Opinion
279 C.D. 2023 300 C.D. 2023
04-10-2023
In re: Petition of Stephen Vandecoevering and Kelley Vandecoevering To Set Aside The Nominating Petition of John Battaglia, Sr., A Candidate For Director of The Blackhawk School District Appeal of: John Battaglia, Sr. In re: Petition of Stephen Vandecoevering and Kelley Vandecoevering to Set Aside the Nomination Petition of John Battaglia Sr., a Candidate for Director of the Blackhawk School District Appeal of: Stephen Vandecoevering and Kelley Vandecoevering
OPINION NOT REPORTED
Submitted: March 27, 2023
BEFORE: HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ELLEN CEISLER, JUDGE
In these consolidated appeals, Designated Appellant John Battaglia, Sr., (Candidate) and Appellees Stephen Vandecoevering and Kelley Vandecoevering (Objectors) challenge an order issued by the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County (Common Pleas) on March 20, 2023. Through that order, Common Pleas granted Objectors' petition to set aside Candidate's "nominating" petition (Petition to Set Aside) regarding Candidate's Republican Party nomination petition for director of the Blackhawk School District (School District), but denied the Petition to Set Aside regarding Candidate's Democratic Party nomination petition for the same office. After thorough review, we reverse in part and affirm in part.
I. Background
The operative facts are not in dispute. Candidate is an elected member of the School District's Board of Directors (Board), whose current term in office expires at the end of this year. On February 7, 2023, Missy Delmonico, a School District secretary, provided Candidate with a blank statement of financial interests (SOFI) form. Common Pleas Hr'g Tr. at 43-44; see Common Pleas Ex. 2. Candidate then returned the completed SOFI, which he dated February 17, 2023, and upon which he disclosed information regarding his financial interests for the 2022 calendar year, to Delmonico on March 3, 2023. Common Pleas Hr'g Tr. at 44-48; Common Pleas Exs. 2-3. Additionally, Candidate stated through this SOFI that he was currently a public official, specifically "school director" in the School District, but left the SOFI's status box for "candidate" unchecked and, thus, did not indicate therein that he intended to run for public office in an upcoming election. Common Pleas Ex. 3.
Section 1104(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act (Ethics Act) states, in relevant part:
Each public official of the Commonwealth shall file a [SOFI] for the preceding calendar year with the commission no later than May 1 of each year that he holds such a position and of the year after he leaves such a position. Each public employee and public official of the Commonwealth shall file a [SOFI] for the preceding calendar year with the department, agency, body or bureau in which he is employed or to which he is appointed or elected no later than May 1 of each year that he holds such a position and of the year after he leaves such a position. Any other public employee or public official shall file a [SOFI] with the governing authority of the political subdivision by which he is employed or within which he is appointed or elected no later than May 1 of each year that he holds such a position and of the year after he leaves such a position.65 Pa. C.S. § 1104(a).
In order to comply with the Ethics Act's disclosure requirements, Candidate was required by law to submit all of the necessary paperwork, including a completed SOFI, no later than March 7, 2023. See 65 Pa. C.S. § 1104(b)(2). On March 3, 2023, Candidate submitted nomination petitions to the Beaver County Bureau of Elections (Bureau), through which he declared his intent to seek both the Democratic Party's and Republican Party's nominations for a new term as a Board director. Common Pleas Hr'g Tr. at 65-66. Candidate also appended a completed 2022 SOFI to these petitions. Common Pleas Op. at 4. The only differences between the two iterations of Candidate's SOFI is that the first one is dated February 17, 2023, and does not indicate that Candidate was running for reelection, while the second one is dated March 3, 2023, and does indicate that Candidate was running for reelection. Compare Common Pleas Ex. 3, with Common Pleas Exs. 4-5. Later that day, Delmonico called Candidate and left him a voice message, through which she informed him that he needed to provide the School District with a copy of his completed SOFI that was time-stamped by the Bureau. Common Pleas Hr'g Tr. at 51-52; Common Pleas Ex. 2. Candidate complied with this directive on March 9, 2023, when he submitted a time-stamped copy of his March 3, 2023 SOFI to the School District. Common Pleas Hr'g Tr. at 53-56; Common Pleas Exs. 2, 5.
