In Re Nomination Petitions Filed by Howells
20 A.3d 617
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2011Background
- Howells, incumbent magisterial district judge, filed nominating petitions for 31-1-04 on March 8, 2011 for both major parties.
- He failed to timely file a statement of financial interests (SFI) as required by 65 Pa.C.S. §1104(b) with the Election Commission or Lehigh County HR Office.
- Election Commission instructions stated incumbents and magistrates not required to file SFI; Howells was advised that filing was not needed.
- On March 9–11, 2011, after realizing the mistake, Howells filed timely SFI copies; Harkins arranged delivery to HR Office.
- Objectors challenged the petitions on March 15, 2011; the trial court concluded a nunc pro tunc remedy could apply due to reliance on Commission guidance.
- Commonwealth Court affirms, holding untimely filing may be cured in limited circumstances when based on reasonable reliance on official guidance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether untimely SFI filing can be cured nunc pro tunc. | Howells relied on Commission guidance to not file timely. | Untimely filing is fatal under §1104(b) with no general cure. | Nunc pro tunc relief proper under limited circumstances. |
| Whether Howells reasonably relied on Election Commission instructions. | Reliance was reasonable based on official guidance from Commission staff. | Reliance cannot excuse statutorily mandated timeliness. | Reasonable reliance excused the late filing. |
| Whether Fairview supports nunc pro tunc relief in this context. | Fairview permits amendment when based on reasonable reliance on elections officials. | Fairview does not authorize relief here; other authorities control. | Fairview supports nunc pro tunc relief; applicable. |
| Whether Absentee Ballots rationale forecloses nunc pro tunc relief here. | Absentee Ballots precludes nunc pro tunc treatment for procedural defects. | Absentee Ballots is distinguishable and not controlling for petitions. | Absentee Ballots distinguished; nunc pro tunc relief allowed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In Re: Nomination of Paulmier, 594 Pa. 433 (Pa. 2007) (timely filed SFI defects are amendable; content defects amendable)
- In Re: Nomination Petitions of James H. Owen, 922 A.2d 973 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2007) (reliance on Commission advice allowed substantial compliance)
- Fairview Associates, Inc., 433 A.2d 929 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981) (reliance on incorrect information may permit nunc pro tunc amendment)
- Absentee Ballots of November 4, 2003, 577 Pa. 231 (Pa. 2004) (absentee ballot delivery statutes; distinction from nunc pro tunc relief)
- Paulmier, unknown official reporter cited in opinion (Pa. 2007) (support for reconciling disclosure requirements with voter access; timely filed SFI amendable)