BillLawrenceOnline

Charlie Alexander’s Case In Commonwealth Court — Greg Stenstrom’s article describing the state of Charlie Alexander’s crusade through the courts is below.

Charlie was kicked off the May 20 GOP primary ballot for County Council in Delaware County, Pa., after the party challenged his filing.

This was after he gathered 1,500 signatures which was six times the number needed.

The challenge was based on an improper filing of his financials. Charlie was not trying to hide anything. His disqualification was due to an easily correctable technicality.

We have made many of the the same points as Greg does in his article.

Pennsylvania’s ballot access laws are vague and complex on purpose. They are designed to disadvantage candidates who don’t meet establishment approval.

Change is needed.

Frankly, becoming an open primary state would not be a bad idea.

Yes, Charlie should be on the ballot.

Some are demanding to know Charlie’s specific sin.

Charlie attached his financial interest form to his petitions but failed to file it with the Delaware County clerk. This is an easily correctable mistake. He was obviously not trying to hide anything.

By Greg Stenstrom

In a sweeping challenge to what he calls “an abuse of election law and partisan weaponization of the courts,” Republican County Council candidate Charles E. Alexander filed a comprehensive appeal this week to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania to overturn his unlawful removal from the May 2025 Primary Ballot and expose a systemic pattern of candidate suppression by political operatives in both the GOP and Democratic Party. His case, 386 CD 2025, now serves as the lead case exposing a systemic pattern of partisan interference and candidate suppression across Southeastern Pennsylvania.

“This case is about every American’s right to run for office and provide honest public service without the self-serving interference of party insiders and their misuse of the courts to decide elections before voters can,” said Alexander.

The filings allege that political attorneys representing both Republican and Democratic interests have coordinated to remove non-endorsed and grassroots candidates, exploiting minor technicalities and court procedures to disqualify candidates without due process.

Pattern of Suppression and Judicial Misconduct

Between March 18 and March 21, 2025, Delaware County Judge George A. Pagano issued orders removing Alexander from the ballot based on trivial paperwork defects in his Statement of Financial Interests. The petition was filed by attorneys closely aligned with party leadership, at the last possible moment before the challenge deadline, without notice or opportunity for Alexander to respond meaningfully. Judge Pagano ruled without providing factual findings, or a written opinion — contrary to established due process requirements.

Over 50 candidates in Delaware and Montgomery Counties have been similarly removed from ballots over the past two weeks, many without hearings, opinions, or procedural safeguards.

Alexander’s filings further reveal that political operatives and county solicitors appear to have solicited private petitioners as proxies to file last-minute challenges in coordination with party leaders, weaponizing the courts to control who appears on local ballots.

Emergency Appeal and Demand for Judicial Accountability

Alexander’s appeal demands that the Commonwealth Court:

1. Vacate the trial court’s orders and restore Alexander to the ballot immediately.

2. Issue a precedential opinion prohibiting candidate removals without written findings and hearings.

3. Investigate and disclose the partisan coordination behind these filings.

The appeal is supported by over two dozen filings, including Judicial Notices documenting that the same pattern of removals occurred in Montgomery County, where 42 candidates were struck from ballots under similar circumstances.

Alexander is being assisted by Gregory Stenstrom, a forensic computer scientist and elections integrity advocate who has been litigating and exposing election misconduct in Pennsylvania for four years.

“We are documenting a deliberate, systemic effort to suppress political competition through procedural trickery and misuse of the courts. If the courts refuse to protect constitutional rights, we will continue this fight to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and federal courts,” said Stenstrom.

Documented Pattern of Candidate Suppression and Key Findings from Court Filings:

Alexander’s filings include detailed Judicial Notices revealing:

• In Delaware County, 12 ballot objection cases were filed between March 13–25, 2025. 10 candidates were removed, 1 withdrew, 1 prevailed. Judges Pagano and Whelan presided over all cases.

• In Montgomery County, 42 separate objection cases were filed between March 18–27, 2025. 100% of challenged candidates were removed. Every case was decided by President Judge Carolyn Carluccio.

• In both counties, all removed candidates were non-endorsed, grassroots, or outsider candidates. Not a single endorsed party candidate was removed.

• The objections were filed by a small circle of politically connected attorneys closely affiliated with county committees and party leadership.

“These are not isolated technical errors,” said Stenstrom. “They are deliberate, coordinated efforts to keep political outsiders off the ballot and deny voters a choice.”

Public Access to Court Filings

All filings, Judicial Notices, and supporting documents are available for public review at:

https://cloud.patriot.online/s/XWsqXCQjfenjDKx

Judicial Notices on Systemic Candidate Removals:

• Delaware County:

https://cloud.patriot.online/s/jtpnaMXA43yY4TP

• Montgomery County:

https://cloud.patriot.online/s/2KK5d6srn29GFFk

The case underscores the urgent need for transparency and accountability in Pennsylvania’s candidate qualification process. Members of the public, journalists, and elected officials are encouraged to review the filings and demand answers as to why courts and county officials are participating in systematic exclusion of candidates without meaningful public notice, process, or justification.