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) sought a declaratory judgment that 25 P.S. §301(c) of the Pennsylvania Election Code required the President Judge to appoint substitute election-board members in place of Philadelphia City Commissioners when a proposed amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter appeared on the ballot.
- Petitioners initially petitioned the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for mandamus; that Court denied relief and dismissed preliminary objections. Petitioners then filed a declaratory-judgment action in Philadelphia Common Pleas.
- Section 301(c) of the Election Code directs the President Judge to appoint substitute judges or electors to serve for county commissioners who are candidates for office and contains a provision referring to charter-adoption or amendment ballots in counties with home rule charters.
- Petitioners argued the City Charter should be treated as a “county home rule charter” under Section 301(c) (or at least that Section 301(c) applies to Philadelphia) and thus City Commissioners must be replaced for elections involving Charter amendments.
- Respondents (City Commissioners) and the trial court contended Section 301(c) does not apply to Philadelphia’s city Home Rule Charter and does not require substitution of City Commissioners for Charter-amendment ballots. The trial court denied relief and dismissed preliminary objections as moot.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed, adopting the trial court’s reasoning that Section 301(b)/(c) targets county home-rule charters created under the Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans Law and does not compel replacing Philadelphia’s City Commissioners for Charter amendment elections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §301(c) require substitution of Philadelphia City Commissioners when a City Charter amendment is on the ballot? | §301(c) applies to Philadelphia and requires appointment of substitutes because the Charter functions as a county home-rule charter after consolidation. | §301(c) does not apply to Philadelphia’s City Charter; it targets counties with home-rule charters under the Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans Law and does not compel substitution here. | Court: §301(c) does not require substitution of Philadelphia City Commissioners for Charter-amendment elections. |
| Does the reference to “counties of the first class” in §301(b) make §301(c) apply to Philadelphia? | Petitioners: The statutory language and legislative history should be read to include Philadelphia; otherwise parts become surplusage. | Respondents: §301(b) distinguishes counties with home-rule charters under a different statutory scheme; language does not import Philadelphia’s Charter. | Court: §301(b)/(c) read in context do not bring Philadelphia’s Charter within §301(c)’s substitution requirement. |
| Did the consolidation of City and County convert the City Home Rule Charter into a county home rule charter for §301(c)? | Petitioners: Consolidation made county and city one, so the Charter should be treated as a county home-rule charter. | Respondents: Constitutional and statutory framework shows the City Charter governs Philadelphia functions; §301 targets different county charters. | Court: Consolidation does not make §301(c) applicable in the way Petitioners claim. |
| Are Petitioners entitled to declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgments Act? | Petitioners: Their rights are affected by the statute and they seek declaration that commissioners are statutorily ineligible to act on Charter-amendment ballots. | Respondents: Petition fails to state a claim and lacks indispensable parties; procedure improper. | Court: Petition dismissed with prejudice; no entitlement to declaratory relief on claimed grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lennox v. Clark, 93 A.2d 834 (Pa. 1953) (discussing effect of constitutional consolidation of city and county government in Philadelphia)
- Pirillo v. Vanco, 74 A.3d 366 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (standard of review for declaratory judgment appeals)