Gale Removed From LG Primary Ballot

Montgomery County Commissioner Joe Gale, who is running for Lieutenant Governor was ordered off the primary ballot by the Commonwealth Court.

According to the Associated Press Gale was ordered off the ballot because he will not meet the Pennsylvania Constitution’s age requirement of 30.  

Gale, who was running in the Republican primary, said he will likely appeal the decision.

Commonwealth Court Judge Kevin Brobson said that since Gale will not turn 30 until March 2019, after he would have to be sworn into office, Gale could not run for the seat.  

Gale argued that the Senate President Pro Tempore could fill the position until he was old enough to serve, but Brobson ruled that court precedent was that candidates must be qualified at the time of the election.

March 21st, 2018 | Posted in Front Page Stories, Governor | 25 Comments

25 thoughts on “Gale Removed From LG Primary Ballot”

  1. Shelley Eppard says:

    There’s also a kid running for Bill Shuster’s seat who is below the minimum age to serve in Congress per to the US Constitution.

  2. Zakrey Bissell says:

    good choice people and I think for he should run for reelection as Montgomery County Commissioner or as a State Representative in 2019 is to replace Madeleine Dean when she does wins the congressional seat and reelection in 2018.

    1. Frustrated Montco Taxpayer says:

      He’d have to, you know, live in that district. Unlike Congress, in PA, you have to reside in the state legislative district you wish to run in. What is it with you people and trying to just hand him an elected office? The guy does nothing. The Montco Commissioners privately tell people that they never see Joe unless there is a public meeting. He’s not involved and that’s the way he likes it.

      The taxpayer literally paid Gale a $80k per year salary to do nothing except run around everywhere but Montgomery County to advance his own personal agenda. This year, we got to pay him to chase an office he knew he couldn’t be elected to. And then in turn, this high and mighty pissant blasts the “Establishment” and a judge for upholding the state constitution.

      I will NEVER understand his supporters. They’re brainwashed and I can only hope that they eventually will see the light!

    2. Bakrey Zissell says:

      I’m a f**king idiot!

  3. Joe Gale's PJs with the feet. says:

    Amazing that Mr. Constitutional Conservative, Joe Gale, is pissed that the constitution says he needs to be out of diapers for a couple years longer before he can run for LG.

    He is a minority commissioner and prior to that, he did nothing. As a minority county commissioner, he also does nothing and has no control whatsoever. His current resume basically says that he manages one employee, his receptionist. It’s a shame that many conservatives fall for this fraud’s BS.

    Hopefully Montco rectifies its mistake and kicks him out of office in 2019.

    1. EvilBobCaseyIV says:

      I spit out my drink when I read your handle. Well done, Sir.

  4. My baby boy, Joe says:

    I STILL LOVE YOU JOE! YOU WILL ALWAYS HAVE MY LOVE AND ADMIRATION. DON’T GIVE UP. WE WILL GET YOU TO HARRISBURG SOMEDAY. MAYBE NOT TODAY. MAYBE NOT TOMORROW. BUT WHEN YOU’RE OVER 30 FOR SURE.

    AND TO ALL YOU BULLYS OUT THERE, JOE WILL NOT BE SILENCED. JUST LIKE DONALD TRUMP, JOE IS THE VOICE OF THE COMMON MAN.

    NOW COME HOME SO MOM CAN CHANGE YOUR DIAPER!

  5. Robert B Sklaroff, M.D. says:

    I sued because the Constitution is clear, and the candidate’s brother/lawyer essentially pled for the judge to be an “activist” instead of for him to adhere to rule-of-law; raw-ambition lost big-time, notwithstanding the tortured argument proffered [he would be self-perceived as “disabled” due to age until he turned 30].

    1. Robert B Sklaroff, M.D. says:

      PART I – Summary generated after Oral Argument last Friday in CC:

      The events-of-the-day in Harrisburg were fascinating, difficult to be summarized herein; suffice to write that it is highly-likely Gale will be expunged.

      The judge immediately invited me to join Mr. Voss in front of the bar [from which he had preliminarily banished me]; I expressed the view that, to maximize judicial efficiency, it would have been desirable had all parties been able to access all submitted briefs ahead-of-time, particularly noting that the DoS had NOT uploaded their existence as of last-night [so that a roundabout method to scrutinize the database had not been made available], despite its having received daily nudge-calls from yours-truly.

      The structure of the hour-long hearing was for the two challengers [Mr. Voss and moi] to speak first, after which time the candidate’s representative/brother was to reply; we were then to respond to whatever might have been raised cogently.

      During discussion of the database, I noted that I’d written on PoliticsPa that the initial filing shouldn’t have been accepted by the DoS, but that I’d subsequently learned that the birth-date isn’t explicitly requested; subsequently, the candidate’s attorney was explicitly challenged to explain why he’d claimed “eligibility” on the identical document (and I advised that, perhaps, the candidate’s affidavit might be “edited”).

      During discussion of the exhibits, I noted my “vast” experience dating-back two decades – regarding my challenge to the consolidation of Pennsylvania Blue Cross and Blue Cross of Western Pennsylvania [noting Highmark predictably earned a monopoly/monopsony, and the Blues almost engulfed the entire Commonwealth] of two decades ago – when discounting whatever might occur in other states; this was predicated on a news-article submitted by Mr. Voss [easily noted following googling] that had channeled this facet of the candidate’s argument.

      The brief prepared by Mr. Voss cited a hundred-year-old case that was on-point; the age-requirement was controlling [per Article IV, Section 5] regarding eligibility to take office on day #1 [and not 6 days hence].

      I amplified on three points made therein (and during oral-presentation thereof), careful to add info rather than to recapitulate; admixed was feedback regarding the laborious personal experience of the prior week.

      THIRD, I noted the aforementioned DoS and UJS [PACfile] limits in face of an accelerated time-frame (e.g., learning of an order after its ability to be satisfied had chronologically passed); I noted the appropriate parties had been provided feedback, including also the judge’s staff, to whatever degree they might wish to implement it.

      SECOND, I noted that – when testifying in MedMal delayed-diagnosis suits – defense-attorneys had often attempted to shave-away the time frame [often from both ends]; emphasized here was the absoluteness of the date of starting the term-of-office per the Constitution, notwithstanding whatever the election date might have been.

      FIRST, I expanded upon the metaphor presented by Mr. Voss that – invoking “reductio ad absurdum” – someone who may be as young as 26-years-old may hold government in abeyance for years until able to assume office [perhaps even younger?]; the candidate’s brother/representative didn’t have the ability to refute this reality-based concern.

      Then, after colloquy, during which admitted that the original intent/meaning of the Constitution’s Framers hadn’t been supportive of his viewpoint [but he felt the phraseology could be morphed into what he considered desirable], I discounted his intent to encourage judicial-activism [regardless of whether the model employed was Sclalia’s/Thomas’s], surely a grievous suggestion from a rule-of-law Republican.

      Finally, I noted the candidate’s representative having invoked Section 17 could actually work in his favor for a reason that hadn’t been articulated; the only contentious moment arose when he interrupted me, claiming I was raising a hypothetical that hadn’t been tethered to his comments.

      The Judge [Brobson] interrupted him, noting that I was citing a concern he had explicitly raised and that he appreciated the potential loop-hole that I had ID’ed, to wit, that automatic succession in the event of a vacancy could be effectuated by Senate Pro-Tem Scarnati, even if he had not yet turned 30-years-old.

      Following his rude-disruption of the conversational flow and noting that the judge appreciated my point, the Hearing was terminated, I followed the wind back to the parking garage adjoining the Insurance Department, and returned to my office in-time to testify in the early-p.m.

      It is anticipated that an appropriate Order will issue imminently, notwithstanding the noise generated by the candidate’s representative; such a manifestation of raw-ambition [ignoring competence] should not be rewarded [although, to quote from the denouement of the brief, he only need learn how to “wait”].

    2. Robert B Sklaroff, M.D. says:

      PART II – Summary generated after Oral Argument last Friday in CC:

      In my haste to provide a Friday-p.m. news-“dump” of all key-interactions noted by-memory, it seems I inadvertently buried-the-lede.

      It’s a new day, I slept solidly, and it’s worthwhile to provide full-disclosure regarding the interstices of what should have been a simple-case.

      The candidate’s representative claimed he should be kept on the ballot because he envisions the following scenario will comport with the PA Constitution.

      1. He is duly elected by the populace and is then slated to take-office in mid-January.

      2. He transiently takes-office and is immediately “disabled” due to the age-restriction.

      3. He reverses the age-restriction in mid-March [on his birthday] and is then sworn-in

      This ignores the inability to comport with the Constitution, for he cannot take-office and then render himself inactive [“disabled,” no less].

      This is also c/w my clearly-stated/independently-conjured paradigm, to wit, that his “eligibility” would be assessable as of mid-January.

      This is not inconsistent with the Constitution, noting that Section 14 may merit a constitutional-amendment as to rules-of-succession.

      As inelegant as this argument appears to be when read, it was even viewed more skeptically in real-time by the Judge, as per my interactional observation.

      I must confess that a Harrisburg-politico contacted me personally last night and was provided the aforementioned rendition of the events-of-the-day.

      Without any prodding [and without explanation, for which no request was made], this disinterested-observer expressed his pleasure with what I had done.

      I have not spoken with him/her for 2+ years, although we have communicated via social-media; he has personal experience with my version of forthrightness.

      When the candidate’s representative interrupted me while I was stating an argument that would be favorable to his client/brother, everything that was wrong with this raw expression of personal ambit was starkly revealed for all to witness.

      One additional judicial observation is worth articulating, beating-down another flailing theory that had been floated by an increasingly-desperate candidate’s representative; having noted that felons can be elected if not challenged, it is specious to claim that survival of any unconstitutional politician justifies his effort, for the absence of a challenge is no defense (thereby inter alia validating my filing).

      IMHO

      I guess we’ll find-out Tuesday-p.m. whether brother-Sean sustained his aspiration to challenge within Meehan’s “old” 7th (per DbM reports); judging from observing recent events, he promises to convey the combo of ambition/inexperience/ignorance/faux-moralism/immaturity in the DelCo region that his brother had seemingly patented in the MontCo environs.

      One would hope that they both would pause [after the anticipated judicial Order issues] to take stock CANDIDLY regarding personal politics, lest they burn all bridges outside their bullet-ballot pro-Life base; lotsa people [including all nine SCOTUS justices] view Roe as stare-decisis and, therefore, have strategically redirected energies to enactment of tough safety-oriented state-laws (à la Gosling).

      This may reflect, in the minds of Brothers-Gale, the perennial “social-issues” internal-struggle within the GOP (consciously eschewed by Tea Party Patriots).

      Yet, they may wish to recognize that people such as the [late] former-Congressman Jon David Fox could forge quality interactions without friction among almost all Republicans [although I was arguing almost to the day he died that he should admit he wasn’t sufficiently “conservative,” instead of trying to help everyone…including people who routinely dissed him]; those with gray/balding pates may recall that JDF avidly defended Donna Mengel and Mike McGonagle of North Penn, two decades ago, against slander orchestrated by the Inqy, an effort in which I actively took part.

      One need not be PURELY pro-Life to advocate for MOST pro-Life positions and against PURELY pro-Choice postures, a litmus test that should not be invoked when vetting candidates in lieu of promoting rule-of-law; maintaining this political bond has doomed otherwise creditable campaigns.

      Having complied with all CC-mandates and having hopped-hoops that the CC hadn’t even constructed/anticipated, I have no second-thoughts about what I did, why these energies were expended, its import relative to responsibilities of the citizenry, its unprecedented value in the modern era, its meshing with an independently-composed legal-brief, its having been conveyed via unchallenged oral-argument…and it loco-regional/statewide-implications.

      1. Munchman says:

        I don’t agree with just about any of your political views, but a hardy congratulations for your efforts to uphold the constitution and put that stooge Gale back in his mommy’s basement.

        1. Robert Sklaroff, m.d. says:

          We aims to Please!

        2. Isaac L. says:

          Same here. This is the second time in probably as many months I find myself thinking “Good on ya, Dr. Sklaroff”. What is this world coming to! 🙂

        3. Other Chris says:

          Hear hear!

        4. Robert B Sklaroff, M.D. says:

          to Isaac, gunning for the trifecta; stay tuned…

  6. Former Republican says:

    What makes him so special? Why can’t he just wait a few years or run for something else instead of wasting valuable time and resources. The rules are clearly the rules, why should he be any different?

  7. Same Old Same Old says:

    This is a total embarrassment for Gale. As an educated adult it would mandate that he check basic facts as to what the law is so as to avoid taking up the precious time of our courts to rule on the obvious! This shows a lack of maturity and depth forcing others to do what Gale should have done in the first place–understand the rules!!

  8. Ayooooo!!!! says:

    “Mom, can I go up to my room and play video games since that mean judge wouldn’t let me on the ballot?” -Joe Gale

    1. EvilBobCaseyIV says:

      BAZINGA

  9. Montco Gale Force says:

    As the leader of Montco Gale Force, I must say I’m disappointed that Joey won’t be able to cleanse Harrisburg of all of its sins. Joey, keep up the fight. You will Governor one day and then onto the White House!

    1. Mark says:

      This is definitely Joe’s mom.

      1. Alison says:

        Pretty sure his mom would be happy to see him move to Indian Town Gap.

    2. EvilBobCaseyIV says:

      LOL, I really actually hope this was his mom. Then she walks over to the steps and yells down, “Oh Joeyyyy, looks like you have a supporter on the interwebbbbb!”. No but really, Joe Gale just not a good person. Regardless of his political views, he is just immature, arrogant and simply too dumb to know when to close his mouth for ten seconds.

      1. Psychoanalysis says:

        He’s borderline autistic

        1. EvilBobCaseyIV says:

          I would not ridicule our autistic population by comparing them to the lowly piece of dung that is Joe Gale.

Comments are closed.