He contended that one had done so more than five years prior.
Pellegrini countered that the laws are clear: The addresses on the signature line must match that of voter registration records for the elector.
Koger also attempted to argue that his own “strategy” to verify information on his petitions was undermined when Gainey political consultant Matt Merriman-Preston acted in concert with Bureau of Elections staff to “steal work product” by having Elections employees photocopy documents used by Koger , then turn the copies over to Merriman-Preston.
“There is no strategy,” said Pellegrini. “I’m prepared to go until whenever to go through every line.”
Walsh then began a line-by-line challenge of the petitions, during which the majority were either withdrawn by Koger, or stricken by Pellegrini. Having begun with 134 signatures deemed acceptable, at the end of reviewing four pages, Koger’s number of acceptable signatures was 151, and Pellegrini called for a brief recess.
During the recess, Koger acknowledged the nearly-impossible task of achieving the requisite 300 signatures with Pellegrini’s denial of admission of his affidavits, and decided to withdraw his petitions to be placed on the ballot.
“I can still run independently, as a write-in candidate,” said Koger. “And I now know what to tell people what they need to do” to avoid challenges which disenfranchise their votes.
Called back to the bench, Pellegrini issued an order to strike Koger’s candidacy from the ballot for Democratic nominee for the 24thLegislative District.
Gainey acknowledged that the race was now a one-on-one battle for the Democratic nomination.
“The voters in our neighborhoods will have a clear choice on April 24,” said Gainey. “Collecting valid signatures of voters in the district is not easy work, but it is important.”
“Being a true representative of the people in our neighborhoods requires being present and actually speaking to residents, not just forging their names on a piece of paper.”
“Preston has very little to show for the 30 years he’s spent in Harrisburg, and has grown increasingly out of touch with those of us who work and live in the community every day,” says Gainey. “I will work with the people who live here, and stand shoulder to shoulder fighting for more good jobs, economic development and safer streets.”
In 2006, Gainey fell 92 votes short of defeating Preston, while Will Anderson received 524 votes in the same primary.
“I look forward to a spirited campaign against Joe Preston ,” Gainey says.
Will Anderson could not be located for comment, and Representative Preston did not return calls requesting comment as of deadline.
Category:Democracy
Category:Candidate 2012