IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Re: Nomination Petition of Jordan : 

Bingham as Candidate for the Office : 

Democratic Committee Person : 

Ward 45, Division 9 : No. 317 C.D. 2022

 : 

Appeal of: Janice Pluck : Submitted: April 8, 2022 

BEFORE: HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

OPINION1

BY JUDGE COVEY FILED: April 11, 2022

Janice Pluck (Objector) appeals from the Philadelphia County Common 

Pleas Court’s (trial court) March 29, 2022 order2 dismissing her Petition to Set Aside 

(Objection Petition) Jordan Bingham’s (Candidate) Democratic Nomination Petition

for the Office of Committee Person Ward 45, Division 9 (Nomination Petition). 

Objector presents one issue for this Court’s review: whether the trial court erred by 

dismissing the Objection Petition for defective service. 

Background

The parties do not dispute the underlying facts. On March 14, 2022, 

Candidate filed the Nomination Petition containing 10 signatures.

3

 On March 22, 

1

“A reported opinion of a single judge filed after October 1, 2013, in an election law matter 

may be cited as binding precedent in an election law matter only.” Section 414(d) of the 

Commonwealth Court Internal Operating Procedures, 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(d).

2 The trial court’s order was signed on March 28, 2022, but was entered on the docket on 

March 29, 2022.

3 Pursuant to Section 912.1 of the Pennsylvania Election Code, Act of June 3, 1937, P.L. 

1333, as amended, added by Section 2 of the Act of December 12, 1984, P.L. 968, 25 P.S. § 2872.1, 

a candidate for committee person must submit a nomination petition with 10 valid signatures in 
2

2022, Objector filed the Objection Petition in the trial court, asserting that 

Candidate’s Nomination Petition was “improperly drawn, fail[ed] to contain the 

required number of properly ascribed signatures, and/or was improperly filed, and/or 

is otherwise improper.” Objection Petition at 1. 

On March 22, 2022, the trial court issued an order for Candidate to 

show cause why her Nomination Petition should not be set aside (Order to Show 

Cause), and scheduled a hearing for March 25, 2022. The Order to Show Cause 

directed Objector that “[s]ervice shall be accomplished as provided in Section 7 of 

President Judge Administrative Order No. 4 of 2022, issued March 8, 2022 

[(Administrative Order).]” Order to Show Cause at 1. Thereafter, the trial court

rescheduled and conducted the hearing on March 28, 2022.

At the March 28, 2022 hearing, Harry L. Enggasser (Enggasser)

testified, and the trial court admitted into the record an Affidavit of Service, wherein,

Enggasser certified that he served the Objection Petition on Candidate at 1906 East 

Madison Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, by “plac[ing] [it] in [the] mailbox on 

[the] outside wall.” Objector Br. Ex. 3 (Affidavit of Service) at 1; see also Trial Ct. 

Op. Ex. P-3.

4

 

On March 29, 2022, the trial court issued a Final Order declaring: “The 

[trial c]ourt finds that the [Objection] Petition was not properly served on []

order to appear on the primary ballot. See Lewis v. Phila. Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 2018 WL 4009589 

(C.C.P. Phila. July 31, 2018), aff’d, Pa. Cmwlth. No. 859 C.D. 2018, filed Aug. 13, 2018; see also 

In re Bringhurst (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 511 C.D. 2014, filed Apr. 15, 2014).

“[A] single-judge unreported opinion in an election matter, . . . under Section 414(b) of this 

Court’s Internal Operating Procedures, 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(b), may only be cited for its 

persuasive value and not as binding precedent.” In re Nomination Papers of B. DeNeice Welch as 

a Candidate for Pittsburgh City Council-Dist. 9, 218 A.3d 976, 980 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019).

4 Enggasser’s Affidavit of Service was not included in the trial court’s original record

(Original Record) transmitted to this Court on April 7, 2022. 
3

Candidate and [the trial court] lacks jurisdiction to decide the [Objection] Petition. 

[] Candidate’s name shall remain on the Ballot.” Final Order at 1. On April 6, 2022, 

Objector filed her Notice of Appeal with the trial court appealing from the Final 

Order to this Court.5 The trial court issued its opinion on April 8, 2022.

Discussion

Initially, 

[“]in 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 . . . 

([Pa.] 2004). In promoting that policy, this Court has 

made clear that the [Pennsylvania] Election Code

 

5

In her brief, Objector states: 

[The trial court] held that the objections to the petition of

[Candidate] (as well as several other petitions with the same or 

similar factual issues [FN]3) should be dismissed due to defective 

service.

