The Washington Post is proud to partner with The Washington Post in bringing our originally reported insider political news to a wide audience of decision makers and opinion leaders across the country.

Close it

Libertarian candidates off the ballot

The Libertarian Party’s slate of statewide candidates has officially been sent packing.

The party’s candidates for senate, governor and lieutenant governor all ended their bids to stay on the ballot Wednesday, succumbing to legal challenges spearheaded by the state GOP. Coupled with the withdrawal of a Green Party candidate for senate and another candidate for governor, the latest exits mean there will be no third-party candidates on the statewide ballot in November.

Senate hopeful Douglas Jamison, gubernatorial candidate Marakay Rogers and lieutenant governor aspirant Kat Valleley all conceded that they didn’t have enough valid signatures to gain ballot access, their lawyer from seanparklaw told The Associated Press.

August 19, 2010 at 9:01 am Staff

Tags: , , , ,


comments [14] | post a comment

  1. Bruce Bailey

    Aug 19th, 2010

    So where is all the righteous outrage at Republicans over this? How does Joe Sestak catch a raft of sh*t when the Green Party gets kicked off, and Repubs get a free ride for doing the same to Libertarians?

    Guess it’s OK if you’re a Republican, eh?

  2. Lance Chang

    Aug 19th, 2010

    Because Joe Sestak is a tool. And he has a terrible hair cut. 😛

  3. Brent Wingard

    Aug 19th, 2010


    Allow me to provide said outrage. It’s wrong no matter who does it. This is a travesty, and it has sadly become the M.O. since 2004. As someone who has voted Libertarian several times and who strongly believes in freedom of choice, I feel this is a sad outcome. It cries out for ballot-access reform (a cry which has been growing louder for some time now).

  4. Bruce Bailey

    Aug 19th, 2010

    Ballot-access reform, petition-process reform, open-primary reform — all of these are important and need to be pursued, especially here in Pennsylvania.

    My argument is that you don’t blame a candidate or a party at this stage of the game for doing whatever it takes within the rules to win. That is what a candidate is supposed to do, what the candidate’s supporters should expect their candidate to do. I don’t fault Repubs for going after the Libertarians, and I certainly don’t fault Sestak or other Democrats for taking a hard line against Green Party candidates.

    Anyone who wants this reform needs to support candidates for the State Legislature who will push hard to make it happen. That’s where this effort has to begin. Calling for reform two months before an election is either naive or propaganda. The candidates — unless they’re running for the State House or Senate — aren’t responsible for the rules. They’re just responsible for obeying them.

  5. Lance Chang

    Aug 19th, 2010

    I just an idiot, with no clue shilling for the republican candidate.

  6. TTB

    Aug 19th, 2010

    You’re right Bruce, Penna politicans have been playing this game for years, but I wonder why they are now saying that this is wrong and pulling the third party candidates…

  7. bill healy

    Aug 20th, 2010

    Senate hopeful Douglas Jamison, gubernatorial candidate Marakay Rogers and lieutenant governor aspirant Kat Valleley all conceded that they didn’t have enough valid signatures to gain ballot access

    There’s no entitlement to be placed on the ballot, they had months to get signatures guess there wasn’t any real support fot third parties, at least not enough to meet the legal requirments.

  8. Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.

    Aug 20th, 2010

    Bill Healy is precisely correct.

    The Libertarian/Independent/Green movements are microscopic and – as per personal experience – incompetent.

    If they gain more adherents and can become better organized in their own fashions, the outcome would be different.

    But their message doesn’t resonate and, thus, their presence on the ballot would divert attention from discussion of fundamental issues.

    One thing is for-sure: the D’s are ensuring that no R’s are getting a free-ride about ANYTHING, for thematic (locally/nationally) are personal attacks (regardless of justification).

  9. Michael Morrill

    Aug 20th, 2010

    Pennsylvania’s requirements for independents and third party candidates are outrageous. A truly just and independent judiciary would have struck down this onerous law decades ago. This year’s requirements were relatively mild–only 19,000. In other years, the amount has been as high as 65,000. D’s and R’s only need 2,000. If we read about this disparity in another nation we would justifiably call it election rigging.

    And after the candidates eke out enough signatures to qualify, the major parties challenge their petitions. Then, if the candidates have the audacity to defend their petitions and lose, the courts make the candidates pay the legal fees of the major parties.

    This is more than a travesty, it’s a slap in the face of everyone who believes in fair elections.

    I’m supporting the Democratic slate in November, but I’m beyond outraged at the conduct of the major parties and their surrogates in diminishing our democracy.

    These is my opinion and does not represent any organization with which I am affiliated.

  10. David Diano

    Aug 20th, 2010

    “My argument is that you don’t blame a candidate or a party at this stage of the game for doing whatever it takes within the rules to win.”

    The end justifies the means?

    If a candidate supports a limit on donations because they lead to undo influence, then it’s pretty hypocritical to accept more than that in order to win. Once elected, then the excuse becomes that you need the donations to get reelected to do other good works and reform can wait.

    Fair ballot access is a PRINCIPLE. Just admit that Sestak puts POLITICS over PRINCIPLE because the “rules” allow him to be UNPRINCIPLED.

    “There’s no entitlement to be placed on the ballot”??

    Yes, there is. With only a 2,000 signature requirement for the major parties, that is entitlement. With 4 million registered Dems in the state, that 2,000 is only 1/20th of 1 percent.

    The rules are unfair, and candidates like Sestak perpetuate the unfairness.

  11. bill healy

    Aug 20th, 2010

    Wah, Wah, wah, David quit crying the green party candidate didn’t meet the required number of signatures, Joe Sestak may have only needed 2,000 signatures, but his campaign turned in 20,000 It can be done if you have support, Joe had no party backing when he filed yet he met what you consider an insurmaountable obsticle.

  12. bill healy

    Aug 20th, 2010

    I need a new keyboard damm keys stick

  13. Anonymous

    Aug 20th, 2010

    We need to eliminate the two party system in this country. It is simply outdated in the 21st century with a much more diverse population base. Only two parties does not do justice to the depth of THE PEOPLE. Time to end the non consistent signature requirements to run for office in Pa. just because one chooses not to run as a Democrat and Republican. Why should the requirements be different for those two and not other established parties? Makes no sense NOT to make the requirements equal. No sense at all. And, please, don’t give me this baloney that the largest are more established. That has zero to do with how the population is more diverse in the 21st century. Unless, that is, those in power in the two established parties are running scared that there just may be someone else out there that’s a better candidate than what they have to offer. If that’s the case, even more reason to make the requirements to run EQUAL.

  14. concerned voter

    Aug 30th, 2010
    well isn’t this a great democratic republic. They must be afraid of losing their political jobs.At least the courts have not learned their lesson yet. May we please inquire of who these justices are who removed this option from the public trust.

Leave a Reply

- will not be published