Section 1104(b)(2) of the Ethics Act mandates that "[a]ny candidate for county-level or local office shall file a statement of financial interests for the preceding calendar year with the governing authority of the political subdivision in which he is a candidate on or before the last day for filing a petition to appear on the ballot for election. A copy of the statement of financial interests shall also be appended to such petition." 65 Pa. C.S. § 1104(b)(2). For this year, the Pennsylvania Department of State's Bureau of Elections set March 7, 2023, as the final day upon which candidates for public office could circulate or file nomination petitions. See https://www. dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/CandidatesCommittees/RunningforOffice/Documents/2023/2023%2 0PENNSYLVANIA%20ELECTIONS%20IMPORTANT%20DATES-APPROVED.pdf (last visited Apr. 10, 2023). Therefore, Candidate was required to submit his SOFI no later than March 7, 2023.
On March 14, 2023, Objectors, who are both registered members of the Republican Party, Common Pleas Hr'g Tr. at 37, filed their Petition to Set Aside. Therein, they argued that Common Pleas should set aside Candidate's nomination petitions, on the basis that he had failed to submit his March 3, 2023 SOFI to the School District by the aforementioned March 7, 2023 deadline, in contravention of the Ethics Act's mandatory directives. Petition to Set Aside ¶¶3-8. Common Pleas convened a hearing regarding the Petition to Set Aside on March 16, 2023, and, on March 20, 2023, granted the Petition to Set Aside in part, regarding Candidate's Republican Party nomination petition; however, Common Pleas also denied the Petition to Set Aside in part, as to Candidate's Democratic Party nomination petition, on the basis that Objectors lacked standing to challenge the sufficiency of that petition because they are not registered Democrats. Common Pleas Order, 3/20/23, at 1. Candidate's appeal to our Court, as well as Objectors' cross-appeal, followed shortly thereafter.
II. Discussion
A. Candidate's Appeal (279 C.D. 2023)
Candidate raises several arguments on appeal in support of his position that Common Pleas improperly granted Objectors' Petition to Set Aside in part, which we summarize and reorder as follows. First, an incumbent elected official does not have to file multiple SOFIs in order to satisfy the disclosure requirements imposed by Sections 1104(a) and (b) of the Ethics Act; rather, one SOFI will suffice as long as it is properly completed and submitted. Given that Candidate delivered his February 17, 2023 SOFI to the School District on March 3, 2023, and that SOFI contained all of the information that he was required to disclose by law, Common Pleas erroneously determined that Candidate had not filed that SOFI in a timely manner. Candidate's Br. at 10-15. Second, Candidate's failure to indicate on his February 17, 2023 SOFI that he was a candidate for reelection as a School District director is an amendable defect, rather than a fatal one. Therefore, this failure cannot justify Common Pleas' decision to set aside his Republican Party nomination petition. Id. at 13-18. Finally, even if the Ethics Act requires incumbent elected officials to file two separate SOFIs, to account for their dual roles as current holders of public office and candidates for reelection, Common Pleas should have construed Candidate's February 17, 2023 SOFI as satisfying the March 7, 2023 deadline set by Section 1104(b) of the Ethics Act, and his March 3, 2023 SOFI as satisfying the May 1, 2023 deadline set by Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act. Id. at 14-15.
"[I]n reviewing an order adjudicating challenges to a nomination petition, our standard of review permits reversal only where the findings of fact are unsupported by substantial evidence, where there was an abuse of discretion, or where an error of law was committed." In re Griffis, 259 A.3d 542, 546 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021).
We are compelled by the plain language of the Ethics Act to agree with Candidate that Common Pleas erred by granting Objectors' Petition to Set Aside in part and setting aside his Republican Party nomination petition.
