Republican Bob Guzzardi will be on the ballot for Governor.
A Commonwealth Court judge denied the challenge of four voters who had the backing of PA GOP. Below is the decision:
It is ordered that the Petition to Set Aside the Nomination Petition of Robert Guzzardi as a candidate of the Republican Party for the office of Governor filed by Richard W. Stewart, Robert K. Robinson, Richard Tems and Donna M. Cosmello is denied. It is further ordered that each party shall bear their own costs . The chief clerk is ordered to notify the parties hereto and their counsel of this order and also certify a copy hereof to the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
It can be read here, on page 8.
Barring an appeal, Guzzardi will face Governor Tom Corbett in the primary.
“Today’s ruling by Judge Leavitt is a victory for the democratic process and Republican primary voters. It recognizes that candidates like Bob Guzzardi who obtain the required number of petition signatures and meet the spirit of the Election Code’s ballot access requirements should be allowed to serve as a choice for the people in determining who will represent them in government,” Gretchen Coles Sterns, Attorney for Guzzardi for Governor said in a statement following the ruling. “Bob Guzzardi has a vision to create jobs and reform state government, and Republican primary voters want and deserve to hear that vision. I would hope that the Pennsylvania GOP would honor Judge Leavitt’s ruling and embrace the spirit of competition which has always made America greater.”
The Court’s full decision is here:
Loading ...
41 Responses
Notwithstanding the back-and-forth regarding environmentalism, two key-points appeared to be directed @ my prior comments.
#1
Isaac L wrote: “Dr. Sklaroff – a technical note: an argument is only an ad hominem logical fallacy if it’s “you’re wrong because you’re dumb” not “you’re wrong, and you’re also dumb” or even “you’re dumb, and you’re wrong”. You can attack someone all day, and it’s not an ad hominem logical fallacy as long as the personal attacks are not given as proof.” The first reference unearthed on the Internet does not convey the strict-constraint you articulated. [ht tp:/ / literarydevices . net / ad-hominem /].
#2
DD writes [rather than tackling my having ID’ed his hypocrisy regarding the desire to suppress Guzzardi’s candidacy while suppressing Voter-ID]:
“Guzzardi represents the chance to vote for the most foolish person on the ballot, and whose “ideas” of smaller/limited government are little more than anarchy. Guzzardi’s stated positions are proof of idiocy (or at least a fundamental lack of understanding of the role of government). Guzzardi is not out on some noble cause to slay your personal White Whale. He’s just one of those tea-party loons.
“Let’s put some numbers behind Guzzardi’s idiotic positions on taxes:
1) Would he change the state sales tax? (and if so, from 6% to what)
2) Would he change the state income tax? If so, from about 3% to what?
3) Would he tax the Marcellus Shale extractions? If so, at what rate?
4) Would he support using state revenue to boost public school funding in poorer areas of the state to some $xxxxx per child standard? If so please state the $xxxxx number.
5) What percentage of the vote do you think Guzzardi will get in the GOP primary next month?”
I hope Isaac would agree with my characterization of the postures adopted by Guzzardi as “reductio ad absurdum”; regardless, it is clear that his putative candidacy provokes ranting/raving from at least one vocal-Dem. As noted elsewhere, it is indeed desirable for his viewpoints to be fleshed-out via a series of debates with Corbett for, in my view, he would simply reduce government-size to its Constitutional essentials.
I’m happy for Guzzardi and for the democratic process. Choices and competition are good, they strengthen America. Bob may not win, but he’s going to raise uncomfortable issues. That’s part of a healthy political process. Way to go Guzzardi! Use your opportunity wisely.
THE REAL QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE GUZZARDI CANDIDACY: 1. Can Guzzardi attract national SuperPACs in to punish Tom Corbett for abandoning the TeaParty with his gasoline tax? 2. Will Team Corbett be forced to go negative against Bob if Bob can catch the Scott Wagner wave?
David, I get it. You have taken one side without question. You trust their motives because they align with your own. Again, I get it.
I also get that you don’t know what measurements I’m talking about because you have never sought to ask some basic questions that any scientist should ask.
The self proclaimed best climate scientists in the world have developed models that tell us that we’re creating a crisis (ignoring historic variation as your comments do too, I might add). Their models (and if you’ve taken one statistics course you’ll understand this) have confidence intervals for predicted future climate.
