In re Nomination of Nader
Decision Date | 19 October 2004 |
Citation | 860 A.2d 1,580 Pa. 134 |
Parties | In re NOMINATION Paper OF Ralph NADER and Peter Miguel Camejo as Candidates of an Independent Political Body for President and Vice President in the General Election of November 2, 2004. Linda S. Serody, Roderick J. Sweets, Ronald Bergman, Richard Trinclisti, Terry Trinclisti, Bernie Cohen-Scott, Donald G. Brown and Julia A. O'Connell. Appeal of Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo, and Their Independent Electors. |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Michelle Stirman Pierson, Esq., Marcus James Lemon, Esq., J. Matthew Wolfe, Esq., Ronald Lee Hicks, Jr., Esq., Andrew Lee Noble, Michael Edward Barrett, Basil Culyba, pro hac vice, Ross A. Dreyer, pro hac vice, James L. Cook, III, for & Peter Miguel Camejo Ralph Nader.
Jeffrey John Bresch, Esq., William S. Gordon, Esq., Christopher K. Walters, Esq., Daniel I. Booker, Esq., Ira Steven Lefton, Esq., Pittsburgh, for Linda S. Serody.
Jeremy David Feinstein, Esq., Milind Madhukar Shah, Esq., Barbara Kiely, Esq., Pittsburgh, for Roderick J. Sweets.
Efrem M. Grail, Esq., Nicholas R. Sabatine, III, Esq., Pittsburgh, for Ronald Bergman.
Cynthia E. Kernick, Esq., James Michael Doerfler, Esq., Andrea Beth Simonson, Pittsburgh, for Richard Trinclisti.
Melissa Joy Oretsky, Philadelphia, for Bernie Cohen-Scott.
Mark Lawrence Tamburri, Esq., John M. McIntyre, Pittsburgh, for Terry Trinclisti.
Kim M. Watterson, Esq., Lisa M. Campoli, James P. Williamson, Pittsburgh, for Donald G. Brown.
Brian Anthony Gordon, Esq., Gregory M. Harvey, Esq., Philadelphia, for Julia A. O'Connell.
Louis Lawrence Boyle, Esq., for Bureau of Commissions, Elections and Legislation.
Gerald J. Pappert, Esq., Harrisburg, for Commonwealth of PA.
BEFORE: CAPPY, C.J., and CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN, SAYLOR, EAKIN and BAER, JJ.
AND NOW, this 19th day of October, 2004, the Order of the Commonwealth Court dated October 13, 2004, is affirmed. The Application For Supersedeas is denied. The Application For Intervention is dismissed as moot.
Justice SAYLOR dissents. Dissenting Statement to Follow.
On October 19, 2004, a majority of this Court entered a per curiam Order affirming the Commonwealth Court's decision to set aside the nomination papers of Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo, thus removing them as candidates of an independent political body for President and Vice President in the general election of November 2, 2004. I noted my dissent to this Order, consistent with my belief that, in determining that the candidates' nomination papers were defective, the Commonwealth Court misconstrued relevant statutory authority, thereby assessing the candidates' submissions according to a standard that was more stringent than that which has been prescribed by the Pennsylvania General Assembly. Specifically, it is my position that the Commonwealth Court incorrectly construed the term "qualified elector," as used in the Pennsylvania Election Code,1 to subsume a requirement of actual voter registration.
