Commonwealth Court, Not Superior Court, Must Hear Election Case
The Pennsylvania Superior Court, overturning its own prior decision, has ruled that the Commonwealth Court should not have passed along an election-related case to the former because the latter has sole jurisdiction over such disputes.
September 05, 2019 at 12:50 PM
4 minute read
The Pennsylvania Superior Court, overturning its own prior decision, has ruled that the Commonwealth Court should not have passed along an election-related case to the former because the latter has sole jurisdiction over such disputes.
In Mohn v. Bucks County Republican Committee, an en banc Superior Court panel consisting of Judges Jack Panella, John Bender, Susan Peikes Gantman, Anne Lazarus, Alice Dubow, Deborah Kunselman, Carolyn Nichols, Mary Murray and Maria McLaughlin transferred the case back to the Commonwealth Court.
Plaintiff Daniel Mohn was elected as a Republican committeeperson for Yardley Borough in Bucks County, but was later the subject of ethics complaints for campaigning against local Republicans and failing to cover polls on election day, according to Kunselman's precedential Sept. 3 opinion.
The party stripped him of his position, and Mohn went to court looking for an injunction. Eventually the case made its way to the judges of the Commonwealth Court, who decided the issue was not theirs to consider, and the case pivoted to Superior Court.
The Commonwealth Court relied on the Superior Court's 2013 decision in Gordon v. Philadelphia County Democratic Executive Committee for guidance. In that case, the Superior Court ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal involving an alleged Election Code violation.
But the en banc panel in Mohn said "Gordon was incorrectly decided, and should be overruled."
Kunselman added that the court's acceptance of the case in Gordon for judicial economy concerns was wrong.
"Given the Commonwealth Court's exclusive appellate jurisdiction over claims involving election matters, we conclude that 'judicial economy' was an insufficient basis for the Gordon majority to accept jurisdiction over the election-related appeal," Kunselman said.
She added, "Moreover, by asserting jurisdiction over the appeal, the Gordon majority risked establishing two conflicting lines of authority on the Election Code, which is within the purview and expertise of the Commonwealth Court. Thus, to the extent that Gordon stands for the proposition that this court can entertain appeals involving matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court, it is specifically overruled."
Turning to Mohn's arguments, Kunselman said the issues required a determination of whether, in disqualifying Mohn from his position, the Bucks County Republican Committee "violated the local party rules, which the Republican Committee is required to follow under Section 2837 of the Election Code."
"Additionally, the appeal requires a determination as to whether the BCRC had the right to direct and discipline Mr. Mohn pursuant to Section 2842 of the Election Code. These issues involve election matters that 'draw in question the application, interpretation or enforcement of … statute[s] relating to elections, … or other election procedures,'" Kunselman said. "Consequently, the subject matter of this appeal directly implicates the Election Code and the Commonwealth Court's precedents applying the Code's provisions."
Josh Bonn of Nauman, Smith, Shissler & Hall represents Mohn and said in an email, "The Superior Court's decision in Mohn v. Bucks County Republican Committee clarifies that the Commonwealth Court has exclusive jurisdiction over all appeals challenging political party disqualifications of committeepersons. This is an issue of substantial public importance because political party committeepersons are publicly elected by party voters. The issue remains whether political parties may undue the results of these elections for any reason or whether the Election Code requires political parties to follow their own disqualification rules."
Joel Frank of Lamb McErlane, who represents the committee, said in an email, "This case has certainly taken a circuitous path, from Bucks County Common Pleas Court, to Commonwealth Court, to Superior Court and now again back to Commonwealth Court. We certainly understand the Superior Court's rationale in transferring the matter back to Commonwealth Court and the Bucks County Republican Committee looks forward to having the Commonwealth Court substantively address the underlying issues. We're hopeful for an affirmance of the trial court decision."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
3 minute readPhila. Jury Awards $15M to Woman Who Slipped on Apartment Building Stairs
4 minute readPa. Hospital Agrees to $16M Settlement Following High Schooler's Improper Discharge
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250