Working Families Party v. Commonwealth of PA, Pedro A Cortes, in his Official Capacity as Secretary of the Commonwealth of PA
169 A.3d 1247
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- Working Families Party circulated nomination papers in July 2016 to nominate Christopher Rabb for the 200th Legislative District after Rabb had already won the Democratic primary; Rabb altered the statutory candidate affidavit and submitted nomination papers which the Secretary refused to process.
- Commonwealth rejected the papers under Election Code anti‑fusion provisions that forbid a single candidate from being nominated by more than one political organization.
- Working Families sued seeking (1) a declaratory judgment that the anti‑fusion provisions are unconstitutional under the U.S. and Pennsylvania Constitutions and (2) mandamus to force processing of the nomination papers; the court dismissed the mandamus claim and heard the declaratory claim on cross‑motions for summary relief.
- The core legal dispute: whether Pennsylvania’s anti‑fusion provisions (various sections of the Election Code) violate equal protection, free and equal elections, and freedoms of speech and association.
- Court found the provisions facially neutral, grounded its analysis in precedent (notably In re Street and Timmons), and upheld the anti‑fusion rules as consistent with federal and state constitutional guarantees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal protection (Fourteenth Amendment) | Anti‑fusion disproportionately burdens political bodies because major parties can more easily achieve cross‑nomination via write‑ins (Magazzu loophole). | Statute is facially neutral (applies to parties and bodies alike); differences in write‑in feasibility are factual, not a statutory classification; state interest in preventing party‑raiding is legitimate. | Anti‑fusion survives rational/intermediate review; no unconstitutional classification; claim rejected. |
| Freedom of speech and association (Pa. Const. arts. I, §§7,20) | Ban prevents political bodies from associating around and communicating chosen candidate via ballot designation; severely burdens associational expression. | Ballot access limits are not a severe burden; ballots primarily elect candidates; state may impose reasonable, nondiscriminatory rules to preserve orderly elections. | Applying Timmons framework, burden is not severe; statute justified by important regulatory interests; claim rejected. |
| Free and equal elections (Pa. Const. art. I, §5) | Fusion ban prevents voters from signaling party‑specific support and denies accurate record of party support; infringes free and equal elections. | Vote counting and party‑designation rules rely on aggregated totals; fusion would frustrate statutory methods for determining party status and primary nomination methods; statute preserves electoral stability. | Ballot restrictions do not deny franchise or honest counting; claim rejected. |
| Scope of Magazzu / Major‑party write‑in effect | Magazzu creates a loophole permitting major parties to fuse via write‑in but not political bodies, producing unequal treatment. | Magazzu simply protects the right to have write‑in votes counted equally for any candidate; it does not create a statutory exemption for major parties. | Magazzu does not override anti‑fusion rules; it does not create a major‑party exemption; claim rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (federal) (upholding anti‑fusion law under First Amendment balancing)
- In re Street, 499 Pa. 26 (Pa. 1982) (upholding Pennsylvania anti‑fusion provisions and rejecting equal protection/associational challenges)
- Appeal of Magazzu, 355 Pa. 196 (Pa. 1946) (write‑in votes count; voters may write in names not printed on party ballot)
- Reform Party of Allegheny County v. Allegheny County Dep’t of Elections, 174 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 1999) (invalidated facially discriminatory local cross‑nomination rules)
- Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709 (U.S. 1974) (ballot‑access precedent on associational rights)
- Kramer v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Rite Aid Corp.), 584 Pa. 309 (Pa. 2005) (Pennsylvania equal protection framework)
- Banfield v. Cortés, 631 Pa. 229 (Pa. 2015) (recognizing permissible reasonable election regulations)
- Packrall v. Quail, 411 Pa. 555 (Pa. 1963) (anti‑fusion prevents ballot clutter/party‑raiding)
- In re Nader, 588 Pa. 450 (Pa. 2006) (noting speech and association are fundamental but subject to election‑regulation context)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (U.S. 1992) (standard for assessing burdens on voting rights)