*1 A.2d 754 Petition of Pete for the In re the Nomination WAGNER Assembly, Representative in the General Office Pennsylvania District 22.
Appeal Stephen SEVENTY. Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of
Argued April 1986. Decided June Sloane, Hill, for Camp appellant. Martin William Davis, Q. Turgeon, Michael Jeannine Harrisburg, ap- pellee. NIX, C.J., LARSEN, FLAHERTY,
Before McDER *2 MOTT, HUTCHINSON, ZAPPALA PAPADAKOS, JJ. THE
OPINION OF COURT McDERMOTT, Justice. appeal brought
This has been from an order of the refusing Court to appellant’s request Commonwealth his “Petition to Set Aside Nomination amend Petition for Wagner.” Pete in this matter is
Appellant Stephen Seventy, who is the in the Representative Assembly incumbent General for the District. Legislative Appellee Wagner, 22nd is Pete a can- didate for the Democratic nomination for Representative Seventy’s seat.
The of this relevant facts case are as follows. On March 11, 1986, acting Mr. Wagner, pursuant Pennsylvania to Code,1 nominating Election filed his for the legisla- by appellant. tive seat held This con- currently fifty-two signatures. tained three hundred and March On 18, 1986, day upon which statute was the last which to challenge file a to the nominating petition, appellant filed a Wagner’s petition. to set aside In it he challenged eighty-one signatures. As a result a hearing was scheduled 31, interim, 24, 1986, for March 1986. In the on March appellant filed a “Motion for Leave to File an Amended Petition,” sought in which he an challenge additional sixty-two signatures appellee’s nominating petition. on On 27, 1986, appellant’s March motion to amend denied by was Madeline Palladino of the Honorable Commonwealth brought Court. From that order Representative Seventy this direct appeal. 3, 1937, I, seq.,
1. Act of June P.L. art. 101 et 25 P.S. 2601 et § § seq., as amended. This matter argued April 16, before Court on 1986. Because of the urgency matter we entered an order, prior issuing opinion, an on April 1986. That order affirmed the action of the Commonwealth Court.2 This opinion is filed to enunciate the rationale for our action.
The Pennsylvania Election requires Code a candidate who public seeks office to file a nomination petition. peti- Said tion must “signed by be duly registered enrolled mem- (the candidate’s) bers party qualified who are electors of State, district, or of the political be, as the case may which the nomination is to be made or within election is to be held.” 25 P.S. 2867. When the office sought § Representative the General Assembly, the candidate is required submit three hundred See signatures. valid P.S. 2872.1. § *3 above,
As noted the in petition this case contained three hundred and fifty-two signatures. Appellant initially chal- lenged eighty-one signatures. these After a hearing it was determined that thirty-one of the eighty-one challenged signatures were invalid. Obviously, appellant’s it is conten- tion that had the challenges to the additional sixty-two signatures been permitted, enough additional signatures would have been stricken to Wagner’s invalidate Mr. nomi- nating petition.
Judge Palladino’s reasons for denying appellant’s addi- tional succinctly were set forth: “This Court 27, 1986, denied the Motion on March because the challenge signatures the beyond day period seven set in Code, forth Section 977 of the Election 25 P.S. § and Wagner] because would not had opportu- have the [Mr. nity to a propose defense to the new challenges.” Slip Op.
No. 719 C.D. 4.p. fn. 2. Code, Section 977 of the Election provides relevant part: Zappala Mr. Justice Larsen and Mr. Justice dissented from that decision. and filed and received papers petitions
All nomination this act shall be deemed limited periods the within day the last valid, unless, days seven with be after a paper, petition petition or said filing setting objec- forth the specifically to the court presented or paper said thereto, that the praying tions set aside. be added). (emphasis
25 P.S. § appellant’s second in this case that dispute was no There set out day period the seven beyond filed challenge was his contention that However, appellant’s it was above. first, and as his the same issues challenge raised second his support In permitted. should have been therefore case of upon Beynon relied the principally position, (1952). 532, A.2d 789 370 Pa. Appeal, timely filed a to the objector In the Beynon, Thereafter, a nominating petition. the to strike off chal- signatures certain were held in which hearing was to unautho- duplications from ranging lenged for reasons four hearing, of the After the close signatures. rized run, the had period statutory objections after the days hearing, reopen permitted objector court hearing At his pleadings. and amend testimony, additional present evidence presented new hearing, objector reopened this for a reason not were invalid challenged signatures that the not of the asserted, i.e., were persons previously In the action approving as the candidate. party same held: court this Court lower where, here, general allegation there are as
... *4 the sufficiently advise of which ground invalidity specific peti- in the errors his candidate of proposed defense he any to position present he is in a so that tions not an abuse it is allegations, to such have may ... an amendment to allow discretion 538, A.2d at 792. Id., 88 370 Pa. at in are Beynon facts acknowledge that the
Though we way. case, significant in a they differ the instant similar to and proceedings the reopening the reason In Beynon an permitting amendment to pleadings the was permit to the objector to conform the evidence to the specific chal- lenges which he had timely raised. The objector was there not raising additional the petition, to was merely his supporting original challenges with additional evidence. The found problem Court no with an allowing case, amendment in such since the candidate had been notice sufficiently put on of the signatures which were to be challenged. challenged Once the candidate charged was with verifying their validity. Since one party affiliation is requirements most basic signature, for a valid a even cursory investigation signatures would have revealed any problem, candidate would have been able prepare a defense.
Here, however, appellant challenging signa- tures. If an amendment had case, been allowed this petitioner would have been required investigate addition- signatures, al and raise additional defenses. this Placing burden on the petitioner, after the statutory objection peri- run, od had would render protections nugatory offered by 977; Section and defeat the interests sought to be furthered by Section. v. See Turtzo 370 Pa. Boyer, 526, 88 (1952). A.2d 884
For reasons, the foregoing we affirmed the order of Judge Palladino.
LARSEN, J., notes his dissent, ZAPPALA, J., files a dissenting opinion.
JUDGMENT ON WHEREOF, CONSIDERATION it is hereby now ordered this adjudged Court that the Order Commonwealth entered Court March 1986 is affirmed. ZAPPALA, Justice, dissenting.
In Beynon 370 Pa. A.2d Appeal, (1952) we held that form not should be exhalted over As substance. long as a is apprised objections candidate of what his *5 defend, leave granting must nomination challenging the amend case, amend- proposed of this facts Under proper. not a existing of the an extension ment was notice that on ab initio was appellee The challenge. petition was on his nomination signatures validity fact, appellee has the at no time In challenged. being prevent- nor objections he was unaware asserted I Accordingly, would defending the same. properly ed from the amendment. permit