In Re: Nom. of J. Bingham as Candidate for the office Democratic Committee Person Ward 45, Division 9 ~ Appeal of: J. Pluck, 317 C.D. 2022

Jordan Bingham filed a Democratic committee-person nomination petition (10 signatures) on March 14, 2022; Janice Pluck filed an objection on March 22 alleging signature/form defects.
The Philadelphia Common Pleas Court issued an Order to Show Cause and incorporated a President Judge Administrative Order prescribing that service of the objection must be: (i) personal on the candidate, (ii) personal on an adult at the candidate’s residence, or (iii) delivery by a nationally recognized overnight carrier with instructions to leave if no answer.
Pluck’s proof of service showed Harry Enggasser (a private individual) placed the objection packet in a mailbox on the outside wall of Bingham’s residence; Pluck did not personally serve Bingham nor use an overnight carrier, nor seek leave to use an alternate method.
The trial court found service defective, concluded it lacked personal jurisdiction, dismissed the objection, and left Bingham’s name on the primary ballot; Pluck appealed.
The Commonwealth Court affirmed, emphasizing that the trial court’s service requirements (set under Section 977) were mandatory and that objectors must comply or obtain court authorization for alternative service.

Issue	Pluck's Argument	Bingham/Trial Court's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by dismissing the objection for defective service	Service by leaving the packet in the outside mailbox (by a private individual) effectively notified Bingham and is functionally equivalent to using FedEx/UPS; strict enforcement imposes a de facto fee and chills challenges	The Order required specific methods; Pluck did not comply or seek court authorization for alternate service; mailbox placement by a private person is not authorized and does not effect personal service or confer jurisdiction	Affirmed — service was defective, the court lacked jurisdiction to decide the objection, and the objection was properly dismissed

In re Beyer, 115 A.3d 835 (Pa. 2015) (Election Code must be liberally construed to protect candidacy and the electorate)
In re Morgan, 428 A.2d 1055 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981) (lower court controls time and manner of notice; court can authorize alternative notice if personal service cannot be made)
In re Blount, 898 A.2d 1181 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (court has authority to regulate notice and service in petition challenges)
In re Gerena, 972 A.2d 86 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (a candidate’s appearance does not cure mandatory defective service)
In re Barr, 956 A.2d 1083 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (proper service is prerequisite to personal jurisdiction)
In re McElhatton, 729 A.2d 163 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (receptionist authorized to receive mail/packages can constitute authorized recipient for service under a court order)
Shimkus v. 946 A.2d 139 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (balance between liberal construction and safeguards to prevent fraud in election law)