*1 A.2d 401 A. NUTTER Michael v. Fattah, Evans, DOUGHERTY, Dwight Chaka John City Philadelphia Saidel, of Jonathan Appeal Chaka Fattah. of A. Michael Nutter v. Evans, Fattah, Dwight Dougherty, Chaka John City Philadelphia Saidel, and Jonathan Appeal of Chaka Fattah. A. Nutter Michael v. Evans, Fattah, Dwight Dougherty, Chaka John Philadelphia City Saidel, and Jonathan Appeal Dougherty. John A. Nutter Michael v. Evans, Dwight Dougherty, Chaka John and Jonathan Saidel Fattah Appeal Dougherty. John A.
Michael Nutter Evans, Dwight Dougherty, Chaka John Fattah and
Appeal Dougherty. John Supreme Pennsylvania. Court
Argued Oct. Dec. Decided *3 Bloom, Ronon, Jonathan F. Stradley, Young, Stevens & L.L.P., Center, Philadelphia, for curi- Campaign Legal amicus ae. McCracken, M.
Gregory Harvey, Montgomery, Walker & Rhoads, L.L.P., Fattah, for Philadelphia, appellant. Chaka Feder, Rosman,
Richard Gerson Lewis City for Dept., Law of Philadelphia, appellee. Burke, O’Neil, L.L.C.,
Susan Laura Burke A. Michael Nutter, appellee. Bochetto, P.C.,
George Lentz, Bochetto & Philadelphia, John Dougherty, appellee. C.J, CAPPY, CASTILLE, SAYLOR, EAKIN,
BEFORE: BAER, FITZGERALD, BALDWIN and JJ.
OPINION *4 Justice BAER.
We are called upon to consider whether the General Assem- bly, enacting Code,1 and amending later the Election in- tended to preempt municipalities from legislating their own regulations limiting to campaign contributions candidates 3, 1, 1937, 1333, amended, 1. See § Act June Pub.L. 25 P.S. 2600, seq. et has modest municipal Assembly office.2 The General enacted individuals, the interested limitations on manner in which (PAC), may con- corporations and action committees political or local to of candidates for state campaign tribute the coffers office, may permissi- the sums that no material limits on and an effort to what has given be to candidates. In stem bly culture, play” political to “pay been characterized as in 2003 limit- enacted an Philadelphia Council Ordinance office, municipal candidates for ing contributions to campaign years immediately there- by and it amendment refined Nutter, Mayor-Elect, Michael now after. When enforce the seeking filed a in the trial court complaint candidates, those against putative mayoral other Ordinance of the Ordinance under validity challenged candidates upheld challenges, ruling state law. The trial court these Election Code manifests General Assem- Pennsylvania regulation all ensure bly’s preempt intent to 6, VII, § by Article of the provided the uniform elections Pennsylvania appeal, Constitution.3 On Commonwealth appeal granting limited our review to the Our order allowance of following issue: 20-1000, ("Cam- Chapter seq. et Whether the Code Law”), political paign places Finance limitations contributions, is invalid under the Home Rule 53 P.S. to, Pennsylvania "contrary it is in limitation of” the because or already comprehen- Code Election Code where the Election contains size, type provisions regulating permissible manner of sive and contributions, political campaign contribu- but also allows unlimited tions in most instances? (2007) (per Dougherty, A.2d Nutter curiam). 873-74 question necessarily encompasses questions preemp- This tion. citizens, regulating holding or 3. All of elections for the laws State, electors, throughout registration except shall be uniform may regulating requiring registration that laws of electors be Provided, only: apply enacted cities That such laws uniform further, class, except for the that the General cities the same shall, machines, law, by general permit voting or the use registering recording computing other mechanical devices for or vote, primaries, any county, city, borough, at all elections or Commonwealth, incorporated option township town at the county, city, borough, incorporated town or electors such voting being obliged require such township, without the use of county, city, borough, machines or mechanical devices other
345 reversed, finding Court the Election insufficient indi- Code legislature’s cia of the intent to preempt regulation contributions, area of ruling Philadelphia free as a municipality4 was Home Rule enact regulations governing campaign contributions candidates office. Nutter v. 921 44 municipal Dougherty, See A.2d (Pa.Cmwlth.2007). We affirm. case,
Before
of
it
relating
background
establish,
strokes,
necessary to
in broad
of state
principle
of local
preemption
lawmaking authority and its several forms.
In
Licenses
Department
Inspections,
Board
License
of
Weber,
466,
Review v.
Inspection
394 Pa.
Of obvious that where a statute field, it planted flag declares has in a all preemption subject on the if away they ordinances die as did not exist. It is also if apparent even the statute is silent on but supersession, proclaims a course of con- regulation and intervention, trol which brooks no all municipal ordinances touching topic exclusive control fade into away limbo of ‘innocuous desuetude.’
