Green Party of Pa. v. Aichele
Citation | 89 F.Supp.3d 723 |
Decision Date | 02 March 2015 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 14–3299. |
Parties | GREEN PARTY OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al. v. Carol AICHELE, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Paul A. Rossi, Mountville, PA, for Green Party of Pennsylvania, et al.
Kevin R. Bradford, Office of the Attorney General, Philadelphia, PA, for Carol Aichele, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al.
Plaintiffs are aspiring1 political parties and their supporters who challenge the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Pennsylvania Election Code (or “Election Code”) and the defendants' interpretation of it. Before us are plaintiffs' amended motion for partial summary judgment and defendants' motion for summary judgment.
For the reasons detailed at length herein, we will grant plaintiffs' motion in part and deny it in part and grant the defendants' motion in part and deny it in part.
On June 9, 2014 the Green Party of Pennsylvania, the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania, and six individual plaintiffs affiliated with those political entities (collectively, the “Green Party plaintiffs”) filed suit to challenge the Commonwealth's enforcement of three provisions of the Pennsylvania Election Code. On June 24, 2014 the case was reassigned to us from the docket of Judge Thomas N. O'Neill, Jr.2 On July 14, 2014, the Green Party plaintiffs filed a 182–page amended complaint listing twenty-nine counts for relief alleging that the statutory provisions of the Election Code at issue are facially unconstitutional, unconstitutional as-applied, and violate the National Voter Registration Act, the Elections and Supremacy Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, and certain Pennsylvania election laws.
The plaintiffs seek declaratory, injunctive and mandamus relief from the Commonwealth's requirements governing nomination papers that must be submitted under its rules for minor parties (such as the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania) and political bodies (including the Green Party of Pennsylvania) who seek to appear on the general election ballot. Amended Complaint (“AC”) at 2. Under the Election Code, the two major political parties vie in primaries to have candidates' names published on general election ballots, but minor parties and political bodies must gather signatures on nomination paper forms in an often-painstaking process, and their candidates must file those nomination papers in order to appear on the general election ballot. See Constitution Party of Pennsylvania, et al. v. Carol Aichele, et al.,
757 F.3d 347, 351 (3d Cir.2014). Major party candidates file “nomination petitions” to appear on the primary ballot, which are subject to different statutory requirements under the Election Code.
The Commonwealth's requirements regarding nomination papers are set forth in 25 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 2911 (West 2014). On July 29, 2014, three days before the August 1, 2014 nomination paper filing deadline, the Green Party plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that sought to enjoin the defendants from enforcing their interpretation of 25 Pa. Stat. Ann. §§ 2911(a), (c) and (d) (West 2014).
The relevant portions of Section 2911 provide that:
25 Pa. Stat. Ann. §§ 2911(a), (c) and (d) (West 2014) (contested provisions underlined).
Specifically, the plaintiffs sought to enjoin the defendants from enforcing (1) their interpretation that Subsection (a) requires that a “qualified elector” be a registered voter before signing nomination papers; (2) Subsection (c)'s requirement that signers of nomination papers record the year of signing; (3) Subsection (d)'s in-state residency requirement for witnesses executing an “Affidavit of Qualified Elector”—that plaintiffs refer to as the —(4) the requirement on the nomination paper form that it be executed “in the presence of a person empowered to take acknowledgments (such as a notary public”); and (5) Subsection (d)'s requirement that different sheets be used by signers resident in different counties. Emer. Mot. at 1, 2.
On July 31, 2014, we held a hearing on the emergency motion. Based on the parties' stipulations and the testimony in court that day, we from the bench granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion for an emergency temporary restraining order. We enjoined the defendants from enforcing the In–State Witness requirement of 25 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 2911(d) (West 2014). But we denied the Green Party plaintiffs' motion as to the Subsection (d) nomination paper's requirement that the Affidavit should be executed in the presence of a person empowered to take acknowledgments, such as a notary, and that different sheets be used by signers who reside in different counties. We also denied plaintiffs' motion as to defendants' interpretation of Subsection (a)'s requirement that qualified electors signing nomination papers be registered to vote on or before the day they sign the nomination papers. Finally, as the Commonwealth's Commissioner of Elections represented to us that the Commonwealth no longer enforces the Subsection (c) requirement that each person signing a nomination paper record the year of signature, we denied that aspect of the emergency motion as moot and memorialized our decision in our July 31, 2014 Order (docket no. 16).
On August 4, 2014 we convened a Rule 16 conference in Chambers and set a schedule for dispositive motions. On October 31, 2014, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and the same day the Green Party plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment, which they sought by motion to amend on November 19, 2014. We consider both sides' motions now.
Summary judgment is warranted if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of proving no genuine issue of material fact exists. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 n. 10, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). To that end, the movant must inform the district court of the basis for its argument by “identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,’ which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact,” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Where the movant is the defendant or the party that does not have the burden of proof on the underlying claim, it “has no obligation to produce evidence negating its opponent's case,” National State Bank v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 979 F.2d 1579, 1582 (3d Cir.1992). The movant need only point to the lack of evidence supporting the non-movant's claim. Id.
The reviewing court should view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party's favor. Scheidemantle v. Slippery Rock Univ. State Sys. of Higher Educ., 470 F.3d 535, 538 (3d Cir.2006). A factual dispute is “...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
OpenPittsburgh.Org v. Voye
...the County Defendants and the Commonwealth would suggest that they are proper parties to this lawsuit. See Green Party of Pa. v. Aichele, 89 F. Supp. 3d 723 (E.D. Pa. 2015) (Secretary opposed as-applied constitutional challenge to residency requirement for circulators of nomination papers f......
-
Benezet Consulting, LLC v. Boockvar
...from the decision rendered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Green Party of Pennsylvania v. Aichele, 89 F. Supp. 3d 723 (E.D. Pa. 2015), wherein the district court invalidated the provision as applied to those parties. (Doc. No. 25 at 7-8.) Plai......
-
Stein v. Cortés
..., 415 U.S. 724, 735, 94 S.Ct. 1274, 39 L.Ed.2d 714 (1974) (avoiding political fragmentation during election); Green Party of Pa. v. Aichele , 89 F.Supp.3d 723, 751 (E.D. Pa. 2015) (preserving the integrity of the nomination process); Petition of Berg , 552 Pa. 126, 713 A.2d 1106, 1109 (1998......
-
Libertarian Party of Ark. v. Thurston
...as plaintiffs seem to suggest in their motion for preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 12, at 1). See Green Party of Penn. v. Aichele , 89 F. Supp. 3d 723, 737-38 (E.D. Pa. 2015) ("[T]he ‘usual judicial practice’ is to address an as-applied challenge before a facial challenge.").The Court notes......