IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Re: Barack Hussein Obama, II Aka Barack Hussein Obama, Aka Barack H. Obama, Objection of: Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.: and Dale A. Laudenslager
ORDER

No. 8 5 M.D. 2012

NOW, March 2, 2012, after hea ri ng on objectors' petition to set aside nomination petition, and followin g argu ment on Candidate's motion to dismiss, the motion to dismiss is gra nted. As set forth in the Penn sylvania Election Code (Code), Act of June 3, 1937, P.L. 1333, as amended, 25 P.S. 2600-3591, and case law interpreting it, objectors can seek to set aside a candidate's nomination petition by: (1) challenging ind ivi dual signatures on the nomination petition pursuant to Section 908 of th e Code, 25 P.S. 2868; (2) challenging a circulator's affidavit pursuant t o Section 909 of the Election Code, 25 P.S. 2869; (3) challenging a can didate's affidavit pursuant to Sections 910 and 951 of the Code, 25 P.S. 2870 and 2911(e); and (4) challenging the candidate's statement of financial interest under the Public Official and Employees Ethics Act, 65 Pa. C.S. 1101-1113. Presently, Objectors have filed a challenge to Candidate's nomination petiti on, asserting he is ineligible and unqualified for office under Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution. In In re Nomination Petition of Jones, 505 Pa. 50, 476 A.2d 1287 (1984), our Supreme Court concl uded the Pennsylvania Constitution did not confer jurisdiction to courts of th is Commonwealth to determine the qualifications of a candidate.!
!

We

I n this regard, the Court opined: The rule of nonjusticiability in this area is not to be construed as an absolute prohibition against judicial consideration of the constitutional qualifications of one claiming an office.

believe such a conclusion is equally applicable to objections involvin g the United States Constitution. As noted above, this Court has, nevertheless, entertained objections to a candidate's qualifications for office in those instan ces where the affidavit of the candidate has been challenged. See In re: Nomination Petition of PiPPYr 711 A.2d 1048 CPa. Cmwlth. 1998). Stated another waYr in the context of objections to nomination petitions w here objectors assert a global challenge to a candidate's qualifications to hold office, this Court can only reach the issue of the candidate's qua lificatio ns where a challenge to the candidate's affidavit is implicated. In this case, Candidate has fi led a nomination petition seeking the nomination for the office of President of th e United States. Section 910 of the Code, 25 P.S. 2870, explicitly excl udes presidential candidates from the affidavit requirement stati ng in pertinent part, "In the case of a candidate for nomination as President of the United States, it shall not be necessary for such candidate to fi le th e affidavit required in this section to be filed by candidates, but t he post-office address of such candidate shall be stated in such nomination petition." It follows that because Candidate in this action was not requi red to file a candidate's affidavitr this Court is without jurisdiction to ente rtain Objectors' challenge to his perceived ineligibility for office.

Ma nifestly, the court has jurisdiction to entertain a claim of an el ected prospective office holder that his or her right to sit has been unconstitutionally denied .... However, a right to intervene in that situation does not flow from the constitutional section setting forth the qualifications, but rather from our well recognized jurisdiction to intervene when there is ali allegation of an infringement of constitutional rights .... The consideration of the qualifications as set forth by the constitutional mandate is merely tangential to the underlying inquiry. Additionally, the remedy of quo warranto is available to test an individual's right to hold a public office. Jones, 505 Pa. at 61,476 A.2d 1292 (citations omitted).

For these reasons, we grant Candidate's motion and dismiss this action with prejudice.

Certified from the Record

MAR 02 201l

And Order Exit