[FN]3 [Objector] has filed a motion to consolidate those 

other matters with this matter with the trial court and 

respectfully requests that this Court decide all such 

similarly decided matters along with that of [Candidate].

Objector Br. at 5. Candidate also references the other petitions in his brief. However, the Original 

Record does not include any such motion to consolidate, nor was any motion to consolidate filed 

in this Court. The Notice of Appeal herein expressly specifies: “The Appellee is the above named 

Candidate for the stated Position[,]” i.e., “Jordan Bingham[.]” Original Record at 19. Because no 

notice of appeal has been filed with this Court from the final orders ruling on the other petitions, 

this Court is without jurisdiction to render any decision thereon. See J.F. v. D.B., 897 A.2d 1261, 

1277 (Pa. Super. 2006) (“The law of this Commonwealth provides that courts may not rule on

matters not before them[.]”). Accordingly, Objector’s request is denied.

“[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).
4

[(Election Code)6] 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). Furthermore, 

“[a] party alleging defects in a nominating petition has the 

burden of proving such defects, as nomination petitions 

are presumed to be valid.” In re Beyer, 115 A.3d at 838.

In re Griffis, 259 A.3d 542, 546 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021).

This Court is . . . mindful that a balance must be struck 

between the liberal purposes of the Election Code and “the 

provisions of the [E]lection [C]ode relating to . . . 

nominati[on] petitions . . . [which] are necessary . . . to 

prevent fraud and to preserve the integrity of the election

process.” [In re] Shimkus, 946 A.2d [139,] 154 [(Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2008)] (citation omitted).

In re Scott, 138 A.3d 687, 692 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016).

Objector argues that the trial court erred by dismissing the Objection 

Petition for defective service where service was made by a private citizen leaving a 

copy of the Objection Petition in the mailbox on the outside wall of Candidate’s 

residence. Objector claims that service was effected “much in the same manner as 

would have been accomplished utilizing Federal Express or [United Parcel Service 

(]UPS[)].” Objector Br. at 2. Objector submits that, “in light of the reality and 

equities at stake, the [trial c]ourt’s application of the Order [to Show Cause] was 

overly rigid and deprived [Objector] of her day in court when she made a good faith 

effort to ensure that [] [C]andidate was in fact served.” Id. Objector adds: “Putting 

aside the complete lack of functional difference, the trial court has effectively created 

a manual for a candidate to fraudulently place themselves on the ballot” by hiding 

and forcing an objector to expend approximately $40.00 for nationally recognized 

6 Act of June 3, 1937, P.L. 1333, as amended, 25 P.S. §§ 2601-3591.
5

overnight delivery service,

7

id. at 2-3, which imposes “a de facto filing fee for a[n] 

[objector],” id. at 10, and “creates a chilling effect and serves no valid purpose.” Id. 

at 7. Objector contends that the trial court “failed to properly interpret the [] Election 

Code in such a way as to safeguard the integrity of elections . . . .” Id. at 6. 

Section 977 of the Election Code states, in pertinent part:

All nomination petitions and papers received and filed 

within the periods limited by this [Election Code] shall be 

deemed to be valid, unless, within seven days after the last 

day for filing said nomination petition or paper, a petition 

is presented to the court specifically setting forth the 

objections thereto, and praying that the said petition or 

paper be set aside. A copy of said petition shall, within 

said period, be served on the officer or board with whom 

said nomination petition or paper was filed. Upon the 

presentation of such a petition, the court shall make an 

order fixing a time for hearing which shall not be later 

than ten days after the last day for filing said nomination 

petition or paper, and specifying the time and manner of 

notice that shall be given to the candidate or candidates

named in the nomination petition or paper sought to be 

set aside. . . . 

25 P.S. § 2937 (emphasis added). Accordingly, “[u]nder Section 977 of the []

Election Code, the lower court ‘has complete control to regulate the time and manner

7

In her brief, Objector declares that the nationally recognized overnight delivery fee is 

exorbitant, considering that Objector and Candidate “are neighbors that are separated by one or 

two city blocks.” Objector Br. at 10. Objector asks this Court to take judicial notice of the Federal 

Express and UPS price quote for Objector to serve Candidate the Objection Petition by overnight 

delivery, evidence that Objector admits she did not present to the trial court. See id. at 10 n.5. 

