If you have, you know the drill. (You pretty much can repeat it in your sleep.)
1) You caution folks that their signature has to be legible (don't sign it like you'd sign for your debit/credit card).
2) You give them the right date to enter (because you don't want, say, signatures dated 2/11/09, then one after those signed 2/10/09, then others following with 2/12/09 -- got's to be chronological order).
3) And, you tell them to write out "Pittsburgh" even though there's not a lot of room. If they screw up and write "PGH" you let them know that it leaves an opening for some douchenozzle to waste time and money on a challenge, but ultimately their entry won't be thrown out on that basis alone (mostly I believe because the US Postal Service accepts that as an abbreviation).
So what do we know about the challenge of Franco Dok Harris' petitions from "lawyers tied to the campaign of another independent mayoral candidate, Kevin Acklin"?
Well, first we know that the Acklin campaign put out a telephone conference for the media, a downloadable, colorful 11-page .pdf, and a follow up summary email all disputing Harris' right to be on the ballot the morning of the court challenge.
We know that Harris won the court challenge.
And, we know that 'the challenge included questions about voters who failed to spell out “Pittsburgh” and wrote “PGH” on the petition' (according to the Harris campaign).
I'm surprised that
Was it worth it?
Thankfully, we seem to be back on track today with both Harris and Acklin calling for debates and Lil Mayor Luke -- as expected -- not responding.