The purpose of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the General Assembly. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a). The language employed by the General Assembly is the best indication of its intent. When the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of the law is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(b). "In this regard, 'it is not for the courts to add, by interpretation, to a statute, a requirement which the legislature did not see fit to include.'" Piper [Grp.], Inc. v. Bedminster Twp. Bd. of [Sup'rs], . . . 30 A.3d 1083, 1092 ([Pa.] 2011) (citing
Com[.] v. Rieck [Inv.] Corp., . . . 213 A.2d 277, 282 ([Pa.] 1965)).
Thus, as a matter of statutory construction, one must listen attentively both to what a statute says, and to what it does not say. Piper [Grp.], Inc., at 1092. Finally, it may be presumed that the General Assembly intends an entire statute to be effective and certain and does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1922(1).Pa. Med. Soc. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 39 A.3d 267, 283 (Pa. 2012).
Here, two sections of the Ethics Act drive our analysis. First, Section 1104(b) of the Ethics Act states, in relevant part:
(2)Any candidate for county-level or local office shall file a [SOFI] for the preceding calendar year with the governing authority of the political subdivision in which he is a candidate on or before the last day for filing a petition to appear on the ballot for election. A copy of the [SOFI] shall also be appended to such petition.
(3)No petition to appear on the ballot for election shall be accepted by the respective State or local election officials unless the petition has appended thereto a [SOFI] as set forth in paragraph[] . . . (2). Failure to file the statement in accordance with the provisions of this chapter shall, in addition to any other penalties provided, be a fatal defect to a petition to appear on the ballot.65 Pa. C.S. § 1104(b). "In simpler terms, a candidate's failure to properly or timely file a [SOFI] in accordance with the above provisions will be considered a fatal defect resulting in disqualification." In re Grimaud (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 418 C.D. 2017, filed Apr. 25, 2017), slip op. at 5. Second, Section 1105(b) of the Ethics Act mandates that an individual who is required by law to submit a SOFI must provide the following "required information" therein:
(1) Name, address and public position.
(2)Occupation or profession.
(3)Any direct or indirect interest in any real estate which was sold or leased to the Commonwealth, any of its agencies or political subdivisions, or purchased or leased from the Commonwealth, any of its agencies or political subdivisions, or which was the subject of any condemnation proceedings by the Commonwealth, any of its agencies or political subdivisions.
(4) The name and address of each creditor to whom is owed in excess of $6,500 and the interest rate thereon. However, loans or credit extended between members of the immediate family and mortgages securing real property which is the principal or secondary residence of the person filing shall not be included.
(5)The name and address of any direct or indirect source of income totaling in the aggregate $1,300 or more. However, this provision shall not be construed to require the divulgence of confidential information protected by statute or existing professional codes of ethics or common law privileges.
(6)The name and address of the source and the amount of any gift or gifts valued in the aggregate at $250 or more and the circumstances of each gift. This paragraph shall not apply to a gift or gifts received from a spouse, parent, parent by marriage, sibling, child, grandchild, other family member or friend when the circumstances make it clear that the motivation for the action was a personal or family relationship. However, for the purposes of this paragraph, the term "friend" shall not include a registered lobbyist or an employee of a registered lobbyist.
(7)The name and address of the source and the amount of any payment for or reimbursement of actual expenses for transportation and lodging or hospitality received in connection with public office or employment where such actual expenses for transportation and lodging or hospitality exceed $650 in an aggregate amount per year. This paragraph shall not apply to expenses reimbursed by a governmental body or to expenses reimbursed by an organization or association of public officials or
employees of political subdivisions which the public official or employee serves in an official capacity.
(8) Any office, directorship or employment of any nature whatsoever in any business entity.
(9) Any financial interest in any legal entity engaged in business for profit.
(10) The identity of any financial interest in a business with which the reporting person is or has been associated in the preceding calendar year which has been transferred to a member of the reporting person's immediate family.Id. § 1105(b). Conspicuously absent from this list is any mention of candidacy for public office. Therefore, reading the plain language of Sections 1104(b) and 1105(b) of the Ethics Act together, we conclude that an individual is not required to state in their SOFI that they are a candidate for public office or declare the specific office for which they intend to run. In other words, a failure of that nature is not a fatal defect that can serve to either invalidate a timely filed SOFI or justify the setting aside of a nomination petition. Common Pleas thus committed an error of law in this instance by concluing otherwise and failing to recognize that Candidate had filed a legally sufficient SOFI with the School District on March 3, 2023.
