Posted by not really on May 13, 2007 at 12:35:34 (EST):
In Reply to: Still... Goin' with Owen posted by Randy Cloak on May 13, 2007 at 11:50:22 (EST):
: You raise an interesting point... Anonymous, but still interesting.
: We knew from the beginning of the unnecessary challenge to the petitions that Jamie had complied with requirements of election law. The entire challenge was an attempt to remove him from the ballot so he wouldnt have to be faced at the polls. Cowardice.
: Because of Jamie's current position, he is required to file annual ethics statements with the Supreme Court. These reports are the same as the Ethics Statements. Both the Commonwelath Court and the Supreme Court agreed.
: In continuing with this reply, I will also address the post which criticizes Jamie for running because of his currently being a MDJ.
: If the worst criticism of a candidate is his experience, that is great! If we want credible individuals to seek higher office, then it is inconceivable to recognize the bashing of such individuals when they choose to run.
: With some of the posts I have read here that attack people personally, I truly understand why we lack individuals on the ballot to fill many local positions.
: In this case, Experience Counts!
: Still... Goin' with Owen!
: rrc
That explanation is incomplete and misleading. The fact is that Jamie didn't "comply" with the law. He took advantage of a loophole in the law that was unclear and confusing. The court cleared that up and said in the future, judges running for judge would have to file the same form and the same way as everyone else, as it should be. The court gave Jamie a pass because of the confusion.
That's probably in the end the correct outcome, but it goes without saying that all candidates for an office should have to play by the same rules. The fact that Jamie thought he was "above" filing the same way that everyone else says all that needs to be said.