Mohn v. Bucks County Republican Committee
| Decision Date | 22 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 74 MAP 2020,74 MAP 2020 |
| Parties | Daniel MOHN, Chad Wallace and Irene Silvius v. BUCKS COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE Appeal of: Daniel Mohn |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
This appeal concerns the jurisdiction of Pennsylvania courts to intervene in the internal affairs of political parties.
Appellant was a Republican committeeperson of Appellee, the Bucks County Republican Committee, for the voting district of Yardley Borough.1 He was first elected to a two-year term in 2014, and he was reelected on April 26, 2016. This election was conducted in conjunction with the 2016 public primaries, albeit that it served as the sole and dispositive election for committeepersons.
After the election, the acting chairman of Appellee's Ethics Committee sent a letter to Appellant advising him that complaints had been lodged by Bryan McNamara and Nicholas and Sandra Liberato. Complaint dated June 7, 2016, in Mohn v. Bucks Cty. Republican Comm. , No. 2016-03560 (C.P. Bucks) ("Complaint"), at Ex. D. Mr. McNamara alleged, among other things, that Appellant had "actively campaigned against an endorsed candidate for committeeman and disparaged the importance and value of the Bucks County Republican Committee Sample Ballot." Id. at Ex. I. The letter containing the Liberatos’ complaint specifically averred that:
A [political action committee] controlled by Dan Mohn [and another individual] paid for and sent mailers in support of [an opponent] labeling my wife and I as Liberals, Rhinos[, i.e. , Republicans in name only], and a "Union member who pays non-mandatory dues that expand Union Power." They even inferred that I am supportive of Planned Parenthood .... These are outrageous lies.
Id. at Ex. K. Both complaint letters asserted that Appellant had violated the Code of Ethics contained in Rule VII of the Committee Rules. In his correspondence to Appellant, the acting chairman also related that an investigatory hearing had been scheduled before the Ethics Committee, at which Appellant would be free to present testimony from witnesses and other evidence.
Appellant's counsel responded with requests for documents and information. He also asked for a continuance of at least 30 days, while indicating that the alleged conduct didn't appear to violate any known bylaw or rule of the local committee. Additionally, counsel alluded to Bentman v. Seventh Ward Democratic Executive Committee , 421 Pa. 188, 218 A.2d 261 (1966), insofar as the decision reflects that "[m]embership on [a local party's] committee, a status now legally recognized, is an important right and privilege not only to the person elected but also to the voters who elected such person to act as their representatives on the committee." Id. at Ex. G (quoting Bentman , 421 Pa. at 199, 218 A.2d at 267 ).
A short continuance was granted, and Appellant was notified. In response, his counsel took the position that the Code of Ethics reposited in the Committee Rules applied solely to elected and appointed public officials, not party officials. See Complaint dated June 7, 2016, in Mohn v. Bucks Cty. Republican Comm. , No. 2016-03560, at Ex. L. As such, counsel opined that the Ethics Committee lacked the authority to conduct any proceedings and asserted that the hearing should be cancelled. In the alternative, counsel reiterated his request for a longer continuance and complained that he hadn't been provided with requested documents. The hearing before the Ethics Committee apparently proceeded nevertheless, and the committee apparently submitted a report and recommendation to the Executive Committee.2
On June 7, 2016, Appellant and two other individuals filed a complaint in the court of common pleas seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent their removal as committeepersons, as well as an award of attorneys’ fees as a sanction for purported bad faith.3 The plaintiffs also filed a separate emergency motion asking the court to enjoin the conduct of any hearing before the Executive Committee.
In the complaint, Appellant reiterated his position that the Ethics Code applies only to public officials and not to party officials. He recognized that Rule I, Article 3 of the Committee Rules separately authorizes Appellee's Executive Committee to disqualify an office holder (including a committeeperson) who: is not a qualified Republican elector; has supported a candidate for election in opposition to any nominee of the Republican Party in a general election; or is neglecting or refusing to attend to the duties of his or her office. See Complaint at ¶14. He stressed, however, that, under these provisions, the officer holder "shall be given an opportunity for a full hearing before the Executive Committee after due notice of the nature of the charges, the time and place of the hearing, and his or her entitlement generally to the elements of due process in the conduct of such proceedings." Committee Rules, Rule I, art. 3. He further developed, inter alia , that only violations of the Rule VII Code of Ethics had been alleged.
