Precedent and election challenges

For the legally uninitiated, one of the bedrock components of the American legal system is "stare decisis." It is defined by the 'lectric law library's lexicon as:

STARE DECISIS - Lat. "to stand by that which is decided." The principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts.

However, as noted by the City Paper this week ("Jockeying for position" by Mary Patel, p. 21):

What is interesting is that judges who rule on [candidate's] financial disclosure forms do not appear to follow any precedent, so the rulings are inconsistent.

For example, in 2003, City Council candidate Vernon Anastasio, who was running against Councilman Frank DiCicco in the Democratic primary, was removed because he failed to disclose 2002 income. Common Pleas Court Judge Pamela Pryor Dembe ruled against Anastasio for what appears to be a similar defect to Josephs'. Judge Friedman was on the Commonwealth Court panel that heard Anastasio's appeal and upheld Dembe's ruling. The state Supreme Court agreed.

The high court also ruled that John Braxton, who ran against Alan Butkovitz for city controller in last year's Democratic primary, could not remain on the ballot because he omitted pension and rental income on his financial disclosure statements.

But in 2004, Democratic state Senate candidate James Tayoun Jr. challenged Fumo, claiming he failed to fill out his first candidate's affidavit properly and that on his second attempt to file the affidavit, an aide signed Fumo's name. (The affidavit accompanies the financial disclosure form.) Tayoun lost in the lower courts and in his Supreme Court appeal.

The article also references a challenge to Babette Joseph's financial disclosure form. This is something that really should be standardized.