J.G. Bergdoll Registered Voter of the Commonwealth of PA v. Pedro A. Cortes and The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of PA, J.G. Bergdoll Registered Voter of the Commonwealth of PA v. Pedro A. Cortes and The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of PA

Petitioner John G. Bergdoll, a registered Pennsylvania voter, filed a pro se action (mandamus, quo warranto, and injunctive relief) challenging the 2016 presidential elector certification and related constitutional/statutory authority of the Secretary of the Commonwealth and the General Assembly.
Bergdoll originally sought relief in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (Dec. 9, 2016); that application was denied, and he filed the action in Commonwealth Court on January 6, 2017.
Relief sought included injunctive and declaratory relief voiding the appointment/meeting of electors, a declaration that application of Article II and related laws is unconstitutional, and an order restricting future elector selection.
The Secretary and the General Assembly filed preliminary objections arguing, inter alia, mootness, lack of standing, laches, sovereign immunity, and Speech or Debate protections.
The Court sustained objections on mootness (events complained of—electors’ meeting, congressional certification, and inauguration—had occurred) and lack of standing for quo warranto (Bergdoll did not show a special interest nor that prosecutors declined to bring quo warranto).
The Court dismissed the action and denied Bergdoll’s motion for judgment as moot; it did not reach remaining objections but noted Bergdoll could not meet the heavy burden to show statutes clearly violated the Constitution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness of injunctive/declaratory relief	Bergdoll: controversy ongoing; issue capable of repetition yet evading review; he seeks future restraints, not unseating	Defendants: challenged acts (electors’ meeting, congressional certification, inauguration) already occurred; nothing left to enjoin	Court: Action is moot because events have passed and relief would be superfluous
Standing to bring quo warranto	Bergdoll: as citizen/taxpayer/attorney and lifelong voter, he has interest to challenge constitutionality	Defendants: quo warranto is generally reserved to AG or DA; private litigant lacks special interest and must show prosecutors declined or special damage	Court: Bergdoll lacks standing—no special interest alleged and no allegation AG/DA refused to act
Justiciability of constitutional challenge	Bergdoll: constitutional question affects future conduct and is recurring	Defendants: request raises moot constitutional questions better left undecided	Court: Courts avoid abstract constitutional rulings; dismissed under mootness doctrine
Motion for judgment on pleadings/summary judgment	Bergdoll: no genuine issue; merits favor relief	Defendants: preliminary objections pending; jurisdictional defects	Court: Motion denied as moot after dismissal of action

In re Gross, 382 A.2d 116 (Pa. 1978) (articulates mootness doctrine; courts will not decide moot questions)
In re One Hundred or More Qualified Electors of the Municipality of Clairton, 683 A.2d 283 (Pa. 1996) (quo warranto is generally the province of the Attorney General or district attorney; private parties need special interest or prior prosecutorial refusal)
Pa. State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police v. Dep’t of Conservation & Natural Res., 909 A.2d 413 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (standard for reviewing preliminary objections: accept well-pled facts as true; resolve doubts against sustaining objections)
In re Cain, 590 A.2d 291 (Pa. 1991) (an issue can become moot due to intervening changes in facts or law)
Reed v. Harrisburg City Council, 995 A.2d 1137 (Pa. 2010) (private litigant must show special right or interest to bring quo warranto)