News

August 20, 2009

Green Party candidate will fight court ruling

Carl Romanelli blasts rejection of his appeal of a decision that he must pay more than $80,000.

By Steve Mocarsky smocarsky@timesleader.com
Staff Writer

Days after the state Supreme Court denied his appeal, Carl Romanelli – a 2006 Green Party candidate for the U.S. Senate – says he will continue to fight a Commonwealth Court decision directing him to pay more than $80,000 to the parties that challenged his nomination petition.

“I am dismayed because we presented some very serious new information to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court – information coming out of the attorney general’s presentation regarding the Bonusgate scandal. We raised the issue of the challenge itself being part of the poison fruit of the … scandal,” Romanelli, 49, of Wilkes-Barre, said in a phone interview on Wednesday.

In a two-sentence order issued Monday, the state Supreme Court affirmed Commonwealth Court’s decision that directed Romanelli and his attorney, Lawrence M. Otter, of Doylestown, to pay $80,407.56 to the petition challengers. The order also denied Romanelli’s motion for oral argument in the case.

“Not only did (the state Supreme Court) uphold a lower court ruling that in my opinion was not intent on looking at the facts, they failed to issue a written opinion. … If it’s OK to have a conspiracy by the state against a citizen, fine. But say it,” Romanelli said.

State Attorney General Tom Corbett’s presentation on Bonusgate describes how 12 people involved in the state House Democratic Caucus were charged with illegally giving state-funded bonuses to state employees for performing partisan political work, such as campaigning and challenging nomination petitions.

Corbett specifically drew attention to Romanelli’s case, which he called one of “two outstanding examples of misappropriation of taxpayers’ resources.”

The day Romanelli filed his nominating petitions, which included 94,544 signatures – well over the 67,070 required – a caucus employee obtained copies of the petitions from the Department of State, and an army of caucus staffers went to work trying to find signatures to challenge, according to Corbett’s presentation.

The goal was to enhance the election chances of the Democratic nominee, Robert Casey, by removing from the ballot a challenger whose vote tally would likely come at the expense of the Democratic candidate. The effort resulted in a challenge of at least 69,000 signatures and successfully knocked Romanelli off the ballot.

“If they allow this to become settled law, it will allow a precedent to be set,” Romanelli said of the state Supreme Court’s decision. “The next time a third-party candidate’s nomination petition is challenged, they can look at this case and say, ‘We know crimes were committed against the candidate, but that didn’t stop Democrats from collecting court costs in the Romanelli case.’ ”

Romanelli can either petition the state Supreme Court to reconsider its decision or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. He said he will most likely file a petition.

Shawn Gallagher, an attorney representing the challengers of the nomination petition, said the court ruled appropriately.

Gallagher said Commonwealth Court found that Romanelli and his attorney acted in bad faith during the proceedings.

The costs imposed – other than the attorney fees that amounted to about $48,000 – were so high “based on Mr. Romanelli’s conduct and his attorney’s conduct during all these weeks when they reviewed the signatures. There was a court order that set forth the procedure for review, and the costs were a result of Mr. Romanelli’s and his attorney’s defiance of the order,” Gallagher said.

Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form

Send Question/Comment to the Publisher