In re Nomination Paper of Nader
| Decision Date | 22 August 2006 |
| 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. 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 |
Daniel I. Booker, Esq., Pittsburgh, for Linda S. Serody.
Efrem M. Grail, Esq., Pittsburgh, for Ronald Bergman.
Cynthia E. Kernick, Esq., Pittsburgh, for Richard Trinclisti.
Kim M. Watterson, Esq., Melissa Joy Oretsky, Pittsburgh, for Bernie Cohen-Scott.
Louis Lawrence Boyle, Esq., for Bureau of Elections.
Michelle Stirman Pierson, Esq., Marcus James Lemon, Esq., J. Matthew Wolfe, Esq., Ronald Lee Hicks, Jr., Esq., Andrew Lee Noble, Esq., Basil Culyba, pro hac vice, Ross A. Dreyer, pro hac vice, for Peter Miguel Camejo/Ralph Nader.
William S. Gordon, Esq., Christopher K. Walters, Esq., Ira Steven Lefton, Esq., Philadelphia, for Linda S. Serody.
Milind Madhukar Shah, Esq., Barbara Kiely, Esq., for Roderick J. Sweets.
Nicholas R. Sabatine, III, Esq., Windgap, for Ronald Bergman.
Andrea Beth Simonson, for Richard Trinclisti.
Melissa Joy Oretsky, Philadelphia, for Bernie Cohen-Scott.
James P. Williamson, Philadelphia, for Donald G. Brown.
Brian Anthony Gordon, Esq., Gregory M. Harvey, Esq., Philadelphia, for Julia A. O'Connell.
Kim M. Watterson, Esq., Pittsburgh, for et al Linda S. Serody.
Cynthia E. Kernick, Esq., Jeffrey John Bresch, Esq., James Michael Doerfler, Esq., Jeremy David Feinstein, Esq., Mark Lawrence Tamburri, Esq., Efrem M. Grail, Esq., Lisa M. Campoli, Daniel I. Booker, Esq., John M. McIntyre, Pittsburgh, for et al Linda Serody.
Louis Lawrence Boyle, Esq., for Bureau of Commissions, Elections and Legislation.
Thomas W. Corbett, Jr., Esq., Harrisburg, for Commonwealth of PA.
Before: CAPPY, C.J., and CASTILLE, NEWMAN, SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER and BALDWIN, JJ.
Appellants Ralph Nader (Nader) and Peter Miguel Camejo (Camejo) appeal two Orders of the Commonwealth Court assessing costs against them individually and against their unsuccessful campaign for the respective offices of President and Vice-President of the United States. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the Orders of the Commonwealth Court that required Appellants to pay transcription and stenography costs in the amount of $82,102.19 to Appellees.
Appellees are registered voters in Pennsylvania who waged a successful battle to set aside Nomination Papers that Appellants filed to secure positions as candidates on the Pennsylvania ballot for the November 2, 2004 General Election. The Commonwealth Court granted the relief that Appellees sought and found that wideranging fraud and deception had occurred during the signature-gathering process of Appellants. The stenographic and transcription costs that are the subject of this Opinion were incurred during hearings held regarding Appellees' challenge.
A review of the extensive litigation history regarding the campaign of Appellants is essential to understanding the issue presented today. The genesis of the controversy dates back to August 2, 2004, when Appellants filed Nomination Papers to appear as candidates on the Pennsylvania ballot for the November 2, 2004 General Election. On August 9, 2004, Appellees Linda S. Serody, et al., filed a Petition alleging that the Nomination Papers contained insufficient valid, genuine, authentic, and complete signatures to qualify Nader and Camejo to appear on the ballot.
Appellants filed Initial Objections to the Petition on August 17, 2004, and on August 19, 2004, the Commonwealth Court ordered the parties to present all pre-trial evidentiary objections, including questions with regard to the manner in which the Commonwealth Court would review the challenged signatures. Appellants filed an Application to Dismiss the Petition, along with additional Objections on August 23, 2004 and August 24, 2004.
On August 30, 2004, the Commonwealth Court set aside the Nomination Papers and disqualified Nader and Camejo from the ballot because they had accepted the nomination of the Reform Party in Michigan, thus violating Section 951(e) of the Election Code.1 The Commonwealth Court further disqualified Camejo for the reason that his candidate's affidavit falsely indicated that he was not enrolled in a political party, despite the fact that he was a member of the California Green Party. The Order also addressed Appellants' procedural objections. In re Nomination Paper of Ralph Nader, 856 A.2d 908 (Pa. Cmwlth.2004) (rev'd, In re Nomination Paper of Ralph Nader, 579 Pa. 561, 858 A.2d 58 (2004)).
Appellants appealed that Order to our Court, and on September 20, 2004, we reversed and vacated the Order and remanded the case for expedited evidentiary hearings. In re Nomination Papers of Ralph Nader, 579 Pa. 561, 858 A.2d 58 (2004). In a subsequently issued Opinion, we addressed Appellants' procedural challenges. In re Nomination Papers of Ralph Nader, 580 Pa. 22, 858 A.2d 1167 (2004).
