*1 304 variation or which has every planning
sion for combination conceived, any nor have the landowners cited such been 126 Pa. Common Cambridge Company, Land authority.” essence, 449-50, A.2d at 260. In develop wealth Ct. the ordinance must for suffi arguing provide ers are that to construct a modern “mall” space developers cient than for a shopping merely providing center rather type This, as development. of land for commercial “fair share” discussed, present is not the status of the simply previously in the Commonwealth. law developers determined that have not met their
Having de facto Township ordinance proving burden for us to development, commercial there is no need excludes de- Township’s regarding third issue whether address plan submitted with their velopers by are now bound challenge validity. reasons, the order of Common Pleas is foregoing
For the reversed.
ORDER NOW, order of the day April, this 23rd AND of Chester the above- County of Common Pleas Court matter is reversed. captioned A.2d 816 SMITH, Appellant,
Al v. BROWN, Appellee. D. Newton Pennsylvania. Court Commonwealth April on Briefs 1991. Submitted April Decided *2 Smith, York, Gibson for appellant. Fennick,
Daniel M. Anderson, Fennick, P.C., Converse & York, for appellee. CRAIG,
Before Judge, President PELLEGRINI, J., and BARRY, Judge. Senior
CRAIG, President Judge. Smith, A1 appellant, appeals from an order of Judge Richard H. Horn of the Court of Common Pleas of York County, denying his to set aside the nomination Brown, of Newton D. appellee. We affirm.
The issue in this case is whether a candidate for the office commissioner, of county who timely filed a nomina tion with an unsigned statement of financial inter- election,
est, from for appearing is barred the ballot (Act), 404(b)(3).1 of the State Ethics Act undisputed facts in this case are as follows. On 12, 1991, peti- March Newton D. Brown filed a nomination in county tion for the office of commissioner the Democratic primary for the election to be held on Party May Pennsylvania. He also filed a statement of County, York interest, him signed by it was not when he financial but day, filed it. The deadline was that March 18, 1991, signed March Brown the statement of financial On petition. with this earlier-filed nomination submitted 19, 1991, Smith, March A1 another Democratic candidate On commissioner, to the nomination county objections Brown, alleging complete Brown’s failure to interest. March sign and date statement financial On Judge Horn denied Smith’s to set aside April ap- nomination On Smith Brown’s *3 the trial court’s order to this court. pealed statute, 4(b)(2) (3), The and 65 P.S. applicable § 404(b)(2) (3), and states: §
(2) candidate for or local office shall Any county-level preceding of financial interests for the file a statement governing authority political with the of the year calendar the he is a candidate on or before subdivision which for appear a to on the ballot day filing last interests A of the statement of financial copy election. petition. shall also to such appended be (3) on the for election shall appear No to ballot or local election respective the State accepted by be a state- appended unless the has thereto officials (1) in paragraphs of financial interests as set forth ment to the statement in accordance Failure (2). and file shall, in addition to any the this act provisions with be a to a provided, other penalties fatal defect ballot. appear added.) to on the (Emphasis No. as reenacted and 1. Act of October No. June 26. 1989. P.L. 26. 5(a), 405(a), subsection, pertinent The other § states: pursuant financial interests filed
(a) The statement of
the commis-
prescribed by
on a form
this act shall be
to
on the statement shall
requested
All information
sion.
information and
knowledge,
of the
to the best
provided
signed
to file and shall be
person required
belief
affirmation.
equivalent
oath or
under
Commonwealth
court,
upon
in its
relied
opinion,
The trial
Baldwin,
v.
State Ethics Commission
Pennsylvania
(1982), in
Smith’s
denying
Smith, however, legislature contends that correctly 5(a) (3) to the Act after 4(b)(2) and added §§ Thus, legisla- *4 because the Baldwin argues, decision. Smith 4(b)(3), states, “[fjailure which language the of ture added § of provisions in with the statement accordance to file the on petition appear to a to a fatal defect this Act shall ... be ballot,” meaning provides of the Act plain the the must set aside. petition Brown’s be holding not its However, court here did base the trial cited The trial court also Baldwin the case. on entirely 308 Code,2 of the Election
§ § states, in part: Section 977 relevant to nomination Objections petitions and papers section, For of this a purposes ... nomination or paper shall include all required affidavits to be with such nomination or paper under this act. If the relate material or objections apparent errors defects on the face of the nomination or or on paper, the affidavits, of the accompanying appended face or the court, hearing, discretion, after may, its permit amend- ments within time upon such such as to pay- terms costs, of ment as the said court may specify. Although the financial interest statement itself is not part it nominating petition, “accompanying is an or ap- pended” document and hence governed by least principle this section 977.
Because the of a signature absence Brown’s financial disclosure statement was an apparent error on the face of document, petition, and Brown amended his the trial the. court denied Smith’s to set aside Brown’s properly nomination
Furthermore,
Act,
purpose
that the candidates
voters
opportunity
inspect
afford
their financial port-
folio, is satisfied in
case
timely
this
because Brown
filed his
statement of financial
interest with the county.
Code is to
liberally
Election
construed so as
deprive
right
not to
a candidate of the
to run
office
or
right
the voters of their
to elect the
candidate
their
Johnson,
347,
choice. See In re
509 Pa.
Accordingly, Judge refusing decision to set Brown, aside the nomination of Newton D. is af- firmed. 9,
2. Act of June art. as P.S. (Supp.1985). *5 of 1991, of the Court Common 22, the order NOW, April 1991, M-54, dated March County, NO. York Pleas of follow. shall Opinion is affirmed. dissenting.
PELLEGRINI, Judge, unsigned an Statement finds that majority I dissent. filing time for cured after the can be Interest of Financial finding is I such a believe expired. has those Statements Act,1 5(a) of the Ethics to Section contrary directly 405(a). Act that: 5(a) provides of the Ethics Section this pursuant financial interests The statement All the commission. prescribed by form on a act shall be provided shall be on the statement requested information information and belief knowledge, to the best be signed shall to file required person added.) (Emphasis equivalent oath or affirmation. equivalent form is unsigned I that believe the State- requires Ethics Act in that the “no form” signed prior must form Financial ment of filing. fatal defect to file is a failure because
Accordingly, Act, I set 405(a) the Ethics would to Section pursuant of A1 Smith. Petition Nominating aside 4, 1978, as re-enacted and P.L. No. October 1. Act of P.S. 401-413. §§ June