In Re Nomination Petition of Farnese, 17 A.3d 357

Farnese filed a February 11, 2008 nomination petition for the Democratic primary for State Senate First District with 1,778 presumptively valid signatures, above the 500 requirement.
Olkowski and Paylor (objectors) filed a Section 977 challenge in Commonwealth Court alleging widespread signature fraud and requesting to set aside the petition.
The court managed the case with expedited timelines, allowing stipulations and hearings; parties withdrew signatures and pages, and debated whether to strike individual signatures or entire pages.
Judge Friedman granted in part the objectors’ requests, allowing limited circulator testimony and denying others, and ultimately dismissed the petition while awarding costs to Farnese.
The Commonwealth Court affirmed the costs award in Farnese I and II, concluding that the petition failed under the challenged grounds and that costs could be awarded under Section 977.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed, holding that Section 977 does not authorize costs simply because the petitioner prevailed, and the lower court abused its discretion without a case-specific justification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Section 977 permits cost shifting solely for prevailing party status	Olkowski/Paylor: no automatic costs; bad faith or misconduct required	Farnese: prevailing party justifies costs under Section 977	Costs cannot be automatic; must be just under §2937
Whether the trial court abused discretion by awarding costs without explicit justifications	Olkowski/Paylor: no case-specific justification equal to justness	Farnese: court acted within discretion	Court abused discretion; need articulated justifications
Whether constitutional protections were violated by the cost-shifting	Olkowski/Paylor: chilled political speech and associational rights	Farnese: constitutional issues should not be reached if statutory grounds suffice	Court did not reach constitutional issues; reversed on statutory grounds
Whether the existence of fraud or misconduct is required to award any costs	Olkowski/Paylor: fraud/misconduct threshold required	Farnese: cost-shifting can occur without proven fraud under §977	No heightened fraud/misconduct threshold; but justification required
Whether the use of expert costs (handwriting analysis) was proper when the expert did not testify	Olkowski/Paylor: expert costs unwarranted without testimony	Farnese: preparation and potential testimony justify expert costs	Costs for Dresbold not justified without explicit testimony

In re Nomination Papers of Nader, 905 A.2d 450 (Pa. 2006) (abuse of discretion context for costs when misconduct evident)
In re Nomination Papers of Nader, 580 Pa. 22, 858 A.2d 1167 (Pa. 2004) (Nader I – costs when substantial fraud/misconduct found)
In re Nomination Petition of Flaherty, 564 Pa. 671, 770 A.2d 327 (Pa. 2001) (cannot strike entire petition for isolated invalid signatures)
Bowser v. Blom, 569 Pa. 609, 807 A.2d 830 (Pa. 2002) (court may consider totality of circumstances in cost awards)
In re Pittsburgh Home Rule Charter, 694 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (rejection of striking entire petition due to some invalid signatures)