Id. at In 327. addition to those forms of preemption, two respectively “express” preemption,” and “field there is also a third, “conflict preemption,” which acts to preempt any local incorporated township, regulations town or under such refer- Assembly may ence thereto as the General pre- from time to time time, Assembly may, scribe. The General prescribe from time to any political
number and duties of election officers in subdivisions voting the Commonwealth in which machines or other mechanical devices may authorized this section be used. § Pa VII, Const Art. IX, 2, Constitution, 9, Pennsylvania Article see n. infra empowered Assembly Pennsylvania the General municipal- authorize entitling ities to enact manage Home Rule Charters them to matters pertaining municipal governance. The General so author- Class, i.e., 21, 1949, ized Cities of the Philadelphia, April First Act see 665, amended, 13101, seq., Pub.L. 53 P.S. et and soon thereafter Philadelphia pursuant authority. enacted its Home Rule Charter to that Schweiker, 591, 75, City See v. 579 Pa. 858 A.2d 84 & 11, (2004). detail, topics up greater nn. 12 These are taken infra.
346 Mars contravenes state law. See
law that contradicts 309, Adams, Pa. Township Med. Emergency Servs. alia, (1999) Pennsylvania (citing, inter W. A.2d A.2d 619-620 Pittsburgh, 366 Rest. Ass’n v. EMS). (hereinafter gen established (1951)) Having Mars *6 the background turn to principles, of these import eral the case. 18, 2003, City passed Council Philadelphia the December
On
1, 2004,
establishing
ordinance,
January
$1000
an
effective
for
to candidates
by “persons”
contributions
campaign
limit on
Council,
by
contributions
and a
limit on
Mayor
City
$5000
9, 2005, extend-
amended on June
The
was
PACs.
Ordinance
Philadelphia
all other
to candidates for
contribution limits
ing
for
offices,
the
limits to
increasing
relevant
$2500
elective
20-1002(1)
$10,000
for non-individuals
individuals under
16, 2006, the Ordinance
on November
Finally,
and PACs.5
“(a)
first,
“candidate”
to define
again
once
was
amended —
petitions
nomination
papers
who files
individual
[a]n
(b)
an-
office;
publicly
individual who
[a]n
City
[or]
elective
office;” and
elective
candidacy
his or her
nounces
$250,000
second,
a candidate contribute
should
provide
his
all limits under
money
campaign,
his
or more of
own
candidates.6
double for all other
Ordinance would
complaint
filed a
Appellee Nutter
provisions,
these
Under
12, 2006,
County Court of Com-
April
on
Fattah;
and Chaka
Dougherty
John
against
mon Pleas
Nutter
Evans;
politicians
and Jonathan Saidel7—all
Dwight
Appellee
candidacies.8
mayoral
exploring
maintained were
amended,
1, 2005,
again
this time to
the Ordinance
was
5. On December
others,
office, among
to file cam-
elective
require candidates for local
paign
reports with the Board of Ethics.
finance
challenge Philadelphia’s prerogative to enact
Appellants
Because
contributions,
meaningful
legislation purporting to limit
immaterial
to the discussion
particulars
the Ordinance are
reproduced
Appendix to the
is
as an
The entire Ordinance
follows.
Nutter,
After disposing preliminary matters supra addressed n. parties trial court invited the to file motions for judgment on pleadings respect validity of the 13, 2006, parties Ordinance. and on complied, The December the trial court entered an granting judgment order pleadings defendants, mayoral favor named those challenged Ordinance, candidates who based on its deter- mination that the Ordinance contravened the Assem- *7 bly’s intention to all preempt affecting local ordinances elec- tions except expressly provided. as Because the Election Code no express pursuant contained authorization to which municipalities might impose limitations, local campaign finance Philadelphia Thus, lacked authority to enact the Ordinance. the court ruled the Ordinance invalid. Nutter, opinion appeal monwealth Court from this which arises. See 921
A.2d at 46-49. The length questions Commonwealth Court discussed numerous pertaining standing complainants bring to the instant suit and by assertions the case was rendered moot some combination of (and intervening the primaty general) outcome of the now elections and the Appellee resign City effect of Nutter’s failure to as a Councilman prior announcing mayoral candidacy. to his We have dismissed these order, challenges by per Dougherty, curiam see v. EAP Nutter 5-9 2007 (Pa. 4, curiam), 2007) (per reflecting Oct. our determinations that, parties standing litigate question, given have in the issue and brevity cycles the of election and amount it for of time takes Court, litigation presented this question capable to reach of is one review, repetition avoiding exception and a limited to the doctrine of applicable mootness to this case. See Public Venan- Defender's Office of Pleas, 317, go County Venango County v. Court Common Pa. 893 586 of 1275, (2006). Only question A.2d underlying 1279-80 merits of remain, appeal, granting supra as our articulated order allowance of n. 2.
348 The Court reversed. court appeal,
On
Commonwealth
as
authority
a First Class
began by reviewing Philadelphia’s
13101,
53
et
City
seq.
under the Home Rule Act. See
P.S.
of cit-
detailing,
self-government authority
(granting, and
IX,
class);
§
2.9The court cited
ies of the first
Pa.
Art.
Const.
Schweiker,
579
this Court’s decision
of
591,
(2004),
A.2d
that “the Home
proposition
Pa.
authority
local self-
Philadelphia general
Rule Act
granted
and
powers
legislation
that includes
government
complete
municipal
its
functions
set
administration
relation to
Nutter,
§
in”
349 ty subject to the doctrine of preemption, provides, “that generally, legislature when the has preempted field state has retained all regulatory legislative power itself prohibits and therefore legislation that area.” Id. Preemption, at 56. the court emphasized, exception is the not the (citing rule. Id. Township Council Middletown Benham, (1987)). 514 Pa. The Court observed that preemption does not result because the simply field; rather, Assembly legislates legisla- ture must entirely manifest its intent preempt field. Middletown, 315). Id. Council (citing In light A.2d of these principles, the court determined that the Election express mandate, Code manifests no preemptive any nor implicit mandate sufficiently clear to satisfy stringent standard articulated in Pennsylvania precedent. Accordingly, effect, the court and, reversed the trial court’s ruling upheld Philadelphia’s Ordinance. This appeal followed.
Appellant Dougherty contends that conflict preemption pre- cludes the Ordinance inasmuch as it contravenes the General end, Assembly’s intent. To that he directs our attention to our decision in Cali v. 406 Pa. Philadelphia, (1962), A.2d 824 which he contends made clear that Election Code is fully intended to occupy the field of cam- paigns and elections such that contribution limits not specifically provided therein necessarily and impermissibly conflict limitations on local authority provided by the (“[N]o Home Rule Act. See 53 P.S. city shall exercise to, powers contrary of, or in limitation or enlargement powers granted by the acts of Cali, the General In Assembly....”). maintains, Dougherty this Court held that Philadelphia could not special hold a election for Mayor an even-numbered year where state provided law that the Mayor’s office was to only by filled an election occurring an odd-numbered year. case, Analogizing Cali to the instant argues Dougherty the Election Code is not entirely silent on campaign contributions, but rather limitations, eschews only general nonetheless imposing certain reporting requirements, limiting $100, cash Thus, contributions to and so on. in keeping with *9 850 Cali, have us find would Dougherty reading
his limits not respect to contribution silence with Election Code’s such impose municipalities to local tacit authorization that the fit, rather a clear indication but they as see limits imposed limits should be that no such intended legislature in the Election provisions provided those modest beyond Code.10 bars Fattah, preemption that field who claims
Appellant 6, VII, Article Ordinance, with argument his begins which, “unifor- Constitution, requires he argues, Pennsylvania Brief that elections.” regulate to the laws respect mity with Kuznik v. Westmoreland (quoting at 8 Fattah Appellant (2006); 476, Comm’rs, 95, A.2d 490 Bd. County omitted). It that constitutional was with emphasis Fattah’s continues, mind, he uniformity mandate 1937, see Act of Election the first Code Assembly enacted 2600, amended, 1333, § 25 P.S. Pub. L. June amendments, subsequent particularly He seq. argues et only rendered Code infra, discussed the 1978 amendments that followed. in the decades comprehensive more list of lengthy furnishes a Fattah point, To illustrate Assembly has the General matters as which election-related to the areas of Turning guidelines. broadly applicable enacted contends Fattah expenditures, contributions and regulatory comprehensive sets forth a that “the Election Code expen aspects all of contributions that deals with scheme Appellant Brief for ditures,” of the Code. provisions two citing (prohibiting campaign §§ 3253 (citing at 9 25 P.S. Fattah most corporations, for office from to candidates donations 11). Fattah banks, partnerships), and national state point, Dougherty’s argument Although we recount examination, it, response upon Appellees’ closer consider and below conclude, emerges argument as a infra, preemption that the conflict clothing. slightly argument different preemption field contributions; (Contributions by agents; anonymous 11. Section 3254 contributions) provides; cash (a) any person make contribution It shall be unlawful by any person, designated given purpose other to him for the funds ruling, if will lead upheld, avers the Commonwealth Court of the Election Code under which “balkanization” crazy become a quilt disparate Commonwealth will universalizing spirit regulations, compromising of the Election Code. *10 aspects finds for his in of
