In re Nomination Paper of Nader

CONSOLIDATED FINDINGS, OPINION AND ORDER

COLINS, President Judge.

On September 20, 2004, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania remanded this matter to this Court with directions to review every signature contained in the nomination papers of Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo (Candidates) to determine whether the Candidates had gathered a sufficient number of valid signatures to be listed on the Commonwealth’s general election ballot. With the general election scheduled for November 2, 2004, and the 67 counties of this state waiting patiently to print their ballots, .this Court, immediately upon receipt of the Supreme Court’s directive, *13 dispatched 11 of its 13 judges 1 to various counties to review the challenges to the signatures submitted by the Candidates.

President Judge Colins, Judge Smith-Ribner, and Senior Judge Mirarchi 2 presided over the Philadelphia signature review, reviewing the signatures contained in Volumes A, B, C, D, E, and F of the Objections to the Candidates Nomination Papers. Judge McGinley and Judge Pel-legrini presided in Allegheny County and reviewed the challenges involving Allegheny County. Senior Judge Kelley reviewed the challenges for the nomination papers circulated in the counties of Armstrong, Beaver, Blair, Butler, Cambria, Centre, Clearfield, Fayette, Fulton, Indiana, Jefferson, Somerset, Washington, and Westmoreland, and later assisted in the Philadelphia review. Senior Judge Ji-uliante presided over the review of signatures for the nomination papers circulated in the counties of Clarion, Crawford, Elk, Erie, Lawrence, Mercer, Venango, and Warren; while Judge Friedman presided over the review of nomination papers circulated in Bucks County, and Judge Le-adbetter presided over the nomination papers circulated in Montgomery County, later completing the review of Volume F of the Philadelphia challenges. Judge Cohn Jubelirer presided over the review of nomination papers circulated in Adams, Lancaster, Lebanon, Lehigh, Luzerne, Lycoming, Monroe, and Schuylkill Counties. Judge Simpson presided over the nomination papers circulated in Berks, Bradford, Columbia, Cumberland, Dauphin, and Lackawanna Counties, as well as those circulated in Montom*, Northampton, Perry, Susquehanna, Wyoming, and York Counties. Senior Judge Flah-erty presided over the signature review for those nomination papers circulated in Delaware and Chester Counties. There were four counties to which no challenges to the nomination papers were filed. Those counties are Carbon (total signatures 3), Franklin (total signatures 1), Greene (total signatures 3), and Bergen County, New Jersey [sic] (total signatures 1), for a total of 8 unchallenged signatures.

This line-by-line review of individual signatures was both exhaustive and exhausting. Several Judges of this Court worked nonstop, 16 hours a day in order to complete the Supreme Court’s mandate within a reasonable timeframe. Our final review indicates that 1,183 pages of nomination papers were filed, containing a total of 51,273 3 signatures submitted by the candidates.

By this Court’s Order of August 20, 2004, both sides were directed to be prepared to present their case in the various forums commencing Monday September 27, 2004 and were told that cooperation from both sides was necessary if the review were to be done in anything approaching a timely manner and that the Court would not tolerate intemperate or obstructionist conduct on the part of either the Candidates or the Objectors. The Candidates, through then counsel Samuel Stretton, Esq., were warned that a *14 review of over 50,000 signatures was an ominous undertaking requiring a great deal of manpower and expense and that the Candidates’ pre-hearing cooperation in examining challenged signatures with the Objectors, such that potentially valid and invalid signatures could be stipulated to, would be essential to an efficient and timely review. The Candidates chose to ignore this Court’s warning and proceeded to do as little as possible prior to the hearings, in an initial attempt to prevent an accurate tally of the signatures.

The review of signatures in Philadelphia was conducted in three ad hoc courtrooms that were made available to the Court by the Philadelphia Voter Registration Division of the Philadelphia City Commissioners. With the assistance of Commonwealth Court’s Computer Department, each courtroom contained three computer monitors on which could be displayed voter registration information and scanned copies of voter signatures contained in the voter registration database of the Voter Registration Division. A fourth courtroom was subsequently added. The voter registration data reviewed by the Court was a true and accurate record of voter information contained in the Voter Registration Division’s database as attested to by the Commission’s Urban Registration Administrator, Robert Lee. A civil service employee of the Voter Registration Division operated a computer terminal in each courtroom. The Objectors provided the Court and the Candidates with three exhibits filed with the petitions to strike exhibit 1, being a six volume document detailing the Philadelphia Objections; exhibit 2 set forth the “Global” 4 challenges; and exhibit 3 set forth the forgery challenges. Exhibit 1 was distributed among President Judge Colins, who was initially assigned Volumes A and B, Judge Smith-Ribner, who was initially assigned Volumes C and D, and Senior Judge Mirarchi, who was initially assigned Volumes E and F. Prior to the hearing date of September 27, 2004, at the direction of this Court, Robert Lee, and members of his staff, prepared a detailed report of each signature challenged and prepared a detailed report setting forth their line-by-line findings regarding the Objectors’ challenges to individual signatures. Copies of these reports were supplied to the candidates. The Court takes this opportunity to thank Mr. Lee and his entire staff for their tireless work on this project. Faced with an initial lack of cooperation from the Candidates, he and his staff produced records that were invaluable to this Court in resolving this matter.

When this Court’s review began on September 27, 2004, the Candidates, in total disregard of this Court’s order of August 20, 2004, were unprepared to respond to the allegations set forth in the Objectors Petition and chose instead to'focus on delay and obfuscation. From the very outset of the Philadelphia hearings, the Candidates repeatedly, and without foundation, charged that this Court had improperly shifted the burden of proof from the Objectors to the Candidates, ignoring the fact that, at all times, the burden of proof would rest with the Objectors. Rather than focus on the task at hand, the Candidates raised groundless issues of due process violations and repeatedly challenged the validity óf our Supreme Court’s decisions in In re Nomination Petition of Silcox, 543 Pa. 647 , 674 A.2d 224 (1996), and In re Nomination Petition of Flaherty, 564 Pa. 671 , 770 A.2d 327 (2001), decisions that had been re-affirmed by our Supreme Court in opinions filed as late as Septem *15 ber 29, 2004, two days after these hearings began. In that opinion, In Re: Nomination Papers of Ralph Nader, et al., No. 154 MAP 2004, — Pa. -, 858 A.2d 1167 , 2004 WL 2185351 , Madame Justice Newman writing for a majority of the Supreme Court, (unanimous in reaffirming the holding of Flaherty and Sileox), held that

The Commonwealth Court identified the correct standards that we have mandated in Flaherty and Sileox, regarding late registrations and the requirements for review of signatures and addresses. Further, Candidates’ due process rights were not violated by the Secretary’s rejection of signatures. Candidates’ request for application of lesser standards may well portend their inability to meet the requirements we have established.

Id. at 32, at -, 858 A.2d at 1185 .

After three weeks of hearings and the expenditure of nearly a quarter of a million dollars of the taxpayers’ money, this Court concludes that the Candidates have submitted only 18,818 valid signatures, and are thus not eligible to have their names placed on the November 2004 ballot as candidates for President and Vice-President. The following procedures were employed to reach this conclusion.

The Candidates challenged the work product and methodology employed by the voter registration offices. Additionally, Candidates challenged the original election petitions, advancing the notion that there was no explanation for “black lines” and “red lines” that allegedly inexplicably appeared on the original nomination papers. In order to address these concerns, a joint hearing was held before President Judge Colins, Judge Smith-Ribner, and Senior Judge Mirarchi beginning on September 27, 2004.

The Court addressed the issue by placing on the record the procedures employed to maintain the chain of custody of the original nomination papers. The procedures are detailed as follows. The Department of State transported the nomination papers filed by the Candidates to the Harrisburg offices of the Commonwealth Court where the papers were immediately placed into the custody of an armed security officer of Commonwealth Court. That official transported the Philadelphia nomination papers to the office of this Judge. This Judge then caused the nomination papers to be distributed to both Judge Smith-Ribner and Senior Judge Mirarchi. At all times the papers have been in the custody and control of the Court. Having explained that procedure to the Candidates, Candidates continued to proffer the argument that there was no explanation of the black fine or red markings on the nomination papers. This Judge then referenced the August 24, 2004 filing of the Department of State wherein the Department set forth that it reviewed the nomination papers and in instances where a defect was ascertained, the Department marked the signature with an “x” to the left of the fine and circled the defect. This Court further noted that such is the Department of State’s usual practice in reviewing all nomination petitions and papers it receives. (See Department of State August 24, 2004 filed title “Reply to the Order of the Court.”) The Candidate continued to assert that there was no explanation for the black lines on the nomination petitions and sought to question Mr. Lee regarding the procedure employed for uploading information to the City of Philadelphia’s voter registration database, and the manner employed to review signatures.

On direct examination by the Candidate, Mr. Lee testified as to his duties and qualifications as Urban Registration Administrator for the City of Philadelphia. Further, he described the procedures by which voter registration records are re *16 ceived and maintained by the Division. Mr. Lee testified that he oversees the daily operations of the Voter Registration Division including maintaining the accuracy of the voter registration files. That process includes maintaining a file of eligible voters that is used at polling places for determining voter eligibility; a knowledge of and compliance with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, P.L. 103-21, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973gg-l — 1973gg-10, Pennsylvania Voter Registration Act (PVRA), Act of June 30, 1995, P.L. 170, as amended, 25 P.S. §§ 961.101 — 961.5109; and the Voting Rights Act, Act of June 29,1982, 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa-6. (Notes of Testimony September 27, 2004, pp. 8-9.) Regarding the technology employed by the Division, Mr. Lee testified that the system used is a CICS operation, with an installed imaging add-on that allows the Division to scan and index the signatures and affidavit images to the data record for each voter in the mainframe. This in turn eliminates paper documents. He further explained that the system is isolated and not on the City of Philadelphia’s computer network or any other network. There is no outside access; the system is password protected at various levels. Only specific people in voter registration can access the system for maintenance and data input. (Notes of Testimony, September 27, 2004, pp. 9-12.) Finally, Mr. Lee testified that the system is designed so that once registrations have been entered; access is available to individual records by name, list of voters, and addresses. Mr. Lee testified that when preparing the reports for the Court, he did not use the original nomination papers but rather was working from copies of the nomination papers. The three Judges all found Mr. Lee’s testimony 100% credible.

After it became obvious that the nomination papers were rife with forgeries, the campaign attorneys called Mr. Dominic Martino as a fact witness on September 29, 2004. Mr. Martino testified that he is the Campaign Coordinator for Pennsylvania. He testified that by June 2004 the campaign had gathered only 1,500 signatures on the nomination papers. (Notes of Testimony, September 29, 2004, p. 55.) John Sleven, proprietor of a professional “ballot access company”, was called in to gather the remaining 24,000 signatures. That company prepared and distributed a flyer that stated:

CASH NOW!

$100.00 to $200.00

per day

Petition to allow Ralph Nader on

The November Ballot

* * * *

We pay Daily Cash Advances! Paid by Signature!

See Exhibit marked “Objector -2”, 9/29/04, appended hereto.

Mr. Martino further explained that he and John Sleven were both aware that individuals were repeatedly signing the petitions, and that many of the signatures were not authenticated. Further, he testified that he himself, and other campaign workers, in reviewing the petitions prior to filing, “black lined” signatures that were obviously deficient. (See Notes of Testimony, September 29, 2004, pp. 55-60.) These “blacklined” signatures were tabulated by President Judge Colins as “withdrawn by candidate prior to submission.” (This was in direct contravention of Mr. Nader’s attorney’s previous statements regarding the “blacklined” signatures.)

Based on the testimony presented this Judge makes the following findings.

*17

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. This Judge finds Mr. Lee’s testimony credible.

2. This Judge accepts the work papers prepared by Mr. Lee and presented to this Judge at the hearings held September 27, 28, 29, 30, October 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 12. The findings made by Mr. Lee were reviewed by this Judge and have been incorporated into the document appended to this opinion and order and labeled findings of President Judge Colins.

3. Further, as to those signatures found to be a forgery, this Judge’s findings are based on the credible testimony of Objectors’ handwriting expert Ms. Renee Martin, as well as the Court’s physical examination of the nomination papers.

4. This Judge finds the testimony of Mr. Martino credible as it relates to the gathering of signatures, and the “black lining” of signatures by Martino.

5. This Judge finds credible Mr. Marti-no’s testimony that the campaign had knowledge that false signatures were submitted on the nomination papers of Candidates.

6. This Judge personally reviewed every line of those Philadelphia Nomination Papers occurring on Pages 4 to 230 from the whole of the nominating papers filed by the Candidates (referred to as the Volumes A and B pages).

7. This Judge incorporates by reference the findings of fact of Senior Judge Mirarchi as set forth at length as to the duplicate signatures.

8. This Judge incorporates fully the conclusions of Senior Judge Mirarchi regarding the fraud and impropriety involved in the Objector’s circulation process.

9. This Judge’s findings regarding the striking of individual signatures by page numbers and lines is set forth in the document attached hereto and named President Judge Cohns Nader Summary Totals. This Judge merged the category of “forgery” and “signatures signed in the hand of another.” (Silcox issue). This Judge merged the categories of Data Omitted and Printed Signatures.

10.This Judge’s findings regarding the striking of signatures, represented in totals, are as follows:

Total Signatures Reviewed 10794

Total Signatures Not Registered 2304

Total Signatures Not Registered at the Address 2100

Total Signatures Not Registered on the Date Signed 714

Total Signatures marked Non-Existent or Out of County 271

Total Signatures Illegible 72

Total Signatures where data omitted 237

Total Signatures deemed forgeries 568

Total Signatures marked duplicates 168

Total Signatures withdrawn by Candidate at hearing 791

Total Signatures Blaeklined Prior to Submission by Candidate 291

Total Signatures Stricken 7516

Total Signatures Valid 3278

CONCLUSIONS

1. This Judge reviewed a total of 10,-794 signatures.

2. After reviewing the 10,794 signatures this Judge finds that

10,794 Signatures Reviewed

7,516 Signatures Stricken

3,278 Signatures Valid

3. With respect to Mr. Justice Saylor’s concurring opinion in In re Nomination Papers of Nader, (No. 171 MM 2004, filed October 1, 2004), directing that we consider grounds for striking signatures other than the fact that the electors are not registered, we report that the following signatures were stricken only on the grounds that the elector was not registered (2,304) (however, the Court does not make the corollary finding that all of the electors were subsequently validly registered), not registered at the address at the *18 time of signing (2,100), and was not registered at the time of signing (714). The specific page numbers and line numbers are set forth in the exhibit marked President Judge Colins Nader Summary Totals.

In addition, this Court wishes to commend Basil Culyba, Esquire, admitted pro hac vice, who represented candidates commencing October 1, 2004 for showing the highest standards of professionalism and integrity. Mr. Culyba’s conduct, legal knowledge, and ethics, as well as those of objectors’ attorney, Gregory Harvey, are of the highest caliber ever witnessed by this Judge.

COURT CONSOLIDATED FINDINGS and CONCLUSIONS

1. The President Judge finds that the Candidates and Objectors, particularly in the nomination papers denominated the “Allegheny Petitions” entered various stipulations relating to withdrawn signatures. The President Judge finds that the total number of signatures submitted on the Candidates’ nomination papers equals 51,-273, 1,119 less than the recorded by the Department of State.

2. The President Judge incorporates all findings and conclusions of the Judges of this Court which and sets forth that the totals for all nomination papers are as follows:

Total Signatures Not Registered 7506

Total Signatures Registered After the Date of Signing 1470

Total Signatures Not Registered at the Address 6411

Total Signatures Data Omitted 1869

Total Signatures Information Written in the Hand of Another 7851

Total Signatures Printed 8

Total Signatures Illegible 166

Total Signatures Forged 687

Total Signatures Nicknames or Initials 32

Total Signatures Duplicates 1087

Total Signatures Affidavit Problems 1855

Total Signatures Other 3513

Total Signatures Reviewed 51273

Total Signatures Stricken 32455

Total Signatures Valid 18818

3. After reviewing the 51,273 signatures this Court finds that

51,273 Signatures Reviewed

32,455 Signatures Stricken

18,818 Signatures Valid

4. With respect to Mr. Justice Saylor’s concurring opinion in In re Nomination Papers of Nader, (No. 171 MM 2004, filed October 1, 2004), directing that we consider grounds for striking signatures other than the fact that the electors are not registered, we report that the following signatures were stricken solely on the grounds that the elector was not registered at the time of signing (1,470), and that adding this number to the valid signatures would still leave the candidates 5,409 short. The specific page numbers and fine numbers are set forth in the exhibit marked President Judge Colins Nader Summary Totals.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the President Judge must state that that he has served longer on the Commonwealth Court than any other Judge in the Court’s history and, as a result thereof, has reviewed more nomination petitions than any other Judge in the Court’s history. I am compelled to emphasize that this signature gathering process was the most deceitful and fraudulent exercise ever perpetrated upon this Court. The conduct of the Candidates, through their representatives (not their attorneys), shocks the conscience of the Court. In reviewing signatures, it became apparent that in addition to signing names such as “Mickey Mouse,” “Fred Flintstone,” “John Kerry,” and the ubiquitous “Ralph Nader,” there were thousands of names that were created at random and then randomly assigned either existent or non-existent addresses by the circulators.

