A Million Stories

All the news we care to print.

by Jeffrey C. Billman and Matt Stroud

Thomas Pitilli

There is a part of us that, deep down, knows we can never forgive Ralph Nader and his enablers for the havoc they wreaked upon the world. Without Nader's nihilistic Green Party run in 2000 (and 1.6 percent of the vote in Florida), America may well have been spared the disaster of the Bush years: wars, terror, corruption, incompetence, exploding deficits, financial collapse and general suckage. So whenever we hear the Greens and their lefter-than-thou purist ilk spout off about how the Republicans and Democrats are all the same, well, fuck them. Seriously.

Then again, democracy is a necessarily messy thing, and the Greens and Libertarians and Constitutionalists and Prohibitionists and Socialists and Whigs and whoever else have just as much right as anyone to run for office. So it's a bit insulting to see the big guys flex their muscles and lawyers to force the little guys off the November ballot. For instance, according to a coalition of minor parties, the Repubs and Dems have filed nomination petition challenges against every single minor-party statewide candidate running this year. The Republicans filed challenges to all three statewide Libertarian candidates, plus another against John Krupa, a Tea Party candidate for governor, who ended his campaign earlier this week. On Aug. 9, Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Joe Sestak challenged Green Party rival/potential spoiler Mel Packer.

In each case, the legal argument is the same: Enough of the candidates' petitions are defective or out of order to push them under the state's threshold for admission to the ballot.

As we've told you [A Million Stories, April 22, 2010], Pennsylvania is the only state in the union with a law that forces minor (and less deep-pocketed) party and independent candidates to pay the major parties' litigation costs if they lose these challenges, no matter who brings them — and since the big boys file challenges to every minor party candidate on the ballot, that means the little guys face a potential hit every single time they dare run.

Last week, a coalition representing the Green, Libertarian and Constitution parties called major party candidates to denounce these challenges. (Good luck with that.) While they're at it, they'd like to change the law to make it easier for minor parties to make the ballot and render these issue moot: Currently, minors and indies have to file petitions equal to 2 percent of the total vote in the previous statewide election, or about 19,000 this year. Senate Bill 252 calls for a more reasonable number of signatures, but it's been stalled in the State Government Committee since, um, February 2009.

On Sunday, the third-party activists staged rallies outside the homes of four major-party operatives who challenged the minor-party candidates' petitions, including Sestak's crib in Newtown Square and the South Philly home of Walter S. Zimolong, a Republican attorney who filed challenges to Libertarian candidates for governor, lieutenant governor and senator.

We didn't go, so we can't tell you how they went. (Our Sundays are devoted to Jesus and Jack Daniel's, in that order.) According to organizer Jim Babb, a Montgomery County Libertarian, 10 to 15 folks showed up at each house — not bad for a last-minute demonstration. The point they want to make, he says, is that the state constitution mandates "free and equal" elections, but the reality is anything but: Major party candidates have to file zero petitions to make the November ballot — though they do have to win their primaries — and only about 2,000 petitions to get into the primary.

"I don't expect politicians to change," Babb says. "They act out of self-interest. I want to expose the ridiculousness of our democratic process."

We would conclude with Babb's zinger, directed at Sestak and the Democrats, because it's true — "If there's ever, like, a bully situation, the all-powerful Democratic Party says, 'We're threatened by these little Green guys.' That's pathetic, what an embarrassment" — except that we have breaking news to report: Over the weekend, according to Sestak campaign attorney Manly Parks, the parties reached an agreement: Packer will not appear on the November ballot. In exchange, Packer won't be saddled with the Sestak campaign's legal costs, which, based on previous experience could have run as high as $80,000, maybe higher.

Attempts to reach Packer by press time were unsuccessful. However, in an Aug. 10 blog post, Packer admitted that victory was unlikely: "[G]iven the absurd requirements that third-party candidates must meet to attain ballot status, [Sestak's] challenge will likely be successful. ... Let me be very frank about this action. Joe Sestak is a moral and political coward ... ."

You could argue that, despite the onerous burdens placed on third-party candidates, it's their job to make sure that their petitions are legit . And you'd have a point. But that doesn't mean Sestak had to press the issue — especially with the threat of impossibly high legal fees dangling over Packer's head.

The fact is, Sestak's bullying worked. And that's a shame.

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT

As 9:30 a.m. approached and passed on Monday, Courtroom 802 in the Criminal Justice Center on Filbert Street was quiet. Five court employees surrounded Court of Common Pleas Judge Steven R. Geroff's elevated bench, bullshitting. In the gallery, Stacey Torrance's mom sat with family members, talking and laughing. She didn't exactly look concerned about the day's proceedings.

HALF OFF DEPOT

Why live life at full price?

"It's another [appeal], so I don't know if it's going to happen," said Barbara Torrance. It didn't. That's not unusual; this is Stacey Torrance's fifth appeal since 1988, when he was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for a crime he committed when he was 14. This particular appeal has been postponed 14 times over the past year — this time, to Oct. 22.

Torrance's crime has been on legislators' radar for a while now, because it exemplifies the hard-line stance this state takes toward juveniles involved, even tangentially, in homicides: Here they can be sentenced to life without parole even if they didn't commit or plan to commit a murder [Cover Story, "Little Kid, Life Sentence," Matt Stroud, July 30, 2009].

Torrance assisted in the robbery of a 16-year-old acquaintance in North Central Philly. After the robbery, Torrance went home; his accomplices — his cousin and a few others — brutalized and murdered the robbery victim. They're all serving life sentences, and hell if we have any sympathy for them. However, even though there's no evidence Torrance knew about the murder, under the state's felony murder law, that doesn't matter: Torrance was just as guilty as his cohorts, and should pay accordingly.

Monday's non-hearing allowed Torrance's lawyers to file an amended appeal asking the courts to take into consideration Graham v. Florida, a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that said that "defendants who do not kill, intend to kill, or foresee that life will be taken are categorically less deserving of [life without parole] than are murderers" [Naked City, "Don't Throw Away the Key," Matt Stroud, June 3, 2010].

We'll find out in October — or, you know, eventually — if Judge Geroff thinks that language should apply to Torrance.

This week's report by Jeffrey C. Billman and Matt Stroud. E-mail us at amillionstories@citypaper.net. Get your daily fix of the news, sports and commentary online at The Clog, citypaper.net/clog.