Nader's lawyers to argue against his paying $81K

The court called the independent's petitions 'deceitful and fraudulent.'
By MARK SCOLFORO
Associated Press Writer
HARRISBURG -- Ralph Nader's failed crusade to get onto Pennsylvania's presidential ballot last year took him all the way to the state Supreme Court.
In about two months, Nader's lawyers will return before the court for an encore, arguing that the independent candidate should not be saddled with an $81,000 bill.
That was the cost of transcription services during last year's litigation, when the Commonwealth Court convened hearings around the state to examine whether Nader's nominating petitions met the requirements of state law.
Commonwealth Court judges disqualified so many of Nader's 51,000 signatures that he ended up well short of the 26,000 he needed.
The stenographers who recorded those proceedings were paid for by pro-bono lawyers representing the voters -- sympathetic to Democratic nominee John Kerry -- who sued over Nader's petitions. Because Nader lost, he was ordered to pay the tab.
Nader's petitions, many collected by paid workers in the Philadelphia area, were described in the Commonwealth Court opinion as "the most deceitful and fraudulent exercise ever perpetrated upon this court."
Both sets of arguments
Nader's attorney, Basil C. Culyba, said forcing payment from a candidate whose petitions have successfully been challenged will effectively discourage future third-party hopefuls. Nader and running mate Peter Camejo are personally liable for the costs.
"Not only do you have to face the prospect of your campaign being confronted with a court challenge that is going to completely chew up your campaign's resources, but you are, with your award of costs, also at risk of personal financial ruin," Culyba said.
Veteran elections lawyer Gregory M. Harvey, one of the attorneys who represented the people challenging Nader's petitions, said the system would not work as well if losing parties didn't have to pay the costs.
"It would deter otherwise meritorious challenges, in my view. And of course I've been through this process for many decades of explaining to people what they will have to put up in order to do it: 'But if we win, we won't be stuck with it,'" Harvey said.
Sign of what's to come?
The Nader case may foreshadow elections challenges ahead, as brigades of candidates prompted by pay-raise antipathy can start collecting signatures in February in their own campaigns to unseat General Assembly incumbents.
In fact, the Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments in the Nader case for March 1, in the middle of the three-week petition-gathering period to qualify for the May 16 primary ballot.
As a group, the incumbents are nothing if not experienced politicians with knowledgeable election-law lawyers on speed-dial and strong personal motivation to drive opponents off the ballot.
They may have legitimate reasons to worry, however.
The grassroots anti-incumbent movement recently demonstrated it has a certain degree of viability by defeating a sitting Supreme Court justice last month. The leader of anti-incumbent group PACleanSweep says it has lined up 86 candidates to run in some 70 districts next year, when 228 legislative seats will be up for election.
Some will be political neophytes, so PACleanSweep is stressing the importance of gathering valid signatures and collecting more than needed as insurance. It also has lined up experts to provide its candidates with advice.
The newcomers should expect close scrutiny. But, of course, that's a game both sides can play.
"If any incumbent thinks we're not going to examine their petitions, they've got another thing coming," said PACleanSweep founder Russ Diamond. "Our experts are good at looking at our petitions, but they're good at looking at incumbents' signatures, too."
Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.