However, “[a]n appellate court is limited to considering only those facts that have been duly 

certified in the record on appeal.” B.K. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 36 A.3d 649, 657 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2012); see also In re Amato (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 1138 C.D. 2017, filed Sept. 14, 2017), slip op. at 13 

(In election cases, “this Court can only consider the facts that have been certified in the record on 

appeal and may not consider documents attached to a brief that are not a part of the certified 

record.”); Tarpey v. Masesso (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 483 C.D. 2015, filed Apr. 17, 2015) (“[U]nverified 

statements [in an election appeal] brief do not constitute facts of record.” Slip op. at 3 n.3).
6

of giving notice and the fixing of hearings.’” In re Blount, 898 A.2d 1181, 1184 (Pa.

Cmwlth. 2006), aff’d, 895 A.2d 545 (Pa. 2006) (quoting In re Morgan, 428 A.2d

1055, 1058 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981)). 

Here, as directed by Section 977 of the Election Code, Section 7 of the 

Administrative Order specified:

A copy of the [Objection] Petition and Order to Show 

Cause must be served by [Objector] on [] Candidate no 

later than March 24, 2022[,] at 4:00 P[.]M. Service may 

be accomplished by any of the below methods: 

(i) personal service on the Candidate; 

(ii) personal service on any adult person at [] 

Candidate’s residence address as shown on [] 

Candidate’s affidavit; or 

(iii) by delivery by nationally recognized 

overnight service to [] Candidate’s residence 

address shown as [] Candidate’s affidavit 

provided that: 

(A) delivery is attempted before March 24, 

2022, at 4[:00] P.M., and 

(B) the package be sent with instructions to 

leave the Service Packet at said address if no 

one answers the door. 

Administrative Order at 2 (emphasis added).8

Section 4 of the trial court’s Order to Show Cause declared, in relevant 

part:

A copy of this Order to Show Cause, [the Objection] 

Petition and attachments must be served by [Objector] on 

[] Candidate no later than March 24, 2022[,] at 4:00 

8 www.courts.phila.gov/pdf/regs/2022/04-of-2022-PJ-ORDER.pdf (last visited Apr. 11, 

2022); see also Objector Br. Ex. 1; Candidate Br. Ex. A.
7

P[.]M. . . . Service shall be accomplished as provided 

in Section 7 of [the Administrative Order], and an 

Affidavit of Service must be filed on or before the hearing 

date. 

Order to Show Cause at 1 (emphasis added). 

Both the Administrative Order and the Order to Show Cause (which 

incorporated the Administrative Order’s service requirements), clearly mandated 

that the Objection Petition “must be served on Candidate.” Administrative Order at 

2; Order to Show Cause at 1 (emphasis added). Section 7 of the Administrative 

Order listed three permissible methods for personal service. The Order to Show 

Cause reiterated the mandate set forth in the Administrative Order that the Order to 

Show Cause and the Objection Petition must be served on Candidate, and that such 

service shall be accomplished in the manner listed in Section 7 of the Administrative 

Order. 

Based on the evidence presented at the March 28, 2022 hearing, the trial 

court found:

Enggasser . . . testified that he effected service on 

[Candidate] . . . on March 23, 2022[,] by placing the 

[Objection] Petition in the mailbox at [Candidate’s] 

residence at 1906 E. Madison Street. His testimony was 

consistent with his Affidavit of Service in which he states 

that he “placed (‘the [Objection] Petition’) in the mailbox 

on the outside wall. Storm door was locked.” (Exhibit P3). At first, [] Enggasser did not recall whether [he] 

knocked on the door when he attempted to effect service, 

but the record indicates that he did not.

[] Objector did not make personal service on 

Candidate.[FN]3 Further, there was no evidence that [] 

Objector ever made a request to the [trial c]ourt to 

authorize another form of service.
8

[FN]3 Objector does not contend, nor was there any 

evidence that [] Enggasser worked for a nationally 

recognized delivery service.

Trial Ct. Op. at 3. Accordingly, “[b]ecause [] Objector did not comply with the [trial 

c]ourt’s service requirements and never sought the [trial c]ourt’s authorization to 

serve the [Objection] Petition using another method, [the trial court] concluded that 

the [Objection] Petition must be dismissed.” Id. at 2.