Those models have statistically failed. They cannot predict 50, 100 years out if they cannot predict 10. The FACT is, they do not know why their models have failed. Oh, yes, they have hypotheses about why, just like they had failed hypotheses about what the climate SHOULD be today based on the highest CO2 levels. But, to deny that the “scientists” that you trust have any idea about the climate proves that you don’t even read what your side says about the current state of affairs.
Unsanctioned R-
You are demonstrating yourself to be Uneducated R.
I don’t know what imaginary measurements you are referring to. However the authoritative measurements back up the existence and growth of climate change. NASA and weather satellites as well as ground measurements paint the same picture: it’s getting warmer at an unnatural pace. The unnatural cause is primarily man-made activity.
We’ve got ice core samples going back decades, centuries, millennium and further (including trapped air bubbles where we can measure levels of carbon-dioxide).
We also have centuries of botanists and farmers recording the date and locations of flower blooms. These records show a migration of warmer-weather plants to higher latitudes and changes to the starts of growth seasons.
Since my degrees are in Physics, Math and Computers, I trust the measurements of the professional, peer-reviewed, scientists as well as the computer modeling and math analysis of the results.
It’s getting warmer and the deniers are getting dumber (and more desperate). Part of the problem with the deniers (beyond lack of science education) is that they are fed anti-science propaganda from the oil/gas/coal industries and leverage the anti-science religious extremist to aid them.
DD, you wouldn’t understand science if it bit you.
Isaac, you obviously have no idea what you’re talking about.
Climate “scientists” models have been shown false by…wait for it…MEASUREMENT.
Europeans know this, it survives because just a few knuckle draggers on this continent pump opinion for political reasons and because they don’t want to turn off the research spigot.
You’re on the wrong side of history fellas. But, I’ll be democratic and still allow you to educate your own progeny…unlike David.
Unsanctioned R-
The idiots denying global warming are mostly the same young-Earth Creationists denying basic science (evolution, geology, astronomy, medicine, etc)
fred douglass-
Guzzardi represents the chance to vote for the most foolish person on the ballot, and whose “ideas” of smaller/limited government are little more than anarchy.
Isaac-
Guzzardi’s stated positions are proof of idiocy (or at least a fundamental lack of understanding of the role of government).
PAINDY-
Guzzardi is not out on some noble cause to slay your personal White Whale. He’s just one of those tea-party loons.
Sancho-
Let’s put some numbers behind Guzzardi’s idiotic positions on taxes:
1) Would he change the state sales tax? (and if so, from 6% to what)
2) Would he change the state income tax? If so, from about 3% to what?
3) Would he tax the Marcellus Shale extractions? If so, at what rate?
4) Would he support using state revenue to boost public school funding in poorer areas of the state to some $xxxxx per child standard? If so please state the $xxxxx number.
5) What percentage of the vote do you think Guzzardi will get in the GOP primary next month?
Unsanctioned R – no belief required; we accept the science. Scientists are more certain that climate change is primarily human-caused than they are that cigarettes are bad for your health and vitamins are good for it. Perhaps you should take up a couple pack a day habit? After all, four out of five doctors smoke Camels.
Dr. Sklaroff – a technical note: an argument is only an ad hominem logical fallacy if it’s “you’re wrong because you’re dumb” not “you’re wrong, and you’re also dumb” or even “you’re dumb, and you’re wrong”. You can attack someone all day, and it’s not an ad hominem logical fallacy as long as the personal attacks are not given as proof.
Mr. Guzzardi indeed represents a choice, not an echo; an independent mind, not another face of the collective political class; a bridge over the swamps of Harrisburg, not a path further into the morass of self-dealing cronies. The notion of his candidacy offends the self-serving, self-interested of both parties … two parties, one master. We the people can break the chains of servitude. Action is the plain duty of this hour.
DD–the nearly half of parents who believe in man-made global warming crisis are not qualified to educate their children either. Oh wait, that’s a fascist belief.
We need to spend more money per pupil?
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
I am an active commenter on this blog. What is apparent is how little energy there is from TEAM CORBETT AND ACTING GOVERNOR BRABENDER, touting the achievements of Team Corbett or calling him the best Governor ever. My God: Can’t we go even through the pretenses of a campaign and show all those gullible GOP and Corbett donors, all you got? Can’t you get your faces out of the feeding through and take even a momentary break from committing political necrophilia to defend your Boss, the greatest Governor ever?? Please wait until election eve to count your money!!!
