Can some one help me understand

OK, so the DNC rule committee met this weekend (yawn)..... Some let me see if I understand this, it is ok to break the rules and not expect any repercussions? Even when you know clearly that you are breaking the rules..... MI and FL Or how about not being responsible for you commitment to remove your name from the ballot and then claiming you won the state - HRC Somehow I am having a little deja vu and see that the DEMS can lose another one!

Radnor Politics

So is this an example of how politics works in Radnor?

Judge rules in Rogers’ favor in 17th Senate race

Republican candidate gets injunction prohibiting opponent from distributing sample ballots.

By Kathleen Carey kcarey@delcotimes.com

MEDIA — Delaware County Court of Common Pleas President Judge Joseph P. Cronin Jr. granted the Republican candidate for the 17th District Lance Rogers a preliminary injunction prohibiting his contender Lisa Paolino from distributing sample ballots. Cronin made his decision Saturday after a two-hour, 12-minute hearing into the issue that will impact Paolino’s ability to hand out ballots on the primary election Tuesday. “The question will come down to the fact whether he’s the endorsed candidate or not,” Cronin said of Rogers. Rogers, the endorsed Republican candidate, was seeking both a preliminary and mandatory injunction barring Paolino, also a Republican, from distributing ballots and Cronin solely ruled on the preliminary matter, which, in effect, stunted her from distributing sample ballots to voters entering the polls. He said the mandatory ruling would have to be decided at a later unscheduled date. At issue was the similarity in the green ballot that Paolino was distributing and the white and blue ballot circulated by the Delaware County Republican Finance Committee. After the judge made his ruling, Guy Paolino, who was representing Lisa Paolino, said, “We respect what the court says.” Rogers’ attorney, Robert Kerns, said, “Overall, both in Montgomery County and here, it was an attempt to deceive the voters and to turn attention from the endorsed candidate.” Rogers said he was disheartened by Lisa Paolino. “That is the ultimate form of deception,” he said. “We want a level playing field. We just want a fair election.” Lisa Paolino was not present at the proceedings. However, her campaign issued a statement that read, “Taking my campaign to court is just another example of a campaign of harassment Lance Rogers has run against me. “If Lance Rogers is so scared of a piece of paper that doesn’t even have his name on it, what kind of backbone will he have to stand up for us in the state senate?” Much of the hearing was devoted to how the county GOP endorses its candidates. Carol Miller, vice chair/secretary and executive director of the Delaware County Republican Party was questioned about the party’s nominating process. She explained that when a majority of a contender’s district lies in another county, the local GOP concurs with the nomination of the majority county. “Generally, the county that holds the majority of precincts, we go by their endorsement process,” she said. Miller gave the example of state Sen. Dominic Pileggi, R-9, of Chester, whose district lies in parts of Chester and Delaware counties. As the bulk of his geography remains in Delaware County, the local GOP makes their nomination in this position and the other counties acknowledge it. Guy Paolino contested that. “Delaware County has no endorsed candidate for this position,” he said, adding there was no election or meeting in Delaware County held to nominate a candidate for this slot. Kerns said the key was the impact the ballot would have on the process. “The issue becomes what is shown to the voters,” he said. “Is this a ballot that is deceptive … that would prevent a fair election?” Friday, a Montgomery County judge issued a similar order to halt Paolino from distributing sample ballots that allegedly confused voters.

Election was closer than you think

Below is a copy of a letter I sent to local papers. The significance is that I lost by two votes. So is this a typical tactic that we should expect from the R's? Note that these facts can be confirmed by anyone. All Public info.

To the residents of Radnor’s Fifth Ward: I would like to present you with some facts concerning the recent election and a Husband Wife who voted in the 5^th Ward.

In the spring, before the Primary, a letter concerning the Act 1 referendum that I had sent to these folks as part of a “Ward-wide” mailing was returned to me as “Undeliverable”. I dutifully noted this fact in my election database. As I was canvassing over the summer and fall I visited the former address of Husband and Wife and confirmed they no longer live at that address, it is now a rental property. This explained why my letter had been returned. I was told by neighbors that they had moved at least two years prior. When I got a copy of the updated voter registration list in the fall, I noted that Husband and Wife were still registered at the old address. This did not surprise me because these lists are notorious for being out dated. However, I was surprised to see that they had voted in the 5^th Ward in the Primary. This warranted further investigation.. First I “Googled” their names and found an address in the Fourth Ward. The telephone directories also give the same Fourth Ward address. Next I looked at the County real estate information on line. The Fifth Ward property is indeed owned by Husband and Wife, however the taxpayer information section lists the Fourth Ward address. Lastly, I confirmed they also own and live at the Fourth Ward address cited for Taxpayer information. Did I mention, one of these folks was a Committee person, not mine?

Armed with this information I instructed my Poll Watcher to challenge Husband and Wife if they came to vote in the Fifth Ward in November. Unfortunately, Husband got past my Watcher during a brief break but Wife did not, and was challenged. The Judge of Elections contacted Media and was told that the individual would be permitted to vote if she signed an affidavit stating that she lived at the Fifth Ward address listed on the voter register. After signing the affidavit, she preceded vote.

So what do you think? The lawyers tell me, “The residency argument is very tricky” In my non-lawyer mind, where you sleep and where your wife and family sleep is where you live, not to mention where the County and US Postal Service think you reside. Maybe this election was even closer than you thought.