Appellant support position Fattah in the reenactment of Article XVI Code Election 893, 4, 1978, 171; §§ See Act of No. 25 3241- Oct. Pub.L. P.S. amendatory GO. In Fattah that the 1978 particular, contends “expenditure” enactment the broad definitions of and adopted 12 by “contribution” enacted Con- previously United States in 2 gress Federal Election U.S.C. Campaign 1971’s 431, Following et amendments to the federal seq. 1974 act, notes, Fattah federal law individual contribu- prohibited making corporation. person firm or Each shall do contribution so only in his own name. (b) any political It shall be unlawful for candidate or to committee money anonymous disburse received from an such mon- source. All (20) ey twenty shall be handed over to the State Treasurer within days receipt. of its (c) any person It shall be unlawful for to of make contributions currency currency any foreign country of the United States or of to or any of aggregate, the benefit candidate which in the exceed one ($100), respect any hundred dollars with for election. candidate (constraining campaign-related §
See also id. 3253 contributions and banks, associations). expenditures by corporations, unincorporated include, Compare 431(9)(A)(defining “expenditure” § 2 U.S.C. alia, distribution, loan, advance, “any purchase, payment, deposit, inter value, gift money anything by or of or any person of made for the office”) purpose influencing any election for Federal with 25 P.S. include, alia, 3241(d)(defining “expenditure" § distribution, payment, inter "the money any thing by or loan advancement of or valuable candidate, political person purpose committee or other for the election"). influencing Similarly, outcome of an Fattah parallel notes the Pennsylvania close between the federal and defini Compare § 431(8)(A)(defining tions of “contribution.” 2 U.S.C. "con include, alia, loan, advance, gift, “any tribution” to subscription, inter deposit money or anything by any or person of value made for the purpose influencing office”) any election for Federal 25 P.S. 3241(b) include, alia, (defining payment, “any "contribution” to inter assessment, contract, services, gift, dues, subscription, payment for loan, forbearance, deposit money any thing, advance or or valuable political to a candidate purpose or committee made for the of influenc ing any paying in election this Commonwealth or for debts incurred election”). or for a or candidate committee before or after $1000, limitations imposed excess tions candidates contributions, against constitutional upheld cash measures Valeo, 1, 612, Buckley 424 U.S. 96 S.Ct. challenge in (1976). these Notwithstanding limitations howev- L.Ed.2d er, Assembly adopted notwithstanding wholesale, legislature the federal definitions more less found the contribution limitations beside adopt declined view, definitions, adopted evincing, these Fattah’s Gen- intention to leave contri- eral affirmative Assembly’s unlimited, federal butions contra law.13 caselaw, argues Fattah that our Turning to Court’s 193, EMS, 740 A.2d counsels holding Mars case, rejected argues, In that Fattah this Court reversal. expressly in question the state law preemption only where care, mandated, emergency in the context of Secre- in its decision-making local citizens tary Health “involve” to do Fattah contends that this Similarly, so is feasible. when Weber, rejected 394 Pa. preemption, Court putatively lay, the act intent preemptive because *11 Beauty pari to be read in materia with Culture was amendment, Act, which, following complementary Barber to prohibit it should not be construed specifically provided that bodies from ordinances consistent with the state adopting local case, contrast, no argues In that such act. Fattah any questions of finance express provision delegates Thus, concludes, “the municipal authorities. Fattah thoroughly but intended the field Assembly tacitly preempt that ‘uniformity respect regulate create laws with ” Kuznik, at 13 (quoting Brief Fattah Appellant elections.’ 490). A.2d at reject preemption” argu- “conflict Appellees Dougherty’s is nothing ment on the basis that in Ordinance issue They “in “contrary to” or limitation of” Election Code. Assembly delegated authority Fattah also notes the General has jurisdictions provisions in in election matters various of the Code, contrary warranting the of a Election thus further inference See, case, where, legislature e.g., intent as in this fails do so. (granting authority county P.S. limited boards of elec- 2641-42 tions). determining whether applicable note that standard strict, a ruling such preemption” applies permitting “conflict the ordinance “the the statute and only when conflict between (quot- at 42 Philadelphia Brief for Appellee is irreconcilable.” Marcincin, 512 Bethlehem v. ing City Council of (1986)).14 opted legislature That the basis, they not to contribution limits on a state-wide impose maintain, legislative way unambiguous in no manifests an establish, right intention to or an unlimited recognize, protect reject Appellees to contribute to candidates in local elections. of all the notion that silence amounts to the establishment silence, that, state rights implicated by observing “[i]f conflict, silence to create a then every preemp- were sufficient succeed, tion to local because challenge legislation would every locality regulating case the would be conduct Gener- Brief for prohibit.” Appellee al had chosen not to at 43. note that Philadelphia Appellees finally Dougherty identify fails to the Ordinance any way which impedes conflicts state interest identifiable with Election Code. The intentions manifest on the faces of the Ordinance, asserts, Election Code and the can be Philadelphia served material simultaneously suffering any without either limitation.