On remand, the Commonwealth Court dedicated monumental effort and resources to implement the standards for signature review that we addressed. The court provided detailed and comprehensive hearing procedures and schedules to promote fairness and efficiency with respect to the challenged signatures. The Commonwealth Court held weeks of hearings across the Commonwealth, with twelve judges conducting a line-by-line review of the challenged signatures in sixty-three counties.2
In addition to regular business hours, the court sat on evenings and weekends. The Commonwealth Court issued continuances regarding its regular hearing schedule to enable the judges to conduct these hearings.
After the hearings commenced, Appellants filed an Application to Amend the Order, arguing that the signatures of individuals who are not registered voters should be counted in evaluating the sufficiency of the Nomination Papers. On September 27, 2004, the Commonwealth Court denied this Application.
On September 27, 2004, Appellants filed an Application for Extraordinary Relief, asking this Court to exercise King's Bench jurisdiction. We denied that request, with Mr. Justice Saylor filing a concurring and dissenting opinion.
The previously mentioned statewide hearings in Commonwealth Court that began on September 27, 2004, continued until October 12, 2004. On October 13, 2004, the Commonwealth Court, following three weeks of hearings throughout the state issued its Findings, Opinion, and Order setting aside the Nomination Papers. The court ordered the Secretary of the Commonwealth not to certify Appellants' names as candidates in the November 2, 2004 General Election.
The Order of the Commonwealth Court concluded that the Nomination Papers did not contain the required 25,697 valid signatures and found that the Nomination Papers contained only 18,818 valid signatures. Nearly two-thirds of the signatures that had been submitted in support of the Appellants were struck. The court concluded that:
[T]his signature gathering process was the most deceitful and fraudulent exercise ever perpetrated upon this Court. The conduct of the [Appellants] through their representatives (not their attorneys) shocks the conscience of the Court. In reviewing signatures, it became apparent, that in addition to signing names such as "Mickey Mouse," "Fred Flintstone," "John Kerry," and the ubiquitous "Ralph Nader," there were thousands of names that were created at random and then randomly assigned either existent or non-existent addresses by the circulators.
Commonwealth Court, October 13, 2004, Consolidated Findings, Opinion, and Order at 14 (emphasis added).
The Commonwealth Court issued the first Order that is the subject of this appeal on October 14, 2004. The Order stated:
[E]xcept as otherwise ordered, all costs for court stenographer appearances and transcript preparation are hereby assessed against the Nader/Camejo campaign, Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo individually. The Chief Clerk is directed to forward any future invoices filed with the court by any court stenographer involved in the hearings . . . to the Nader/Camejo campaign and Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo for payment.
Commonwealth Court Order, 568 M.D. 2004, October 14, 2004.
On that same day, Appellants appealed to our Court from the Order of October 13, 2004, setting aside the Nomination Papers. Appellants also filed an Application for Supersedeas asking this Court to stay the Commonwealth Court Order.
On October 19, 2004, we issued a per curiam Order affirming the October 13, 2004 Order of the Commonwealth Court. Mr. Justice Saylor filed a dissenting statement on October 22, 2004. We also denied the Application for Supersedeas.
The Commonwealth Court issued its second Order relevant to this appeal on January 14, 2005. That Order stated that "the Court having given consideration to [Appellees'] Bill of Costs and the response filed in opposition thereto, said Bill of Costs is approved and [Appellants] are directed to pay $81,102.19 to [Appellees]." Commonwealth Court Order, 568 M.D....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Constitution Party of Pa. v. Cortes
...signatures and petition14 the Commonwealth Court to set aside the nomination petition or paper. § 2937 ; In re Nader, 588 Pa. 450, 905 A.2d 450, 459 (2006) ( "Commonwealth Court has original exclusive jurisdiction of matters relating to statewide office."). The Commonwealth Court must set a......
-
Hosp. & Healthsystem Assoc. of Pa. v. Commonwealth
...and is tantamount to allowing parties to confer jurisdiction on the Court, which cannot be permitted. See In re Nader, 588 Pa. 450, 461, 905 A.2d 450, 457 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted); id. (“The fact that Appellees in the instant matter agreed that the Order was appealable cann......
-
Constitution Party of Pa. v. Aichele
...that their Pennsylvania “signature-gathering campaign involved fraud and deception of massive proportions.” In re Nader, 588 Pa. 450, 905 A.2d 450, 460 (2006). That ruling appears to mark the first time costs were ever imposed pursuant to § 2937, and the reverberations from that decision ha......
-
The Constitution Party Of v. Cortes, Civil Case No. 5:09-cv-01691.
...the candidate defending the challenged nomination paper. 8 See 25 P.S. § 2937; In re: Nomination Paper of Ralph Nader, 588 Pa. 450, 905 A.2d 450, 458 (2006) (the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania found a court could impose costs and attorney fees against a candidate). At the crux of the plainti......