The complaint also referenced Bentman in support of Appellant's position that Appellee was required both to comply with its own rules and to afford due process "as embodied in the Constitution of the United States." Complaint at ¶15 (citing Bentman , 421 Pa. at 199, 218 A.2d at 267 ). Further, Appellant highlighted that, in addition to his intra-party duties, he had important public duties, including nominating candidates for special election for vacancies in local offices. Id. at ¶92.4 In terms of the jurisdiction of the common pleas court, Appellant noted that this Court had explained, "[d]eprivation of [committee] membership and concomitant right of participation in the selection of public officers bears a [d]irect and [s]ubstantial relationship to the electoral processes as to be a matter of judicial concern." Id. (quoting Bentman , 421 Pa. at 203, 218 A.2d at 269 ).
Finally, the complaint referenced the provision of Section 807 of the Election Code to the effect that a county committee "may make such rules for the government of the party in the county, not inconsistent with law or with the State rules of the party, as it may deem expedient[.]" 25 P.S. § 2837. According to Appellant, when Appellee allegedly violated its own rules, it concomitantly offended this provision, since "the Committee may only act consistent with its own rules under 25 P.S. § 2837." Complaint at ¶95.
Consideration of the matter by the Executive Committee was deferred pending a hearing before the county court on Appellant's emergency motion for injunctive relief. After the court set a hearing date, Appellee scheduled a hearing before the Executive Committee and gave notice to Appellant. The correspondence indicated that the proceedings were pursuant to the disqualification provisions of Rule 1, Article 3 of the Committee Rules. See Bucks Cty. Republican Comm., Exec. Comm. Hearing, N.T., Aug. 11, 2016, at 21, Ex. HQ 3.
Appellant's counsel responded with a letter objecting to the hearing on the basis of the matters set forth in the complaint filed in the county court. Counsel also posited: "[It] appears the disqualification hearing has been scheduled for some improper purpose, possibly as an attempt to harass and embarrass Mr. Mohn, or as an attempt to intimidate or control Mr. Mohn's conduct." Id. at 16, Ex. HQ 1.
The common pleas court denied relief on the emergency injunction and the hearing before the Executive Committee ensued. Neither Appellant nor his counsel appeared, but a hearing master read into the record the contents of counsel's most recent correspondence advancing Appellant's objections. The hearing master proceeded to introduce a "Committeepeople Resolution," which had been signed and accepted by Appellant, indicating, inter alia , that he would "help endorsed Republicans running for office in accordance with the Bucks County Republican Committee bylaws," and "cover polls on election day, distribute the sample ballot." Id. at 19, Ex. HQ 2.
An attorney representing the complainants invoking the Ethics Code was then permitted to present testimony and evidence. Consistent with his complaint letter, Nicholas Liberato explained that, during his campaign for reelection as local committeeperson, he become aware that Appellant was circulating flyers printed through a political action committee of which Appellant was the treasurer. See id. at 31. According to Mr. Liberato, the flyers falsely accused him of working against conservative values; working to expand union power; acting as a Republican in name only; and altering the sample ballot to include trial lawyers, union members, and a former Planned Parenthood executive. Id. at 27-29. Mr. Liberato also noted that the flyer contained Appellant's personal return address. On Election Day, Mr. Liberato attested, he had learned that Appellant was in his (the witness's) election district distributing sample ballots prepared by the political action committee in support of the opposing candidate. It was Mr. Liberato's position that Appellant had no reason to be at his (again, the witness's) polling station on the day of the primary, and that Appellant should have been at his own polling station in Yardley Borough. See id. at 33. Mr. Liberato indicated that, although he was the endorsed candidate,5 he lost the election by two votes. See id. at 36-37.
Bryan McNamara similarly testified that he had learned of flyers opposing his own candidacy distributed by Appellant, and that Appellant appeared at his (the witness's) polling station on the afternoon of Election Day distributing sample ballots in support of the opposing candidate. See id. at 47-54.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Executive Committee voted to disqualify Appellant as a committeeperson and declare his office vacant. See id. at 86. Appellee's chairman later accepted the Executive Committee's recommendation to this effect and...
To continue reading
Request your trial