In re Jordan
Decision Date | 19 April 2022 |
Docket Number | 56 MAP 2022 |
Citation | 272 A.3d 1293 (Mem) |
Parties | IN RE: Nomination Petition of Robert JORDAN as Republican Candidate for State Representative from the 165th Legislative District Appeal of: Fred Runge, Objector |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Kathleen Marie Kotula, Esq., Pennsylvania Department of State, Pro Se
Peter Poggi Elliot, Esq., Kevin Michael Greenberg, Esq., Philadelphia, PA, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, for Appellant Fred Runge
Leonard Bartholomew Altieri III, Esq., Michael Vincent Puppio Jr., Esq., Media, PA, Raffaele & Puppio, LLP, for Appellee Robert Jordan
AND NOW, this 19th day of April, 2022, the Court having determined that nomination challenges predicated upon allegations that a candidate for a seat in the General Assembly cannot meet the qualification requirements set forth in Article II, Section 5 of the Pennsylvania Constitution1 are justiciable under Section 977 of the Election Code of 1937,2 the order of the Commonwealth Court dismissing Objector-Appellant's petition to set aside the nomination petition of Robert Jordan for want of subject matter jurisdiction is REVERSED .
Based upon the stipulated facts of record, the Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that Robert Jordan will not have been an inhabitant of the 165th Legislative District for at least one year prior to the November 8, 2022 general election. Accordingly, the Secretary of the Commonwealth is directed to remove his name from the Republican primary ballot for state Representative from that district.
Opinions to follow.
Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
1 Article II, Section 5 provides:
Senators shall be at least 25 years of age and Representatives 21 years of age. They shall have been citizens and inhabitants of the State four years, and inhabitants of their respective districts one year next before their election (unless absent on the public business of the United States or of this State), and shall reside in their respective districts during their terms of service.
Pa . Const . art. II, § 5.
2 See 25 P.S. § 2937 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Jordan
...and Street relied on statutory provisions that no longer exist, and she found that Pippy "irreconcilably conflicts" with the Jones plurality. Jordan , slip op. at 9, 16. The court explained that neither a plurality decision from this Court, nor "reported single-judge opinions filed [by the ......