In Re Nominating Petitions of Braxton

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

In Re Nominating Petitions of Braxton

874 A.2d 1143, 583 Pa. 35, 2005 Pa. LEXIS 926

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 3, 2005

Docket217 EAL 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 874 A.2d 1143 (In Re Nominating Petitions of Braxton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Nominating Petitions of Braxton, 874 A.2d 1143, 583 Pa. 35, 2005 Pa. LEXIS 926 (Pa. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 3rd day of May, 2005, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED. Respondent did not disclose anywhere on his Statement of Financial Interests the sources of his rental income and the names and addresses of the creditors holding mortgages on his rental properties. See 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b)(4), (b)(5). In light of these omissions, the Order of the Commonwealth Court, which allowed Respondent to amend his Statement of Financial Interests and remain on the ballot, is REVERSED, and Respondent John L. Braxton’s name is ordered to be STRICKEN from the primary ballot for the Democratic Party nomination for the Office of Controller in the City of Philadelphia. See 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(b)(3) (providing that the “[f]ailure to file the *36 statement in accordance with the provisions of this chapter shall ... be a fatal defect to a petition to appear on the ballot”); see also In re Nomination Petition of Benninghoff, 578 Pa. 402, 411, 852 A.2d 1182, 1187 (2004) (interpreting the fatal defect rule of Section 1104(b)(3) as permitting an amendment to a financial statement where a candidate has substantially complied with the Ethics Act, such as where all of the statutorily required disclosures “can be facially obtained from the information provided on the form as a whole”).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 3rd day of May, 2005, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED. Respondent did not disclose anywhere on his Statement of Financial Interests the sources of his rental income and the names and addresses of the creditors holding mortgages on his rental properties. See 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b)(4), (b)(5). In light of these omissions, the Order of the Commonwealth Court, which allowed Respondent to amend his Statement of Financial Interests and remain on the ballot, is REVERSED, and Respondent John L. Braxton’s name is ordered to be STRICKEN from the primary ballot for the Democratic Party nomination for the Office of Controller in the City of Philadelphia. See 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(b)(3) (providing that the “[f]ailure to file the *36 statement in accordance with the provisions of this chapter shall ... be a fatal defect to a petition to appear on the ballot”); see also In re Nomination Petition of Benninghoff, 578 Pa. 402, 411, 852 A.2d 1182, 1187 (2004) (interpreting the fatal defect rule of Section 1104(b)(3) as permitting an amendment to a financial statement where a candidate has substantially complied with the Ethics Act, such as where all of the statutorily required disclosures “can be facially obtained from the information provided on the form as a whole”).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

874 A.2d 1143, 583 Pa. 35, 2005 Pa. LEXIS 926, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-nominating-petitions-of-braxton-pa-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack