Williams back on DA ballot

Seth Williams is back on the ballot for district attorney - apparently for good - after a quick ruling yesterday on his appeal by three Commonwealth Court judges.

It took the Court less than two hours to grant Williams' appeal of a March 27 Common Pleas Court ruling removing his name from the May 19 Democratic primary ballot. The court overturned that decision after an hour-long hearing, and it ordered the Board of Elections to reinstate Williams.

"Now we can get back to the full discussion of getting guns off our street and why I'm the best candidate for D.A.," said Williams, whose state-mandated statement of financial interest was successfully challenged by primary opponent Dan McCaffery in the lower court.

"That just shows you how disingenuous the argument of Dan McCaffery is," said Williams,

McCaffery said in a statement that he won't appeal.

"I welcome Seth Williams back to the race, and look forward to debating him on the issues that matter most to voters - fighting crime and corruption," McCaffery said in the release.

"Appealing this ruling would only distract voters at a time when they would be better served focusing on the key differences between Seth's record and mine," McCaffery said.

McCaffery said his intention in challenging Williams' petition was not to bump him from the race but to raise questions about Williams "use of campaign finances for non-campaign purposes."

Common Pleas Judge Allan Tereshko ruled March 27 that Williams failed to report more than $10,000 in expense reimbursement as income and thus should be removed from the ballot.

The Commonwealth Court panel said that recent Supreme Court opinions show that justices want to avoid the trend of candidates being barred from an election due to technical omissions in their statements of financial interest.

McCaffery's attorney, George Bochetto, said the Supreme Court "has not been clear enough about where and when a candidate can amend" petitions.

Williams' attorney, Samuel Stretton, has argued for and against candidates being removed from the ballot for omissions on their financial disclosures, which he called "gotcha" cases.

Thanks to Germantown ward leader Greg Paulmier, disqualifying candidates for technicalities may be a thing of the past.

Paulmier was unsuccessful in his attempt to unseat incumbent City Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller in the 2007 Democratics primary. But with Stretton as his lawyer, he did fight off a challenge to throw him off the ballot.

In Paulmier's case, the Supreme Court ruled that any candidate could go back and correct his financial disclosures as long as they were filed on time and in good faith, Commonwealth Court President Judge Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter said from the bench yesterday.

The judges - President Judge Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter, Johnny J. Butler and Doris A. Smith-Ribner - made their position clear during the 11 a.m. hearing.

"I don't know how we can reach any conclusion other than anything is amendable," Leadbetter said from the bench.

At the time of the Paulmier case, it had become clear that the practice of challenging statements of financial interest on "hypertechnical" issues "was becoming a sport," Stretton argued yesterday.

"The bottom line is, a man with 10,000 signatures, a viable candidate - let the voters decide," Stretton said.