In re Nomination Petition of Doyle

• Docket Number: 78 MAP 2022,J-36-2023
• Decision Date: 22 November 2023
• Parties: IN RE: NOMINATION PETITION OF MICHAEL DOYLE AS CANDIDATE FOR REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FOR THE TWELFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OBJECTION OF: ERIC SLOSS AND SANDOR ZELEKOVITZ APPEAL OF: ERIC SLOSS AND SANDOR ZELEKOVITZ
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

1

IN RE: NOMINATION PETITION OF MICHAEL DOYLE AS CANDIDATE FOR REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FOR THE TWELFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OBJECTION OF: ERIC SLOSS AND SANDOR ZELEKOVITZ APPEAL OF: ERIC SLOSS AND SANDOR ZELEKOVITZ

No. 78 MAP 2022

No. J-36-2023

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

November 22, 2023

SUBMITTED: April 19, 2023

Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court at No. 119 MD 2022 dated June 23, 2022.

TODD, C.J., DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, BROBSON, JJ.

OPINION

TODD, CHIEF JUSTICE

In this direct appeal we are asked to determine whether the Commonwealth Court abused its discretion in ordering Appellants, Eric Sloss and Sandor Zelekovitz, ("Objectors") to pay the counsel fees of Appellee, Michael Doyle, a candidate for the Republican nomination for Representative of Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District ("Candidate") in the May 17, 2022 Primary Election. These fees were incurred during the litigation of Objectors' petition to set aside Candidate's nominating petitions for lack of a sufficient number of legally valid signatures from Republican electors. After review, for the reasons we explain herein, we conclude that the Commonwealth Court abused its discretion in ordering Objectors to pay such fees. We therefore reverse its order in that respect.

I. Factual Background and Procedural History

2

Given the issue before us, our review of the background and procedural history of this case, and in particular the hearings before the Commonwealth Court, is necessarily detailed.

Following the 2020 United States Census, the number of Representatives Pennsylvania was entitled under the United States Constitution to send to Congress was reduced from 18 to 17. This necessitated the implementation of a new congressional districting plan for our Commonwealth's remaining 17 congressional seats. Because the Governor and the General Assembly failed to agree upon such a suitable districting plan, the task fell to our Court to select a plan from among 13 proposed districting plans submitted for our Court's consideration, using the requirements for such districts mandated by the Constitution and federal law. Ultimately, our Court issued an order on February 23, 2022 selecting the present Congressional District Map, first used in the May 17, 2022 Primary Election. Carter v. Chapman, 273 A.3d 499 (Pa. 2022) (order).

In order to guarantee an orderly election process for that approaching primary, our order in Carter also modified the election calendar for that contest. In relevant part, the order specified that candidates for office were permitted to circulate nominating petitions from February 25, 2022 until March 15, 2022. Id. Our Court's order also set March 22, 2022 as the deadline for any objections to be filed to those nominating petitions, and it required the Commonwealth Court to schedule hearings on such objections to begin no later than March 25, 2022, as well as required that tribunal to render a decision on all objections by March 29, 2022. Id. The order further set April 2, 2022 as the last day for county boards of elections to send remote military-overseas absentee ballots. Id.

After the entry of our Carter order, Candidate began circulating nominating petitions as a candidate for the Republican Party nominee for Representative in the newly configured 12th Congressional District. He was required to obtain the "valid signatures"

3

of 1,000 "registered and enrolled members" of the Republican Party in order to accomplish this. 25 P.S. § 2872.1(12). On March 15, 2022, Candidate filed nominating petitions containing 1,351 signatures with the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

One week later, Objectors, who were registered Republican voters residing in the 12th Congressional District, filed in the Commonwealth Court a Petition to Set Aside Candidate's nominating petitions ("Petitions"), under 25 P.S. § 2937.^[1] Objectors alleged

4

that, of the signatures Candidate submitted, only 634 were valid and that the remaining 717 signatures were "defective in at least one way-and often in multiple ways." Petition to Set Aside the Nomination Petitions of Michael Doyle, 3/22/22, at ¶ 11 (R.R. at 33a) (emphasis omitted).^[2]

The next day, on March 23, 2022, the Commonwealth Court issued a "Scheduling and Case Management Order" which set a hearing on the Petition for April 4, 2022. (Scheduling and Case Management Order, 3/23/22, at 1 (R.R. at 251a)). The order provided that "Objectors shall immediately arrange to meet with Candidate or Candidate's representative and, if appropriate, with a SURE system operator,^[3] to review before the hearing each and every challenged signature line." Id. at 3. The order additionally directed Objectors and Candidate to file, prior to the scheduled hearing, a stipulation identifying: the total number of completed signature lines submitted; the number of uncontested completed signature lines; the total number of signature lines which were

5

challenged; each and every signature line to which there was an objection and the basis for such objection; and the total number of signature lines which the parties stipulated should be stricken, or the objections thereto withdrawn. Id. The order also indicated that failure to comply with any of its provisions "may result in the imposition of monetary sanctions." Id. at 4.

