Committee of Seventy v. A. Clark, in his official capacity as City Commissioner
611 C.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Sep 11, 2017Background
- Petitioners (Committee of Seventy, Philadelphia 3.0, and individual candidates) challenged the City Commissioners’ role overseeing the May 16, 2017 municipal primary because a proposed amendment to Philadelphia’s Home Rule Charter was on the ballot.
- Petitioners asked the President Judge to appoint substitute judges/electors under Section 301(c) of the Pennsylvania Election Code, which requires substitution when a county commissioner is a candidate or when a home rule charter amendment is on the ballot.
- The President Judge declined to act on an informal request; Petitioners sought mandamus from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which denied relief and dismissed preliminary objections.
- Petitioners then filed a declaratory judgment action in Philadelphia Common Pleas, arguing Section 301(c) applies to Philadelphia’s Charter and thus the City Commissioners were statutorily ineligible to serve as the County Board of Elections for that election.
- The trial court concluded Section 301(c) does not apply to Philadelphia’s Charter consolidation and denied the petition with prejudice; the Commonwealth Court affirmed, adopting the trial court’s reasoning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Section 301(c) of the Election Code require substitution of Philadelphia City Commissioners when a City Charter amendment is on the ballot? | Section 301(c) applies; Philadelphia’s Charter functions as a “county home rule charter,” so substitution is required. | Section 301(c) does not apply to Philadelphia’s Home Rule Charter created under the First Class City Home Rule Act; the provision targets county charters enacted under the Home Rule and Optional Plans Law, not Philadelphia’s consolidated city–county structure. | Court held Section 301(c) does not require substitution; Petitioners’ request denied. |
| Does statutory language and legislative history support treating Philadelphia like other counties with home rule charters for Section 301(b)/(c)? | The Charter’s consolidation makes it both a city and county home rule charter; excluding Philadelphia renders statutory phrases surplusage. | Legislative history and statutory scheme show subsection (b) and (c) reference county charters under the Home Rule and Optional Plans Law, not Philadelphia’s distinct Charter; no surplusage. | Court adopted defendants’ reading based on legislative history and statutory context. |
| Are Petitioners’ procedural remedies appropriate (mandamus/declaratory relief)? | Urgent judicial action required to prevent conflict of interest in administering the election. | Prior Supreme Court denial and proper standards counsel against relief; declaratory action fails on merits. | Court treated petition appropriately and denied declaratory relief on the merits. |
| Must indispensable parties be joined for declaratory relief? | (Implied) Petitioners did not join certain parties but sought court declaration anyway. | Respondents raised lack of indispensable parties as preliminary objection. | Trial court dismissed preliminary objections as moot after resolving merits; appellate court affirmed on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lennox v. Clark, 93 A.2d 834 (Pa. 1953) (discusses consolidation of county functions into Philadelphia city government under constitutional amendment)
- Pirillo v. Vanco, 74 A.3d 366 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (sets out standard of review for declaratory judgment actions)