*19 A detailed line-by-line breakdown of the pages and lines reviewed and the reasons for disqualification has been prepared by each judge and follows. Accordingly, the Court enters the following

ORDER

AND NOW this 13th day of October 2004, upon consideration of the Petitioner’s Petition to set aside the nomination papers of Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo for the Office of President and Vice-President in the General Election of November 2, 2004 and the hearings related thereto conducted throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, we find as follows: that the number of signatures required on the nomination papers for the office of President and Vice-President is 25,697 (25 P.S. § 2911). The nomination papers consist of 51,273 signatures. Based on the evidence presented by Petitioner at the hearings, and the parties’ various stipulations, the Court concludes that 18,818 valid signatures were submitted; therefore, the nomination papers contained 6,879 signatures less than the required 25,697 signatures. Accordingly, the petition to set aside is GRANTED.

Further, the Secretary of the Commonwealth is directed not to certify the names of Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo as candidates for President and Vice-President of the United States in the November 2, 2004 general election.

*20 [[Image here]]

*21 [[Image here]]

*22 [[Image here]]

*23 [[Image here]]

*24 [[Image here]]

*25 [[Image here]]

*26 [[Image here]]

*27 [[Image here]]

*28 [[Image here]]

*29 [[Image here]]

*30 [[Image here]]

*31 [[Image here]]

*32 [[Image here]]

*33 [[Image here]]

*34 [[Image here]]

*35 [[Image here]]

*36 [[Image here]]

*37 [[Image here]]

*38 [[Image here]]

*39 Filed: October 12, 2004

SMITH-RIBNER, J.

Eleven days of hearings were conducted from September 27, 2004 through and including Saturday, October 9, 2004 on challenges filed by Petitioners (hereafter Objectors) to the Nomination Papers of Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo as Candidates of an Independent Political Body for President and Vice President of the United States, respectively. Candidates seek Pennsylvania ballot status in the General Election scheduled for November 2, 2004. This writer heard challenges to signature lines in pages contained in Volumes C and D of Exhibit 1 to Objectors’ petition to set aside the nomination papers (Philadelphia nomination pages). Volumes C and D contained 159 pages: 258 — 270, 300 — 353 (303 omitted), 355 — 374, 376 — 393, 395 — 417, 419 — 427, 429 — 430, 456 — 466 and 480— 489, with appropriate gaps for those circulated elsewhere. The signature lines for these volumes totaled 12,818, including those struck by the Secretary of State. 1

Hearings were conducted in Courtroom B created at the facilities of the Philadelphia County Board of Elections, Voter Registration Division, located at 540 Delaware Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, from September 27, 2004 through October 7, and at the Commonwealth Court Courtroom located in the Widener Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on October 8 and 9. Hearings generally began at 9:30 a.m. and adjourned 9 to 12 hours later on any given day.

On Monday, September 27, 2004, a three-judge panel of the Court (President Judge Colins, Judge Smith-Ribner and Senior Judge Charles P. Mirarchi) convened a hearing for the sole purpose of taking testimony from Mr. Robert Lee, Voter Registration Administrator, in connection with his office’s review of voter registration records pursuant to the September 20, 2004 order of this Court. On Wednesday, September 29, 2004, the three-judge panel convened another hearing, at Candidates’ request, for the purpose of taking testimony from Mr. Dan Martino, who serves as the campaign coordinator for “Nader 2004.” Their testimony was incorporated into all hearing transcripts for the Philadelphia nominating pages. Ms. Dale Fries, Acting Supervisor of the Imaging Unit of the Voter Registration Division, testified in Courtroom B on October 6 and on October 7, 2004 regarding her supervisory functions in connection with the review of voter records, including deleted data files, in connection with the Court’s September 2004 order.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS (PHILADELPHIA)

(A)

1. Mr. Lee credibly testified regarding his office’s review of all registration-related challenges to the nomination papers, and he indicated his availability along with other supervisory staff, Ms. Dale Fries and Mr. Gregory Irving, to testify in each of the courtrooms created for these hearings.

2. Mr. Lee credibly testified regarding the duties and functions of his office as well as his daily oversight of the operations of his office, the current status and accuracy of voter registration records maintained in the voter registration division’s files, the determination of voter eligibility to vote and his knowledge of compliance with state and federal voting laws.

*40 3. Mr. Lee described in great detail the computer system that the voter registration division utilized as well as its date of installation and the stringent internal security controls in place, which limit access to voter registration records only to authorized personnel. He reviewed procedures for data entry of voter registration records and the multi-step process for completing this function and verifying the reliability and accuracy of the process.

4. Mr. Lee testified that he reviewed this Court’s September 20, 2004 order directing a review of voter registration records in conjunction with the objections, and he explained the process for his office’s review of voter records related to registration challenges to Philadelphia nominating pages. He noted the availability of 12 to 14 staff persons working in some cases of up to 18-hour days to facilitate the review of voter records with representatives of Objectors and Candidates.

5. Mr. Lee meticulously detailed the process followed by his office in preparing the Report identified as Court Exhibit 1, which included an Excel spread sheet prepared solely by Mr. Lee showing a compilation of the review of Philadelphia nominating pages’ registration-related challenges, along with supporting worksheets. Court Exhibit 1 represents a compilation of the number of signers who listed a non-existent address or resided out of the county (NA/OC), who were not registered (NR), who were not registered at the address listed (NA), who were not registered at the date of signing (NRDS) or who were determined to be registered voters (RV). See Court Exhibit 1 (Volumes C/D), October 7, 2004. Mr. Lee described the added step of reviewing deleted data files for signers not registered on the date of signing.

6. Mr. Lee’s testimony was credible as to the reliability of the voter registration record system that is maintained by his office, the procedures followed for complying with the Court’s September 2004 order and his assessment of the accuracy of the Report that he prepared to comply with the order.

7. Candidates were given multiple opportunities to review voter registration records and to obtain assistance from Mr. Lee’s staff during the review process. Mr. Lee and Ms. Fries reported to the Court and to counsel in open court on various occasions that staff would be made available to assist Candidates’ counsel or any of their volunteers from 8:30 a.m. each day until 9:30 p.m. on most days and until midnight on several days. Staff was made available also to assist any of the parties or their representatives in reviewing deleted data files in an effort to ascertain the status of signers recorded as not registered on the date of signing.

8. Ms. Fries described the extensive multi-step process in place for data-entry staff verification of the accuracy of voter information entered into the computers and the process for assigning voter registration numbers to persons who register to vote. She explained the instructions given to staff for their review of voter records in this case, see Court Exhibit 2, and she detailed her review of deleted data files to ascertain whether further voter information existed regarding electors who were reported as not registered on the date of signing. Thereafter, Ms. Fries provided a thorough analysis of the results contained in Court Exhibit 1 for Volumes C and D.

9. Mr. Martino was engaged by the campaign on June 18, 2004, when the campaign had gathered only 1500 signatures. He provided testimony regarding the campaign’s signature gathering process and the campaign’s review of that process before filing the nomination papers with the Secretary of State. Regarding the review *41 of voter records, Mr. Martino asserted that the search was incomplete as he was unaware of the deleted data file and that a thorough search could not be performed if all of the signatures are not viewed in this file.

10. On July 5, 2004, at Mr. Martino’s behest, the Washington, D.C. campaign headquarters engaged Mr. John Slevin, owner of a petition circulation company, to conduct the signature gathering process. Mr. Slevin paid individuals cash advances at the end of each day to gather signatures on the nomination pages, see Objector Exh. 2, and when it came to Mr. Martino’s attention that fraud was occurring in this process he informed Mr. Slevin, who already was aware that problems existed with some of the circulators.

11. Mr. Martino actually observed cir-culators signing the pages multiple times, and he stated that the campaign attempted to get rid of some of the bad pages either by not filing them or by drawing lines through forged names and crossing out duplicates. See, e.g., Objectors’ Exhs. 4A-4B. In one instance, he crossed out 104 of 110 lines on page 558 because of forgeries. Objectors’ Exh. 5A.

12. The Philadelphia nomination pages show in countless instances evidence of pervasive or massive and wholesale fraud and forgery and other irregularities throughout nomination pages. See, e.g., Nomination page 267.

13. The evidence of fraud and forgery was established, inter alia, by testimony from Ms. J. Wright Leonard and Mr. William J. Kelly, experts in forensic document examination and handwriting analysis called as witness for Objectors.

14. The evidence included, among other things, evidence of individuals who evidently took turns signing names in cursive, printing the names in the printed name column and inserting addresses and dates; evidence of a series or pattern of cursive signatures, printed names, addresses and numerous telephone numbers inserted in one hand; evidence of obviously fictitious or non-existent residential addresses, including but not' limited to downtown Philadelphia office buildings and other facilities; evidence of disguised signatures throughout numerous pages; evidence indicating that one person filled in all of the dates on an entire side or sides of a page; evidence of “frequent” signers throughout the pages; and evidence of specific circulators who submitted pages that clearly were the product of fraud.

15. Through various legal representatives, Candidates conceded on many occasions that Objectors’ evidence demonstrated fraudulent conduct by some of the circulators or signers during the signature gathering process as well as forgeries and repetitive signing of the nomination papers by particular individuals.

16. Because Candidates’ agents had notice of such conduct prior to filing the nomination papers, Candidates likewise had notice.

(B)

1. Senior Judge Mirarchi issued an interim adjudication and order on October 7, 2004 striking duplicate signatures from nomination pages included in Volumes C and D, more fully set forth below and adjusted accordingly in the final rulings made regarding these volumes.

2. Senior Judge Mirarchi issued another order on October 8, 2004 striking nomination pages 399 (83 lines) and 461 (58 lines) because they were not in the hand of the electors whose names appeared on the pages and nomination pages 322 (51 lines) and 489 (80 lines) because Candidates withdrew the nomination pages with preju *42 dice due to the number of irregularities appearing in those pages.

(C)‘

1. Objectors initially presented evidence of the global challenges raised to the nomination pages, including, inter alia, objections based on claims of defective notarization or circulator affidavit and on claims of fraud and forgery and other irregularities. The specific evidence related to. these challenges is contained in the record.

2. Counsel stipulated many of the strikes by the Secretary, of State where challenged, and when counsel could not stipulate the Court heard evidence on the challenge or took judicial notice where the defect was apparent on its face.

3. Once Mr. Lee’s Report, was completed for Volumes C and D and Court Exhibit 1 was formally moved for admission into the record, Objectors then presented their registration-related challenges to the nomination pages.

4. Counsel for Objectors and Candidates entered into a stipulation identified as “Joint Exhibit 1,” admitted into the record on October 8, 2004. The Joint Exhibit includes a listing for the majority of the nomination pages of all of the registration-related challenges that Objectors raised. Several pages were not included either because the parties could not agree or because they decided not to review the pages in light of the extraordinary time constraints imposed upon all participants to these proceedings. The Joint Exhibit was formulated" based upon counsel’s review of Court Exhibit 1- and it- includes another listing “IDF=NRA” intended by counsel to refer to voters who were located in the deleted data file but who Candidates acknowledge were not registered at the address listed. -

5. Objectors then moved the Court to strike all registration-related challenges to the signature lines in the nomination pages from Volumes C and D that were identified in the Joint Exhibit, and upon review of the parties’ stipulation as to the preparation of this document and the limitations therein along with the objections stated for the record by Candidates, the Court granted Objectors’ motion to strike all of the lines so identified in the Joint Exhibit.

6. Candidates raised objections throughout the hearings, among other matters, to the Court’s consideration of Objectors’ challenges to lines- where, for example, the elector was not registered on the date he or she signed the nomination page but was registered at some later date; where the elector listed an out-of-county residence but nevertheless resided in Pennsylvania; where the elector listed an address identified as a homeless shelter although clearly no signature was invalidated for that reason; where the elector appeared by his or , her signature to be elderly or disabled; or where the elector’s residence in the voter registration records did not match the address listed on the nomination page. Candidates raised global objections to the creation of the Report (Court Exhibit 1) by elections officials. Candidates also claimed that they were prevented from adequately reviewing voter registration records despite repeated offers made by Mr. Lee and by Ms. Fries to make themselves available along with many other staff as often as 7 days per week, beginning at 8:30 a.m. and ending as late as midnight on some days, to assist Candidates in their review of voter registration records in general and the deleted data files in particular.

(D)

1. Based upon:the credible evidence of record the Court concludes that Objectors *43 met their burden to prove a substantial portion of their challenges to Candidates’ nomination pages as more fully set forth hereafter.

2. Where a particular signature line was struck at hearing and it was included as well in the Joint Exhibit or among the duplicates, it was counted only once as being struck. The listing hereafter uses underscoring [italics] to identify the entries that were not counted more than once. Due to time constraints, Objectors rested on the Joint Exhibit and/or duplicates for their remaining challenges to nomination pages not presented at hearing.

3. The rulings for each nomination page include the identification of each page number challenged, the total number of lines for each page, the lines struck at hearing based on the global and/or fraud and forgery related challenges or other irregularities, the lines struck due to registration-related challenges pursuant to the parties’ Joint Exhibit, identification of the lines struck due to duplicate signatures pursuant to Senior Judge Mirarchi’s October 7, 2004 order, the total tally for each category and, finally, the total tally for valid signatures remaining on each nomination page. The Court hereby makes the following rulings:

[[Image here]]

*44 [[Image here]]

*45 [[Image here]]

*46 [[Image here]]

*47 [[Image here]]

*48 [[Image here]]

*49 [[Image here]]

*50 [[Image here]]

*51 [[Image here]]

*52 [[Image here]]

*53 [[Image here]]

*54 [[Image here]]

*55 [[Image here]]

*56 [[Image here]]

*57 [[Image here]]

*58 [[Image here]]

*59 [[Image here]]

*60 [[Image here]]

*61 [[Image here]]

*62 [[Image here]]

*63 [[Image here]]

*64 [[Image here]]

*65 [[Image here]]

*66 [[Image here]]

*67 [[Image here]]

*68 [[Image here]]

*69 [[Image here]]

*70 [[Image here]]

*71 [[Image here]]

*72 [[Image here]]

*73 [[Image here]]

4. The number of lines included in nomination pages ranging from 258 — 489 in Volumes C and D total 12,818, the number of lines struck total 9,437 and the number of valid lines total 3,381.

Heard Sept. 27-30 and Oct. 1-2, 4-5, 2004.

INTERIM ADJUDICATION AND ORDER

MIRARCHI, Senior Judge.

AND NOW, this 7th Day of October 2004, after hearings held in the above-captioned matter before the undersigned on September 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th, and October 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th, 2004 on Petitioners’ objections to the Nomination Papers of Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo, Candidates of an Independent Political Body for President and Vice President in the General Election of November 2, 2004 (Candidates), filed in the City of Philadelphia, and upon consideration of Petitioners’ challenges to certain signatures, i.e., signatures which were signed by individuals more than once or affixed by someone other than those individuals, the Court makes the following findings.

1. At the healings, counsel for the Candidates conceded that all the signatures challenged by Petitioners as duplicate signatures, except approximately 80 signatures, should be stricken as invalid.

2. Counsel for the Candidates further stipulated that the individuals who signed the Nomination Papers five times or more committed fraudulent acts and that all sig *74 natures of those individuals should be stricken.

3. Based on the parties’ concession and stipulation and the credible evidence presented at the hearing, this Court finds that the following signatures should be stricken as invalid duplicate signatures. In the event that the same signatures invalidated in this order have been or will be stricken on any other ground, they will be counted only once in calculating the total signatures stricken by this Court:

Page Line Number Number

27 5

68 5

10 8

93 15

11 34

12 34

13 34

14 34

17 34

23 34

24 34

25 34

29 34

35 34

91 34

66 35

55 48

63 48

90 48

10 49

20 57

29 57

30 57

32 57

37 57

38 57

11 58

69 58

100 58

103 58

104 58

20 66

26 66

1 68

110 68

16 69

21 71

71 22

71 109

72 4

72 14

Page Number Line Number

72 27

72 30

72 33

72 34

72 36

72 38

72 41

72 42

72 44

72 57

72 60

72 70

72 74

72 81

72 91

73 21

73 34

74 25

77 26

77 66

77 75

78 4

79 1

79 5

79 10

79 11

79 12

79 14

79 15

80 2

80 4

80 6

81 78

87 37

88 50

88 54

88 62

88 64

89 6

89 42

89 55

89 79

92 40

94 23

96 15

96 34

98 36

99 25

99 57

99 73

99 83

99 92

99 93

100 29

100 38

101 12

102 59

119 4

*75 [[Image here]]

*76 [[Image here]]

*77 [[Image here]]

*78 [[Image here]]

*79 [[Image here]]

*80 [[Image here]]

*81 [[Image here]]

*82 [[Image here]]

*83 [[Image here]]

*84 [[Image here]]

*85 [[Image here]]

*86 [[Image here]]

*87 [[Image here]]

*88 [[Image here]]

*89 [[Image here]]

*90 [[Image here]]

ORDER

AND NOW, this 8th day of October, 2004, pursuant to stipulation of the parties made during the hearing on October 7, 2004, the Nomination Papers of Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo of an Independent Political Body for President and Vice President in the November 2, 2004 General Election (Candidates) filed in the County of Philadelphia are disposed of as follows:

1. The following Nomination Papers are stricken for the reason that they are in the hand of the circulators or'Other persons, not in the electors whose names appear in the Nomination Papers: # 117 (74 lines); # 162 (41 lines); # 163 (75 lines); # 164 (59 lines); # 244 (101 lines); # 248 (101 lines); #249 (100 lines); #251 (84 lines); #253 (49 lines); #399 (83 lines); # 461 (58 lines); # 681 (110 lines); # 1000 (33 lines); # 1031 (80 lines); # 1032 (110 lines); and # 1042 (75 lines).

2. The following Nomination Papers are stricken for the reason that the circu-lators filled in the electors’ information: # 245 (100 lines); # 246 (110 lines); # 682 (110 lines); # 683 (100 lines); and # 643 (100 lines).

3. The signatures on lines 7 through 110 of the Nomination Paper # 1112 are stricken for the reason that the circulator filled in the electors’ information.

4. The following Nomination ' Papers are withdrawn by the Candidates with prejudice due to a number of irregularities including the electors’ information filled in by the circulators: # 198 (44 lines); # 218 (110 lines); #322 (51 lines); #489 (80 lines); # 536 (60 lines); # 571 (105 lines); # 580 (109 lines); and # 583 (53 lines).

Heard Sept. 27-30 and Oct. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8, 2004. -

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

MIRARCHI, Senior Judge.

Linda S. Serody, Roderick J. Sweets, Ronald Bergman, Richard Trinclisti, Terry Trinclisti, Bernie Cohen-Scott, Donald G. Brown and Julia A. O’Connell (Petitioners) have filed objections to the Nomination Papers of Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo (Candidates) as Candidates of an Independent Political Body for President and Vice President of the United States in the General Election scheduled for November 2, 2004. This opinion disposes of challenges to nomination papers circulated in the City of Philadelphia (Philadelphia Nominating Pages) assigned to this Judge, as more particularly described in the Findings of Fact.

INTRODUCTION

On September 29, 2004, Dominic Daniel Martino, the 2004 Campaign Coordinator in Pennsylvania for the Candidates testified before a three-judge panel of this Court, including the undersigned. With great passion, he explained his belief in the necessity of third-party participation in the national and local political process to insure that competitive and innovative views *91 are available to the electorate. These are indeed laudatory ends. Mr. Martino and the Candidates, however, should take heed that in a genuine, mature, and functioning democracy, the ends are not justified by the means; rather the ends are inherent in the means.

During ten days of hearing before the undersigned, evidence has come to light of fraudulent and/or other improper behavior in the “creation” of many if not most of the nominating papers pertaining to Philadelphia electors submitted by the Candidates, in a scale, boldness, and transparency never before witnessed by this Judge in his thirty-three years on the bench. On October 7, 2004, the undersigned entered an Interim Adjudication and Order striking as void from the Philadelphia Nominating Papers, 1549 duplicate signatures, that is, signatures which were signed by individuals more than once or affixed by someone other than those individuals (Duplicate Signatures). What that Interim Adjudication and Order did not set forth, for reasons of brevity, is the fact that many of these Duplicate Signatures were signed in great numbers by persons who were also circulators for the Candidates, at least 87 times by one individual alone. Moreover, evidence established that certain circula-tors and other individuals set forth by their hand, on many of the Philadelphia Nominating Papers, the critical data required to be written by the electors pursuant to the Pennsylvania Election Code (Election Code). 1 An interim Order entered by the undersigned on October 8, 2004, and Court rulings from the bench voided many Philadelphia Nominating Papers on these grounds, as more particularly described in the below Findings of Fact. Some signatures were clearly forged. The following Findings of Fact detail only some of the fraudulent activity by persons procuring signatures for the Candidates revealed during the hearing.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1) Hearings were held by the undersigned on September 27, 28, -29, and 30, and October 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8, 2004 in the above matter.

2) Three witnesses testified before the undersigned. Dale Fries, Supervisor of the Motor Vehicle Division of the County Board of Elections for the City and County of Philadelphia (Board of Elections), testified regarding the procedures taken by the Board of Elections to review the Petitioners’ challenges to the Philadelphia Nominating Pages and the creation by the Board of Elections of Petition Page Worksheets, which set forth the records of the Board of Elections pertaining to each elector whose signature the Petitioners had challenged. William T. Dolbow III, Voter Registration Trades Helper of the County Board of Elections, brought forth computer data from the records of the County Board of Elections in the undersigned’s courtroom during the ten days of hearings and testified with respect to the data requested by the Court and the parties. William J. Kelly, a handwriting expert employed by the Petitioners, testified with respect to whether certain electors completed signature lines in their hands or whether information was supplied by other hands. He further testified as to whether circulators supplied or completed information that was required by the Election Code to be set forth by the electors on such pages.

8) The undersigned finds the testimony of Ms. Fries, Mr. Dolbow, and Mr. Kelly to be credible and persuasive.

*92 4) Robert Lee, Voter Registration Administrator of the County Board of Elections, and the aforesaid Mr. Martino testified before a three-judge panel consisting of President Judge Colins, Judge Smith-Ribner, and the undersigned. Mr. Lee testified with respect to the security system and procedures regarding the voter registration records of the County Board of Elections and further testified with respect to the review by the County Board of Elections of the challenges made to' the Philadelphia Nominating Pages and the creation of the aforesaid Worksheets setting forth the data regarding electors whose signatures had been challenged. The undersigned finds the testimony of Mr. Lee to be credible and persuasive.

5) The undersigned was originally as- • signed to review those Philadelphia Nominating Pages occurring on Pages 514 to 1189 from the whole of the nominating papers filed by the Candidates (sometimes referred to as the Volumes E and F pages). 2

6) The undersigned made rulings on several Volume E and F pages, as described in subsequent Findings of Fact. The balance of the Volume E pages was thereafter assigned to Judge Leadbetter, and the balance of the Volume F pages was subsequently assigned to Senior Judge Kelley for disposition. 3

7) On the afternoon of the first day of hearing, September 27, 2004, the undersigned was directed by our President Judge to postpone a page and line review of Pages 514 to 1189 of the Philadelphia Nominating Pages and to immediately undertake an examination of Duplicate Signatures occurring within all of the Philadelphia Nominating Pages originally assigned not only to the undersigned (those Philadelphia Nominating Pages found from Pages 514 to 1189) but also to those Philadelphia Nominating Pages originally assigned to President Judge Colins and Judge Smith-Ribner (those Philadelphia Nominating Pages found collectively from Pages 1 to 513, or sometimes referred to as the Volumes A, B, C, and D pages).

8) An exhaustive review of signatures challenged as invalid Duplicate Signatures resulted in the striking as void of 1549 Duplicate Signatures, pursuant to the undersigned’s Interim Adjudication and Order filed in this matter on October 7, 2004. The Page and Line numbers for each stricken Duplicate Signature are set forth in the undersigned’s Interim Adjudication and Order filed on October 7, 2004.

9) All but approximately 80 of the Duplicate Signatures were conceded by the Candidates to be invalid Duplicate Signatures. Many of the stricken Duplicate Signatures were stipulated by the parties to be invalid Duplicate Signatures, and the Court accepted such stipulation. Further, credible evidence of record supported the striking as invalid of all of the 1549 Duplicate Signatures set forth in the undersigned’s Interim Adjudication and Order filed in this matter on October 7, 2004. All but approximately 10 of the Duplicate Signature challenges made by Petitioners were sustained by the undersigned.

*93 10) Although the undersigned was striking Duplicate Signatures throughout the whole of the Philadelphia Nominating Pages contemporaneously with the voiding by President Judge Cohns and Judge Smith-Ribner of some of these same signatures on other grounds, the tabulation of stricken signatures maintained by this Court (Court Daily Tallies) only registered the striking of a page and line number one time.

11) Thus, the undersigned recorded in the Court Daily Tallies only those Duplicate Signatures stricken against Pages 514 to 1189 of the Philadelphia Nominating Pages, and only if such page and line numbers had not been previously stricken on other grounds.

12) When Judge Leadbetter and Senior Judge Kelley thereafter, commencing October 7 and 8, 2004, respectively, conducted their page and line review of these Volume E & F signatures, they did not record in the Court Daily Tallies those Duplicate Signatures previously stricken by the undersigned.

13) Many individuals signed, or their names appeared on the Philadelphia Nominating Pages more than one time. Many individuals signed five or more times (Serial Signers).

14) In an effort to distance themselves from the evidence of fraudulent activity that was emerging from the undersigned’s review of the Philadelphia Nominating Pages, counsel for the Candidates agreed that the signatures of all persons signing five or more times, the Serial Signers, should be stricken as void.

15) Forty-four Serial Signers, and those who merely signed the Philadelphia Nominating Pages four times, were also circula-tors of the Philadelphia Nominating Pages. Their identities are set forth below, setting forth the number of times they signed Philadelphia Nominating Pages, the page numbers of the. Philadelphia Nominating Pages they circulated, and whether they also signed a page or pages that they circulated:

Alan Andrews (signed 21 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated pages 1000, 1031, and 1032 (signed L. 47)

Daryl Baird (signed 13 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated page 194

Earl Boone (signed 'll Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated pages 217 and 219

Edward Chappell (signed 19 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated pages 177 and 189

LeRoy Curtis (signed 12 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated page 196

James Bennett (signed 8 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated page 374

Ravenna Bey (signed 4 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated pages 978 and 1001

Michael Costner (signed 9 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated pages 98, 119, 300, 306, 318, 321, 552, and 856

Yolanda DeLeon (signed 9 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated pages 386 arid 387

Kevin Dickson (signed 12 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated pages 198 and 583

Kim Dow (signed 7 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated pages 301, 302, and 1037

Terri Glenn (signed 12 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated page 244 (signed L. 66)

*94 James Glover (signed 20 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated pages 309 and 310

Michael Gross (signed 11 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated pages 242, 696, 697, and 991

Gregory Hamlett (signed 8 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated page 524

Janet Hawkins (signed 5 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated pages 457, 458, 459, and 522

Donzel Henderson (signed 4 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated pages 72, 90, 263, 520, 529, 530, 531, and 970

Juan Hill (signed 7 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated pages 239 (signed L. 1) and 391

George Hunt (signed 9 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated pages 182 and 240 (signed L. 49)

Quintincy Hunt (signed 7 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated pages 97, 342, and 597

Thomas Jimenez (signed 15 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated page 523 (signed L. 8)

Anthony Johnson (signed 11 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated page 356 (signed L. 50)

Bobby Johnson (signed 11 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated pages 356 and 357

Nuri Jones (signed 5 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated pages 95, 203, 204, 206, 210, 753, and 1166

Anthony Kearse (signed 5 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated pages 48, 175, 257 (signed L. 29), 351, 369, and 601

Dan Lindsey (signed 23 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated pages 67 and 333

Malik Harper (signed 4 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated pages 525, 526, and 527

Willis Petty (signed 6 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated pages 329 and 413

Michael Reed, Sr. and Michael Reed, Jr., (together signed a total of 67 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), 4

Circulated pages 338, 339, 404, 405, 481, 482, 514, 579, 586, 1035, and Michael Reed, Jr. signed Page 338 at Line 12.

Roosevelt Rivers (signed 12 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated page 485 (signed L. 4)

Valerie Rogers (signed 6 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated pages 68, 70, 80, and 633

Larry Russell (signed 5 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated pages 578 and 587

Andrew Shaw (signed 15 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines),' Circulated page 328

Note: Andrew Shaw was not registered to vote when he circulated Page 328 or affixed his signature to 15 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines.

Barry Shaw (signed 6 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated pages 308, 315, 532, 560, 567, and 573

Note: Barry Shaw was not registered to vote at the address he set forth when he signed or circulated the Philadelphia Nominating Pages.

*95 Annette Smith (signed 23 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated page 556 (signed L. 29)

Troy A. Smith (signed 9 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated pages 131 and 984 (signed L. 3)

Lola Thompson (signed 11 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated page 551

Hector Torres (signed 7 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated pages 16,' 268 (signed L. 23), 557 (signed L. 10), 559

William Ward (signed 17 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated page 686 (signed L. 15)

Chris Watson (signed 14 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated pages 207 (signed L. 14), 400, and 401 Earl Watson (signed 12 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated page 420

Gregory White (signed 28 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated pages 79 and 218 (signed L. 11)

Note: Gregory White signed as circulator at a different address than as an elector on the same daté. In fact, he signed petitions under three different addresses all within a three-day period. Daniel Williams (signed 5 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines), Circulated pages 58 and 550 (signed L. 1)

16) The undersigned personally viewed each of the signatures of the Serial Signers/Circulators identified in the preceding Finding of Fact, further noting that the address set forth by their signatures matched, except in the case of Gregory White. His signature, however, matched for all 28 times he signed Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines. 5

17) Other individuals, not circulators, signed five or more times, as well. The following is a partial list of these individuals:

Lavelle Campbell (signed 10 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines)

Carl Fletcher (signed 19 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines)

Keith Grant (signed 23 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines)

Lindsey MacMe (signed 14 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines)

Samuel Johnson (signed 15 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines)

Sanniyyah Jones (signed 8 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines)

Charles Martin (signed 5 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines)

Charles McCready (signed 5 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines)

James Poindexter (signed 10 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines)

Charles Ray (signed 5 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines)

Ricardo Rivera (signed 5 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines)

Brian Rosell (signed 8 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines)

Dónniece Roundtree (signed 11 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines)

Charles Sarlo (signed 9 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines)

Robert Simmons (signed 8 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines)

Leon Spann (signed 5 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines)

Jasmine Speller (signed 5 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines)

Thomas Spruill (signed 5 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines)

*96 Aaron Taylor (signed 6 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines)

Robert Terrell (signed 8 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines)

Anthony Walker (signed 12 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines)

Alex Walley (signed 11 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines)

Darren Wardlaw (signed 8 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines)

Chris Watson (signed 14 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines)

Darnell Webb (signed 5 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines)

Ray Williams (signed 17 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines)

Marc Wise (signed 11 Philadelphia Nominating Page Lines)

18) A review of the Duplicate Signatures revealed that many of the Serial Signer/Circulators and other Serial Signers signed many of the same Philadelphia Nominating Pages, giving evidence that such pages were “manufactured” rather than circulated among the electorate, at least in significant part, if not in whole. See, e.g., Philadelphia Nominating Pages 34, 58, 72, 80, 81, 88, 102, 120, 177, 181, 190, 195, 200, 204, 212, 239, 244, 306, 308, 310, 327, 328, 333, 369, 480, 485, 514, 519, 523, 559,1029,1032, and 1035. 6

19) Evidence at the hearing, based on the credible testimony of Mr. Kelly, also established that data required to be filled out by the electors was filled out in the hand of certain circulators or other unknown individuals.' This led to the withdrawal of many of the Philadelphia Nominating Pages by the Candidates or their stipulation on the record that many other such pages should be stricken. 7

20) The Philadelphia Nominating Pages withdrawn, on record, at the hearings before the undersigned on October 7 and 8, 2004 by the Candidates, are as follows: Pages 12, 101, 115, 198, 218, 226, 227, 230, 322, 489, 536, 552, 571, 580, and 583.

21) Because these pages were under assignment to Judges other than the undersigned, the undersigned did not report the stricken lines in the Court Daily Tallies, but supplied the information to the Judges assigned to dispose of these pages for proper accounting.

22) The Philadelphia Nominating Pages stricken for fraud or other irregularities, based on the stipulation of the parties on record before the undersigned at the hearings on October 5 and 7, 2004 by the Candidates, are as follows: 117, 162, 163, 164, 239, 244, 245, 246, 248, 249, 251, 253, 399, 461, 519, 643, 681, 682, 683,1000,1031, 1032, and 1042. Additionally, Lines 7 through 110 of Page 112 were stricken by stipulation because the circulator filled in the electors’ information.

23) The undersigned accepted the stipulations of the parties to strike the Philadel *97 phia Nominating Pages set forth in the immediately preceding Finding of Fact. Further, the undersigned’s review of these pages clearly establishes that the stipulations to strike these pages were appropriate.

24) On October 8, 2004, the undersigned filed an Order in this matter disposing of Philadelphia Nominating Pages 117, 162, 163, 164, 244, 245, 246, 248, 249, 251, 253, 399, 461, 643, 681, 682, 683, 1000, 1031, 1032, and 1042, and Lines 7 through 110 of Page 112. Prior to filing this order, the undersigned requested that counsel for the parties review the order for accuracy as to its representation. Counsel for both parties consented to the filing of this order.

25) Because some of the pages stricken by stipulation were under assignment to Judges other than the undersigned, the undersigned reported only the number of signature fines stricken pertaining to those Philadelphia Nominating Pages assigned to him in the Court Daily' Tallies, and supplied information regarding the other pages to the respective Judge assigned to dispose of these pages for proper accounting.

26) The Philadelphia Nominating Pages stricken by stipulation that were assigned to the undersigned are as follows: 239, 244, 245, 246, 248, 249, 251, 253, and 519. 8 A subsequent Finding of Fact will detail the number of signature fines stricken by the undersigned.

27) Because the proceedings before the undersigned established a broad picture of pervasive fraud in the creation of the Philadelphia Nominating Pages, which involved (1) many serial signers, (2) circula-tors that were also serial signers, and (3) circulators and others who literally filled in the blanks on many Philadelphia Nominating Pages, the Candidates agreed to withdraw or have stricken many thousands of signature lines and whole pages.

28) Although the following “Rulings on Pages Assigned to Senior Judge Mirarchi” reflect a review and disposal of 2970 signature lines, the undersigned in actuality reviewed and disposed of many thousands’ more signature fines, as indicated by the preceding Findings of Fact. The signature lines not addressed in the following “Rulings on Pages Assigned to Senior Judge Mirarchi” are dealt with under the Findings and Conclusions of the other four Judges assigned to review the Philadelphia Nominating Pages.

RULINGS ON PAGES ASSIGNED TO SENIOR JUDGE MIRARCHI

29) The following Philadelphia Nominating Papers are struck as invalid because the Affidavit of Qualified Elector (Circulator’s Affidavit) on such papers lacked the acknowledgment by a notary public or another person qualified to take acknowledgments. Counsel for the Candidates conceded that these Philadelphia Nominating Papers be stricken on that ground.

Page 518: 21 signature fines

Page 534: 36 signature fines

Page 537: 110 signature fines

Page 598: 26 signature fines

Page 681: 110 signature lines

Running Total: 303 signatures reviewed; 303 signatures stricken, 0 valid signatures

30) For informational purposes only, the Philadelphia Nominating Papers described in the immediately preceding Finding of Fact contained numerous Duplicate Signa *98 tures, which were not reported for the Court Daily Tallies, as the page and line numbers were already stricken for the reasons set forth in the immediately preceding Finding of Fact. These Duplicate Signatures are as follows:

On Page 518: Lines 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12,14,15,18,19, 20

On Page 534: 0 Duplicate Signatures

On Page 537: Line 82

On Page 598: 0 Duplicate Signatures

On Page 681: 0 Duplicate Signatures

31) The number of Duplicate Signatures appearing on pages 514 through 1189 of the Philadelphia Nominating Pages, and stricken as invalid by the undersigned as such, except where such signatures had been previously stricken, is 476.

Running Total: 779 signatures reviewed; 779 signatures stricken, 0 valid signatures

32) The following Philadelphia Nominating Papers were struck as invalid by the undersigned on the basis of fraudulent activity of the circulators or Serial Signers of such pages, based upon credible evidence placed on the record:

Page 515: 100 signature lines

Page 556: 30 signature lines

Page 557: 70 signature lines

Page 686: 28 signature lines

33) The Court previously struck as invalid Duplicate Signatures on the pages described in the immediately preceding Finding of Fact as follows:

Page 515: 0 Duplicate Signatures

Page 556: 8 Duplicate Signatures (Lines 1-3, 8,12,13,19, and 29) • .

Page 557: 5 Duplicate Signatures (Lines 3, 5,10, 49, and 59)

Page 686: 7 Duplicate Signatures (Lines 1, 3, 5, 8,15,16, and 26)

34) Accordingly the signatures stricken for the pages described in the two immediately preceding Finding of Fact are as follows:

Page 515: 100 signature lines

Page 556: 22 signature lines

Page 557: 65 signature lines

Page 686: 21 signature lines

Running Total: 987 signatures reviewed; 987 signatures stricken, 0 valid signatures

35) Lines 1, 2, and 4 on Page 556 are also invalid on the grounds that the individuals who signed on those lines set forth a date one day after the circulator and notary completed the Circulator’s Affidavit on this Page.

36) With respect to Page 515, handwriting expert Edward J. Kelly credibly testified that information concerning the address, date of signing, and even printed name of the electors appearing on numerous lines on this page were either set forth in the hand of the circulator, David Otero, or in the hand of other individuals rather than the elector. These lines are as follows: 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 55, 57, 60, and 90. Other lines probably had such defects as well. Counsel for the Candidates conceded that Page 515, Lines 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 23, 24, 25, 31, and 32 should be stricken on the grounds that the evidence established that either the' circulator, David Otero or other individuals, not the electors, set forth information regarding address, date, or, in some instances, the name of the elector.

37) Because the circulator, David Otero, and other unknown individuals clearly affixed information represented to be that of many of the electors on Page 515, Mr. Otero’s Circulator .Affidavit is rendered unreliable, a violation of his sworn affidavit, and fraudulent. Accordingly, the en *99 tire Philadelphia Nominating Page 515 is invalid.

38) With respect to Page 556, credible evidence established that the circulator and affiant of this page, Annette Smith not only swore to the Circulator’s Affidavit, but also signed Line 29 of Page 556 as an elector. She also affixed her signature to 22 other Philadelphia Nominating Pages all generally within the four-day period from July 20 — 24, 2004. 9 She signed two Philadelphia Nominating Pages twice (Page 409, Line 7, and Page 409, Line 101; and Page 556, Line 3, and Page 556, Line 29). Further, Ms. Smith set forth on Page 556 one address as an elector and another address as a circulator. She was not registered to vote at either address on the date of her signing.

39) When Annette Smith completed her Circulator’s Affidavit for Page 556, it was done with the knowledge that she had signed numerous other Philadelphia Nominating Pages and with the knowledge that she was not registered to vote at the different addresses she set forth for herself in this document. 10 Her Circulator’s Affidavit is therefore rendered unreliable, a violation of her sworn affidavit, and fraudulent. Accordingly, the entire Philadelphia Nominating Page 556 is invalid.

40) With respect to Page 557, credible evidence established that the circulator of this page, Hector Torres, was also a Serial Signer, having signed at least 7 Philadelphia Nominating Pages, including Line 10 of Page 557 as an elector. 11

41) When Hector Torres completed his Circulator’s Affidavit for Page 557, it was done with the knowledge that he had signed numerous other Philadelphia Nominating Pages. His Circulator’s Affidavit is therefore rendered unreliable, a violation of his sworn affidavit, and fraudulent. Accordingly, the entire Philadelphia Nominating Page 557 is invalid.

42) With respect to Page 686, credible evidence established that the circulator of this page, William Ward, was also a Serial Signer, having signed at least 17 Philadelphia Nominating Pages. 12 He also signed Line 15 of Page 686 as an elector. Further, Mr. Ward set forth on Page 686 one address as an elector and another address as a circulator, and he signed Page 177 two times, at Lines 5 and 34.

43) Because William Ward completed his Circulator’s Affidavit for Page 686 with the knowledge that he had signed numerous other Philadelphia Nominating Pages, and because he failed to set forth in his *100 Circulator’s Affidavit the address for which he is a registered voter, his Circulator’s Affidavit is rendered unreliable, a violation of his sworn affidavit, and fraudulent. Accordingly, the entire Philadelphia Nominating Page 686 is invalid.

44) Counsel for the Candidates conceded to strike as void the crossed-out portions of Page 527, consisting of Line 53 and Lines 64 — 110, for a total of 48 stricken lines. It is apparent that Lines 64— 110 of Page 527 are forgeries, where two or three individuals signed and filled out all of these lines.

45) The undersigned did not review the balance of the signature lines for Page 527. Judge Leadbetter was assigned to perform that review.

Running Total: 1035 signatures reviewed; 1035 signatures stricken, 0 valid signatures

46) The parties stipulated that the following Philadelphia Nominating Pages should be stricken for the reason that they are in the hand of the circulators dr other persons, not in the electors whose names appear in the Nomination Papers or for the reason that the circulators filled in the electors’ information:

Page 239: 110 signature lines

Page 244: 101 signature lines

Page 245: 100 signature lines

Page 246: 110 signature lines

Page 248: 101 signature lines

Page 249: 100 signature lines

Page 251: 84 signature lines

Page 253: 49 signature lines

Page 519: 100 signature lines

47) The undersigned accepted the stipulation of the parties to strike the Philadelphia Nominating Pages set forth in the immediately preceding Finding of Fact. Further,- the undersigned’s review of these pages clearly establishes that the stipulation to strike these pages is appropriate.

48) Philadelphia Nominating Page 519 contains 6 Duplicate Signatures that were previously stricken by this Court. 13 No Duplicate Signatures were stricken from the other Philadelphia Nominating Pages set forth in Finding of Fact No. 46. Accordingly, the signature lines struck from the Philadelphia Nominating Pages set forth in Finding of Fact No. 46 are as follows:

Page 239: 110 signature lines

Page 244: 101 signature lines

Page 245: 100 signature lines

Page 246: 110 signature lines

Page 248: 101 signature lines

Page 249: 100 signature lines

Page 251: 84 signature lines -

Page 253: 49 signature lines

Page 519: 94 signature lines

Running Total: 1884 signatures reviewed; 1884 signatures stricken, 0 valid signatures

49) Page 237, consisting of 43 signature lines, lacked the signature of the circulator in the Circulator’s Affidavit. The Court permitted Candidates to amend this defect by producing the circulator to affix his signature by noon, October 8, 2004. The circulator failed to appear before the Court to effectuate the amendment. At the hearing held before the undersigned on October 8, 2004, Counsel for the Candidates conceded that because he was unable to produce the affiant to amend the Circu-lator’s Affidavit, Page 237 should be stricken as void. The undersigned accordingly struck Page 237, with its 43 signature lines as void.

*101 Running Total: 1927 signatures reviewed; 1927 signatures stricken, 0 valid signatures

50) The undersigned conducted a page and line review of the following Philadelphia Nominating Pages: Pages 231 (100 signature lines), 234 (110 signature lines), 236 (110 signature lines), 240 (50 signature lines), 241 (110 signature lines), 242 (110 signature lines), 243 (100 signature lines), 252 (110 signature lines), 254 (77 signature lines), 256 (87 signature lines), and 257 (41 signature lines).

51) The following designations will be used to describe the disposition of the signature lines for the above Philadelphia Nominating Pages:

a) Valid signatures (“Valid Signatures”).

b) Signatures stricken because the signature is a Duplicate Signature (“Dup”).

c) Signatures stricken because the elector is not registered to vote and was not registered at the date-of signing the Philadelphia Nominating Page (“NR”).

d) Signatures stricken because the elector registered to vote after the-date of signing the Philadelphia Nominating Page (“NRDS”).

e) Signatures stricken because the elector is not registered to vote at the address set forth in the Philadelphia Nominating Page (“NRA”).

f) Signatures stricken because the elector omitted required information, such as signature, address, printed name, and date signed (“DO”).

g) Signatures stricken because some or all of the information required by the Election Code pertaining to an elector was written by an individual or individuals other than the elector (“Information Written by Others”).

h) Signatures stricken as forged (“Forged”).

i) Signatures stricken as illegible (“Illegible”).

j) Signatures stricken because the “electors” affixed addresses that are not in the City and County of Philadelphia (“NA/OC”). 14

52) With respect to Page 231, with 100 signature lines, based on credible evidence, the following disposition was made:

a) 36 lines stricken as NR: Lines 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11/ 12, 15, 18, 23, 24, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 37, 39, 42, 43, 46, 48, 49, 53, 54, 56, 62, 63, 64, 67, 76, 79, 80, 99, 95 and 97.

b) 25 lines stricken as NRA: Lines 2, 4, 12, 13, 19, 25, 33, 41, 45, 50, 51, 52, 58, 59, 65, 66, 74, 81, 84, 87, 88, 91, 92, 94 and 96.

c) 13 lines stricken for DO: Lines 16, 22, 35, 38, 40, 44, 55, 57, 61, 69, 71, 73 and 83.

d) 5 lines stricken as Forged: Lines 72, 78, 86, 89 and 97.

e) 2 lines stricken as NA/OC: Lines 47 and 67.

f) 19 Valid Signatures.

Running Total: 2027 signatures reviewed; 2008 signatures stricken, 19 valid signatures

53) With respect to Page 234, with 110 signature lines, based on credible evidence, the following disposition was made:

a) 16 lines stricken as NR: Lines 1, 9, 13, 21, 41, 45, 55, 64, 67, 70, 71, 78, 79, 88, 89 and 105.

b) 26 lines stricken as NRA: Lines 3, 8, 12, 16, 17, 27, 31, 32, 40, 42, 43, 49, 50, 52, *102 58, 65, 83, 86, 87, 90, 91, 92, 95, 97,108 and 109.

c) 8 lines stricken as NRDS: Lines 2, 7, 16,19, 69, 77,100 and 101.

d) 6 lines stricken for DO: Lines 5, 19, 28, 29, 75 and 107.

d) 1 line stricken for having Information Written by Others: Line 4.

e) 1 line stricken as Illegible: Line 93.

f) 52 Valid Signatures.

Running Total: 2137 signatures reviewed; 2066 signatures stricken, 71 valid signatures

54) With respect to Page 236, with 110 signature lines, based on credible evidence, the following disposition was made:

a) 2 lines stricken as Dup: Lines 85 and 100.

b) 30 lines stricken as NR: Lines 5, 13, 15, 18, 24, 26, 29, 32, 35, 40, 43, 44, 48, 53, 54, 59-62, 67, 71, 72, 80, 83, 86, 91, 96, 101, 102 and 107.

c) 15 lines stricken as NRA: Lines 3, 9, 10, 14, 31, 39, 45, 52, 63, 65, 79, 87, 90, 93 and 106.

d) 10 lines stricken as NRDS: Lines 16, 22, 36, 47, 57, 68, 82, 94, 108 and 109.

d) 7 lines stricken for, DO: Lines 7, 11, 12, 58, 64, 75 and 77.

e) 1 line stricken for having Information Written by Others: Line 17.

f) 1 line stricken as Illegible: Line 89.

g) 7 lines stricken for being NA/OC: Lines 4, 30, 47, 70, 98, 99 and 103.

h) 37 Valid Signatures.

Running Total: 2247 signatures reviewed; 2139 signatures stricken, 108 valid signatures

55) With respect to Page 240, with 50 signature lines, based on credible evidence, the following disposition was made:

a) 10 lines stricken as Dup: Lines 11, 32, 37, 38, 40, 41, 45, 46, 48 and 49.

b) 12 lines stricken as NR: Lines 3, 4, 8, 10, 14, 17, 19, 20, 23, 30, 34 and 36.

c) 12 lines stricken as NRA: Lines 6, 9, 12, 16, 18, 21, 26, 27, 33, 39, 43 and 47.

d)-2 lines stricken as NRDS: Lines 22 and 26.

e) 4 lines stricken for DO: Lines 1, 24, 28 and 29.

f) 1 line stricken as Illegible: Line 42.

g) 1 line stricken for being NA/OC: Line 31.

h) 8 Valid Signatures.

Running Total: 2297 signatures reviewed; 2181 signatures stricken, 116 valid signatures

56) With respect to Page 241, with 110 signature lines, based on credible evidence, the following disposition was made:

a) 4 lines stricken as Dup: Lines 25, 60, 88 and 89.

b) 26 lines stricken as NR: Lines 2, 5, 7, 13, 15, 22, 35, 38, 50, 51, 56, 61, 68, 82, 85, 87, 90, 91, 98,100,102 and 105.

c) 42 lines stricken as NRA: Lines 3, 6, 8, 11, 17-20, 22, 25, 32, 34, 36, 37, 41, 42, 44, 45, 47, 52, 53, 54, 58/62, 67, 70-72, 73, 78, 83, 84, 86, 92-96, 99, 104, 106 and 107.

d) 11 lines stricken as NRDS: Lines 14, 27, 29, 57, 59, 64, 65, 75, 77, 79 and 109.

e) 2 lines stricken as Illegible: Line 30 and 33.

f) 25 Valid Signatures.

Running Total: 2407 signatures reviewed; 2266 signatures stricken, 141 valid signatures

57) With respect to Page 242, with 110 signature lines, based on credible evidence, the following disposition was made:

*103 a) 18 lines stricken as Dup: Lines 5, 12, 21, 23, 25, 38, 42, 47, 54, 56, 57, 71, 87, 93 and 94. 15

b) 24 lines stricken as NR: Lines 24, 28, 39, 45, 49, 58, 60, 62, 63, 66, 70, 72-74, 77, 80, 89, 91, 92, 95, 96, 99, 107 and 108.

c) 21 lines stricken as NRA: Lines 1-4, 6, 16, 18, 19, 30, 32, 35, 40, 44, 64, 68, 82, 86, 91,104 and 110.

d) 1 line stricken as NRDS: Line 48.

e) 31 lines stricken for DO: Lines 7-9, 11, 13-15, 17, 22, 26, 27, 29, 31, 34, 36, 37, 41, 43, 46, 50-53, 55, 59, 61, 81, 85, 88, 97, 98 and 105. 16

f) 1 line stricken as Illegible: Line 38.

g) 14 Valid Signatures.

Running Total: 2517 signatures reviewed; 2362 signatures stricken, 155 valid signatures

58)With respect to Page 243, with 100 signature lines, based on credible evidence, the following disposition was made:

a) 2 lines stricken as Dup: Lines 2 and 69.

b) 14 lines stricken as NR: Lines 6, 32, 37, 38, 40, 41, 47, 53, 67, 76, 77, 78, 97 and 98.

c) 37 lines stricken as NRA: Lines 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11-13, 16, 17, 22-24, 26, 28, 30, 33, 35, 39, 42, 48, 51, 57, 61, 62-65, 79, 82, 88, 90, 93, 94, 96 and 100.

d) 7 lines stricken as NRDS: Lines 14, 25, 66, 68, 80, 81 and 95.

e) 3 lines stricken for DO: Lines 49, 59 and 73.

f) 1 line stricken as Illegible: Line 83.

g) 1 line stricken for being NA/OC: Line 74.

h) 35 Valid Signatures.

Running Total: 2617 signatures reviewed; 2427 signatures stricken, 190 valid signatures

59) With respect to Page 252 with 110 lines, based on credible evidence, the following disposition was made:

a) 4 lines stricken as Dup: Lines 5, 29, 30 and 104.

b) 25 lines are stricken as NR: 7,14,18, 27, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39, 44, 45, 46, 49, 63, 67, 79, 80, 82, 88, 93, 94, 95, 96, 105 and 109.

c) 28 lines are stricken as NRA: 3, 9 through 16, 21, 54, 55, 59, 61, 65, 68, 70, 73, 74, 76, 80, 83, 84, 92, 97, 99, 107, 108 and 110.

d) 7 lines for NRDS: 41, 48, 51, 60, 66, 90 and 98.

e) 13 lines are stricken for DO: 1, 2, 6, 19, 20, 37, 42, 56, 57, 71, 72, 91 and 100.

f) 4 lines are stricken for being NA/OC: 17, 40, 43 and 89.

g) 29 valid signatures.