Appellees reject Appellant Dougherty’s consider and reli- Cali, ance on only this Court’s decision in he authority presents in support argument. Ap- his conflict preemption Cali, pellees observe not rely this Court did on silence in finding timing that a ordinance governing law, special mayoral elections conflicted rather with state but on express provisions inconsistent timing special election Philadelphia sought to hold. While the Phila- delphia ordinance in question special Cali directed that a *12 election for a mayoral vacancy occur at the next municipal election, general provided city Election Code that “all” offices to be municipal Reading were elected at a election. Ultimately, Appellees find this strict standard irrelevant insofar as they argue that there is no conflict between statute and the state with, begin analyze Ordinance to and thus no cause to the Ordinance principles preemption. under of conflict all-inclusive,” Philadelphia’s facie we found “prima
“all” as to occur in mayoral election permitting special ordinance patently a election irreconcilable with general tandem with law, that the preempt- state and held ordinance was governing Thus, conclude, Dougherty’s preemp- conflict Appellees ed. must fail. argument tion preemption” Fattah’s “field ar respect Appellants
With
absolutely
contend that our
is
clear
gument, Appellees
caselaw
intent
preemptive
tacit
only
requisite
will
find
essentially
incontrovertible
implication
where
subject
quest
of the state enactment
structure or
matter
justify
that our
does not
Appellees argue
ion.15
caselaw
simply because the Commonwealth
finding
preemption
field
field,
but
given
only
has
cases where
legislated
that no other intent can be
is so
legislation
comprehensive
Middletown,
(“The
Appellees preemption explicitly has only be denied where bodies. authority Appel- some measure delegated acknowledge lees our decisions Mars EMS and while hinged to find both on such declining preemption Weber that is in no delegations authority, way required law. Appellees separate collectively and Nutter file briefs but response Appellants' challenges. According- issues in raise the same ly, arguments collectively. we refer to their *13 355 Rather, of legislative simply pro- those manifestations intent to in those cases. straightest path vided the the resolution however, delegations necessary, to the extent such are Even Appellees argue that the Public Official and Ethics Employee 4, 1978, Act, Act of Oct. No. as see P.L. 883, 170, 2,§ (Ethics amended, Act), et seq. Pa.C.S. which was 65 day enacted the same as the 1978 revisions to Election Code, provides precisely express delegation. Appel- such an too, Act, lees a observe that Ethics contains modest 1103,16 § campaign provision, contribution see 65 Pa.C.S. m,ateria pañ thus should be read in the Election with Code. § 1 See Pa.C.S. observe that the Ethics Appellees 1932.17 finance, features to provision which one addressed specifically local supplementation invites as did the relevant § statutes Mars EMS and Weber. See 65 Pa.C.S. 1111 (“Any may requirements to governmental body adopt supple- ment this chapter, provided requirements that no such shall in any way Thus, chapter.”). Appel- less restrictive than the lees conclude Act that Ethics evinces General Assem- clear to bly’s “prohibit intent contributions in- [] action, tended to ... influence official authorize [ ] legislation designed ‘supplement’ prohibition.” Brief 28,18 Philadelphia at Appellee imputed which should be alia, provides, 16. Section 1103 inter official, person give public public No offer or employee shall or public nominee or candidate for his office or a member of immediate associated, family anything or a business with he of mone- value, loan, contribution, tary including gift, political reward or promise employment of future based on the or offeror's donor's vote, understanding judgment public or official action public employee public or official or nominee or candidate for office thereby. would be influenced 1103(b). §
65 Pa.C.S.
§
pari
1932.
Statutes
materia
(a)
parts
pari
they
Statutes or
of statutes are in
materia when
relate
persons
things
persons
to the same
or
or
same
class
things.
(b)
pari
together, possible,
Statutes in
materia shall be
if
construed
one statute.
Appellees
also observe that 65
Pa.C.S.
asserts
Ethics
preeminence
contrary legislation,
over
providing
Act’s
“if the
pan
it is materia with
the Election Code because
Commonwealth,
Comm’n v.
State Ethics
Act.19
Ethics
Cf.
Cresson,
(1991)(finding
materia
pari
and Ethics Act respect
Election
Code
Thus,
provisions).
nomination
requirements
filing
mani
has not
maintain that
Appellees
field
support
preemption,
intent
fested
*14
requisite
invitation,
in
contrary
a
intent
in its
manifested
arguably has
Act,
provisions.
of related
supplementation
the Ethics
to local
the
of
analysis by reviewing
source
begin
We
our
prerogative
claims the
authority by
which
Schweiker,
contribution limits.
In
local campaign
establish
rule,
...
concept
the
of home
held
“[u]nder
this Court
municipal
legislate concerning
in
locality
question may
for
new
statutory warrant
each
governance
express
without
rather,
ordinance;
ability
exercise
functions is
municipal
its
statute, ordinance,
any
provisions
chapter
with
other
of this
conflict
rule,
chapter
this
shall control."
regulation
provisions
Brief, Appellant
rejects Appellees' reliance on
Reply
19. In his
Fattah
I103(b)-(c)
argues
aim to
65 Pa.C.S.
the Ethics Act. Fattah
that
monetary
receiving anything of
giving or
“prevent
individuals from
[]
gift
expectation
with
that the
will somehow influence
value
only
gift
a
public
the size of
is relevant
official. Under the Ethics
gift
Reply
determining
publicly reported.”
whether the
must be
Thus,
maintains,
Ethics Act’s local
for
Fattah
Brief
Fattah
I,
only sup-
§
provision,
contemplates
supplementation
65 Pa.C.S.
111
public
directly
that
plementary
that
serve to assure
ordinances
sale,
stringent
the form of more
disclo-
influence is not for
take
requirements,
As with the rest of Fattah’s
sure
not contribution limits.
however,
hinges
arguments,
essentially
proposition
on the
Assembly’s
contribution limits neces-
General
failure
enact statewide
applied by
sarily
may
betrayed its intention that no such limits
be
government body Pennsylvania.
significantly
argument
Appellant Fattah's
This line of
undermines
matter,
view,
(and,
expressed
Judge
Colins’
dissent
view
for
Nutter,
(Colins, J.,
Court,
Notwithstanding
legislatures and our concomi
*15
tant care to protect the
of
authority
municipalities,
home rule
fundamental
of
principles
preemption also
apply
courts
consideration of
a given municipal
whether
exercise of power
is in fact
by
limited
an act of the General Assembly. Preemp
forms,
noted,
tion takes
conflict,
three
supra: express,
EMS,
preemption.