Per Section 414(a) of the Internal Operating Procedures of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(a), unreported Commonwealth Court opinions issued after January 15, 2008, may be cited for their persuasive value.
It is not clear in this instance whether the School District constitutes a "governing authority" for purposes of Section 1104(b) of the Ethics Act. See In re Nomination Petition of Robert McMonagle, 793 A.2d 174, 177 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) ("[T]he Ethics Act does not define 'file' or 'governing authority,' and thus fails to provide much needed clarity, both for putative candidates and for local officials who must establish a mechanism for accepting the filings."). However, as neither Candidate nor Objectors saw fit to raise this issue, we need not resolve this question.
Candidate's decision to file his SOFI with the School District is what distinguishes this matter from In re Bah, 215 A.3d 1029 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019). In Bah, we affirmed the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County's order that set aside an individual's nomination petition, due to the fact that the individual in that matter had failed to comply with Section 1104(b) of the Ethics Act by filing her SOFI with the City of Philadelphia's Board of Elections, but not with the City's Department of Records as well. 215 A.3d at 1032-36. By contrast, Candidate filed legally sufficient, timely SOFIs with both the Bureau and the School District.
Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that the Ethics Act required Candidate to state in his SOFI that he was a candidate for public office and to provide the office for which he intended to run, his failure to do so would have constituted an amendable defect, rather than one which flatly necessitated the setting aside of either of his nomination petitions. Generally speaking, when
reviewing election issues, we must consider the longstanding and overriding policy in our Commonwealth to protect the elective franchise. [In re Beyer, 115 A.3d 835, 838 (Pa. 2015)]; In re Driscoll, . . . 847 A.2d 44, 48 ([Pa.] 2004). In promoting that policy, this Court has made clear that the [Pennsylvania] Election Code must "be liberally construed to protect a candidate's right to run for office and the voters' right to elect the candidate of their choice." In re Beyer, 115 A.3d at 838. Indeed, "the purpose of the Election Code is to protect, not defeat, a citizen's vote." Dayhoff v. Weaver, 808 A.2d 1002, 1006 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002).In re Griffis, 259 A.3d at 546. This understanding informs our treatment of SOFIs. As our Supreme Court has explained,
the Ethics Act and the [Pennsylvania] Election Code are in pari materia, and therefore, the language of each act should be considered together.[] When the language of the Ethics Act is tempered by the language of the [Pennsylvania] Election Code, it is clear that the intent of the [General Assembly] is to encourage both full financial disclosure and protect voter choice. Read together, the [l]egislative intent is clearly best served by a rule that allows a timely filer to amend in order to come into full compliance giving the public both the benefit of full financial disclosure and the broadest choice of representatives. Therefore, . . . the fatality rule announced in Section 1104 of the Ethics Act was intended by the [General Assembly] to bar only those candidates from the ballot who fail to file [SOFIs] or who file them in an untimely manner. Section 1104 does not bar any candidate
from the ballot if he or she files in a timely manner, even if there are defects on the face of the [SOFI], so long as that candidate subsequently amends the [SOFI] to correct the defect and comes into compliance with the [Ethics] Act in a timely manner. In other words, all defects related to the content of disclosures on a timely filed [SOFI] are subject to timely amendment.In re Paulmier, 937 A.2d 364, 371 (Pa. 2007) (footnote omitted). In light of this, as well as of Candidate's timely filing of his original SOFI on March 3, 2023, he was entitled to an oppotunity to cure any of that SOFI's defects within a reasonable time period. Accordingly, Candidate's filing of his revised SOFI with the School District on March 9, 2023, in which he expressly stated that he was a candidate for reelection as a School District director, would have resulted in the timely, curative amendment of his original SOFI and would have consequently vitiated Objectors' argument for setting aside Candidate's nomination petitions.