Bob Guzzardi: Ride the Scott Wagner wave!!! http://trib.me/1p1p3Sk
Bob Guzzardi wants to know where he can find outrage, the kind that provoked the 69-year-old lawyer into a primary challenge against his party’s choice …
@ dd:
ya know, with all your nitpicking, even after [one would hope] having vetted my instant-analysis…
http:/
/www.scribd.com/doc/213498387/
Action-Items-LXXIII-Yom-Knisa-Guzzardi
…one would think you would abhor efforts [that you hypocritically promulgate] to nitpick so as to suppress the “voting”-rights of the electorate [via a petition].
@ dd:
Not only do you perseverate by failing to even try to comprehend [Guzzardi is not talking about how much “good” is related to the expenditure of tax-$ in that instance, although he has certatinly argued for decreasing largess elsewhere], but you exhibit hyperbolic-thought [Guzzardi is not denegrating the history of public education when he advocates for school-choice].
Such commentary may advance your perceived-cause among Dem-bloggers, but it falls flat when an independent mind tries to fathom your theme…allowing for enhanced appreciation for what Guzzardi is attempting to convey.
Sancho-
No confusion. Bob’s statement (and its idiocy) were crystal clear.
People don’t individually spend for roads/bridges. Taxes have been around for centuries for the government to gather money collectively to spend on governance and the common good.
People can vote for elected officials and the occasional referendum, but taxes are the way it’s done, and they don’t diminish freedom.
As for education: “Parents know better what is best for their children, than government bureaucrats.”
That’s pretty wrong too. The public school system has made this country great (though many school system could be run better and many more need better funding). Nearly half the adults in this country believe in Creationism (and that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old). Anyone believing the Earth is less than 4 billion years old is not qualified on how to educate their children.
@ DD
He is correct, for you obfuscate by confusing the acquisition of the monies vs. their appropriation.
Sancho-
The only larger context is that putting Bob on the ballot doesn’t make any actual difference in any outcomes.
As for Bob’s website, he starts off with: “Every tax diminishes individual freedom and individual autonomy and the ability to spend your own money the way you think best.”
Really, every tax? Who pays for the roads and bridges? Schools? Medical research? Vaccination programs? FCC? EPA? FEMA? Police? Fire Dept? Health dept? Inspections? Code enforcement?
Bob’s a fool.
@ DD
You are engaging in recidivism, both in thought and delivery; for example, as previously detailed, the judge did not ignore expert-input because, instead she perceived it properly within a larger context.
Therefore, you would be advised to redirect your energies towards tackling the volumes of writings on Guzzardi’s websites…and then articulating where you feel he has erred.
Robert-
You got a lucky pick of a judge who ignored the advice of expert witness regarding matching hands filling out addresses, and overlooked other irregularities.
Frankly, I’m quite shocked that Guzzardi and you are still tilting at windmills like the addled Don Quixote and his sidekick Sancho Panza. I think I may call you, Sancho, for the remainder of the campaign.
Un sot trouve toujours un plus sot qui l’admire.
(Translation: A fool always finds one still more foolish to admire him.)
or
“Who is the greater fool, the fool or the fool who follows him.”
— Obi-Wan Kenobi to Han Solo, in Star Wars.
But, Sancho, please go on prattling about all the Republicans who are going to rise up and embrace Guzzardi. It’s quite amusing.
@ DD:
You fail to appreciate the distinction between a modern and classical “lib”…which isn’t surprising, inasmuch as you can’t suppress your aloofness…and lack of desire to learn how others might perceive good-government.
Therefore, with your credibility shredded, it’s not surprising that you would issue negative predictions regarding the potential for editorialists to support holding a series of debates between the two gubernatorial candidates; ad-hominem characterizations [from you or anyone else] will no longer suffice when attempting to diss what Guzzardi has accomplished.
You have demoted your critique of the petitions [which withstood challenge because they reflect the will of the people] from frank challenge [because you noted only 7 were confirmed of 100+ initially] to glitches about which circulators are warned; this strategic retreat did not go unnoticed.
