ShareThis Page
Nader qualifies for spot on state ballot |

Nader qualifies for spot on state ballot

| Tuesday, August 5, 2008 12:00 a.m

HARRISBURG — Barring a challenge like the one that knocked him off the Pennsylvania ballot in 2004, perennial presidential candidate Ralph Nader will get to compete in the state as an independent candidate in this year’s White House sweepstakes.

Nader, who’s still fighting a court order to pay $81,000 in legal costs of the voters who challenged his nomination papers the last time around, apparently succeeded in collecting the 24,666 voters’ signatures that he needed by Friday to qualify for the Nov. 4 ballot.

The deadline to file challenges to independent and third-party candidates is Friday.

On Monday, Nader and his 2004 running mate, Peter Miguel Camejo, petitioned the state Commonwealth Court to overturn the $81,000 judgment on grounds that the ballot challenge was orchestrated by Democratic lawmakers and aides in the state House of Representatives as part of a conspiracy to illegally spend public money for political purposes.

Last month, the state attorney general’s office filed criminal charges against a dozen people connected with the House Democratic caucus as part of an ongoing investigation.

In the 2004 challenge, nearly two-thirds of Nader’s signatures were declared invalid after a review that involved 11 Commonwealth Court judges.

In ordering Nader’s name stricken from the ballot, the presiding judge cited widespread evidence of fraud that “shocks the conscience.”

is a former freelancer.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.