Williams, In re
| Decision Date | 06 May 1993 |
| Parties | Page 1279 625 A.2d 1279 155 Pa.Cmwlth. 494 In re Petition Objecting to the Nomination Petition and/or Papers of Elizabeth O. WILLIAMS as Democratic Candidate for the Office of District Justice for District 3 |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Robert J. Sugarman, for appellant.
Michael P. Pierce, for appellee.
Before DOYLE, and SMITH, JJ., and NARICK, Senior Judge.
This is a consolidated appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County sustaining a challenge to Elizabeth Williams' nominating petitions for the office of District Justice, District 32-1-20, in the City of Chester. We reverse.
Williams cross-filed as a candidate for both the Democratic and the Republican party nominations for the office of District Justice. The petitions contain 152 signatures and 120 signatures, respectively; 100 valid signatures being required for a qualifying petition.
The challenge petitions, filed by Michael Koterba and Spencer B. Seaton (Challengers), set forth general allegations 1 that "numerous signatures" are forgeries, not of registered electors, and that many persons who signed the petitions failed to insert pertinent data required by law. The challenge petitions also assert that this missing data was inserted by persons other than the registered electors who signed the nominating petitions. The challenge petitions, however, do not identify any specific pages or lines on the nomination petitions to which the general allegations are directed.
Williams filed a motion to quash the challenging petitions. After hearing, the trial court denied Williams' motion to quash and granted the challenge petitions, determining that there were extensive irregularities on the nominating petitions. This resulted in an insufficient number of signatures to support the nomination.
On appeal, Williams argues that Petition of Bishop, 525 Pa. 199, 579 A.2d 860 (1990), is the controlling law and that the trial court erred in reaching the evidentiary stage at hearing because the challenging petitions lacked specificity. Williams also argues that the Cahllengers had no standing to challenge the Democratic petition and that the two-year purge conducted by the Office of Voter Registration violates Section 37 of the Act of April 29, 1937 (Act of 1937), P.L. 487, as amended, 25 P.S. § 951-37.
Initially, we note that challenges to nomination petitions must overcome the presumption of validity. Moreover, the Election Code is to be liberally construed so that candidates running for office are not deprived of that right nor are voters deprived of their right to elect the candidate of their choice. Smith v. Brown, 139 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 304, 590 A.2d 816 (1991).
We first address Williams' argument that the Challengers lacked standing to challenge her Democratic party nominating petition. Two cases, In re Pasquay, 105 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 532, 525 A.2d 13, aff'd, 515 Pa. 453, 529 A.2d 1076 (1987) and In re Pinckney, 105 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 536, 524 A.2d 1074, appeal denied, 515 Pa. 589, 527 A.2d 548 (1987), indicate that in a primary election a member of an opposing party does not have standing to challenge the nomination petition of a candidate in another party's primary election. These holdings are based on a recognition that "any person who is registered to vote in a particular election has a substantial interest in obtaining compliance with the election laws by any candidate for whom that elector may vote in that election." Pasquay, 105 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 535, 525 A.2d at 14 (quoting In re Barlip, 59 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 178, 182, 428 A.2d 1058, 1060 (1981)).
The Challengers here are registered Republicans. As such, they have standing to challenge Williams' Republican party primary nomination petition. They do not have standing to challenge her Democratic party primary nomination petition.
With regard to Williams' next argument, she contends that any purge notices, which affected the registered voters who signed her nominating petitions, were sent out by the Office of Voter Registration in December, 1992, and thus violated Section 38 of the Act of 1937. Section 38 states in pertinent part:
Within three months after January 1 of each year, ... the Registration Commission shall cause all of the district registers to be examined, and in the case of each elector who has been registered for a period of at least two immediately preceding calendar years and who is not recorded as having voted at any election or primary during said period, the Commission shall send to such elector by mail, at his address appearing upon his registration card, a notice setting forth that the records of the Commission indicate that he has not voted during the two immediately preceding calendar years and that this registration will be cancelled or suspended at the expiration of the thirty days....
Without informing this Court that In re Johnson, 102 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 143, 516 A.2d 1293, rev'd 509 Pa. 347, 502 A.2d 142 (1985), had been reversed, the Challengers cite to Johnson for the proposition that signatures on a candidate's nominating petition, if purged from the voting registration files, were invalid and could not be counted as among the necessary signatures. This statement of law is correct, but in reversing Johnson the Supreme Court held that the entire purge process must be completed prior to the signing of the petition or the signature will be considered valid. However, the Johnson case does not address the validity of the purge procedure. Since the purge notices here were sent out in December, 1992, and not within three months following the first of January, as required by the Act of 1937, they are invalid.
Lastly, we address the specificity issue. Section 977 of the Pennsylvania Election Code (Election Code), Act of June 3, 1937, P.L. 1333, as amended, 25 P.S. § 2937, governs objections to nomination petitions. This section states:
All nomination petitions and papers received and filed within the periods limited by this Act shall be deemed to be valid, unless, within seven days after the last day for filing said nomination petition or paper, a petition is presented to the court specifically setting forth the objections thereto, and praying that the said petition or paper be set aside.
The court in Bishop directly addressed this issue. It indicated that the use of mere boilerplate allegations, rather than specific objections, does not comply with the requirements of the Election Code. The Bishop court stated "there is nothing in the Code that permits the challenger to file a general set of objections and then supplement those objections with more detailed claims after the time...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Constitution Party of Pa. v. Cortes
... ... 2937. "[A] member of an opposing party [or an unaffiliated elector] does not have standing to challenge the nomination petition of a candidate in another party's primary election." In re Williams, 155 Pa.Cmwlth. 494, 625 A.2d 1279, 1281 (1993). On the other hand, any registered voter in the Commonwealth, regardless of party affiliation, may challenge the nomination paper of a non-major party candidate seeking a place on the general election ballot. Cf. In re Barlip, 59 Pa.Cmwlth. 178, ... ...
-
Petition of Pippy
... ... In addition, the provisions of the Election Code must be liberally construed so as not to deprive an individual of his right to run for office or the voters of their right to elect the candidate of their choice. In re Silcox, 543 Pa. 647, 674 A.2d 224 (1996); In re Williams, 155 Pa.Cmwlth. 494, 625 A.2d 1279 (1993). However, the provisions of the Election Code relating to the form of nominating petitions and the accompanying affidavits are not mere technicalities, but are necessary measures to prevent fraud and to preserve the integrity of the election process. In ... ...
-
In re Morrison-Wesley
... ... 623, 574 A.2d 119 (1990). It is the objector's burden to prove that a signature is not valid on one of these grounds. In re Nomination Petition of Johnson, 509 Pa. 347, 354, 502 A.2d 142, 146 (1985). It is presumed that the signatures on a petition are valid. In re Petition of Williams, 155 Pa.Cmwlth. 494, 625 A.2d 1279, 1281 (1993) ... As noted, Objector asserted in his petition that 59 of the 118 signatures presented for Beaver County were invalid, and 61 of the 142 signatures presented for Lehigh County were invalid. However, the Court's review determined ... ...
-
In re Nomination Petition of Brown
... ... In re Bishop, 525 Pa. 199, 579 A.2d 860 (1990); In re Williams, 155 Pa.Cmwlth. 494, 625 A.2d 1279 (1993) ... With respect to the Objectors' allegation that certain signers are "not registered in the district," section 908 of the Election Code provides, in pertinent part: ... Each signer of a nomination petition ... shall declare therein that ... ...