Robert-
You and Bob are, simply put: A couple of foolish ideological tea-party cranks
So, I don’t take Bob’s candidacy (or his political ideas) very seriously. There’s a bit of Schadenfreude (pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others) that Bob is going to cause Corbett some minor irritation. I don’t really care either way whether Bob’s on the ballot. It’s not like I’d ever be voting for him.
I doubt the statewide journalists (or their editors) would waste much ink on Corbett refusing to take Bob seriously. There wasn’t an outcry from them when Litz was left out of some Dem debates. Even if there were a debate, two empty chairs would be a more informative pairing that having Guzzardi and Corbett espouse their views on governance.
The petition pages I saw looked like amateur hour. The defects I observed matched problems election lawyers have been warning us against for years during petition season. Some of them pretty glaring. You lucked out with a lenient judge.
BTW, you keep failing to get the pun about “liberal” being a joke because Bob is such a “conservative” and how they treat “liberal” as a curse word tied to Democrats. Are you self-prescribing too many meds?
The “guest” who is a Corbett-supporter and who welcomes the Guzzardi-challenge should please convey those thoughts to Gleason BEFORE they file the appeal; the prediction of the “Bucks Barrister” regarding an ultimate decision by the Supremes would thereby become mooted.
DD indeed has a difficult time admitting error for, if nothing else, he has failed to match the line-by-line analysis to which he could easily hyperlink…and then truly test his claim that the judge [“she”…not “he”] had been too “liberal.”
Also, DD, you may wish that Guzzardi would “loose” the challenge, but wouldn’t you rather he “lose” the challenge? And, DD, you fail to state where–after having taken into account my exposition–you still feel the judge had been “lax.”
You essentially predict Corbett will dodge Guzzardi, but don’t you think statewide editorialists of all political stripes would descend upon him for such crass evasion?
You may recall that an unsolicited national pollster essentially defined a 40-30-20 split when few people even knew Guzzardi’s name [40+ for Corbett, 30+ for Undecided, 20+ for Guzzardi]; one would think that another poll would be done by anyone else [including F&M] for, if nothing else, comparison purposes.
I am a Corbett supporter. I think Guzzardi on the ballot is good for Corbett. We Republicans can work through our disappointments in the primary and unify for the general. Keeping disappointments bottled up in a cauldron until the fall is a bad idea. My two cents.
IT AIN’T OVER UNTIL THE SUPREME COURT SINGS
Robert-
You clearly have no sense of humor about my joke about expecting an allergic reaction from Bob regarding “liberal” interpretations.
The thrown-out sig I was referring to was the one with street number address of 314 vs 26. It was just as I called it. I looked at only a few pages, and suggested that if the poor quality I found was representative that Bob should loose the challenge.
I give the judge points for taking into consideration haste or a trembling hand, but it seems like he was a little bit lax in other areas. Sounds like you got a lucky pick for a judge.
Corbett is going to dodge Bob for the month until the election, and pretend like he’s running unopposed. The Dems may tease Corbett a bit, especially if Bob gets double-digits.
Will any pollster even bother to waste time/money on GOP primary?
Bob has every right to run, but let’s face it, he’s going nowhere.
@ DD:
One more point is in-order; after scrupulous review [and assuredly encompassing the nit-picking exhibited by yourself in multiple-entries @ this website], only 7 [SEVEN] signature challenges were upheld [as per the summary @ the bottom of page 16 of the Opinion], and it should be realized that this occurred AFTER multiple stipulations had [properly] narrowed the number of strike-claims to be weighed.
And, lest we forget, the “reach” of challenging the occupational-statement was brushed-off, particularly when it was based solely on a lone-minority opinion of an unpublished decision; thus, Corbett and the state-GOP thoroughly embarrassed themselves, for anyone could have performed a cursory exam @ the level I briskly performed [and uploaded contemporaneously, subjecting it to the sharks on this site].
Corbett is obligated to honor Guzzardi’s achievement by engaging in a series of debates with him…starting ASAP…for he will otherwise be tagged with the charge that he is “hiding under his desk” [quoting O’Reilly’s oft’-invoked refrain].
I see, now, that my prior comment “awaits moderation,” despite efforts to chop-up the hyperlinks.
Therefore, because [if nothing else] my subsequent input is predicated on the reader’s having read the analysis, it will be reprinted…minus ALL hyperlinks.
