He may have been starry-eyed, but he wasn't a fool.

Carl Romanelli, a divorced father of two grown sons from Wilkes-Barre, knew that as the Green Party candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2006, he'd have a hard time beating the big boys in the race: Republican incumbent Rick Santorum and Democrat Bob Casey. But he hoped to focus on his issues: an end to the Iraq war, health insurance, the rights of women and gays.

He did not foresee that, first, he'd get knocked off the ballot and, three years later, both he and his lawyer would be facing a $80,407 bill for the expenses incurred by foes who challenged Romanelli's nominating petition.

An election expert says this is only the second time in U.S. history that a candidate has been assessed the cost of efforts to remove him from a ballot.

After lengthy appeals, Romanelli may have run out of options. The state Supreme Court refused on Oct. 17 to reopen the case and ordered him to pay immediately.

Romanelli, 50, who works in the office at a locomotive repair shop, said his experience should make anyone think twice about running for office.

He doesn't know how he'll pay, he said:

"I make about $40,000 a year. I don't own a home. I don't have stocks and bonds. I still owe money on my car."

The 2006 Senate race in Pennsylvania was one of the most closely watched in the country.

Santorum, seeking a third term, had a target on his back. In Casey, the Democrats had put up their top candidate. Two years earlier, winning a second term as state treasurer, Casey had gathered the most votes in Pennsylvania history - 3,353,489.

The major-party candidates needed only 2,000 voter signatures to get on the ballot. But a minor-party candidate, such as Romanelli, has to meet a much higher standard of electoral credibility.

The candidate has to obtain a number of signatures equal to 2 percent of the votes received by the most popular candidate in the last statewide election.

Ironically, that was Casey, in his treasurer's race. Because of the historic size of Casey's victory, Romanelli needed to obtain a record 60,070 signatures.

As he set out going door to door, the task seemed impossible. The Green Party had volunteers who could help, but not enough.

Other eyes, however, were on his effort. The political calculus was that if Romanelli could get on the ballot, he might grab some liberal votes from Casey. In a tight election, that might tip the result to Santorum.

So the Republicans helped Romanelli. Donors from around the country contributed funds to his effort. He was able to hire a company to help him gather signatures. In the end, by his count, he collected 99,802.

He figured that was far more than enough.

As the yards-tall petition landed with a thud at the Pennsylvania Department of State, the Democrats were planning their countermove.

They pored over Romanelli's papers and concluded that many of his signatures were not valid under Pennsylvania's tight election rules.

Some of the signers appeared not to be registered voters. Others had changed addresses, but had not reregistered at their new homes.

Some, too, had signed their names the wrong way. If you're registered as Abraham Lincoln but sign as Abe Lincoln, your signature can be ruled out. The name has to be the same as on the registration form.

The Democrats challenged Romanelli's petition in Commonwealth Court.

Day by day, for six weeks starting on Aug. 14, the two sides sat with court officials in Harrisburg and went over suspect names on computers. Thousands, then tens of thousands, were struck out.

When the remaining number dropped below the 60,070 threshold, Senior Judge Michael R. Kelley judge signed an order:

Romanelli was gone from the ballot.

That might have been the end of the case, except for one thing.

As the winners, the Democrats asked the judge to require Romanelli to reimburse them for legal costs.

Judge Kelley wasn't happy with Romanelli and his lawyer, Lawrence M. Otter, of Perkasie, Bucks County, to begin with. With the election looming, he said, they had dragged their feet in going over signatures and had defied court orders aimed at speeding the process. Their conduct had "crossed the line into bad faith," he said.

Kelley later ordered Romanelli to pay the $80,407. Otter also got stuck with the bill, in whole or in part.

Richard Winger of California, publisher of Ballot Access News, which tracks third-party efforts to gain ballot access, said only former presidential candidate Ralph Nader had ever run into the sort of costs imposed on Romanelli.

After being struck from the Pennsylvania ballot for a shortage of valid signatures in 2004, Nader was ordered by a Commonwealth Court judge to pay $81,102.

Last Friday, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court refused to reconsider the order against Nader, also perhaps bringing that case to an end.

Barry Kauffman, of Pennsylvania Common Cause, said his public-advocacy group has pushed for a loosening of the stiff requirements for a third-party candidate to get on a ballot.

"If [Romanelli] did not have the signatures to be on the ballot, the law is the law," Kauffman said. "But at some point, the punishment has to fit the crime."

In July 2008, not quite two years after the Senate election - which Casey won - Romanelli woke up to a story in the newspapers that stunned him.

The state Attorney General's Office, in the Bonusgate indictments, had charged several Democratic employees of the state House with doing political work on government time. Some of that political work allegedly had been identifying bad signatures on Romanelli's petition.

Romanelli and Otter tried to appeal the $80,407 payment order on the argument that it was the Democrats, not they, who had showed the bad faith.

The courts turned them down.

Otter said Romanelli isn't the only one who can't pay the bill. He said he can't either.

At age 61, sitting in the dinette of a comfortable house in a comfortable suburb, he looked the picture of suburban affluence. But he said that his one-man law practice hadn't made money in the last two years - and wouldn't this year, either.

He said he and Romanelli had not even discussed who might pay how much of the money they owe jointly. The point, he said, is moot.

"I got whacked," he said. "For what? For defending somebody?"

Over a plate of fried fish in a diner near Wilkes-Barre, Romanelli said he'd always wanted to run for office. He'd been involved in local politics for years. But he hadn't been on a ballot since his 20s, when he ran as a Democrat for prothonotary of Luzerne County.

He still had the palm card he gave to voters in 1981. It showed him in a wide-lapel suit with a massive cloud of black hair.

His hair is receding now.

He tries not to be nervous about what could happen in his case. The lawyer for the Democrats sent an e-mail this week to a lawyer now representing both him and Otter. In it, he proposed a "reasonable resolution" of the payment amount, but also warned: "This is a very serious situation and may involve a contempt-of-court order."

In a court paper he himself wrote in May, Romanelli called the $80,407 "cruel and unusual punishment for a candidate simply attempting to run for office and to speak to issues."

He said at the diner: "I don't think I should be criminalized for that."

Contact staff writer Tom Infield at 610-313-8205 or tinfield@phillynews.com.