In Re: The Nomination Papers of David Amato as Candidate for Member of Council Borough of West Reading ~ Appeal of: Oswald Herbert and Suzanne Thompson
1138 C.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Sep 14, 2017Background
- David Amato won the Borough of West Reading council primary as a write-in on June 8, 2017; regulation required a Statement of Financial Interests (SOFI) to be filed with the local governing authority within 30 days (deadline July 10, 2017).
- Amato submitted SOFIs and related forms to the County Board of Elections on July 3, 2017; copies filed with the Borough were certified July 12, 2017 but lacked a Borough receipt date stamp in the record.
- Objectors Herbert and Thompson filed a Petition to Set Aside Amato’s nomination on July 19, 2017 challenging (1) timeliness of filing with the Borough and (2) omissions in Block 10 regarding sources of income.
- Trial court held a brief hearing on August 3, 2017, largely concluded on the record that the SOFI defects were amendable, announced dismissal of the petition at hearing, and then issued an opinion concluding the petition was untimely under Election Code §977.
- Objectors claimed they were denied due process at the hearing (no meaningful chance to present evidence or request nunc pro tunc relief) and argued their late filing should be excused; Amato and the Board defended dismissal as untimely and the defects as amendable.
- Commonwealth Court vacated the trial court’s order and remanded for a new hearing because Objectors were not given a meaningful opportunity to present evidence or their nunc pro tunc request; Thompson’s procedural objection to the transcript was dismissed as moot and Amato’s request for fees denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under Election Code §977: Was Petition to Set Aside timely? | Petition filed July 19 should be accepted nunc pro tunc because Prothonotary closed and prevented filing on July 17. | Petition filed after seven-day §977 deadline (deadline July 17) so untimely; no extraordinary cause shown. | Court: Petition was facially untimely; remanded to allow Objectors to present nunc pro tunc motion and evidence (trial court must decide). |
| Sufficiency re: SOFI filing with Borough (two-filings issue) | SOFI lacked Borough receipt stamp; Objectors contend SOFI not timely filed with Borough as required by Ethics Act §1104(b). | Board/Candidate: SOFIs were timely filed with Board (and copies to Borough); defects amendable; §977 governs challenges and bars late objections. | Court: Did not resolve merits; remanded for evidentiary hearing to determine actual Borough filing date and whether SOFI timely filed. |
| Substance of SOFI (Block 10 omissions): Were omissions fatal or amendable? | Omitting spouse’s income and certain income sources made SOFI defective and warrant setting aside nomination. | Omissions are facial defects that are amendable; precedent allows amendment when SOFI was timely filed. | Court: Agreed with trial court that these defects are likely amendable if SOFI was timely filed; remand requires full evidentiary consideration. |
| Procedural due process at trial hearing | Objectors: Were denied meaningful opportunity—couldn’t present evidence, were cut off after court announced decision, no sworn testimony, prevented from presenting nunc pro tunc motion. | Respondents: Hearing was appropriate given election time constraints; objectors had opportunity to speak and appeal. | Court: Found Objectors were not given meaningful opportunity to be heard; vacated order and remanded for a new hearing to admit evidence and consider nunc pro tunc relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Bryant, 852 A.2d 1193 (Pa. 2004) (challenges to SOFIs must comply with §977 seven-day deadline)
- In re Paulmier, 937 A.2d 364 (Pa. 2007) (SOFI defects apparent on the face may be amendable)
- Petition of Torres, 512 A.2d 732 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (extraordinary circumstances like fraud or breakdown of judicial process can excuse filing deadlines)
- In re James, 944 A.2d 69 (Pa. 2008) (§977 time limits are mandatory and generally cannot be waived)
- State Ethics Comm’n v. Cresson, 597 A.2d 1146 (Pa. 1991) (application of ethics and filing requirements to candidacy papers)
- In re Beyer, 115 A.3d 835 (Pa. 2015) (objectors bear burden to prove defects in election challenges)