****
It is necessary to recognize the fact that this Decision/Order/Opinion will not be appealed.
It comports with precision to points made herein [by myself] after having performed a line-by-line petition review, comparing the challenge…
*
…with the database…
*
…and uploading “color commentary” on PoliticsPA…
*
…and defending all comers [including DD] when challenged.
****
One example of how the “all-nighter” analysis was justified may be gleaned from how the husband/wife pairings were honored, even as one spouse sometimes completed the address-info for both parties; when Corbett’s crew [including, sadly, Richard Tems…who will receive an earful if/when he ever shows his portly face @ a future RJC meeting] sought to strike both, it was felt that one would be immune [because it had been completed] and the other would be validated [by signature-comparison]. THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT OCCURRED.
In addition, the minor address-changes were indeed subject to amendment, for the judge properly allowed liberal interpretation to trump constraints Corbett’s Crew wished to impose; the same is true when the judge used almost the identical lingo as had been conjured previously [by a physician lacking legal training, but basing discussion on experience and logic] regarding the $-filing; the legislative intent had been satisfied.
It is also reassuring to note that the immediate feedback provided to the DoS officials mirrored the procedural glitches that were subsequently legally validated and that, presumably, will be upgraded apace; thus, EVERYTHING independently concluded within 24-hours of the filing of the challenge and EVERYTHING conveyed in-detail to the DoS [intended solely to ID observed-problems] was VALIDATED by this ruling.
Naysayers…ALL of you…should now turn-the-page and note Guzzardi’s ability to roll-out a quality-campaign; in my view, this should start with an immediate scheduling of a series of debates, for the incumbent has a lot he needs to justify to his own party, before he does battle with the hungry-Dems.
@ DD:
I wrote my above-comment before having read yours, but your effort to rehab your blithe attack falls flat; you were in the process of rejecting signatures wholesale, while I was demonstrating that good-faith effort should be aptly rewarded.
Just noting my excerpt from prior back-and-forth, recall how you would have struck both husband/wife, whereas I would honor both…but ended-up generating calculations that would split-the-difference; even when bending-over to accommodate Corbett’s Crew, he STILL had more-than-enough in Dauphin to accompany DelCo, yielding the requisite 10 counties.
In fact, at the end of the day, all four counties were validated–recalling that an aggressive judge would only have discarded Cumberland–and, thus, your suggestion that Leavitt was too “liberal” also fails; also know that Guzzardi is a CLASSICAL “liberal” [as opposed to the faulty MODERN variety] and, thus, would not deign to appeal his richly-deserved victory.
You may wish to reconsider issuing all the ad-hominem attacks on Guzzardi and, instead, you may wish to eat-crow [publicly, in-writing, in a follow-up comment, for posterity]; the process will provide grounding for future self-discipline when unjustifiably tempted to attack forthright individuals…such as Guzzardi…who admits he isn’t perfect, but whose heart is where yours SHOULD be [and could aspire to be relocated to be, were a burst of humility to emerge]…namely, “in the right place.”
You may also wish to artificially-sweeten the sour-grapes you have consumed, for the judge did honor the input of the handwriting expert; it’s not her fault [nor Guzzardi’s] that she actually didn’t compare all signatures and, thus, self-impugned her input.
It is necessary to recognize the fact that this Decision/Order/Opinion will not be appealed.
It comports with precision to points made herein [by myself] after having performed a line-by-line petition review, comparing the challenge…
http://www.scribd.com/
doc/213486049/
Guzzardi-Petition-Challenge-c-o-Corbett
…with the database…
http://
http://www.scribd.com/doc/213498387/
Action-Items-LXXIII-Yom-Knisa-Guzzardi
…and uploading “color commentary” on PoliticsPA…
http:/
/www.politicspa.com/
pa-gov-guzzardi-faces-petition-challenge/56185/
…and defending all comers [including DD] when challenged.
*
One example of how the “all-nighter” analysis was justified may be gleaned from how the husband/wife pairings were honored, even as one spouse sometimes completed the address-info for both parties; when Corbett’s crew [including, sadly, Richard Tems…who will receive an earful if/when he ever shows his portly face @ a future RJC meeting] sought to strike both, it was felt that one would be immune [because it had been completed] and the other would be validated [by signature-comparison]. THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT OCCURRED.