By way of further background, pursuant to this Court's Order dated September 29, 2004, see In re Nomination Papers of Nader, ___ Pa. ___, 858 A.2d 1167 (2004), the Commonwealth Court set out to assess whether objectors to the candidates' nomination papers had satisfied their burden to establish that, of the 51,273 signatures presented on the face of the candidates' submissions, at least 25,577 failed to meet requirements of the Election Code, such that the candidates lacked the 25,697 valid signatures necessary to gain ballot access. See 25 P.S. § 2911. See generally Nader, ___ Pa. at ___ n. 1, 858 A.2d at 1170 n. 1,. In devising a protocol for this substantial undertaking, the Commonwealth Court determined, inter alia, that the Election Code requires that each signator on a nomination paper seeking ballot access for representatives of independent political bodies must be a registered voter in Pennsylvania. See In re Nomination Paper of Nader, No. 568 M.D.2004 (Pa.Cmwlth. Sept.20, 2004) (per curiam order). In other words, the court implemented a registration standard to guide its signature review. As of the commencement of the review process, the candidates challenged this registration standard on the basis that it was not supported by the Election Code and concurrently sought this Court's review of this challenge under an exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction.2 Via per curiam Order dated October 1, 2004, this Court declined to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction, and at such time, I filed a concurring and dissenting statement expressing the view that the candidates' challenge to the registration standard appeared to have substantial merit. See In re Nomination Papers of Nader, 171 MM 2004 (Pa. October 1, 2004) (concurring and dissenting statement). Accordingly, I also indicated that I would direct the Commonwealth Court to separately review whether the objectors satisfied their burden with respect to each signature, assuming that voter registration was not required. My aim in this respect was to preserve the opportunity for meaningful appellate review of the objections to the candidates' nomination papers should this Court at such juncture determine that a "qualified elector," as used in the Election Code, need not be a registered voter. The signature review process went forward, nevertheless, with the registration standard in place.
25 P.S. § 2602(t). The relevant constitutional provision specifies that:
PA. CONST. art. VII, § 1 (emphasis added).
Based on Article VII, Section 1's proviso "subject ... to such laws requiring and regulating the registration of electors as the General Assembly may enact," the Commonwealth Court, and the objectors, have adopted the view that the qualifications enumerated were subject to legislatively-enacted regulations, and hence, a person cannot be a qualified elector unless registered to vote. However, a straightforward reading of the constitutional text reveals that the qualifications in view are those which are listed within the constitutional provision itself (i.e., in subsections 1, 2 and 3 of Article VII, Section 1), whereas the legislatively-enacted regulations are authorized via the introductory proviso to control the elector's entitlement to vote once the elector possesses the necessary qualifications to exercise the franchise.
Section 701 of the Election Code, which codifies virtually word-for-word the constitutional recitation of the qualifications of an elector, confirms this view:
25 P.S. § 2811. Like Article VII, Section 1 of the Constitution, this provision dictates that voting "qualifications" pertain to age, citizenship, and residency, whereas, ultimately, entitlement to vote is contingent upon compliance with voter-registration requirements extrinsic to Section 701. Indeed, Section 701 is, if anything, even more explicit in this regard than the constitutional text on which it is based, as it clarifies that compliance with registration requirements is only relevant to the entitlement aspect, and does not pertain to voter "qualifications."
This distinction between a qualified elector and a registered voter is recognized elsewhere in the Election Code as...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McInnish v. Bennett
...John Kerry brought a number of state-court actions seeking to deny Ralph Nader access to state ballots. In In re Nomination Papers of Nader [, 580 Pa. 134, 860 A.2d 1 (2004) ], for example, registered voters in Pennsylvania filed suit in state court, seeking to have the names of independent......
-
Nader v. Serody
...Court of Pennsylvania issued a per curiam order affirming the Commonwealth Court's decision, with one justice dissenting. In re Nader, 580 Pa. 134, 860 A.2d 1 (2004). The Supreme Court of the United States denied Nader's petition for certiorari. Nader v. Serody, 543 U.S. 1052, 125 S.Ct. 884......
-
In re Nomination Petition of Lawrence M. Farnese
...scope, and legal significance of the signature irregularities noted in the Nader matter, see In re Nader, 580 Pa. 134, 135–48 & n. 13, 860 A.2d 1, 1–10 & n. 13 (2004) (Saylor, J., dissenting); and the import of potential inferences which may be drawn from truly wide scale signature impropri......
-
In re Nomination Petition of Lawrence Farnese
...of a pattern of fraud are immaterial in a case involving objections to a nomination petition. Significantly, in In re Nomination Petition of Nader, 865 A.2d 8 (Pa.Cmwlth.2004), on remand from this Court, a number of judges of the Commonwealth Court, sitting as fact-finders, conducted an ext......