Intelligence. Accountability. Analysis.
Est. 2022 · Washington, D.C.
The Congressional Times
We follow the data, not the narrative
◆ Live Intelligence
Loading...
Analysis Loading today's analysis...
Politics

Pennsylvania Court Removes Green Party Candidate From PA-07 Ballot

Pennsylvania Court Removes Green Party Candidate From PA-07 Ballot

A ruling based on voter registration history and primary voting records illustrates how ballot-access litigation is being used to challenge third-party candidacies on grounds of partisan affiliation.

Gab-E Intelligence Platform · September 5, 2026

A Pennsylvania state court judge ruled Friday that Green Party candidate Andrew Tupone must be removed from the November ballot in Pennsylvania's 7th Congressional District, citing evidence that Tupone was registered as a Republican for multiple years and regularly voted in Republican primaries, according to the Washington Examiner.

The ruling came after the Pennsylvania Green Party filed suit against Tupone, alleging he was a "spoiler candidate" recruited to draw progressive votes away from the Democratic nominee, Bob Brooks, and toward splitting the electorate in a race against incumbent Republican Rep. Ryan Mackenzie (R-PA). The suit's core evidence was drawn from Pennsylvania's public voter registration records, which showed Tupone's enrollment history and primary participation.

Pennsylvania's 7th Congressional District, which covers portions of the Lehigh Valley, was represented by Mackenzie after redistricting reshuffled competitive seats across the state. The district has been rated as a competitive seat in multiple independent forecasting analyses heading into the 2026 midterm cycle.

The legal mechanism used in this case centers on Pennsylvania election law, which allows courts to review candidate petitions and disqualify individuals whose ballot access filings do not conform to legal requirements or who are shown to be acting in bad faith under state election statutes. The specific statute invoked was not detailed in the available reporting; the full court filing would identify the operative legal standard applied by the judge.

Tupone's voter registration history, as reflected in Pennsylvania's publicly searchable voter rolls, formed the evidentiary basis for the court's finding. The records showed consistent Republican primary voting over a period of years prior to his Green Party petition filing. The court's written opinion, which would specify the exact number of Republican primaries in which Tupone participated and the dates of his party registration changes, was not available in full at the time of publication.

The Pennsylvania Green Party's decision to bring the lawsuit against a candidate running under its own banner is notable. Third-party organizations typically defend ballot access rather than challenge it. In this instance, the state party argued that Tupone's candidacy did not represent a genuine Green Party effort and instead functioned as a tactical electoral instrument benefiting Republican electoral interests by fragmenting the non-Republican vote.

Similar ballot-access disputes have arisen in other states in recent election cycles. In 2022 and 2024, courts in several states examined whether third-party candidates had been organized or funded by operatives affiliated with the opposing major party. In Pennsylvania specifically, courts have previously allowed challenges to petition signatures and candidate qualifications under the state's Election Code, Title 25 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes.

Tupone had not publicly responded to the ruling as of the time this story was published, based on available reporting. Whether he intends to appeal the decision to a higher Pennsylvania court is unknown. An appeal, if filed, would appear in the Pennsylvania Superior Court docket, which is publicly searchable.

The Democratic nominee, Bob Brooks, and incumbent Rep. Ryan Mackenzie's campaign had not issued public statements on the court ruling in the available source material.

On the campaign finance side, it is not yet known whether any filings with the Federal Election Commission reflect expenditures or contributions connected to Tupone's petition drive. FEC filings for any committee formed in connection with his candidacy, if one was registered, would be searchable at FEC.gov under the candidate's name and district. The presence or absence of such filings would shed additional light on the organizational origin of the candidacy.

What remains unknown: the full text of the court's written opinion, the specific Pennsylvania election code provisions cited by the judge, Tupone's stated rationale for running as a Green Party candidate, and whether any third-party actors funded or coordinated the petition effort. The court docket, FEC candidate committee filings, and Pennsylvania voter registration records are the public documents that would answer those questions.

Today's Analysis
Loading...
Latest Intelligence
Congressional Intelligence
Loading...
Financial Intelligence
Loading...
Geopolitical Intelligence
Loading...
Follow the MoneyGab-E Political Intelligence Investigation
Loading...
Opinion & Analysis
Loading...
Archive
Loading...
About
Our Mission

We Follow the Data, Not the Narrative

The Congressional Times exists because public records are public — and the analysis built from them should not be exclusive to those who can afford $60,000-a-year intelligence subscriptions.

Every story published in The Congressional Times is sourced to a verifiable public record: a court filing, a Senate lobbying disclosure, an FEC contribution record, a USASpending contract, or a verified news report. We state our sources inline. We show our math. When we are wrong, we say so publicly.

We do not editorialize in news coverage. We do not use loaded language. Both political parties are held to identical standards.

The Follow the Money investigations are the heart of this publication. Each begins with Gab-E Political Intelligence running against 10+ million government records before a single word of editorial is written.

Powered by Gab-E, an elite global intelligence platform built to democratize political and financial intelligence.

Editorial Policy
Editorial Standards & Corrections Policy

How We Source, Verify, and Correct Our Work

Every factual claim in a Congressional Times story is checked against a primary source: a government filing, a court record, a direct quote, before publication. When a claim can't be verified or doesn't hold up as originally reported, we drop it or reframe it. We do not publish disputed claims as settled fact.

When we get it wrong: we correct the story directly, note the correction and date at the bottom of the piece, and update the record. We do not quietly edit and move on.

Bylines: stories with a named byline are written and fact-checked by that person. Stories without a byline are sourced from Gab-E Political Intelligence, our automated research platform, and are labeled as such.

Ownership: The Congressional Times is published by Gab-E Holdings LLC. Gab-E, our intelligence platform, powers our sourcing and research pipeline.

Corrections or concerns: support@gab-e.com