Running Total: 2727 signatures reviewed; 2508 signatures stricken, 219 valid signatures

60) With respect to Page 254 with 77 lines, based on credible evidence, the following disposition was made:

a) 1 line stricken as Dup: Line 14.

b) 30 lines are stricken as NR: 1, 6, 8, 10, 12, Í3, 15, 17, 20, 22, 24-29, 34, 35, 40, 42, 46, 48, 49, 54, 55, 57, 59, 62, 67 and 71.

c) 9 lines are stricken as NRA: 5, 7, 23, 33, 37-39, 43 and 68.

*104 d) 4 lines are stricken as NRDS: 30, 44, 64 and 69.

e) 4 lines are stricken for DO: 9, 26, 31 and 60.

f) 8 lines stricken for being NA/OC: 2-4, 58, 61, 65, 66 and 72.

g) 21 valid signatures.

Running Total: 2804 signatures reviewed; 2564 signatures stricken, 240 valid signatures

61) With respect to Page 256, with 87 signature lines, 17 based on credible evidence, the following disposition was made:

a) 3 lines stricken as Dup: Lines 24, 43 and 103.

b) 20 lines stricken as NR: Lines 10,-13, 15, 17, 21, 39, 42, 47-51, 55, 56, 60, 62, 64, 68, 76 and 77.

c) 34 lines stricken as NRA: Lines 8, 11, 14, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 38, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 52, 59, 61, 63, 65-67, 69, 70-72, 79, 81, 82,101,104 and 105.

d) 3 lines stricken as NRDS: Lines 1, 12 and 73.

e) 11 lines stricken for DO: Lines 2-4, 9, 27, 28, 57, 58, 75, 78 and 102.

f) 16 Valid Signatures.

Running Total: 2891 signatures reviewed; 2635 signatures stricken, 256 valid signatures

62) With respect to Page 257, with 41 signature lines, based on credible evidence, the following disposition was made:

a) 1 line stricken as Dup: Line 27.

b) 7 lines stricken as NR: Lines 2-4,15, 26, 31 and 40.

c) 6 lines stricken as NRA: Lines 13, 25, 29, 30, 32 and 35.

d) 12 lines stricken as NRDS: Lines 5-7, 9, 11, 12, 19, 28, 33, 34, 38 and 39.

e) 1 line stricken for DO: Line 1.

f) 14 Valid Signatures.

Running Total: 2932 signatures reviewed; 2662 signatures stricken, 270 valid signatures

63)Philadelphia Nominating Page 247, consisting of 38 signature lines, was withdrawn by counsel for the Candidates because of irregularities appearing throughout the page, based on clear evidence that the affiant had completed most if not all of the information set forth therein. This evidence was corroborated by the credible testimony of Mr. Kelly. Counsel for the Candidates moved for the withdrawal of Page 247, ■ and the Court granted this unopposed motion.

Running Total: 2970 signatures reviewed; 2700 signatures stricken, 270 valid signatures

CONCLUSIONS

1) The undersigned reviewed the following Philadelphia Nominating Pages for which he reported numbers in the Court Daily Tallies: 231, 234, 236, 237, 239-249, 251-254, 256, 257, 515, 518, 519, 534, 537, 556, 557, 598, 681, and 686. Further, the undersigned reviewed Duplicate Signatures occurring on Philadelphia Nominating Pages 514-1189.

2) After review of these Pages and the Duplicate Signatures occurring on Philadelphia Nominating Pages 51-1189, the undersigned reports the following:

2970 Signatures Reviewed

2700 Signatures Stricken

270 Signatures Remain Valid

3) The undersigned made a page and line review of Philadelphia Nominating Pages 231, 234, 236, 240-243, 252, 254, 256, *105 and 257, in accordance -with the standards of review for same set forth in In re Nomination Papers of Nader, — Pa. -, 858 A.2d 1167 , 2004 WL 2185351 (No. 154 MAP 2004, filed September 29, 2004).

4) With respect to Justice Saylor’s concurring opinion in In re Nomination Papers of Nader, (No. 171 MM 2004, filed October 1, 2004), directing that we consider grounds for striking signatures other than the fact that the electors are not registered, we report that the following signatures were stricken only on the grounds that the elector was not registered at the time of signing or by the time of the hearing (NR: 240 signatures), was not registered at the address affixed to the nominating page (NRA: 255 signatures), and was not registered at the time of signing (NRDS: 65 signatures). The page and line numbers of these individuals are set forth in Findings of Fact Nos. 52-62.

5) The Candidates conceded to the striking of the great majority of all other signature lines stricken by the undersigned.

6) The review of the Philadelphia Nominating Pages set forth in Conclusion No. 1, together with many other Philadelphia Nominating Pages as partially described in the Findings of Fact, revealed extensive impropriety and/or fraudulent activity in the creation of many Philadelphia Nominating Pages.

7) The evidence established that many Philadelphia Nominating Pages were simply manufactured, in whole or in part, by Serial Signer/Circulators, other Serial Signers, and other Circulators.

8) The evidence does not link the activities of the individuals described in the preceding Conclusion with the Candidates themselves, but the efforts of the Candidates to be on the ballot in November are clearly negatively impacted by this activity.

9) The legitimacy and integrity of the electoral process is negatively impacted by the activities of the Serial Signer/Circula-tors, other Serial Signers, and other Circu-lators, who, with obvious intent, attempted to pad the numbers for their Candidates in the Philadelphia Nominating Pages by fraud, deceit, and dishonesty.

10) Thus, the legal argument of the Candidates that the strict requirements of the Election Gode and a thorough and timely review of their nominating pages is somehow fundamentally, and thus constitutionally unfair to them and serves to “disenfranchise” their supporters, is proven a clear farce.

11) On the contrary, the whole of the electorate is disenfranchised when the thorough and outrageous assault on the legitimacy and integrity of the electoral process, as revealed during our hearings on the Philadelphia Nominating Pages, is not prevented by judicial review based on firmly established standards of law.

12) In an effort to distance themselves from the clear evidence of fraud and impropriety that began emerging from the evidence deduced at the hearings, counsel for the Candidates ultimately agreed to withdraw a number of Philadelphia Nominating Pages in their entirety and conceded to the striking as void of many others and to the Duplicate Signatures.

13) Although legal counsel for the Candidates has not always been forthright and cooperative with the Court (see, e.g., the Memorandum Opinion and Order of President Judge Colins entered in this matter on September 23, 2004), there were attorneys for the Candidates who met or rose above the standards of their profession during the hearings. The undersigned would particularly wish to commend B. *106 Patrick Costello, Jr., Esquire, who acquitted himself with scrupulous honesty, integrity, and candor. While advocating with vigor for the Candidates, he nevertheless recognized his duty as an officer of the Court when faced with undeniable evidence of the fraud and other .impropriety set forth in the Philadelphia Nominating Papers, and performed with great expeditiousness to aid the Court in properly disposing of these matters while maintaining the signatures of electors not tainted by the fraud and impropriety.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 13th day of October, 2004, the Court having been informed that Philadelphia Nominating Pages 536, 552, 566, 571, 580, 583, 643, 682, and 683, and the disposition of challenges, motions, and stipulations made thereto, were never previously counted in the Court Daily Tallies or in the Findings and Conclusions of the Judge to whom they had been assigned, and in an effort to ensure an accurate counting and disposition of all nominating pages filed by the Candidates, the undersigned, who received and accepted the motions to withdraw some of these Pages and the stipulations to strike the others, as more particularly described in the undersigned’s Findings and Conclusions in this matter filed on October 12, 2004, hereby amends his Findings and Conclusions filed on October 12, 2004, as follows:

1) Finding of Fact No. 20 is amended to include Philadelphia Nominating Page 566 among those Philadelphia .Nominating Pages withdrawn on the record by counsel for the Candidates on October 7 and 8, 2004.

2) Finding of Fact No. 22, second sentence, is amended to read, with the amended portion in bold and underline, as follows:

Additionally, Lines 7 through 110 of Page 1112 were stricken by stipulation because the circulator filled in the electors’ information.

3)Finding of Fact No. 24, first sentence, is amended to read, with the amended portion in bold and underline, as follows:

On October 8, 2004, the undersigned filed an Order in this matter disposing of Philadelphia Nominating Pages 117, 162,163,164, 244, 245, 246, 248, 249, 251, 253, 399, 461, 643, 681, 682, 683, 1000, 1031, 1032, and 1042, and Lines 7 through 110 of Page 1112.

.4) Finding of Fact No. 64 is added to find:.

64) Because the following Philadelphia Nominating Pages, withdrawn by counsel for the Candidates, as set forth in Finding of Fact No. 20, or stipulated by the parties to be stricken as set forth in Finding of Fact No. 22, have not been previously counted in either the Court Daily Tallies as reviewed, withdrawn, or stricken, nor counted as reviewed, withdrawn or stricken in the Findings and Conclusions of the Judge to whom such pages were assigned at the time of their withdrawal or striking, the undersigned adds to his total of Reviewed and Stricken Signatures, the following Pages:

Page 536: 80 signature lines

Page 552: 101 signature lines

Page 566: 15 signature lines

Page 571: 105 signature lines

Page 580: 109 signature lines

Page 583: 53 signature lines

Page 643: 100 signature lines

Page 682: 110 signature lines

Page 683: 100 signature lines

*107 5) Finding of Fact No. 65 is added to find:

65) The Court previously struck as invalid Duplicate Signatures on the pages described in the immediately preceding Finding of Fact as follows:

Page 536: 1 Duplicate Signature (Line 6)

Page 552: 18 Duplicate Signatures (Lines 11, 13, 15, 23, 38, 41, 46-48, 50, 51, 53-55, 57, 68, 71 and 95)

Page 566: 0 Duplicate Signatures

Page 571: 7 Duplicate Signatures (Lines 1, 4-6, 25, 28 and 54)

Page 580: 0 Duplicate Signatures

Page 583: 9 Duplicate Signatures (Lines 10, 12, 13, 36, 41, 45-47 and 52)

Page 643: 0 Duplicate Signatures

Page 682: 0 Duplicate Signatures

Page 683: 0 Duplicate Signatures

6) Finding of Fact No. 66 is added to find:

66) Accordingly, the signatures stricken for the pages described in the two immediately preceding Findings of Fact are as follows:

Page 536: 79 signature lines

Page 552: 83 signature lines

Page 566: 15 signature lines

Page 571: 98 signature lines

Page 580: 109 signature lines

Page 583: 44 signature lines

Page 643: 100 signature lines

Page 682: 110 signature lines

Page 683: 100 signature lines

Running Total: 3708 signatures reviewed; 3438 signatures stricken; 270 valid signatures

7) Conclusion No. 1 is amended to read, with the added portions in bold and underline, as follows:

1) The undersigned reviewed the following Philadelphia Nominating Pages for which he reported numbers in the Court Daily Tallies: 231, 234, 236, 237, 239-249, 251-254, 256, 257, 515, 518, 519, 534, 536, 537, 552, 556, 557,566, 571, 580, 583, 598, 643, 681, 682, 683, and 686. Further, the undersigned reviewed Duplicate Signatures occurring on Philadelphia Nominating Pages 514-1189.

8)Conclusion No. 2 is amended to read, with the added portions in bold and underline, as follows:

2) After review of these Pages and the Duplicate Signatures occurring on Philadelphia Nominating Pages 51-1189, the undersigned reports the following:

3708 Signatures Reviewed

3438 Signatures Stricken

270 Signatures Remain Valid

Oct. 12, 2004.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS RE: CHALLENGES TO PHILADELPHIA COUNTY NOMINATION PAPERS CONTAINED IN EXHIBIT 1, VOLUME E

LEADBETTER, Judge.

On October 7-11, 2004, a hearing was held to rule on certain challenges to nomination papers circulated in Philadelphia County on behalf of the candidacies of Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo. Both sides were represented by counsel. Assigned to this venue were those nomination papers from Philadelphia County challenged in Objectors' Exhibit No. 1, Volume E, excluding pages and lines struck by Judge Mirarchi as duplicate signatures. Between sessions in open court both counsel, James Cook and Ira Lefton, worked tirelessly and diligently to review voter registration records and work out stipulations. Their efforts were greatly aided, indeed made possible, by the willingness of representatives of the Voter Registration *108 Division, Philadelphia City Commissioners and of our court officer, Robert Snook, to work from early morning until late at night and through the weekend in order to complete this task in a timely manner. When counsel could not agree on an issue, it was submitted to the court for a ruling on the record, but because of the professionalism of counsel, such disputes were kept to a minimum. The court wishes to thank all involved for their professional and tireless work while tired, hungry and, undoubtedly, suffering eyestrain.

Based upon the stipulations presented and my rulings as - described above, I find the following 1 :

1. The nomination papers - from Philadelphia County assigned for my review contained a total of 4171 signature lines, not counting those struck by Judge Mirarchi as duplicates.

2. 441 of those lines were struck out by the candidates before filing the nomination papers with the Secretary of State, leaving a total of 3720 lines submitted.

3. 441 of those signature lines listed an address in Philadelphia County, but the name did not match that of any registered voter in the county. These fines must be stricken. In re Nomination Papers of Nader, — Pa. -, -, 858 A.2d 1167, 1182-84 (2004) (No. 154 MAP 2004, filed September 29, 2004) ( 2004 WL 2185351 , *12-13); In re Nomination Petition of Flaherty, 564 Pa. 671, 682 , 770 A.2d 327, 333 (2001). 2

4.555 of those signature fines fisted an address in Philadelphia County, and an elector by, that name was registered in the county, but at a different address. Examination of the registration records of those electors did not reflect that any of them had previously lived at the address on the nomination paper. These fines must be stricken. In re Nomination Papers of Nader, — Pa. -, —---, - 858 A.2d 1167, 1182-84 (2004) (No. 154 MAP 2004, filed September 29, 2004) ( 2004 WL 2185351 , *12-13); In re Nomination Petition of Flaherty, 564 Pa. 671, 682 , 770 A.2d 327, 333 (2001). 3 Where fines were signed by persons who were reg *109 istered voters at a different address in Philadelphia County on the date of signing the nomination paper, but before the hearing had notified the Registration Division of a change of address to that stated on the nomination papers in compliance with the Voter Registration Act, 4 I ruled that these persons were qualified electors, and their signatures were not stricken.

5. 119 of the signature lines were signed by persons not registered to vote in Philadelphia County at the time of signing the nomination papers. No evidence was presented as to the date that any of them postmarked or delivered an application to register. I therefore find that these persons were not qualified electors when they signed the nomination papers and, therefore, these fines must be stricken. Nader, — Pa. at -, 858 A.2d at 1182-83 ( 2004 WL 2185351 , *12). 5

6. 85 lines on the nomination papers omitted information required by the Election Code, 6 and therefore must be stricken. Section 951 of the Election Code, as amended, 25 P.S. § 2911. 7 In their stipulations, counsel included in this category lines which had printed names rather than the signatures required by law. Nader, — Pa. at -, 858 A.2d at 1183-84 ( 2004 WL 2185351 , *13); Flaherty, 564 Pa. at 679 , 770 A.2d at 332 (2001); In re Nomination Petition of Silcox, 543 Pa. 647, 650 , 674 A.2d 224, 225 (1996).

7. 55 fines on the nomination papers were so illegible that neither the Registration Division nor counsel were able to ascertain whether they were signed by qualified electors. These must be stricken. In re Nomination Petition of Delle Donne, 779 A.2d 1 , 11—12 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001).

8. 368 fines were stricken as forgeries.

9. One line was stricken because the signature and the printed name were entirely different names.

10. 45 fines were stricken because the address fisted did not exist. 8

*110 11. 11 lines were stricken because the signer resided 1 outside the Commonwealth. 9

12. Finally, 74 signatures on these nomination papers, challenged on the basis that the signers were not qualified electors, were of persons listing an address within the Commonwealth but in a county other than Philadelphia. Accordingly, the Registration Division had no way of ascertaining whether or-not they'Were registered voters, and made no attempt to do so. No other evidence was presented on the point, and I find that objectors have failed to establish a prima facie dase that these persons are not qualified electors. Section 951 of the Election Code provides, in pertinent part, that: “different sheets [of the nomination papers] must be used for signers resident in different counties.” See 25 P.S. § 2911(d). These out-of-county signatures appeared on ' pages which purport,. in both the Preamble and the concluding Affidavit, to- contain signatures of persons residing in Philadelphia County. I need. not decide; here, however, whether,, a violation of Section 2911 invalidates all out of county signatures, as Objectors argue, or even the entire page, on the ground that the affidavit is false. No objection on any such ground' was made in the Objections to the Nomination Papers, the .lines were challenged, if at all, only on the ground that the signer was not registered. 10 Objectors failed to meet their burden of proof on the ground challenged.

13.Based upon the following, of the,3720 signatures before the court, 1680 must be stricken upon grounds specifically stated in the Objections to the Nomination Papers. They are itemized in the attached Appendix. 2040. valid signatures remain in support of Candidates’ nomination.

An order will follow in due' course.