In addition, the minor address-changes were indeed subject to amendment, for the judge properly allowed liberal interpretation to trump constraints Corbett’s Crew wished to impose; the same is true when the judge used almost the identical lingo as had been conjured previously [by a physician lacking legal training, but basing discussion on experience and logic] regarding the $-filing; the legislative intent had been satisfied.
It is also reassuring to note that the immediate feedback provided to the DoS officials mirrored the procedural glitches that were subsequently legally validated and that, presumably, will be upgraded apace; thus, EVERYTHING independently concluded within 24-hours of the filing of the challenge and EVERYTHING conveyed in-detail to the DoS [intended solely to ID observed-problems] was VALIDATED by this ruling.
Naysayers…ALL of you…should now turn-the-page and note Guzzardi’s ability to roll-out a quality-campaign; in my view, this should start with an immediate scheduling of a series of debates, for the incumbent has a lot he needs to justify to his own party, before he does battle with the hungry-Dems.
After reading much of the court decision, I’m surprised that Bob Guzzardi didn’t object to the Judge’s ruling in his favor, because the judge wrote:
“the Pennsylvania Election Code is to be liberally construed”
I thought Bob was opposed to liberal-anything. 🙂
BTW, I noticed at least one of the petition errors I noticed last month was declared an invalid signature by the judge.
It looks like Bob skated by on the signatures, as the judge overruled claims by the document expert that several addresses were written by the same hand. It seems as though the judge barely paid any attention to “expert” testimony. It seems like a lot of signatures needed “rehabilitation” by affidavits (information not available to anyone seeing the original scans).
I think if there had been a stricter judge, Bob would have been thrown off the ballot.
As for the expenditures, yes, I was commenting on how much team Corbett blew on this with nothing to show.
I don’t expect Corbett to debate Bob, though I wouldn’t be shocked to see Bob show up at a Gov debate/forum for all candidates Corbett was invited to (he always declines).
While the appearance of Bob on the ballot is unpleasant for Corbett, it’s not going to make any difference in the outcome. The only downside is that people listening to how crazy Bob’s positions are, they might think Corbett is not so bad. 🙂
PAINDY is wrong. This is the M.O. of PAGOP. The goal isn’t always to win, it’s a signal to future candidates that if you’re not favored, this is what to expect.
@David Diano, that’s the norm. It’s called the American Rule for a reason.
Don’t fret about Gov Crooked. His sponsors will pick up the tab. They pay him directly in lieu of taxes.
@PAINDY and @melvin johnson:
I don’t even like Corbett that much, but he is going to win the primary by about 80% to 20%. Guzzardi strikes the average voter (even the average Republican voter) as completely whacky. You guys need to get off the blogs and get a clue.
Congrats to Bob!
@Paindy–I’m pretty sure @David’s question was rhetorical: we’re all aware it probably cost Tom Corbett, et al “lots.” However there is a HUGE difference between Guzzardi and S. Wagner, mostly in terms of dollars and cents. Wagner was willing to spend $415,000, much if it his own, on a State Senate special election, or about $41.50 per vote. Not exactly the grassroots triumph of David over Goliath you’re making it out to be.
Paindy is right! What kind of people are we anyhow?
Mr. Guzzardi has a place on the ballot and perhaps .. a place in the annals of history? Will he prove to be a ninja-like candidate able to strike with precision and economy of motion against the lumbering behemoth of the Harrisburg consultant machine? This victory proves that the arc of the universe is long but that it bends towards justice.
Dear Mr. Diano: The Corbett Team spent LOTS on this hair-brained challenge. The Corbett team continues to commit the very mortal sin of political necrophilia. Isn’t it embarrassing to watch?
This is a great day for democracy in PA and blow to Rob Gleason, his high-priced lawyers and the Consulting Class that want to run our state for another 4 years. Bob Guzzardi ride the Scott Wagner wave. Bob: lead the Spartans of the GRASSROOTS to victory in May. “No retreat; no surrender. That is Spartan law!” http://youtu.be/CNQlwYQGEec
” It is further ordered that each party shall bear their own costs.”
I’d love to know how much Corbett’s side spent on this.
Perhaps after Mr. Guzzardi’s government service has ended, he can open a consulting firm to show first time candidates how to gain access to the ballot. Jay Paterno can be his first client!