In re Nomination Paper of Esler

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

In re Nomination Paper of Esler

420 A.2d 1045, 491 Pa. 287, 1980 Pa. LEXIS 792

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 3, 1980

DocketAppeal No. 80-3-730

StatusPublished

This text of 420 A.2d 1045 (In re Nomination Paper of Esler) 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 Nomination Paper of Esler, 420 A.2d 1045, 491 Pa. 287, 1980 Pa. LEXIS 792 (Pa. 1980).

Pincite

Opinions

ORDER OF COURT

AND NOW, this 3rd day of October, 1980, the Order of the Commonwealth Court at No. 2033 C.D. 1980, dated September 11, 1980, is affirmed.

ROBERTS, J., files a statement in support of the order of court. NIX, J., files a concurring statement. LARSEN, J., files a dissenting statement.

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE COURT

ROBERTS, Justice.

I join the Court’s order affirming the Commonwealth Court in holding that the Secretary of the Commonwealth properly accepted the nomination paper of Thomas Esler and that Esler’s name should thus appear on the November [288]*2881980 election ballot as the candidate of the Independent Legislator Body. As the Commonwealth Court correctly held, there is no basis in our case law or the Election Code for judicial inquiry into the relative independence of a candidate. This case is precisely the same as In re Morris, 491 Pa. 284, 420 A.2d 1044 (1980). Both are governed by Salera v. Tucker, 399 F.Supp. 1258 (E.D.Pa.1975), aff’d, 424 U.S. 959, 96 S.Ct. 1451, 47 L.Ed.2d 727 (1976), and by our decision in Packrall v. Quail, 411 Pa. 555,192 A.2d 704 (1963). See also Ross Nomination Petition, 411 Pa. 45, 48, 190 A.2d 719, 720 (1963) (“The Election Code must be liberally construed so as not to deprive an individual of his right to run for office, or the voters of their right to elect a candidate of their choice”).

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

ORDER OF COURT

AND NOW, this 3rd day of October, 1980, the Order of the Commonwealth Court at No. 2033 C.D. 1980, dated September 11, 1980, is affirmed.

ROBERTS, J., files a statement in support of the order of court. NIX, J., files a concurring statement. LARSEN, J., files a dissenting statement.

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE COURT

ROBERTS, Justice.

I join the Court’s order affirming the Commonwealth Court in holding that the Secretary of the Commonwealth properly accepted the nomination paper of Thomas Esler and that Esler’s name should thus appear on the November [288]*2881980 election ballot as the candidate of the Independent Legislator Body. As the Commonwealth Court correctly held, there is no basis in our case law or the Election Code for judicial inquiry into the relative independence of a candidate. This case is precisely the same as In re Morris, 491 Pa. 284, 420 A.2d 1044 (1980). Both are governed by Salera v. Tucker, 399 F.Supp. 1258 (E.D.Pa.1975), aff’d, 424 U.S. 959, 96 S.Ct. 1451, 47 L.Ed.2d 727 (1976), and by our decision in Packrall v. Quail, 411 Pa. 555,192 A.2d 704 (1963). See also Ross Nomination Petition, 411 Pa. 45, 48, 190 A.2d 719, 720 (1963) (“The Election Code must be liberally construed so as not to deprive an individual of his right to run for office, or the voters of their right to elect a candidate of their choice”).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

420 A.2d 1045, 491 Pa. 287, 1980 Pa. LEXIS 792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-nomination-paper-of-esler-pa-1980.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack