A lawyer for Ralph Nader told the Pennsylvania Supreme Court yesterday that state courts have no right to compel the longtime consumer advocate to pay for costs stemming from his failed attempts to get on the presidential ballot in 2004.

More than a year and a half after the election, Mr. Nader and his former running mate, Peter Miguel Camejo, still face an $81,000 bill assessed by Commonwealth Court for a series of court hearings that whittled down their number of valid petition signatures.

The hearings were prompted by lawyers allied with the Democratic Party, who feared that Mr. Nader's candidacy would take crucial votes away from Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards.

The court disallowed more than two-thirds of the signatures originally submitted by the Nader campaign.

Last year, Commonwealth Court called on the campaign to cover the cost of transcripts, court reporters and other expenses.

But, yesterday, attorney Basil C. Culyba argued that state election law doesn't require such a payment. He also said the lower court's decision could dissuade other political independents from trying to gather signatures for ballot access.