Act of June 3, 1937, P.L. 1333, as amended, 25 P.S. §§ 2601-3591.
Given our conclusions regarding Candidate's first two issues, we need not reach the merits of his remaining argument.
B. Objectors' Appeal (300 C.D. 2023)
Turning to Objectors' appeal, they present one argument for our consideration, which is that Common Pleas erred when it concluded that they lacked standing to challenge Candidate's Democratic Party nomination petition. Objectors acknowledge that they are registered members of the Republican Party, as well as that, under our decision in In re Williams, 625 A.2d 1279 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993), they do not have standing to challenge Candidate's Democratic Party nomination petition. However, they ask us to overrule or modify this decision, on the basis "that this Court's holding on the issue of standing in a cross-filed candidate situation was not at the core of the Williams case." Objectors' Br. at 18-20.
We disagree with Objectors' interpretation of Williams and decline their invitation to revisit its holding. In that matter, Williams had cross-filed nomination petitions, so that she could run for a position as district justice in both the Democratic Party and Republican Party primaries. Williams, 625 A.2d at 1280. Two challengers, who were both registered members of the Republican Party, filed petitions through which they sought to have Williams' nomination petitions set aside. Id. at 1280-81. The Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County subsequently granted the challengers' petitions, whereupon Williams appealed that decision to our Court. Id. at 1281. We reversed and, in relevant part, held that the challengers lacked standing to challenge Williams' Democratic Party nomination petition. In doing so, we explained that
[t]wo cases, In re Pasquay, . . . 525 A.2d 13 [(Pa. Cmwlth. 1987),] and In re Pinckney, . . . 524 A.2d 1074 [(Pa. Cmwlth. 1987)], indicate that in a primary election a member of an opposing party does not have standing to challenge the nomination petition of a candidate in another party's primary election. These holdings are based on a recognition that "any person who is registered to vote in a particular election has a substantial interest in obtaining compliance with the election laws by any candidate for whom that elector may vote in that election." Pasquay, . . . 525 A.2d at 14 (quoting In re Barlip, . . . 428 A.2d 1058, 1060 ([Pa. Cmwlth.] 1981)).
The [c]hallengers here are registered Republicans. As such, they have standing to challenge Williams' Republican party primary nomination petition. They do not have standing to challenge her Democratic party primary nomination petition.Id. at 1281. Thus, contrary to Objectors' assertion, Williams' status as a cross-filed candidate was central to our disposition of that matter. Furthermore, Objectors have given us no meaningfully developed explanation for why they believe that matter was incorrectly decided and, instead, appear to dispute its aforementioned holding for no other reason than because they are unhappy that it prevents them from challenging both of Candidate's nomination petitions. We find no fault with the reasoning articulated by the Williams Court and conclude that Common Pleas properly determined that Objectors lacked standing to challenge Candidate's Democratic Party nomination petition.
Moreover, even if Objectors had standing to challenge Candidate's Democratic Party nomination petition, they would not have been able to have that nomination petition set aside for the reasons discussed in Section II.A. of this opinion.
III. Conclusion
In accordance with the foregoing analysis, we reverse Common Pleas' March 20, 2023 order in part, as to Common Pleas' setting aside of Candidate's Republican Party nomination petition, and affirm that order in part, as to Common Pleas' determination that Objectors lacked standing to challenge Candidate's Democratic Party nomination petition.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 10th day of April, 2023, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. Designated Appellant John Battaglia Sr.'s (Candidate) appeal, docketed under 279 C.D. 2023, is GRANTED;
2. The Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County's (Common Pleas) March 20, 2023 order is REVERSED IN PART, as to Common Pleas' decision to set aside Candidate's Republican Party nomination petition for the elected office of Blackhawk School District director;
3. Appellees Stephen Vandecoevering and Kelley Vandecoevering's (Objectors) appeal, docketed under 300 C.D. 2023, is DENIED;
4. Common Pleas' March 20, 2023 order is AFFIRMED IN PART, as to Common Pleas' determination that Objectors lacked standing to challenge Candidate's Democratic Party nomination petition for that same elected office.