ShareThis Page
Political Headlines

3rd-party hopefuls abandon bids for Pennsylvania governor

| Friday, Aug. 1, 2014, 7:57 p.m.

HARRISBURG — The possibility of a third-party candidate's crashing the gubernatorial race between Republican Gov. Tom Corbett and Democratic challenger Tom Wolf faded away on Friday as two such hopefuls conceded they lacked enough voter support.

Green Party nominee Paul Glover and Ken Krawchuk of the Libertarian Party said their campaigns had fallen short of the nearly 17,000 petition signatures needed by Friday to qualify for the Nov. 4 ballot.

Glover, a community economic development consultant from Philadelphia, blamed his failed bid on the large number of signatures required, his campaign's low public profile and a lack of more cash to pay signature gatherers.

“If we'd had enough money earlier, we'd have been able to (get) them on the street earlier,” he said.

Krawchuk said third-party candidates must collect many more than the minimum number of signatures as insurance against petition challenges.

The required number of signatures is 2 percent of the ballots cast for the top vote-getter in the previous election — a calculation that the courts have upheld.

“We're being discriminated against,” said Krawchuk, an information technology consultant from Abington who garnered 1 percent of the votes in the 1998 and 2002 gubernatorial elections.

The fact that the courts have upheld the minimum signature requirement “does not make it right,” Krawchuk said.

Statewide, major party candidates are required to gather only 2,000 signatures, but they then often must compete in the primary election for the nomination.

The Green and Libertarian parties are challenging the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's ballot access requirements in federal court in Philadelphia.

Paul Rossi, the lawyer representing both parties in the case, said the lawsuit filed in June is designed to mount a “full frontal attack” on requirements that the plaintiffs believe are unconstitutional.

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.

click me