From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Nomination Petition of Parkinson

COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Apr 11, 2014
No. 487 C.D. 2014 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Apr. 11, 2014)

Opinion

No. 487 C.D. 2014

04-11-2014

In Re: Nomination Petition of Anna M. Parkinson As Democratic Candidate for Office of Committee Person Appeal of: Patricia T. Quinn


BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE SIMPSON

Patricia T. Quinn (Objector) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court), which denied her petition to set aside the nomination petition of Anna Parkinson (Candidate) as a Democratic Candidate for Office of Executive Committee for the 57th Ward, 16th Division of Philadelphia in the Pennsylvania General Primary Election to be held on May 20, 2014 (Objection Petition). Objector contends the trial court improperly denied her signature challenges. Upon review, we affirm.

The Honorable Albert J. Snite presided.

Pursuant to Section 912.1(35) of the Pennsylvania Election Code (Election Code), a candidate for nomination to a party office, such as committee person, must present at least 10 valid signatures of registered and enrolled members of the candidate's political party who are qualified electors of the political district within which the nomination is to be made. See Section 907 of the Election Code, 25 P.S. §2867. Candidate timely filed a nomination petition, comprised of one page, containing 10 signatures (Nomination Petition). Candidate circulated her Nomination Petition.

Act of June 3, 1937, P.L. 1333, as amended, added by the Act of December 12, 1984, P.L. 968, as amended, 25 P.S. §2872.1(14).

Objector filed the Objection Petition, challenging six signature lines. Specifically, Objector challenged two signatures on the grounds the elector did not sign by using his or her complete name, but rather signed using the first letter of his or her first name and entire last name. In addition, Objector objected to four signatures on the basis the information was written in the hand of another. Thus, Objector argued Candidate's Nomination Petition contains insufficient valid signatures to remain on the ballot and should be set aside.

The trial court held a consolidated hearing on the Objection Petition as well as Objector's petition to set aside the nomination petition of Patrick Parkinson, Candidate's husband, as both cases involved the same signatures, issues, evidence, and attorneys. Tr. Ct., Slip Op., 4/1/14, at 1 n.2; see In re Nomination Petition of Patrick Parkinson (C.P. Phila., No. 1403-02451, filed April 1, 2014); Tr. Ct. Hr'g, Notes of Testimony (N.T.), 3/21/14, at 27-29. Based on the testimony and evidence presented, the trial court concluded Objector failed to meet her burden of proving Candidate's Nomination Petition contained insufficient signatures and denied the Objection Petition. This appeal now follows.

As the trial court explained, Objector attached the wrong nomination petition to her Objection Petition. Tr. Ct., Slip Op., 4/1/14, at 1 n.2. Specifically, Objector attached Patrick Parkinson's nomination petition as an exhibit to the Objection Petition challenging Candidate's Nomination Petition and vice versa, which caused the trial court to hear the objections as if made to both petitions. Id. Objector subsequently filed a praecipe to the correct the error. See id. --------

On appeal, Objector argues the trial court erred by allowing the use of the first letter of the elector's first names to suffice as an acceptable deviation from the full first name signature used on the elector's voter registration card absent competent evidence of the signor's intent. Additionally, Objector contends the trial court erred by allowing signatures lines where a handwriting expert testified the printed information was entered by the hand of another.

As the issues raised and signatures challenged are identical to those in In re Nomination Petition of Patrick Parkinson (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 488 C.D. 2014, filed April 11, 2014), we affirm the trial court's order for the same reasons set forth in that opinion.

/s/_________

ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge

ORDER

AND NOW, this 11th day of April, 2014, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County is AFFIRMED.

/s/_________

ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge


Summaries of

In re Nomination Petition of Parkinson

COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Apr 11, 2014
No. 487 C.D. 2014 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Apr. 11, 2014)
Case details for

In re Nomination Petition of Parkinson

Case Details

Full title:In Re: Nomination Petition of Anna M. Parkinson As Democratic Candidate…

Court:COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Apr 11, 2014

Citations

No. 487 C.D. 2014 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Apr. 11, 2014)