Objector cites to In re McElhatton, 729 A.2d 163 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991),

in support of her position that Enggasser leaving the Objection Petition “in [the] 

mailbox on [the] outside wall” of Candidate’s residence was sufficient to effectuate 

service. Affidavit of Service at 1. In McElhatton, the candidate filed a motion to 

dismiss the objection petition because the objectors did not serve the objection 

petition pursuant to the trial court’s order to show cause, which required service on 

the candidate personally or upon an adult at his/her residence, or upon a person in 

charge of his/her place of business. The trial court concluded that the objectors’

leaving of the objection petition outside the candidate’s office door at the direction 

of a receptionist employed by the candidate’s landlord was defective because the 

receptionist was not in charge of the candidate’s office. This Court, however, 

determined that because the receptionist was authorized to receive clients, telephone 

calls, mail, and packages on the candidate’s behalf, the receptionist was in charge of 

the candidate’s business in his absence and, thus, the objectors properly served the 

candidate in accordance with the trial court’s order to show cause.

In the instant case, the issue is whether the trial court should have found 

service of the Objection Petition effective, notwithstanding that Objector did not 

comply with any of the service methods expressly set forth in the Administrative 

Order and incorporated therefrom into the Order to Show Cause. Without seeking 
9

leave from the trial court to make alternate service, the Objector completely flouted 

the trial court’s Order to Show Cause and the Administrative Order. Under the 

circumstances, McElhatton is inapposite. 

Objector also cites to McElhatton to support her plea that, even if this 

Court finds that service was defective, it should still remand the matter to the trial 

court with instructions to give Objector an opportunity to cure the defect. This Court 

acknowledges that the McElhatton Court stated: “[E]ven, assuming arguendo,

service was ineffective, [the] common pleas court erred in dismissing the petition 

with prejudice. Instead, [the] common pleas court should have merely set aside the 

service, rather than dismissing the action. Frycklund v. Way, . . . 599 A.2d 1332 

([Pa. Super.] 1991).” McElhatton, 729 A.2d at 167. However, since the McElhatton

Court remanded the matter based on its conclusion that the service was effective, 

that statement is dicta.9

Further, Frycklund, the case the McElhatton Court cited, involved 

preliminary objections to a writ of summons based on defective service. The 

Frycklund Court ruled that the trial court should not have dismissed the case on that 

basis but, rather, “it should merely have set aside the service.” Frycklund, 599 A.2d 

at 1335. Given that service therein was relative to a writ of summons, as opposed to 

an objection petition in an election case, wherein the parameters of service are 

specifically ordered by the trial court and the time constraints are more restrictive

based on the nature of the action, Frycklund is also inapposite.

 

9

“[D]icta is ‘an opinion by a court on a question that is directly involved, briefed, and 

argued by counsel, and even passed on by the court, but that is not essential to the decision. Dicta

has no precedential value.’ Valley Twp. v. City of Coatesville, 894 A.2d 885, 889 (Pa. Cmwlth.

2006).” Castellani v. Scranton Times, L.P., 124 A.3d 1229, 1243 n.11 (Pa. 2015).
10

This Court has observed: 

The short time allowed under Section 977 of the Election 

Code for the hearing and disposition of challenges to 

nomination petitions suggests that persons whose 

[nomination] petitions are challenged should be quickly 

and surely notified. Further, if personal service cannot be 

made, because it is avoided, or for any reason, the court 

can be asked to authorize other forms of notice. 

In re Morgan, 428 A.2d at 1058. “The primary purpose of service is to give adequate 

notice of the pendency of an action.” In re Blount, 898 A.2d at 1184. Further, the

candidate’s appearance at the hearing “cannot cure defective service when service is 

a mandatory requirement.” In re Gerena, 972 A.2d 86, 90 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009). 

In addition, “proper service is a prerequisite to the exercise of personal 

jurisdiction over a defendant or respondent.” In re Barr, 956 A.2d 1083, 1085 (Pa. 

Cmwlth.), aff’d sub nom. In re Substitute Nomination Certificate of Barr, 958 A.2d 

1045 (Pa. 2008). “This Court may not determine a legal action with respect to any 

party unless and until the Court possesses both subject-matter and personal 

jurisdiction with respect to that party.” Id. Thus, an objector’s failure to comply 

with a trial court’s order directing the manner in which objection petitions are to be 

served can be fatal to the objection petition.10 See In re Turner (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 57 

10 Objector asks this Court to conclude that she should not have been required to comply 

with the national overnight delivery manner of service set forth in the Administrative Order 

because the cost of the same created a chilling effect on the procedure for challenging a nomination 

petition, which procedure ensures the integrity of the electoral process. Objector gives numerous 

reasons why the national overnight delivery service requirement is unfair, with general references 

to the courts’ responsibility to protect election integrity, but provides no legal authority to support 

her contention. The law is well established that “the lower court ‘has complete control to regulate 

the time and manner of giving notice and the fixing of hearings.’” In re Blount, 898 A.2d at 1184.