After the entry of this scheduling order, due to the fact that the time scheduled for the hearing was two days beyond the deadline set by our Court for county boards of elections to send remote military-overseas absentee ballots, Objectors filed an application for emergency relief with the Commonwealth Court requesting that the hearing be rescheduled in accordance with the time deadlines established by our Court's order in Carter. That application was denied, and so Objectors turned to our Court for redress, by filing an emergency application for a writ of mandamus and/or extraordinary relief on March 25, 2022 to compel the Commonwealth Court to conduct all hearings and issue any decisions within the time periods set forth in our Court's order, which they viewed as mandatory, and, if not complied with, could result in erroneous ballots being mailed to remote military-overseas voters.

While this emergency application was pending, on March 24-25, 2022, Objectors and Candidate conferred with a SURE system operator. During this meeting, each of Objectors' challenged signature lines were jointly reviewed with the operator by counsel for Objectors and Candidate. Case Management Report, 3/29/22 (R.R. at 399a).^[4] As a

6

result of this review, Objectors agreed to withdraw their challenges to 89 signature lines, and Candidate agreed to stipulate that 148 signature lines were invalid. Objectors' Answer to Candidate's Fee Petition, 4/12/22, at 3 (R.R. at 655a). However, the parties could not reach agreement on the validity of the remaining signature lines which had been challenged by Objectors. Objectors informed Candidate that they intended to "follow up" on some of these challenges. Id.

At 3:00 p.m. on March 28, 2022, the Commonwealth Court issued a new scheduling order setting a hearing on the challenges for 10:00 a.m. the following day, before the Honorable Patricia McCullough. As a result of that rescheduling decision, our Court dismissed Objectors' application for emergency relief as moot, given that the Commonwealth Court would be timely holding the hearings pursuant to our Court's order in Carter. In re Avery & Doyle, 275 A.3d 946 (Pa. 2022) (order).^[5]

At the commencement of the Commonwealth Court hearing, and based on Objectors' completion of their promised follow-up investigation of some of their signature line challenges, the parties stipulated that 148 of Objectors' signature line challenges were valid, and 239 other challenges would be withdrawn by Objectors. N.T., 3/29/22, at 53-54. This left 330 of Objectors' original 717 challenges unresolved. In re Nomination Petition of Michael Doyle, No. 119 MD 2022 (Pa. Cmwlth. filed April 5, 2022) (unpublished memorandum) ("Doyle I"), slip op. at 7, 10. Given these unresolved challenges, Candidate possessed only 873 valid uncontested signatures, which was 127 less than the statutorily required number of 1,000. Id. at 17. Both parties requested that the

7

Commonwealth Court rule on the validity of the remaining 330 signature line challenges. Id.

The grounds for each of these remaining challenges fell into one or more of the following categories: (1) the illegibility of the voter's signature, or other required nominating petition information, such as the voter's home address or date of signing, so as to render the signatory incapable of identification as a registered voter; (2) "In The Hand of Another" ("IHA") challenges, i.e., challenges alleging that a signature or other required petition information was not actually entered on the petition by the signatory as is required by the Election Code, but rather by another person;^[6] (3) duplication of signatures; (4) defects in the form of some signatures, such as not actually being the signature of the voter, but rather a printing of his or her name, or improper use of a nickname or initials; and (5) signatures not matching those on the voter's registration

8

cards. Case Management Report, 3/29/22, at 11-23.^[7] Two SURE system operators were present in the courtroom for the hearing.

Before the parties and the court addressed the outstanding challenges, Candidate made an overarching due process challenge, contending that the expedited nature of the hearing hindered his ability to prepare. N.T., 3/29/22 at 11, 14. More specifically, Candidate averred that, because many of the objections as to the validity of signatures necessitated the examination of a voter's signature, expert testimony would be necessary to make a proper handwriting analysis. Id. at 93-94. Alternatively, Candidate argued that he should be...