LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

BELITSKUS v PIZZINGRILLI Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: BVP136667, Plaintiff: BELITSKUS, State: PA Pennsylvania, UniqueCaseRef: LCD>BVP136667, CourtCode: SM, CourtName: UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT SUCH FILING FEE SYSTEMS VIOLATE THE EQUAL, Candidates, Filing Fees, Ballot, Pennsylvania, Pay, Pennsylvania Green Party, Summary Judgment, Filing Fee, Motion, Commonwealth, John Stith, Parties, Constitution, Waiver, Bullock, Green Party, Qualification, Thomas Alan Linzey, Mandatory Candidate Filing, Signatures, Paying, Voters, Support, District, Election, Preliminary Injunction, Memorandum, Vote, Lubin, Testimony, Elections, Affluent Segment, Pennsylvania Community, Pennsylvania Law, Statewide Office, Resides, Representing, Fees , ContentID: 120249965

Case Documents
1   REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLTFFS MOTION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 123694
7 pages
PDF
3   MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 123692
11 pages
PDF
4   MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLTFFS RENEWED MOTION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 123691
14 pages
PDF
5   COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 123690
10 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 5 documents , 43 pages
Price: $ 39.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLTFFS MOTION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DEFENDANTS
FEES
COURT
ANDERSON
SCRUTINY
FILING
JUSTIFY
CANDIDATES
BULLOCK
RESTRICT
DEFERENTIAL REVIEW
LEGISLATURE
RENEWED MOTION
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OPPOSITION
MEMORANDUM
REGULATION
LUBIN
SUPPORT
BURDICK
FILING DEADLINE
CONSTITUTION
COSTS
QUOTING
WAIVER
BURDENS
VOTING RIGHTS
GRANT
CITES
                IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                     MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
____________________________________
THOMAS ALAN LINZEY, JOHN STITH,  )
PENNSYLVANIA GREEN PARTY, and  )
WILL
       DONOVAN
                            III,
                                 )
                                                  )

   Plaintiffs,
                                       )
                                                  )
       v.                                         )
                                                  )
KIM
      PIZZINGRILLI,

                                 ) CIVIL
                                                                  ACTION
in her official capacity as                       )     NO. 3:CV-00-1300
Secretary of State                                )     JUDGE CAPUTO
of Pennsylvania, and                              )
RICHARD
               FILLING,

                                 )
in his official capacity as                       )
the Commissioner overseeing                       )
Pennsylvania's Bureau of                          )
Commissions, Elections and                        )
       Legislation,
                           )
                                                  )
   Defendants.
                                       )
____________________________________)

                     REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'
              RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
   The arguments made by defendants in opposition to plaintiffs' motion
for summary judgment are generally addressed in plaintiffs' memorandum in

opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment ("Plaintiffs'

Opposition").   To avoid repetition, Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the

SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'
  • RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
  • The arguments made by defendants in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment are
  • opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment ("Plaintiffs'
  • The cases cited by Defendants in support of deferential review,
  • Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, and Anderson v. Celebreeze, 460
  • instead affirm the need for close scrutiny in this case.
  • deference to Ohio's early filing deadline for independent candidates.
  • from reversing the close scrutiny applied in Bullock and in Lubin v. Panish,
  • the Anderson decision repeatedly cites those decisions
  • to justify a restriction that limits political participation by an identifiable
  • unfairly or unnecessarily burdens `the availability of political opportunity.'"
  • , quoting Lubin, 414 U.S. at 716.
  • For even when pursuing a legitimate interest, a state may not choose means that unnecessarily
  • `Precision of regulation must be the touchstone in an area so closely touching on our most
  • Thus mandatory filing fees, which by their nature discriminate against
  • The other cases that defendants cite as supporting deferential review do not consider voting
  • valid if the fees "approximated" the state's costs.
  • There is no showing that a waiver would
  • Those, then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court,
  • It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath
  • For the reasons set forth above, the Court should grant plaintiffs'

  • 3 . MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    FILING FEES
    PLAINTIFFS
    BALLOT
    PENNSYLVANIA
    VOTERS
    ELECTION
    BULLOCK
    GREEN PARTY
    PAY
    QUALIFICATION
    COURT
    SIGNATURES
    NOMINATION PAPERS
    LUBIN
    VOTE
    RELIEF
    BALLOT ACCESS
    CONSTITUTION
    HARDSHIP
    SUPPORT
    SUFFER
    PAYING
    DISTRICT
    PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
    COMMONWEALTH
    PRIMARIES
    RIGHTS
    HARM
    JOHNSON
    
                                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    
    -------------------------------------------------------
    WILLIAM M. BELITSKUS, ANNE                            )
    GOEKE, THOMAS ALAN LINZEY,                            )
    BARBARA KNOX, JOHN STITH,                             )
    ERIC PRINDLE, JENNARO PULLANO, )
    RALPH NADER, NADER 2000                               )
    PRIMARY COMMITTEE,                                    )
    PENNSYLVANIA GREEN PARTY, and )
    WILL DONOVAN III,                                     )        Civil Action No.
                                                          ))
                                        Plaintiffs,       ))
             v.                                           ))
    KIM PIZZINGRILLI,                                     )
    in her official capacity as Secretary of State  )
    of Pennsylvania, and                                  )
    RICHARD FILLING,                                      )
    in his official capacity as the Commissioner )
    overseeing Pennsylvania's Bureau of                   )
    Commissions, Elections and Legislation,               ))
                                        Defendants. ))
    ------------------------------------------------------)
    
    
       MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
      TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
    
             The Plaintiffs seek to enjoin Defendants from enforcing the Commonwealth of
    
    Pennsylvania's requirement at 25 P.S. §§ 2873, 2911, 2913, and 2914 that all candidates
    
    for elected office pay a filing fee in order to gain access to the ballot, without any
    
    provision for a waiver of such fee or alternative means of ballot qualification.  The
    
    United States Supreme Court has held that such filing fee systems violate the Equal
    
    
    
    
    
                                                         1
    
    
    
    Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Bullock v.
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
  • MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND
  • Pennsylvania's requirement at 25 P.S. §§ 2873, 2911, 2913, and 2914 that all candidates
  • for elected office pay a filing fee in order to gain access to the ballot,
  • provision for a waiver of such fee or alternative means of ballot qualification.
  • United States Supreme Court has held that such filing fee systems violate the Equal
  • Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
  • Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709.
  • Pennsylvania who are otherwise qualified but would suffer hardship from paying the
  • between suffering financial hardship or forgoing their places on the 2000 general election
  • The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania requires candidates for public office to pay a
  • stringent signature requirements of Pennsylvania law are required to pay the filing fees as
  • nomination papers with required signatures along with their filing fees to the
  • election as candidates of the Green Party of Pennsylvania.
  • Candidates of political parties seeking a place on the primary ballot must file nomination
  • Plaintiff John R. Stith, who in addition to running for State Representative is also
  • wish to vote for and otherwise support the candidate plaintiffs and other Green Party
  • will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief; 3) there will be little or no harm to
  • the other parties if relief is granted; and 4) the public interest supports a grant of relief.
  • Johnson & Johnson Orthopedics,
  • Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134;
  • with unequal weight on voters, as well as candidates, according to their economic status,"
  • entitled to protection and is intertwined with the rights of voters.");
  • directed that party primaries be held.

  • 4 . MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLTFFS RENEWED MOTION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    CANDIDATES
    PLAINTIFFS
    BALLOT
    DEFENDANTS
    PENNSYLVANIA GREEN PARTY
    PAY
    COURT
    SUMMARY JUDGMENT
    MOTION
    JOHN STITH
    PARTIES
    COMMONWEALTH
    THOMAS ALAN LINZEY
    MANDATORY CANDIDATE FILING
    WAIVER
    TESTIMONY
    STATEWIDE OFFICE
    MATERIAL FACTS
    LEGISLATION
    MEMORANDUM
    QUALIFYING
    PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
    SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
    SIGNATURES
    PETITIONS
    CONSTITUTION
    SIGNATURE REQUIREMENTS
    DEFENDANTS ADMISSION
    LEGITIMATE STATE
    
                  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                       MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    ____________________________________
    THOMAS ALAN LINZEY, JOHN STITH,  )
    PENNSYLVANIA GREEN PARTY, and  )
    WILL
           DONOVAN
                              III,
                                    )
                                                    )
    
       Plaintiffs,
                                         )
                                                    )
           v.                                       )
                                                    )
    KIM
          PIZZINGRILLI,
    
                                    ) CIVIL
                                                                    ACTION
    in her official capacity as                     )     NO. 3:CV-00-1300
    Secretary of State                              )     JUDGE CAPUTO
    of Pennsylvania, and                            )
    RICHARD
                  FILLING,
    
                                    )
    in his official capacity as                     )
    the Commissioner overseeing                     )
    Pennsylvania's Bureau of                        )
    Commissions, Elections and                      )
           Legislation,
                             )
                                                    )
       Defendants.
                                         )
    ____________________________________)
    
         MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' RENEWED
                       MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
    
    
    
    
    
                                            1
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • THOMAS ALAN LINZEY, JOHN STITH,)
  • Legislation,
  • MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' RENEWED
  • MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
  • Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's mandatory candidate filing fee for ballot
  • After hearing testimony and argument from the parties on
  • candidates who are unable to pay the challenged filing fees.
  • ordered defendants to provide such candidates an alternative measure for
  • Defendants thereafter provided a waiver form
  • Pennsylvania Green Party continue to prosecute this action.
  • 22, 2000, plaintiffs filed their original motion for summary judgment.
  • for the U.S. presidency and any statewide office.
  • In addition to the filing fees,
  • Candidates of political parties seeking a place on the primary ballot must file nomination
  • numbers of signatures are yet are charged the same $100 fee,
  • Preliminary Injunction Hearing pp. 32-33,
  • Hearing, at p. 4, Supporting Documents at Tab J;
  • Statement of Material Facts ¶¶ 6-8 and as demonstrated by the supporting
  • Constitution.
  • Because the Texas filing-fee scheme has a real and appreciable impact on the exercise of the
  • Pennsylvania's stringent signature requirements ensure
  • signature requirements are precisely the type of alternative qualifying
  • See Defendants Admission No. 1, in Supporting Documents at Tab K. The

  • 5 . COMPLAINT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    CANDIDATES
    FILING FEE
    BALLOT
    PLAINTIFF
    ELECTIONS
    AFFLUENT SEGMENT
    PENNSYLVANIA COMMUNITY
    PENNSYLVANIA LAW
    DISTRICT
    RESIDES
    REPRESENTING
    PAYING
    FINANCIAL HARDSHIP
    NADER
    INTENDS
    GREEN PARTY
    EQUAL PROTECTION
    CONSTITUTION
    PAY
    QUALIFICATION
    PROTECTION CLAUSE
    AMENDMENT
    FILING FEE SYSTEM
    NOMINATION
    DEFENDANTS
    PRESIDENT
    SUPPORT
    VOTE
    STATEWIDE
    
                                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    
    -------------------------------------------------------
    WILLIAM M. BELITSKUS, R.D. #1                         )
    Box 172B, Kane, PA 16735;                             )
    ANNE GOEKE, 730 Hamilton Street,                      )
    Lancaster, PA  17602;                                 )
    THOMAS ALAN LINZEY, 2244 Lindsay  )
    Lot Road, Shippensburg, PA 17257;                     )
    BARBARA KNOX, R.D. #1 Box 357,                        )
    Blairs Mills, PA 17213;                               )
    JOHN STITH, 1007 Golfview                             )
    Avenue #32, State College, PA  16801;                 )
    ERIC PRINDLE, Susquehanna University, )
    Selinsgrove, PA  17870;                               )
    JENNARO PULLANO, 117 Blair Avenue,  )
    Reading, PA  19601;                                   )
    RALPH NADER, 1225 15th Street, NW,                    )
    Washington, D.C. 20005                                )
    NADER 2000 PRIMARY COMMITTEE,  )
    1225 15th Street, NW, Washington, D.C.                )
    20005;                                                )
    PENNSYLVANIA GREEN PARTY,                             )
    P.O. Box 7413, Lancaster, PA  17604; and )                  COMPLAINT
    WILL DONOVAN III, 330 Fifth Avenue, )
    State College, PA 16803,                              )     Civil Action No.
                                                          )
                                        Plaintiffs,       ))
             v.                                           ))
    KIM PIZZINGRILLI, in her official                     )
    capacity as Secretary of State of                     )
    Pennsylvania, 302 North Office Building,  )
    Harrisburg, PA  17120; and                            )
    RICHARD FILLING, in his official                      )
    capacity as the Commissioner overseeing  )
    Pennsylvania's Bureau of Commissions,                 )
    Elections and Legislation, 302 North Office  )
    Building, Harrisburg, PA 17120                        ))
                                        Defendants. ))
    ------------------------------------------------------)
    
    
    
           Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, allege and say the following:
    
                                         INTRODUCTION
    
               1.  This is a civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief arising under the
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
  • NADER 2000 PRIMARY COMMITTEE,)
  • Pennsylvania, 302 North Office Building,)
  • Elections and Legislation, 302 North Office)
  • of such fee or alternative means of ballot qualification.
  • This filing fee system violates
  • Plaintiffs' fundamental rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
  • Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
  • U.S.C. § 1391because the Defendants reside in this district and the events giving rise
  • Plaintiff William M. Belitskus intends to run as a 2000 candidate for U.S.
  • Mr. Belitskus resides in Kane,
  • He seeks to represent the interests of the less affluent segment of the Pennsylvania
  • and would suffer financial hardship from paying the $150 filing fee required
  • by Pennsylvania law for candidate access to the ballot for U.S. Representative.
  • the Pennsylvania community, and would suffer financial hardship from paying the $200
  • filing fee required by Pennsylvania law for candidate access to the ballot for statewide
  • required by Pennsylvania law for candidate access to the ballot for U.S. President.
  • Plaintiff Pennsylvania Green Party is a political body as defined by 25 P.S.
  • § 2831 seeking to place a slate of candidates on the Pennsylvania ballot in November
  • pay the filing fees.
  • He is registered to vote in Center County,
  • Green Party candidates and intends to vote for and support Anne Goeke,
  • Commonwealth receives for filing the nomination petitions of political party candidates,
  • Pennsylvania's filing fee system is unconstitutional as a violation of the
  • slate of candidates of their choice, to put forward candidates representing the less affluent
  •    |