As the trial court correctly noted, “[i]f for any reason the Objector felt that the service requirements 

stymied [her] case, [she] could have requested the trial court [to] authorize other forms of service. 

At no point did [she] make such a request.” Trial Ct. Op. at 5. The fact that Objector made no 
11

M.D. 2021, per curiam order filed Mar. 22, 2021), aff’d, Pa. No. 14 EAP 2021, filed 

April 6, 2021 (wherein this Court dismissed the objection petition, in part, because 

the objectors failed to file proof that they properly served the candidate); see also In 

re Bringhurst (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 511 C.D. 2014, filed Apr. 15, 2014) (wherein this 

Court affirmed the trial court’s order dismissing the objection petitions for failure to 

strictly comply with the trial court’s order to show cause and the 2014 administrative 

order); In re Morgan (wherein this Court affirmed the trial court’s order dismissing 

objection petitions left at the candidates’ front door when the trial court’s order 

required personal service).

Based on this Court’s review of the record, it concludes that the

evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Objector did not serve the Objection 

Petition and Order to Show Cause on Candidate in accordance with the 

Administrative Order and the Order to Show Cause. Accordingly, the trial court 

correctly determined that Objector failed to properly serve Candidate, the trial court 

lacked jurisdiction, and Candidate’s name shall remain on the ballot.

Conclusion

For all of the above reasons, the trial court’s order is affirmed.

_________________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

request for alternate service, and Objector makes no assertion that Candidate did or would evade 

service, undermines her argument of an alleged chilling effect.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Re: Nomination Petition of Jordan : 

Bingham as Candidate for the Office : 

Democratic Committee Person : 

Ward 45, Division 9 : No. 317 C.D. 2022

 : 

Appeal of: Janice Pluck : Submitted: April 8, 2022

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 11th day of April, 2022, the Philadelphia County 

Common Pleas Court’s March 29, 2022 order is affirmed.

_________________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

IN RE: TEMPORARY MODIFICATION : No. 571 Judicial Administration Docket 

OF THE RULES OF APPELLATE : 

PROCEDURE ARISING UNDER THE : 

PENNSYLVANIA ELECTION CODE : 

ORDER

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 5th day of April, 2022, in order to expedite the appellate 

process regarding appeals from challenges to nomination petitions for any and all

candidates running for office in the May 17, 2022 General Primary Election, Pa.R.A.P. 

903(c)(1)(ii), providing for a ten-day appeal period from an order in any matter arising 

under the Pennsylvania Election Code, is TEMPORARILY MODIFIED to provide for a 

five-day appeal period. 

Additionally, Pa.R.A.P. 107 is TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED to the extent 

it specifies that weekends and holidays are to be excluded from calculating the five-day 

appeal period. 

In appeals arising under the Election Code that fall within this order, 

appellants shall file briefs within twenty-four hours after filing their notice of appeal and 

jurisdictional statement. Appellees’ briefs are due within twenty-four hours of the filing of 

appellants’ briefs. Further, Pa.R.A.P. 2113 (regarding reply briefs) is TEMPORARILY 

SUSPENDED in these matters; no reply briefs will be permitted. 

Notices of appeal, jurisdictional statements, and briefs shall be filed 

electronically when counsel or the litigants have a PACFile account. Otherwise, counsel 

or the litigants shall contact the relevant filing office during normal business hours to make 

alternative arrangements to ensure that the filing office actually receives the submissions 

by the applicable deadline. 
Pa.R.A.P. 1931(a) and (c) (regarding the deadline for transmittal of the 

record when complete) are TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED in these matters, and the 

record shall be transferred as soon as practicable. The lower court may transmit partially 

completed records in the interest of facilitating prompt resolution of any appeal in these 

matters. Applications for reconsideration or reargument will not be entertained by this 

Court on election matters falling under this order. 

Any court deciding a matter that arises under the Pennsylvania Election 

Code in relation to the May 17, 2022 General Primary Election shall append a copy of this 

order to its decision. 

A True Copy Nicole Traini

As Of 04/05/2022

 

 

 

Attest: ___________________

Chief Clerk

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania