Philadelphia City Commissioner Stephanie Singer needed 1,000 signatures from registered Democrats in the city to get stay on the primary election ballot.
According to Charles Goodwin, Singer’s lawyer said Common Pleas Court Judge Joel Johnson deferred on an order to remove Singer from the ballot, giving her time to file last-minute motions to try to save her campaign.
Singer reportedly wants to challenge the work of a handwriting expert used in the hearing. However, Richard Hoy, the lawyer of three Democrats who challenged Singer’s petition says that Singer tried to hire the same handwriting expert before learning he was working for the three challenging Democrats.
Hoy, who said that Goodwin has until Monday to file a motion, also challenged 1,124 of Singer’s initial 1,485 signatures to get on the ballot. He also questioned the address and party affiliations listed on the petition.
Despite the controversy, Goodwin believes “that once everything is said and done, Commissioner Singer will be on the ballot this spring.”
Hoy, of course, disagrees: “She lost because she lost…No one else did it. She put together one of the worst sets of petitions I have ever seen.”
Loading ...
55 Responses
schmidt did not support the GOP narrative, that’s just false. Even if he did, he IS a Republican. His report was fair, and you claiming these to be minor problems does not make them so. The fact that the ethics violations by your favorite democrats don’t matter to you, but the possibility that someone may have gotten a position that pays $50 per month partially out of gratitude for not calling their biggest supporter a liar in public is a huge deal just shows how unhinged you are.
If you can give me one statement where Schmidt says “There is widespread voter fraud in Philadelphia”, you might have a point. It’s Gleason’s job to distort things to fit his narrative, just like you.
PhillySteve-
If he had any integrity, he not only would have clearly corrected Gleason, but he wouldn’t have been so misleading about the implications of his report.
The reporter said that Schmidt’s report did NOT support the theory that there was widespread voter fraud. The cases listed amounted to minor problems, and were from a non-random sample of flagged districts. So, extrapolating the results to claim hundreds of more cases was intellectually dishonest. So, there was no need to call a press conference and act like he’d found Jimmy Hoffa.
The reporter said that Schmidt’s report was consistent with the impression that there wasn’t a major problem. This is the opposite of the impression Schmidt tried to give in support of the false GOP narrative.
If you think the reporter agrees with you, then you didn’t understand the article.
If you think Schmidt’s appointment wasn’t a quid pro quo, you should brush up on your Latin.
Schmidt’s not going to call Rob Gleason a liar in public any more than you are going to say the same of Obama. Davies agrees with me, not you.
http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/off-mic/item/41768
Davies, a liberal, says what I am saying. Schmidt’s report is right and fair, the State party took it and ran with it anyway. As far as you saying it’s not fraud, Schmidt didn’t call it fraud either, he called it irregularities. Perhaps he’s a bit smarter than you.
And, here is some more reporting on how the report was misleading, and used by Rob Gleason for fundraising.
The reporter called Schmidt and asked him six different times if Gleason’s statements were accurate (they weren’t) but Schmidt never directly answered the question (as opposed to clearing the matter up).
http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/off-mic/41768-truth-lies-and-vote-fraud-in-philadelphia