Cornel West to appeal after judge denies spot on Pa. presidential ballot

A federal judge on Thursday said third-party presidential candidate Cornel West cannot have his name placed on Pennsylvania’s ballot — despite the court’s concerns over how state election laws treat minor-party candidates.

“Common sense tells the court that we are less than one month from a presidential general election,” wrote U.S. District Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan. “There is no time to reprint thousands of ballots and retest the election systems across all 67 counties without increasing the risk of error and confusion.”

Attorney Matthew Haverstick, who represents the West campaign in the case, said on Friday that they will appeal to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“We think there is time for changes to implemented to vindicate his constitutional rights in a meaningful way,” Haverstick said.

Last month, West — a left-wing scholar, academic and theologian — filed a complaint against the Pennsylvania Department of State alleging discrimination after he was blocked from appearing on the ballot as an independent candidate.

He filed his nominating papers with 13,000 signatures this summer. However, the state found that he didn’t have “candidate affidavits” for all 19 electors as required.

West’s application to be on the ballot was rejected.

Timing is everything

During a hearing Monday in federal court, West said the two-party system treated him unfairly.

Haverstick, who has long represented the Republican party, argued that there are additional burdens placed on third-party candidates that those of the two major political groups don’t have to meet.

In his 12-page opinion, Ranjan seemed to agree, writing that the election restrictions for independent candidates are discriminatory on their face and that they appear to be designed to restrict ballot access to non-major political candidates.

Ranjan deemed it likely that West would succeed on the merits of his position. The judge also found that West had suffered irreparable harm, a requirement for obtaining an injunction.

“In the end,” Ranjan wrote, “if this case had been brought earlier, the result, at least on the present record, may have been different.”

But, the judge continued, adding West to the ballot at this late date — after mail-in ballots have been sent and some already returned — would sow voter confusion.

“This is why the Supreme Court has reminded federal district judges that tinkering with the mechanics of a national election at a late stage is not a wise idea,” Ranjan wrote.

Possible, but not prudent

At the hearing, Jonathan Marks, the state’s deputy secretary for elections, testified that many of Pennsylvania’s ballots had already been mailed, and that the logic and accuracy testing for many voting machines and tabulators has already been conducted.

“He stopped short of saying it was an ‘impossible’ task, and the court anticipates that it probably could be done,” Ranjan wrote. “But that would come at a cost; prudence exchanged for speed.”

Errors that could come from that process, the judge said, could be a blow to public confidence in the state’s election process.

Ranjan agreed with West that if someone’s constitutional rights are being violated, the state and counties should bear the cost of making it right.

“But as the court explained above, it isn’t confident enough based on the record presented that all 67 counties will be able to implement the injunctive relief requested within the time parameters, without resulting in major errors.”

During Monday’s hearing, Haverstick suggested a compromise. Instead of throwing out ballots already received, the court could allow West’s name to be added to those that have not yet been mailed and to ballots that could be reprinted for polling locations.

Ranjan rejected that notion saying such a remedy would ensure confusion.