*111 APPENDIX

[[Image here]]

*112 [[Image here]]

*113 Appendix to Findings Conclusions Philadelpliia/Leadbetter 0|out of county 617 out of county 919 lout of county lout of county 615 106 [out of county Tosl out of county out of county 103! 102 lout of county 610 101 lout of county 0 609 100 lout of county 0| 66 607 lout of county out of county 94 lout of county 0 602 9 601 92 [forgery 32 no such page [struck CPM 89 88 69 iforgery 38 110 969 Ajunoo jo }no|o 595 99 out of county out of county 85 [out of county 593 83 [out of county out of county 591 |06S 62 [forgery 10 ZL 09 34 588 ¡H 20 77 38 [forgery [forgery [struck CPM I Unes submitted jDaia omitted |X~d by campaign Page 3 as of 10/12/2004 3:56 PM

*114 [[Image here]]

*115 [[Image here]]

*116 Heard Oct. 8 & 9, 2004.

Decided Oct. 13, 2004.

OPINION BY

Senior Judge KELLEY.

Pursuant to this Court’s September 20, 2004 order, hearings commenced before the undersigned on October 8, 2004 on the Objectors’ challenges to certain Nomination Papers of Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo (Candidates), as Candidates of an Independent Political Body for President and Vice President in the General Election of November 2, 2004, circulated in the County of Philadelphia. The hearings in this matter concluded on October 9, 2004.

The Nomination Papers that were circulated in the aforementioned county and considered by the undersigned contain a total of 2713 signatures. 1 Based upon this Court’s review of the aforementioned Nomination Papers and the evidence presented, the Court finds as follows.

I. NOT REGISTERED

Section 951 of the Pennsylvania Election Code (Election' Code). 2 provides, in pertinent part, that “[e]ach person signing a nomination paper shall declare therein that he is a qualified elector of the State or district, as the case may be.... ” The following signatures are stricken because the signators were not registered to vote in Philadelphia County: 3

*117 PAGE# LINE#

687 2

687 10

687 17

687 18

687 20

687 21

687 24

690 2

694 5

694 9

694 10

694 20

694 22

694 31

694 37

694 41

696 24

696 49

697 6

697 9

697 10

697 14

697 19

697 37

697 49

697 52

697 53

697 61

697 65

697 67

697 72

PAGE# LINE #

697 76

697 77

697 83

697 87

697 89

698 17

698 29

698 31

698 38

698 50

699 1

699 10

699 14

699 19

699 20

699 26

699 29

701 2

746 1

749 11

749 15

749 16

749 20

749 25

752 3

752 6

752 7

752 9

752 13

752 18

752 24

752 27

*118 PAGE# LINE #

PAGE# LINE #

752 32

752 35

752 39

765 6

765 11

767 6

767 16

806 5

806 5

806 10

810 4

810 14

810 16

855 6

855 19

855 35

855 45

856 18

856 35

856 37

856 46

856 48

856 49

856 53

856 78

856 88

856 89

856 90

856 94

856 98

856 99

856 102

856 103

856 104

856 106

856 107

856 108

.856. 110

883 9

,883 10

907/909 4

929 2

929 4

953 1

969 28

.977 3

977 5

978 1

978 2

978 3

978 . 4^

978 5

978 6

978 17

978 21

978 45

978 58

978 63

978 72

978 73

978 77

978 80

979 1

979 11

979 12

979 13

979 21

979 28

979 31

979 40

979 45

979 46

979 47

979 48

979 51

979 54

979 55

979 58

979 60

979 62

979 63

979 64

979 68

979 69

979 72

979 74

982 1

984 5

987 17

987 23

987 27

989 5

989 16

989 17

991 4

991 5

991 6

1001 9 '

1001 14

1001 30

1001 43

1002 8

1002 26

1002 54

*119 [[Image here]]

II. REGISTERED AFTER DATE OF SIGNING

Objectors challenged a number of the Nomination Papers on the basis that the signators signed the Nomination Papers before he or she became a registered voter in Philadelphia County. 5 Our Supreme Court, in its September 29, 2004 opinion in this matter, states that it agrees with this Court's determination, as stated in our August 30, 2004 opinion, that transmittal of a registration application is necessary to effectuate registration. In re: Nomination Papers of Nader, — Pa. at --, 858 A.2d at 1183-84 . Our Supreme Court agreed further with this Court that the signature of any individual whose application was delivered or postmarked after the day that he or she signed the Nomination Papers must be stricken. Id. In making this determination, this Court relied upon a case in which there was direct evidence of when the electors had signed voter-registration cards. See In re: Nomination Papers of Nader, — Pa. at -, 858 A.2d at 1174 -75 (citing Nomination Petition of *120 Roth (Pa.Cmwlth., No. 121 M.D.2004, filed March 8, 2004) (single judge opinion by Feudale, S.J.)).

Herein, there was no evidence offered which showed the date that the relevant signators signed his or her voter registration cards or any evidence which showed when his or her voter registration cards/applications were received by the election officials in Philadelphia County. Thus, absent evidence to the contrary, this Court must accept the official voter registration date as found in the official voter registration record as the date these signa-tors were registered to vote in Philadelphia County. The following signatures are stricken because the signators signed the Nomination Papers prior to the date he or she became a registered voter in Philadelphia County:

[[Image here]]

[[Image here]]

*121 [[Image here]]

III. NOT REGISTERED AT ADDRESS

Section 951 of the Election Code provides, in pertinent part, that “[e]ach person signing a nomination paper ... shall add to his signature his ... residence, giving city, borough or township, with street and number, if any....” The following signatures are stricken because the signators’ addresses as each appears on the Nomination Papers do not correspond to the addresses found on their official voter registration, and the Candidates failed to show that the signators moved before signing the Nomination Papers and that the signators’ change of address notices have not yet been recorded: 6

*122 [[Image here]]

*123 [[Image here]]

*124 [[Image here]]

*125 [[Image here]]

IV. OMITTED INFORMATION

Section 951 of Election Code provides, in pertinent part, that “[e]ach person signing a nomination paper shall ... add to his signature his legibly printed name and residence, giving city, borough or township, with street and number, if any, and shall also add the date of signing, expressed in words or numbers-” The following signatures are stricken because the signator failed to include the information required under Section 951: 7

PAGE# LINE#

699 28

970 18

978 46

1034 6

1094 1

1094 2

1094 3

1164 15

*126 V. INFORMATION WRITTEN IN THE HAND OF ANOTHER

As noted above, Section 951 of Election Code provides, in pertinent part, that “[e]ach person signing a nomination paper shall ... add to his signature his legibly printed name and residence, giving city, borough or township, with street and number, if any, and shall also add the date of signing, expressed in words or numbers .... ” The following signatures are stricken because the required information was written in the hand of another: 8

PAGE# LINE#

688 2

PAGE # LINE #

688 3

688 4

688 5

688 6

688 7

688 9

688 10

688 11

688 12

688 13

688 14

688 17

688 18

688 19

688 20

688 21

688 22

VI. ILLEGIBLE SIGNATURES

Section 951 of the Election Code provides, in pertinent part, that “[e]aeh person signing a nomination paper shall ... add to his signature his legibly printed name and residence, giving city, borough or township, with street and number.... ” (emphasis added). The following signatures are stricken because the signator failed to legibly provide the information required under Section 951: 9

PAGE # LINE #

697 27

697 41

697 47

697 58

PAGE# LINE#

697 84

856 13

856 14

856 28

856 39

856 44

856 45

856 57

856 96

978 40

978 54

978 70

987 7

1001 17

1012 5

1034 3

1034 31

VII. NONEXISTENT ADDRESS/OTHER COUNTY

*127 Section 951 of thé Election Code provides, in pertinent part:

[Njomination papers may be on one or more sheets and different sheets must be used for signers resident in different counties.... Each sheet shall have appended thereto the affidavit of some person, not necessarily a signer, and not necessarily the same person on each sheet, setting forth ... that they all reside in the county named in the affidavit. ...

The following signatures are stricken because the signators did not reside at addresses in Philadelphia County: 10

PAGE # LINE #

694 24

695 9

695 15

695 29

695 3Í

696 34

697 25

697 73

699 13

699 31

752 30

765 12

883 4

[[Image here]]

*128 [[Image here]]

VIII. NICKNAMES OR INITIALS

Section 951 of the Election Code provides, in pertinent part, that “[e]ach person signing a nomination paper ... shall add to his signature his legibly printed name...” The following signatures are stricken because the signators used a nickname that differs from their name listed in the voter registration records: 11

PAGE # LINE #

CO H OO 05 CO

CO 05 05

CD 05 05

t* 05 í> ©

OO 05 C-05

IX. DUPLICATE SIGNATURES 12

Section 951 of the Election Code provides, in pertinent part, that “[n]o elector shall sign more than one nomination paper for each office to be filled, unless there are two or more persons to be elected to the same office.... ” The following signatures are stricken because the signators signed more than one of the Nomination Papers: 13

PAGE# LINE#

695 1

698 35

814 1

856 60

1037 22

1037 42

1095 4

X. DEFECTIVE AFFIDAVIT

Section 951 of the Election Code provides, in pertinent part:

[E]ach sheet shall have appended thereto the affidavit of some person, not necessarily a signer, and not necessarily the same person on each sheet, setting forth — (1) that the affiant is a qualified elector of the State ... referred to in the nomination paper; (2) his residence, giving city, borough or township with street and number, if any; (3) that the signers signed with full knowledge of the contents of the nomination paper; (4) that their respective residences are correctly stated therein; (5) that they all reside in the county named in the affidavit; (6) that each signed on the date set opposite his name; and (7) that, to the best of affiant’s knowledge and belief, *129 the signers are qualified electors of the State....

The following pages are stricken in their entirety because the Nomination Papers contained a defective affidavit as required by Section 951 which is a facial defect and for which no evidence to support amendment was introduced: 14

[[Image here]]

1118 14

1122 7

1128 12

1127 13

1126 15 15

1125 21

1159 21 16

1189 50

1161 70

XI. STIPULATED STRIKES

Counsel for Objectors and counsel for the Candidates stipulated on the record that the following signatures should be stricken because they are facially invalid. Therefore, the following signatures are stricken:

[[Image here]]

[[Image here]]

*130 [[Image here]]

*131 [[Image here]]

*132 [[Image here]]

*133 [[Image here]]

XII. SIGNATURES STRICKEN BY THE SECRETARY

In In re: Nomination Papers of Nader, the Supreme Court stated the following, in pertinent part:

Where as here, the Secretary accepts Nomination Papers, the Commonwealth Court recognized the potential for signatures stricken by the Secretary to become a deciding factor in a later objection hearing. When this occurs, the court recognized that bringing a mandamus petition to reinstate the stricken signatures may not be practical due to time constraints. Instead, it approved the approach taken by Objectors, who included the signatures already rejected by the Secretary in their Objections to *134 the Nomination Papers. Because the Objectors utilized this procedure, the Candidates had notice of the stricken signatures, and the Objectors assumed the Secretary’s burden to prove the invalidity of the signatures.

In re Nomination Papers of Nader, — Pa. at -, 858 A.2d at 1184 , 2004 WL 2185351 (footnote omitted).

As a result, with respect to the signatures challenged by Objectors on the basis that they were rejected by the Secretary, this Court has reviewed the signatures on the Nomination Papers for any facial defects which would require their rejection. The following signatures are stricken on the basis that they were properly stricken by the Secretary as facially invalid: 17

[[Image here]]

XIII. CONCLUSION

Therefore, of the 2713 total signatures found on the relevant Nomination Papers *135 circulated in Philadelphia County, the Court finds that a total of 1964 signatures are invalid leaving a total of 948 valid signatures.

*134 [[Image here]]

*135

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS RE: CHALLENGES TO ALLEGHENY COUNTY NOMINATION PAPERS

I. Preliminary Procedure

On September 22, 2004, pursuant to this Court’s order of September 20, 2004, counsel for Ralph Nader, Candidate of an Independent Political Party for President and Peter Miguel Camejo, Candidate of an Independent Political Party for Vice-President (Candidate/Candidates) and counsel for Linda S. Serody, Roderick J. Sweets, Ronald Bergman, Richard Trinelisti, Terry Trinclisti, Bernie Cohen-Scott, Donald G. Brown, and Julia A. O’Connell (Objectors) met with election staff under the supervision of Mark Wolosik, Director of Elections for Allegheny County, to compare Candidates’ Nomination Papers with the official voter registration records of Allegheny County for the purpose of reporting to the Court, “by stipulation or evidence” as to the results of their review.

The review was conducted in two courtrooms located in the City-County Building, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Allegheny County. In each court-room, there were two computer terminals (a total of four) and each computer terminal was operated by an election staff member. The voter registration data was a true and accurate record of voter information contained in the Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors (SURE) for Allegheny County as attested to by Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, received and transmitted by John Moyer, Esquire, Staff Attorney for Commonwealth Court, and as found by this Court. The voter information contained the name, residential address and date of registration for each registered voter in Allegheny County. This voter registration data was reviewed at each computer terminal by an election staff member and counsel for Objectors and Candidates (or his/her designated representatives). After examination of the challenged signature lines on the nomination papers, the election staff member determined which signatures were defective based upon the criteria enumerated in this Court’s September 20, 2004, order. The review commenced on September 22, 2004, at approximately 9:45 A.M. and concluded at 7:30 P.M. The review then continued each day from 8:30 A.M. until 7:30 P.M. 1 until its conclusion on September 30, 2004.

II. Hearings.

Hearings were held before Judge McGinley on October 1, 2004, October 4, 2004, and October 5, 2004, to rule on challenges to the nomination papers circulated in Allegheny County on behalf of the candidacies of Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo other than challenges based upon alleged forgeries, illegibility, and also signatures struck by the Secretary of State at or about the time of filing. Hearings were also held before Judge Pellegrini on October 1, 2004, and October 4, 2004, to rule on challenges based upon alleged forgeries, illegibility, and signatures struck by the Secretary of State at or about the time of filing.

A. Before Judge McGinley.

Counsel for the Objectors called as a witness Mark Wolosik (Wolosik), Director of Elections, Allegheny County, who testi *136 fied and identified numerous exhibits. Pursuant to this Court’s September 20, 2004, order, Wolosik and staff members of the Election Division, under his supervision, compared challenged signature lines on nomination papers against the Allegheny County voter registration records viewed on the four computer terminals located in each respective courtroom with respect to the categories listed in Paragraph 2 of this Court’s September 20, 2004, order. Wolosik identified review sheets which Objectors compiled pursuant to this Court’s September 20, 2004, order and which listed the determinations by the election staff, under Wolosik’s supervision, of the challenged signature lines. Wolosik was found to be credible, and based upon his testimony, the Court found that that the review sheets [Objectors’ Exhibits 1-105] accurately reflected the results of his examination of the original nomination papers and the Allegheny County voter registration records.

Candidates presented the' testimony of Karen Mitchell (Mitchell) and Elizabeth Johnson (Johnson), temporary election staff employees who participated in the review process.

Mitchell testified that she received SURE training under the supervision of the Election Division for approximately one-half hour on September 20 or 21, 2004, her date of hire. Mitchell testified that on September 22, 2004, she operated a computer terminal whose data base contained only the registered voter’s first and last name. She stated that she was able to search addresses in addition to the names the following day, September 23, 2004. On cross-examination, Mitchell testified that she made every effort to determine whether the challenged signature was a registered voter and when in doubt determined that the challenged failed. Johnson corroborated Mitchell’s testimony. She, too, was a temporary employee who received SURE training and that she made every effort to determine the validity of the challenged signature line.

In addition to review of the signature lines by the Allegheny County Election Division, rulings were made from the bench on several additional challenges raised at hearing by counsel for the Objectors and counsel for the Candidates.

Based upon the testimony presented and Court review, as described above, the Court found the following:

1. Candidates moved to exclude Objectors’ Exhibits 1-105 which consisted of the review sheets on the basis that a proper foundation for their admission . into evidence. ■ Specifically, Candidates argued that no one from Harrisburg authenticated the accuracy of the data base that was used for the preparation of the review sheets and/or the SURE system itself. This Court found the Objectors’ foundation was. adequate and Objectors’ Exhibits were properly authenticated and admitted into evidence.

2. Candidates argued that the Court’s focus should have been on whether a signature on a nomination paper was by someone who would be eighteen years old on the date of the election and a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for thirty days rather than whether the person signing the nomination paper was a registered voter. The Court rejected this argument and found that the review process was proper.

B. Before Judge Pellegrini.

Ms. Michelle Dresbold testified as an expert witness as to whether certain signatures were forgery or information was added to a signature line not in the same hand. Her testimony was credible.

*137

III. Summary of the Court’s Determinations.

Based upon this Court’s review of the challenged signature lines, its credibility determinations, and legal arguments, the Court makes the following conclusions:

1. The nomination papers submitted by Candidates in Allegheny County contained a total of 12,444 signatures, not including any signatures that were struck through prior to filing with the Secretary of State.

2. 1,988 signature lines listed an address in Allegheny County but the name did not match that of any registered voter in Allegheny County. This total includes thirty-six names for which Candidates alleged that a person signed with a married name and the Election Division records indicated a maiden name. These lines must be stricken. See Post-Hearing Report, October 7, 2004, Tab No. 5, Not Registered, at 1-52. No evidence was offered in support of the Candidates’ allegations.

3. 1,425 signature lines listed an address in Allegheny County, but the name did not match that of any registered voter in Allegheny County. No evidence was proffered that the registered elector and the person signing the nomination paper were the same, let alone that (s)he had moved from one address to the other and was within the statutory window to notify the Election of the change. These lines must be stricken. In re Nomination Papers of Nader, — Pa. -, 858 A.2d 1182 -84 (2004) (No. 154 MAP 2004, filed September 29, 2004) ( 2004 WL 2185351 , *12-13); In re Nomination Petition of Flaherty, 564 Pa. 671, 682 , 770 A.2d 327, 333 (2001). See Post-Hearing Report, October 7, 2004, Tab No. 7, Not Registered at the Address, at 1-37.

4. 1,132 signature lines omitted information required by the Election Code. 2 Section 951 of the Election Code, 25 P.S. § 2911, directs that a qualified elector signing a nomination paper “shall add to his signature his legibly printed name and residence, giving city, borough or township, with street and number, if any, and shall also add the date of signing, expressed in words or numbers.... ” This category includes signature lines which contained no zip code or no zip code and no municipality. These lines must be stricken. See Post-Hearing Report, October 7, 2004, Tab No. 6, Data Omitted, at 1-30. No evidence was offered to cure these omissions.

5. 325 signature lines were signed by persons who were registered voters at the address given but not on or before the date he or she signed the nomination paper. These lines must be stricken. See Post-Hearing Report, October 7, 2004, Tab No. 8, Not Registered on Date Signed, at 1-9. Except for Sheena M. Merchant and Melvin L. Jones, See Respondent’s Exhibits C and D, whose signatures were found to be by voters registered at the time the nomination paper was signed.

6. 77 signature lines were on nomination papers in which it was found that the affiant listed an address within Allegheny County and was a person for whom the registration records under review indicated an address other than that stated in the affidavit. These lines must be stricken. See Post-Hearing Report, October 7, 2004, Tab No'. 9, Affiant Address Not Voting Address, at, 1-3.

7. , 48 signature lines were duplicates of another signature by the same elector. These lines must be stricken. See Post- *138 Hearing Report, October 7, 2004, Tab No. 10, Duplicate Entry, at 1-2.

8. 1,317 signature lines had the city, borough, or township information written by someone other than the signing elector. These lines must be stricken. See Post-Hearing Report, October 7, 2004, Tab No. 1, Line Completed by Another, at 1-34.

9. 253 signature lines were struck by the Secretary of State at or about the time of filing. The parties have agreed that each of those lines contain defects. See Post-Hearing Report, October 7, 2004, Tab No. 2, Originally Struck by Secretary of State, at 1-7. Accordingly, all 253 lines are stricken.

10. 96 signature lines contained a date of signing written by someone other than the signing elector. These lines must be stricken. See Post-Hearing Report, October 7, 2004, Tab No. 3, Date Forgery, at 1-3.

11. Ill signature lines where the elector’s signature was written by someone other than the signing elector. These lines must be stricken. See Post-Hearing Report, October 7, 2004, Tab No. 4, Signature or Name Forgery, at 1-3.

12. 6,772 signatures must be stricken. 3 /s/ Bernard L. MeGinley

BERNARD L. MCGINLEY, Judge

/s/ Dan Pellegrini

DAN PELLEGRINI, Judge

AMENDED

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS RE: CHALLENGES TO ALLEGHENY COUNTY NOMINATION PAPERS

I. Preliminary Procedure

On September 22, 2004, pursuant to this Court’s order of September 20, 2004, counsel for Ralph Nader, Candidate of an Independent Political Party for President and Peter Miguel Camejo, Candidate of an Independent Political Party for Vice-President (Candidate/Candidates) and counsel for Linda S. Serody, Roderick J. Sweets, Ronald Bergman, Richard Trinclisti, Terry Trinclisti, Bernie Cohen-Scott, Donald G. Brown, and Julia A. O’Connell (Objectors) met with election staff under the supervision of Mark Wolosik, Director of Elections for Allegheny County, to compare Candidates’ Nomination Papers with the official voter registration records of Allegheny County for the purpose of reporting to the Court, “by stipulation or evidence” as to the results of their review.

The review was conducted in two courtrooms located in the City-County Building, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Allegheny County. In each court-room, there were two computer terminals (a total of four) and each computer terminal was operated by an election staff member. The voter registration data was a true and accurate record of voter information contained in the Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors (SURE) for Allegheny County as attested to by Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, received and transmitted by John Moyer, Esquire, Staff Attorney for Commonwealth Court, and as found by this Court. The voter information contained the name, residential address and date of registration for each registered voter in Allegheny County. This voter registration data was reviewed at each computer terminal by an election staff member and counsel for Objectors and Candidates (or his/her designated representatives). After examination of the challenged signature lines on the *139 nomination papers, the election staff member determined which signatures were defective based upon the criteria enumerated in this Court’s September 20, 2004, order. The review commenced on September 22, 2004, at approximately 9:45 A.M. and concluded at 7:30 P.M. The review then continued each day from 8:30 A.M. until 7:30 P.M. 1 until its conclusion on September 30, 2004.

II. Hearings.

Hearings were held before Judge McGinley on October 1, 2004, October 4, 2004, and October 5, 2004, to rule on challenges to the nomination papers circulated in Allegheny County on behalf of the candidacies of Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo other than challenges based upon alleged forgeries, illegibility, and also signatures struck by the Secretary of State at or about the time of filing. Hearings were also held before Judge Pellegrini on October 1, 2004, and October 4, 2004, to rule on challenges based upon alleged forgeries, illegibility, and signatures struck by the Secretary of State at or about the time of filing.

A. Before Judge McGinley.

Counsel for the Objectors called as a witness Mark Wolosik (Wolosik), Director of Elections, Allegheny County, who testified and identified numerous exhibits. Pursuant to this Court’s September 20, 2004, order, Wolosik and staff members of the Election Division, under his supervision, compared challenged signature lines on nomination papers against the Allegheny County voter registration records viewed on the four computer terminals located in each respective courtroom with respect to the categories listed in Paragraph 2 of this Court’s September 20, 2004, order. Wolosik identified review sheets which Objectors compiled pursuant to this Court’s September 20, 2004, order and which listed the determinations by the election staff, under Wolosik’s supervision, of the challenged signature lines. Wolosik was found to be credible, and based upon his testimony, the Court found that that the review sheets [Objectors’ Exhibits 1-105] accurately reflected the results of his examination of the original nomination papers and the Allegheny County voter registration records.

Candidates presented the testimony of Karen Mitchell (Mitchell) and Elizabeth Johnson (Johnson), temporary election staff employees who participated in the review process.

Mitchell testified that she received SURE training under the supervision of the Election Division for approximately one-half hour on September 20 or 21, 2004, her date of hire. Mitchell testified that on September 22, 2004, she operated a computer terminal whose data base contained only the registered voter’s first and last name. She stated that she was able to search addresses in addition to the names the following day, September 23, 2004. On cross-examination, Mitchell testified that she made every effort to determine whether the challenged signature was a registered voter and when in doubt determined that the challenge failed. Johnson corroborated Mitchell’s testimony. She, too, was a temporary employee who received SURE training and that she made every effort to determine the validity of the challenged signature line.

In addition to review of the signature fines by the Allegheny County Election Division, rulings were made from the bench on several additional challenges *140 raised at hearing by counsel for the Objectors and counsel for the Candidates.

Based upon the testimony presented and Court review, as described above, the Court found the following:

1. Candidates moved to exclude Objectors’ Exhibits 1-105 which consisted of the review sheets on the basis that a proper foundation was not laid for their admission into evidence. Specifically, Candidates argued that no one from Harrisburg authenticated the accuracy of the data base that was used for the preparation of the review sheets and/or the SURE system itself. This Court found the Objectors’ foundation was adequate and Objectors’ Exhibits were properly authenticated and admitted into evidence.

2. Candidates argued that the Court’s focus should have been on whether a signature on a nomination paper was by someone who would be eighteen years old on the date of the election and a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for thirty days rather than whether the person signing the nomination paper was a registered voter. The Court rejected this argument and found that the review process was proper.

B. Before Judge Pellegrini.

Ms. Michelle Dresbold testified as an expert witness as to whether certain signatures were forgery or information was added to a signature line not in the same hand. Her testimony was credible.

III. Summary of the Court’s Determinations.

Based upon this Court’s review of the challenged signature lines, its credibility determinations, and legal arguments, the Court makes the following conclusions:

. 1. The nomination papers submitted by Candidates in Allegheny County contained a total of 12,444 signatures, not including any signatures that were struck through prior to filing with the Secretary of State.

2. 1,988 signature lines listed an address in Allegheny County but the name did not match that of any registered voter in Allegheny County. This total includes thirty-six names for which Candidates alleged that a person signed with a married name and the Election Division records indicated a maiden name. These lines must be stricken. See'Post-Hearing Report, October 7, 2004, Tab No. 5, Not Registered, at 1-52. No evidence was offered in support of the Candidates’ allegations.

3. 1,425 signature lines listed an address in Allegheny County, but the name did not match that of any registered voter in Allegheny County. No evidence was proffered that the registered elector and the person signing the nomination paper were the same, let alone that (s)he had moved from one address to the other and was within the statutory window to notify the Election of the change. These lines must be stricken. In re Nomination Papers of Nader, — Pa. -, 858 A.2d 1182 -84 (2004) (No. 154 MAP 2004, filed September 29, 2004) ( 2004 WL 2185351 , *12-13); In re Nomination Petition of Flaherty, 564 Pa. 671, 682 , 770 A.2d 327, 333 (2001). See Post-Hearing Report, October 7, 2004, Tab No. 7, Not Registered at the. Address, at 1-37.

4. 1,132 signature lines omitted information required by the Election Code. 2 Section 951 of the Election Code, 25 P.S. § 2911, directs that a qualified elector signing a nomination paper “shall add to his signature his legibly printed name and *141 residence, giving city, borough or township, with street and number, if any, and shall also add the date of signing, expressed in words or numbers.... ” This category includes signature lines which contained no zip code or no zip code and no municipality. These lines must be stricken. See Post-Hearing Report, October 7, 2004, Tab No. 6, Data Omitted, at 1-30. No evidence was offered to cure these omissions.

5. 325 signature lines were signed by persons who were registered voters at the address given but not on or before the date he or she signed the nomination paper. These lines must be stricken. See Post-Hearing Report, October 7, 2004, Tab No. 8, Not Registered on Date Signed, at 1-9. Except for Sheena M. Merchant and Melvin L. Jones, See Respondent’s Exhibits C and D, whose signatures were found to be by voters registered at the time the nomination paper was signed.

6. 77 signature lines were on nomination papers in which it was found that the affiant listed an address within Allegheny County and was a person for whom the registration records under review indicated an address other than that stated in the affidavit. These lines must be stricken. See Post-Hearing Report, October 7, 2004, Tab No. 9, Affiant Address Not Voting Address, at 1-3.

7. 48 signature lines were duplicates of another signature by the same elector. These lines must be stricken. See Post-Hearing Report, October 7, 2004, Tab No. 10, Duplicate Entry, at 1-2.

8. 1,317 signature lines had the city, borough, or township information written by someone other than the signing elector. These lines must be stricken. See Post-Hearing Report, October 7, 2004, Tab No. 1, Line Completed by Another, at 1-34.

9. 253 signature lines were struck by the Secretary of State at or about the time of filing. The parties have agreed that each of those lines contain defects. See Post-Hearing Report, October 7, 2004, Tab No. 2, Originally Struck by Secretary of State, at 1-7. Accordingly, all 253 lines are stricken.

10. 96 signature lines contained a date of signing written by someone other than the signing elector. These lines must be stricken. See Post-Hearing Report, October 7, 2004, Tab No. 3, Date Forgery, at 1-3.

11. Ill signature lines where the elector’s signature was written by someone other than the signing elector. These lines must be stricken. See Post-Hearing Report, October 7, 2004, Tab No. 4, Signature or Name Forgery, at 1-3.

12. The nomination papers submitted by Candidates in Allegheny County contained a total of 12,697 signatures (including the signatures stricken by the Secretary of State) of which 6,772 signatures are stricken 3 leaving a total of 5,925 valid signatures.

/s/ Bernard L. McGinley

BERNARD L. MCGINLEY, Judge

/s/ Dan Pellegrini

DAN PELLEGRINI, Judge

SECOND AMENDED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS RE: CHALLENGES TO ALLEGHENY COUNTY NOMINATION PAPERS

I. Preliminary Procedure

On September 22, 2004, pursuant to this Court’s order of September 20, 2004, coun *142 sel for Ralph Nader, Candidate of an Independent Political Party for President and Peter Miguel Camejo, Candidate of an Independent Political Party for Vice-President (Candidate/Candidates) and counsel for Linda S. Serody, Roderick J. Sweets, Ronald Bergman, Richard Trinclisti, Terry Trinclisti, Bernie Cohen-Scott, -Donald G. Brown, and Julia A. O’Connell (Objectors) met with election staff under the supervision of Mai'k Wolosik, Director of Elections for Allegheny County, to compare Candidates’ Nomination Papers with the official voter registration records of Allegheny County for the purpose of reporting to the Court, “by stipulation or evidence” as to the results of their review.

The review was conducted in two courtrooms located in the City-County Building, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Allegheny County. In each court-room, there were two computer terminals (a total of four) and each computer terminal was operated by an election staff member. The voter registration data was a true and accurate record of voter information contained in the Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors (SURE) for Allegheny County as attested to by Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, received and transmitted by John Moyer, Esquire, Staff Attorney for Commonwealth Court, and as found by this Court. The voter information contained the name, residential address and date of registration for each registered voter in Allegheny County. This voter registration data was reviewed at each computer terminal by an election staff member and counsel for Objectors and Candidates (or his/her designated representatives). After examination of the challenged signature lines on the nomination papers, the election staff member determined which signatures were defective based upon the criteria enumerated in this Court’s September 20, 2004, order. The review commenced on September 22, 2004, at approximately 9:45 A.M. and concluded at 7:30 P.M. The review then continued each day from-8:30 A.M. until 7:30 P.M. 1 until its conclusion on September 30, 2004.

II. Hearings.

Hearings were held before Judge McGinley on October 1, 2004, October 4, 2004, and October 5, 2004, to rule on challenges to the nomination papers circulated in Allegheny County on behalf of the candidacies of Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo other than challenges based upon alleged forgeries, illegibility, and also signatures struck by the Secretary of State at or about the time of filing. Hearings were also held before Judge Pellegrini on October 1, 2004, and October 4, 2004, to rule on challenges based upon alleged forgeries, illegibility, and signatures struck by the Secretary of State at or about the time of filing.

. A. Before Judge McGinley.

Counsel for the Objectors called as a witness Mark Wolosik (Wolosik), Director of Elections, Allegheny County, who testified and identified numerous exhibits. Pursuant to this Court’s September 20, 2004, order, Wolosik and staff members of the Election Division, under his supervision, compared challenged signature lines on nomination papers against the Allegheny County voter registration records viewed on the four computer terminals located in each respective courtroom with respect to the categories listed in Paragraph 2 of this Court’s September 20, 2004, order. Wolosik identified review sheets which Objectors compiled pursuant *143 to this Court’s September 20, 2004, order and which listed the determinations by the election staff, under Wolosik’s supervision, of the challenged signature lines. Wolosik was found to be credible, and based upon his testimony, the Court found that that the review sheets [Objectors’ Exhibits 1-105] accurately reflected the results of his examination of the original nomination papers and the Allegheny County voter registration records.

Candidates presented the testimony of Karen Mitchell (Mitchell) and Elizabeth Johnson (Johnson), temporary election staff employees who participated in the review process.

Mitchell testified that she received SURE training under the supervision of the Election Division for approximately one-half hour on September 20 or 21, 2004, her date of hire. Mitchell testified that on September 22, 2004, she operated a computer terminal whose data base contained only the registered voter’s first and last name. She stated that she was able to search addresses in addition to the names the following day, September 28, 2004. On cross-examination, Mitchell testified that she made every effort to determine whether the challenged signature was a registered voter and when in doubt determined that the challenge failed. Johnson corroborated Mitchell’s testimony. She, too, was a temporary employee who received SURE training and testified that she made every effort to determine the validity of the challenged signature line.

In addition to review of the signature lines by the Allegheny County Election Division, rulings were made from the bench on several additional challenges raised at hearing by counsel for the Objectors and counsel for the Candidates.

Based upon the testimony presented and Court review, as described above, the Court found the following:

1. Candidates moved to exclude Objectors’ Exhibits 1-105 which consisted of the review sheets on the basis that a proper foundation was not laid for them admission into evidence. Specifically, Candidates argued that no one from Harrisburg authenticated the accuracy of the data base that was used for the preparation of the review sheets and/or the SURE system itself. This Court found the Objectors’ foundation was adequate and Objectors’ Exhibits were properly authenticated and admitted into evidence.

2. Candidates argued that the Court’s focus should have been on whether a signature on a nomination paper was by someone who would be eighteen years old on the date of the election and a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for thirty days rather than whether the person signing the nomination paper was a registered voter. The Court rejected this argument and found that the review process was proper.

B. Before Judge Pellegrini.

Ms. Michelle Dresbold testified as an expert witness as to whether certain signatures were forgery or information was added to a signature line not in the same hand. Her testimony was credible.

III. Summary of the Court’s Determinations.

Based upon this Court’s review of the challenged signature lines, its credibility determinations, and legal arguments, the Court makes the following conclusions:

1. The nomination papers submitted by Candidates in Allegheny County contained a total of 12,444 signatures, not including any signatures that were struck through prior to filing with the Secretary of State.

*144 2. 1,988 signature lines listed an address in Allegheny County but the name did not match that of any registered voter in Allegheny County. This total includes thirty-six names for which Candidates alleged that a person signed with a married name and the Election Division records indicated a maiden name. These lines must be stricken. See Posb-Hearing Report, October 7, 2004, Tab No. 5, Not Registered, at 1-52. No evidence was offered in support of the Candidates’ allegations.

3. 1,425 signature lines listed an address in Allegheny County, but the name did not match that of any registered voter in Allegheny County. No evidence was proffered that the registered elector and the person signing the nomination paper were the same, let alone that (s)he had moved from one address to the other and was within the statutory window to notify the Election Division of the change. These lines must be stricken. In re Nomination Papers of Nader, — Pa. - -, 858 A.2d 1182 -84 (2004) (No. 154 MAP 2004, filed September 29, 2004) ( 2004 WL 2185351 , *12-13); In re Nomination Petition of Flaherty, 564 Pa. 671, 682 , 770 A.2d 327, 333 (2001). See Post-Hearing Report, October 7, 2004, Tab No. 7, Not Registered at the Address, at 1-37. ,

4. 1,132 signature lines omitted information required by the Election Code. 2 Section 951 of the Election Code, 25 P.S. § 2911, directs that a qualified elector signing a nomination paper “shall add to his signature his legibly printed name and residence, giving city, borough or township, with street and number, if any, and shall also add the date of signing, expressed in words or numbers.... ” This category includes signature lines which contained no zip code or no zip code and no municipality. These lines must be stricken. See Post-Hearing Report, October 7, 2004, Tab No. 6, Data Omitted, at 1-30.' No evidence was offered to cure these omissions.

5. 325 signature lines were signed by persons who were registered voters at the address given but not on or before the date he or she signed the nomination paper. These lines must be stricken. See Post-Hearing Report, October 7, 2004, Tab No. 8, Not Registered on Date Signed, at 1-9. Except for Sheena M. Merchant and Melvin L. Jones, See Respondent’s Exhibits C and D, whose signatures were found to be by voters registered at the time the nomination paper was signed.

6. 77 signature lines were on nomination papers in which it was found that the affiant listed an address within Allegheny County and was a person for whom the registration records under review indicated an- address other than that stated in the affidavit. These lines must be stricken. See Post-Hearing Report, October 7, 2004, Tab No. 9, Affiant Address Not Voting Address, at 1-3!

7. 48 signature lines were duplicates of another signature by the same elector. These lines must be stricken. See Post-Hearing Report, October 7, 2004, Tab No. 10, Duplicate Entry, at 1-2.

8. 1,317 signature lines had the city, borough, or township information written by someone other than the signing elector. These lines must be stricken. .See Post-Hearing Report, October 7, 2004, Tab No. 1, Line Completed by Another, at 1-34.

9. 253 signature lines were struck by the Secretary of State at or about the time of filing. The parties have agreed that each of those lines contain defects. See *145 Post-Hearing Report, October 7, 2004, Tab No. 2, Originally Struck by Secretary of State, at 1-7. Accordingly, all 253 lines are stricken.

10. 96 signature lines contained a date of signing written by someone other than the signing elector. These lines must be stricken. See Post-Hearing Report, October 7, 2004, Tab No. 8, Date Forgery, at 1-3.

11. Ill signature lines where the elector’s signature was written by someone other than the signing elector. These lines must be stricken. See Post-Hearing Report, October 7, 2004, Tab No. 4, Signature or Name Forgery, at 1-3.

12. The nomination papers submitted by Candidates in Allegheny County contained a total of 12,444 signatures of which 6,772 signatures are stricken 3 leaving a total of 5,672 valid signatures.

/s/ Bernard L. McGinley

BERNARD L. MCGINLEY, Judge

Is/ Dan Pellegrini

DAN PELLEGRINI, Judge

Heard Sept. 27, 2004

Decided Oct. 6, 2004

OPINION BY

Senior Judge KELLEY

Pursuant to this Court’s September 20, 2004 order, hearings commenced before the undersigned on September 27, 2004 on the Objectors’ challenges to the Nomination Papers of Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo (Candidates), as Candidates of an Independent Political Body for President and Vice President in the General Election of November 2, 2004, circulated in the counties of Armstrong, Beaver, Blair, Butler, Cambria, Centre, Clearfield, Fayette, Fulton, Indiana, Jefferson, Somerset, Washington, and Westmoreland. The hearings in this matter concluded on September 29, 2004.

The Nomination Papers circulated in the aforementioned fourteen counties contain a total of 891 signatures. 1 Objectors did not present any evidence with respect to their challenges to the Nomination Papers circulated in Blair, Fayette and Jefferson counties. Therefore, the total number of valid signatures contained on the Nomination Papers circulated in those counties is 15. Based upon this Court’s review of the Nomination Papers circulated in the remaining eleven counties and the evidence presented, the Court finds as follows.

I. ARMSTRONG COUNTY

Ms. Wendy J. Buzard testified as to the registration records for the County of Armstrong. Ms. Buzard is the Director of Elections and Chief Registrar for Armstrong County. Ms. Buzard testified that the official voter registration records for Armstrong County are the records contained in and maintained by SURE— Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors. Ms. Buzard testified further that she utilized the SURE system when she conducted a search of the names and addresses of the elector’s signatures that were being challenged by Objectors in Armstrong *146 County. This Court finds Ms. Buzard’s testimony credible. Based on the credible testimony of Ms. Buzard and examination of the original documents, the Court makes the following rulings for the stated reasons.

A. NOT REGISTERED

The following signatures are stricken because the signators were not registered to vote in Armstrong County: 2

*147 PAGE# LINE#

735 1

750 7

792 2

949 1,2

B. OMITTED INFORMATION

The following signature is stricken because the signator failed to include the information required under Section 951 of the Pennsylvania Election Code (Election Code), Act of June 3, 1937, P.L. 1333, as amended, 25 P.S. § 2911, (“Each person signing a nomination paper shall ... add to his signature his legibly printed name and residence, giving city, borough or township, with street and number, if any, and shall also add the date of signing, expressed in words or numbers... ”):

PAGE# LINE#

735 4

C. NICKNAMES

The following signatures are stricken because the signators used a nickname that differs from their voter registration records: 3

PAGE# LINE#

750 4,6

Accordingly, of the 23 total signatures found on the Nomination Papers circulated in Armstrong County, the Court finds that 8 are invalid leaving a total of 15 valid signatures.

II. BEAVER COUNTY

Ms. Dorene Mandity testified as to the registration records for the County of Beaver. Ms. Mandity is the Director of Elections for Beaver County. Ms. Mandity testified that the official voter registration records for Beaver County are the records contained in and maintained by SURE. Ms. Mandity testified further that she utilized the SURE system when she conducted a search of the names and addresses of the elector’s signatures that were being challenged by Objectors in Beaver County. This Court finds Ms. Mandity’s testimony credible. Based on the credible testimony of Ms. Mandity and examination of the original documents, the Court makes the following rulings for the stated reasons.

A. DEFECTIVE AFFIDAVIT

Page 23 of the Nomination Papers, which contains 51 purported signatures, was stricken by the Secretary of the Commonwealth because the affidavit differed as to the county of the signers. Specifically, the affidavit affixed to Page 23 states that the county of the Nomination Paper signers’ residence is Allegheny County and the front of Page 23 of the Nomination Papers states that the county of signers is Beaver County. In In re: Nomination Papers of Nader, the Supreme Court stated the following, in pertinent part:

Where as here, the Secretary accepts Nomination Papers, the Commonwealth Court recognized the potential for signatures stricken by the Secretary to become a deciding factor in a later objection hearing. When this occurs, the court recognized that bringing a mandamus petition to reinstate the stricken signatures may not be practical due to time constraints. Instead, it approved the approach taken by Objectors, who included the signatures already rejected by the Secretary in their Objections to *148 the Nomination Papers. Because the Objectors utilized this procedure, the Candidates had notice of the stricken signatures, and the Objectors assumed the Secretary’s burden to prove the invalidity of the signatures.

In re Nomination Papers of Nader, — Pa. at -, 858 A.2d at 1184 (footnote omitted).

As a result, with respect to the signatures challenged by Objectors on the basis that they were rejected by the Secretary, this Court has reviewed the signatures on the Nomination Papers for any facial defects which would require their rejection. See Section 976 of the Election Code, 25 P.S. § 2936 (“[W]hen any ... nomination paper is presented in the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth ... for filing within the period limited by this act, it shall be the duty of the said officer ... to examine the same. No ... nomination paper ... shall be permitted to be filed if — (a) it contains material errors or defects apparent on the face thereof... Section 977 of the Election Code, 25 P.S. § 2937 (“[I]f the court shall find that said nomination ... paper is defective under the provisions of section 976 ... it shall be set aside.... ”). 4

Herein, Objectors presented a global challenge to Page 23 of the Nomination Papers in their Petition to Set Aside the Nomination Papers on the basis that it was rejected by the Secretary. Upon review, this Court finds that the defective affidavit is a facial defect and all 51 sigriatures contained thereon, for which no motion to amend was interposed, must be stricken. 5

B. NOT REGISTERED

The following signatures ,are. stricken because the signators are not registered to vote in Beaver County: ■

PAGE #

296 6

659

714

719

722

728

773

LINE #

CO to CO CO 04 T-1 s' o H

2, 4

1, 5

3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 16

1

2, 3

6, 8

*149 C. NOT REGISTERED AT ADDRESS ON VOTER RECORD

The following signatures are stricken because the signators’ addresses as each appears on the Nomination Papers do not correspond to the addresses found on their voter registration card and Candidates failed to show that the signators moved before signing the Nomination Papers and that the signators’ change of address notices have not yet been recorded: 7

PAGE# LINE#

296 1, 2, 22, 29, 30

636 2

684 6

719 2,14

722 2

773 1,4

D. SIGNATOR REGISTERED AFTER DATE OF SIGNING

Objectors challenged line 9 of Page 296 of the Nomination Papers and line 2 of Page 1054 of the Nomination Papers on the basis that the signators signed the Nomination Papers before he or she became a registered voter in Beaver County. 8 With respect to line 9 of Page 296, the signator signed the Nomination Papers on July 25, 2004 and his voter registration record shows that he became registered to vote in Beaver County on July 30, 2004. See Objectors’ Exhibit 28. With respect to line 2 of Page 1054, the signator signed the Nomination Paper on July 31, 2004 and her voter registration record shows that she became a registered voter in Beaver County on August 13, 2004. See Objectors’ Exhibit 49.

Our Supreme Court in its September 29, 2004 opinion in this matter states that it agrees with this Court’s determination, as stated in our August 30, 2004 opinion, that transmittal of a registration application is necessary to effectuate registration. In re: Nomination Papers of Nader, - Pa. at -, 858 A.2d at 1183-84 . Our Supreme Court agreed further with this Court that the signature of any individual whose application was delivered or postmarked after the day that he or she signed the Nomination Papers must be stricken. Id. In making this determination, this Court relied upon a case in which there was direct evidence of when the electors had signed voter registration cards. See In re: Nomination Papers of Nader, — Pa. at -, 858 A.2d at 1174 -75 (citing Nomination Petition of Roth (Pa.Cmwlth., No. 121 M.D.2004, filed March 8, 2004) (single judge opinion by Feudale, S.J.)).

Herein, there was no evidence offered which showed the date that the aforementioned signators signed his or her voter registration cards or any evidence which showed when his or her voter registration cards/applications were received by the *150 election officials in Beaver County. Ms. Mandity testified that, based on the signa-tors’ dates of registration and the ten day waiting period required by the.National Voter Registration Act, 9 that the signators’ applications would have been in her office ten days prior to each signator’s official registration date. However, Ms. Mandity could not testify as to the exact date that her office received the signators’ voter registration applications. Thus, since the SURE system is the official voter registration record for Beaver'County, absent evidence to the contrary, this Court must accept the official voter registration date as found in SURE as the date these signa-tors were registered to vote in Beaver County.

Accordingly, the following signatures are stricken because the signators signed the Nomination Papers prior to the date he or she became a registered voter in Beaver County:

PAGE # LINE #

CD CO CD 02

CO O CJT

E. OMITTED INFORMATION

The following signatures are stricken because the signators failed to include the information required under Section 951 of the Election Code:

[[Image here]]

F. ILLEGIBLE DATA

The following signatures are stricken due to the signators’ failure to legibly print their “city, borough or township” as required by Section 951 of the Election Code:

[[Image here]]

Accordingly,- of the 196 total signatures found on the Nomination Papers circulated in Beaver County, the Court finds that 91 are invalid leaving a total of 105 valid signatures.

III. BUTLER COUNTY

Mr. Regis L. Young testified as to the registration records for the County of Butler. Mr. Young is the Registrar for Butler County. Mr. Young testified that the official voter registration records for Butler County are the records contained in and maintained by SURE. Mr. Young testified further that he utilized the SURE system when he conducted á search of the names and addresses of the elector’s signatures that were being challenged by Objectors in Butler County. This Court finds Mr. Young’s testimony credible. Based on the credible testimony of Mr. Young and examination of the original documents, the Court makes the following rulings for the stated reasons.

A. NOT REGISTERED

The following signatures are stricken because the signators are not registered to vote in Butler County:

PAGE #

170

238

299 10

635

748

783

789

902

1052

1057

[[Image here]]

*151 B. NOT REGISTERED AT ADDRESS ON VOTER RECORD

The following signatures are stricken because the signators’ addresses as each appears on the Nomination Papers do not correspond to the addresses found on their voter registration cards and Candidates failed to show that the signators moved before signing the Nomination Papers and that the signators’ change of address notices have not yet been recorded:

PAGE# LINE#

170 5,7

238 18

703 5

748 6

768 2

789 10

1052 5,10

C. SIGNATOR REGISTERED AFTER DATE OF SIGNING

Objectors challenged 4 signatures on the basis that the signators signed the Nomination Papers before he or she became a registered voter in Butler County. 11 With respect to these 4 signators, the evidence showed as follows: (1) the signator found on line 17 of Page 170 signed the Nomination Papers on July 25, 2004 and his voter registration record shows that he was officially registered to vote in Butler County on September 2, 2004 (See Objectors’ Exhibit 54); (2) the signator found on fine 23 of Page 170 signed the Nomination Papers on July 29, 2004 and his voter registration record shows that he was officially registered to vote in Butler County on August 23, 2004 (See Objectors’ Exhibit 55); (3) the signator found on line 9 of Page 238 signed the Nomination Papers on July 10, 2004 and his voter registration record shows that he was officially registered to vote in Butler County on August 21, 2004 (See Objectors’ Exhibit 56); and (4) the signator found on line 18 of Page 789 signed the Nomination Papers on July 28, 2004 and his voter registration record shows that he was officially registered to vote in Butler County on August 26, 2004 (See Objectors’ Exhibit 72).

Herein, as in Beaver County, there was no evidence offered which showed the date that the signators signed their voter registration cards or any evidence which showed when their voter registration cards/applieations were received by the election officials in Butler County. Mr. Young testified that pursuant to the National Voter Registration Act, each signator would have been officially registered ten days after his office received their voter registration applications and that the applications were entered into the SURE system on the same day that each was received. However, Mr. Young could not testify as to the exact date that his office received the signators’ voter registration applications. Again, since the SURE system is the official voter registration record for Butler County, absent evidence to the contrary, this Court must accept the official voter registration date as found in SURE as the date these signators were registered to vote in Butler County.

*152 Accordingly, the following signatures are stricken because the signators signed the Nomination Papers prior to the date they each became a registered voter in Butler County:

PAGE# LINE#

170 17,23

238 9

789 18

D. OMITTED INFORMATION

The following signatures are stricken because the signators failed to include the information required under Section 951 of the Election Code:

[[Image here]]

E. ILLEGIBLE DATA

The following signatures are stricken due to the signators’ failure to legibly print the information required by Section 951 of the Election Code:

PAGE# LINE# 170 8 299 42 703 6 789 11 1099 5

F. DUPLICATE SIGNATURES

The following signatures are stricken because they are duplicates of another signature on the Nomination Papers:

PAGE# LINE#

238 28 (Duplicate with line 29 of Page 238)

238 49 (Duplicate with line 50 of Page 238)

1057 5 (Duplicate with line 4 of Page 1057)

G. INFORMATION WRITTEN IN THE HAND OF ANOTHER

Objectors challenged certain lines of the Nomination Papers on the basis that the signators’ “place of residence” had been entered in the hand of another. In support of these challenges, Objectors presented the testimony of handwriting expert Michelle Dresvold. The Court finds Ms. Dresvold’s testimony credible. Based upon Ms. Dresvold’s credible testimony and the Court’s review of each challenged line, the following signatures are stricken because the challenged information contained thereon was written in the hand of another:

PAGE# LINE#

238 61, 64, 87

Accordingly, of the 316 total signatures found on the Nomination Papers circulated in Butler County, the Court finds that 74 are invalid leaving a total of 242 valid signatures.

IV. CAMBRIA COUNTY

Mr. Fred Smith testified as to the registration records for the County of Cambria. Mr. Smith is the Director of Elections for Cambria County. Mr. Smith testified that the official voter registration records for Cambria County are the records contained in and maintained by SURE. Mr. Smith testified further that he utilized the SURE system when he conducted a search of the names and addresses of the elector’s signatures that were being challenged by Objectors in Cambria County. This Court finds Mr. Smith’s testimony credible. Based on the credible testimony of Mr. Smith and examination of the original documents, the Court makes the following rulings for the stated reasons.

A. NOT REGISTERED

The following signature is stricken because the signator is not registered to vote in Cambria County:

PAGE# LINE#

705 1

Accordingly, of the 5 total signatures found on the Nomination Papers circulated in Cambria County, the Court finds that 1

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.