Weber,
field
195;
See Mars
Only Appellant here, the applies only regard suggests tion but which he on claim that Code depends that it does so his the Election of cam preclude any manifests an affirmative intent to sort however, effectively limits. paign Dougherty, contribution Code, intent from the admits that such must inferred the To that nothing directly point. since contains Code extent, however, in field argument essentially sounds than preemption. Accordingly, rather conflict preemption inquiry.21 into that collapses single discussion us find not preemption Fattah would have Appellant but rather in the putatively comprehensive direct conflict elections that inheres regulation scheme state Election combination of Article VII of our constitution and the VII, Pennsylvania § Code. Article Constitution part: in relevant provides, citizens,
All of elections regulating holding by laws electors, through- shall be registration uniform State, except regulating requiring out laws to cities registration may of electors be enacted to apply Provided, That such be uniform for the cities of only: laws the same class.... VII, ma § (language pertaining voting
Pa. Const. art. omitted). instance, therefore, must chines In first regu address whether contribution limits are “laws citizens,” no lating of elections as there is holding electors is not issue in this question registration case. cursory speaks question only by Fattah to this Kuznik, citation of provision
reference to our VII, 6, “speaks uniformity at 490 that Article (noting Appellant Dougherty’s nothing resort Cali does to resist to. otherwise, Notwithstanding attempt Dougherty’s read it conclusion. *16 question. legislature in Cali Rather, had on the the not been silent relevant municipal expressly it limited election of all officers to had the occurring years. municipal proposed elections in odd-numbered The satisfy special mayoral express, election at not mandato- issue did these criteria; law; ry consequently with were in conflict state and therefore preempted. Dougherty were See 177 at 831. can offer no A.2d analogous provision of the Code. Election elections”). Kuznik, respect to laws that regulate the howev- er, those portions of Article VII that address considered machines, not the voting language more to general pertaining in regulating holding “laws the of elections.” lan- Notably, guage just that referred relevant quoted, before we system Pennsyl- mandate as requiring “unitary voting in added). Thus, 490 (emphasis vania.” Id. at the lan- plain VII, 6,§ no guage Article reveals self-evident conflict with Ordinance, since the not unequivocally latter affect does Indeed, “the in holding elections.” Cali held that VII, 6,§ Article then identical appeared materially VIII, form as Article “in its ... entirety relates to matters procedure, voting methods machinery and like respect matters with to electors and see 177 A.2d voting,” Appellant characterization that does not support attempt Fattah’s to characterize section in so question broadly preclude regulations designed as to ensure integrity of lengthy campaigns preceding elections.
Thus, we move to the prospect consider of conflicts enactments of the Assembly. body, That thereafter, first and by amendment the Elec enacted Code, tion it is to potentially preemptive effect noted, Code that next. we turn As Fattah contends manifests, omission, itself clearly Code albeit by General Assembly’s intent not impose limits on contributions, is, there field of finance fore, preempted by state His argument law. stresses that 1978, when the General Assembly supposedly considered and partially incorporated various federal election it provisions, deliberately declined adopt federal contribution limits that were then contained code not federal because it intend ed to leave such questions open municipalities, rather but because undesirable, it found those limits unnecessary, to be inappropriate Pennsylvania.
The first problem argument with Fattah’s his fail- involves ure to cite any authority his claim support Pennsylvania’s amendments to Election Code were fashioned with a eye corollary watchful federal provisions. While
360 and expenditure definitions Pennsylvania
the federal
n,
similar,
12,
undeniably
supra
they are
contribution are
see
Pennsylva-
the conclusion that
compel
not so identical as to
it
adopted from federal law. We find
nia’s definitions were
Fattah,
neither
who forwards
curious that
the
that
the
extensively based
claim
General
argues
upon
issue,
the federal definitions
Assembly expressly adopted
Court,
evidently accepted
the
Fat-
nor
Commonwealth
value,
authority
furnishes an iota
to
tah’s claim at face
reflective of
that
definitions similarities are
demonstrate
of concern
more
a coincidence
anything
than
Nothing
the nation
1970s.
finance active around
itself,
to the amend-
or in the historical references
statute
Assembly imag-
question,
ments in
indicates
General
own,
as its
which is
adopting
ined itself to be
federal
law
not
about ac-
Assembly
shy
notable
is
because
General
law,
such
This
to federal
where
exist.22
knowledging debts
sort of
attempt
Fattah’s
to infer
seriously undermines
Assembly
part
intent on
the General
affirmative
reject
question
federal
the extent
aspects
law
that the General
depends
inference
assertion
among corollary
from
federal
deliberately picked
chose
can
There is
no evidence
discern
simply
enactments.
endeavor in
legislatures
that this
characterizes
accurately
the Election Code in 1978.
overhauling
argument
The
Fattah’s
problem
second
if
eonclusory
regarding
relationship
Fattah’s
claims
even
See,
703,
("The
making
e.g.,
§
P.S.
result of
subsection
7
Cmt.-1965
(a)
Act
is to make
comparable
[12 U.S.C.A.]
the Federal Reserve
Code.”);
§
St.
changes
prior
26 Pa.C.S.
Jt.
Govt.
several
("This
Operation']
term
is taken verbatim
['Farm
Comm. Cmt.-1971
4601(8).”);
act,
13
from the Federal
42 U.S.C.
Pa.C.S.A.
cf.
("The provision
misdating
Cmt.
Uniform Comm. Code
1
(1)
policy
of the amendment to the Federal
subsection
conforms
102____"), 8504,
Lading
Bills
... 49
Section
Uniform
Act
U.S.C.
("The
promptly
obtain and
Commercial Code Cmt.
locution 'shall
corresponding regulation
shall thereafter maintain’ is taken from the
law,
240.15c3-3.");
§
under
17 C.F.R.
23 Pa.C.S.
federal securities
Cmts.,
prece-
(“Drawing
§
Main
on the
Uniform Law
Vol.
Kidnapping
dent of
federal Parental
Prevention
U.S.C.
1738A....”).
between the 1978 amendments to our Election Code and
merit,
federal election
at that time have
so
prevailing
code
the counter-interpretation
by Appellees
does
ventured
—that
silence as to
contribution
Assembly’s
limits did not manifest
desire to
such limits from
prevent
its
being applied, but rather its desire to leave the field open
locally
restrictions such as those contained in the
tailored
political
Ordinance that are sensitive to
peculiarities
*18
of a
landscape
particular municipality. We cannot stress
enough that a home rule
exercise of its local
municipality’s
authority is not
re-
lightly
upon,
ambiguities
intruded
garding
authority
such
in
of the municipality.
resolved
favor
Delaware,
Moreover,
County
511 A.2d
clearly
at 813.
we
of
held that
mere
legislation
have
fact of
a field is
more,
insufficient, without
to
a
support
finding
preemptive
Middletown,
legislative intent as to that field. See Council of
(“The
The caselaw Fattah offers in of his support argument moreover, field preemption, fails to his In support position. EMS, Mars Adams Township Callery Borough and each des- ignated Services, Quality Emergency Medical Inc. as (Quality), primary its provider emergency medical The services. Pennsylvania Health, Department responsible assigning all licensed emergency providers “primary medical service areas,” response designated had Quality Mars EMS and primary response areas encompassing both Adams and Call- ery. Following Adams’ and Callery’s designations, Mars EMS filed a complaint seeking injunctive relief on the basis that EMS Act Adams’ preempted Callery’s desig- and authority Quality nate as their primary provider emergency medical services. appeal
On of the Commonwealth Court’s decision upholding designation rejecting argu- Mars EMS’s preemption ment, emphasized we first “that the legislature where has assumed to regulate given a course of conduct by prohibitory make such addi-
enactments,
may
...
corporation
municipal
purpose
of the
and furtherance
regulations
aid
tional
of the
to the necessities
may
appropriate
seem
general law
EMS,
195 (quoting
740 A.2d at
locality....” Mars
particular
County
San
Ass’n v.
Milk Producers
Natural
Weber,
(1942));
Francisco,
101, 124
see
P.2d
Cal.2d
(“[WJhere
Act is silent as
the [staté]
at 327
regulation]
an area of
domination
monopolistic
[of
procedure
for a localized
provides
ordinance
municipal
the ordinance wel-
salutary scope
furthers
field of
reinforcements into the
ally, bringing
comed as an
also reaffirmed
objectives.”). We
of the statute’s
attainment
that, as
by noting
precedent
of our
stringency
preemption
in the areas of
preemption only
found
writing,
of that
we had
banking.
arid
Id.
strip mining,
anthracite
beverages,
alcoholic
mining,
and anthracite
we
beverages
to alcoholic
regard
With
noted,
legisla-
stated
question expressly
the legislation
source
the exclusive
provide
intent that its enactments
ture’s
§ 1-104
(citing
areas.
Id.
47 P.S.
law these
regulatory
(anthracite
(alcoholic
mining)).
§ 681.20c
52 P.S.
beverages);
case,
intent “because
preemptive
found
banking
In the
*19
uniformity.”
need for
necessity presents
special
commercial
Bank, 488
Pittsburgh
Allegheny Valley
Id. (citing
(1980)). Thus,
reaffirmed
544,
we
Pa.
Appellant Fattah’s reliance unavailing. presented question also is Weber whether Beauty the state Act from precluded Philadelphia Culture in additional its passing requirements licensure beauticians here, municipal Health Code. There as the act in question omission, itself supplementation, was silent to local and that appellee argued, was tantamount to an affirmation Assembly’s General preemptive rejected intent. We this ar- gument, relying in part parallel Bar- Commonwealth’s noted, acts, ber The initially Act. two been in passed had in tandem at which time neither local statute addressed supplementation. Soon after the Act’s Barber how- passage, ever, a court it trial deemed preemptive have effect over in regulation that field. The Assembly, responded the Barber Act revising to specifically provide “[n]othing act, in this act an contained to which this amendment, shall be as prohibiting any municipality construed from ordinances, adopting appropriate not inconsistent with ... this act....” A.2d at language 328. We found this probative intent, of the legislature’s original passing acts, parallel 1931 of barbering leave fields and cosme- to local tology open supplementation.
While this ruling to some extent sounded the peculiar legislative acts, histories of two parallel this Court none- theless spoke broader issues of preemption implicated in the case. Specifically, Court noted that:
The Legislature could not be last expected itemize the which, drop towel and clean- antiseptic for sanitation and liness, required every shop would barber and beauty in the State. The size of the municipality, congestion locale, population, geography pre- weather and climate vailing area have a very could decided on the bearing *20 extent of meticulousness of the sanitary supervision required in any particular group shops. of It not be would to unnatural assume that regulations could be stricter and more rigid large cities where the turnover in clientele village or small rapid against comparatively
would are their first rural center the customers known where name, occupation frequency and of visit. Pennsylva-
Id. at 329. Western Furthermore, quoted our nia Association decision effect that Restaurant “[a] may regula- ... make such additional municipal corporation purposes general tions of the in aid and furtherance Ass’n, A.2d at Id. Penna. Rest. W. (quoting law.” 620).24 on these distils to the idea Fattah’s reliance cases
Appellant relied some affirma- upon because in each we faced and intent, no finding preemptive tive indication legislative necessarily of us to find requires absence such an indication noted, however, directly As contra- preemptive intent. and our caselaw. language spirit preemption dicts the of no effort reconcile his narrow Appellant Fattah makes oft-repeated language indicating implied reading with our shown. preemption easily not so Code, Fattah In his from the Election argument provides observes the Code of location of procedures, election supervision administrative arrange- precincts, creation of and polling places, equipment of and places, primaries ment of the dates elections polling elections, candidates, special filing and the nomination certifi- of nomination the examination of nomination papers, objections petitions and to nomination and papers, cates electors, of vacancies in papers, filling the qualification nominations, for and procedures, preparation recount elections, primaries of voters registration conduct ballots, registration, the use paper and absentee ballot, on the the duties of election arrangement names watchers, closing time judges poll polls, may degree 24. While reasonable minds differ as politics beauty pageant, contemporary it is difficult electoral resemble dispute municipality-specific concerns cited in that some sort, Weber, may also to on or others of that tend bear the scale effect of contributions local elections. *21 votes, tabulation of of contested resolution elections the use of absentee ballots. Thus,
Brief Fattah at 9. he concludes that the Code aimed to the field of comprehensively occupy per- law taining campaigns and elections. however,
Far proving point, from his this enumeration of statutorily conversely suggests controlled activities that when an Election comprehensively Code so deals with certain sub- jects fails yet materially campaign address itself to contri- especially bution where that omission is not identified limits— as a function of legislative design to leave unfettered all such matters —it all compels legislature, but the inference that the fact, intended not to regulation foreclose local of campaign contributions for local elections. Although the General As- sembly may preempt legislation, such and has done so in other that its enough cases collective of the awareness value providing so terms cannot explicit disputed, as of this writing it has not done so in the Election Code. Absent a clear intent, legislative manifestation of such an Appellants’ preemp- tion arguments must fail. order,
Accordingly, the Commonwealth up- Court’s ordinance, held the validity Philadelphia’s finance campaign affirmed; remanded; jurisdiction case and our relin- quished. CASTILLE,
Justices SAYLOR and EAKIN and Justice join BALDWIN the opinion.
Chief Justice CAPPY files a dissenting opinion in which Justice joins. FITZGERALD
Chief Justice CAPPY dissenting. I I respectfully dissent. no quibble have with the manner in which the sets forth majority the law regarding preemp- tion below, doctrine. Like Judge opined Colins in the decision however, I disagree the majority’s with application law in the circumstances of this case. Dougherty, See Nutter v. (Pa.Commw.2007) (Colins, concurring and J.
dissenting). much of its conclusion rests majority opinion
The
regard
of the General
silence
Nevertheless,
in this
I
that silence
conclude
contributions.
out,
Legis-
Judge
pointed
As
Colins
volumes.
speaks
case
com-
contributions
the field
lature has addressed
Code,
3241-3260b.
Election
P.S.
prehensively
*22
addressing limits
Nutter,
By not