IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Re: Lehigh County Constables :

: No. 774 C.D. 2017

Appeal of: Dennis C. Huber : Submitted: September 22, 2017

and Frederick Bainhauer, III :

BEFORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

HONORABLE J. WESLEY OLER, Jr., Senior Judge

OPINION 

BY JUDGE WOJCIK FILED: October 6, 2017

Dennis C. Huber and Frederick Bainhauer III (collectively, Constables) 

appeal the orders of the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas (trial court) denying 

their three petitions for the appointment of deputy constables, and approving two 

other petitions for the appointment of deputy constables, pursuant to Section 7122 

of Title 44 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes (Act 49).

1

 We vacate and 

remand in part, and affirm in part.

 

1

44 Pa. C.S. §7122. Section 7122 states, in relevant part:

 (a) General rule.—Sole power to appoint deputy constables in a 

ward . . . or township is vested in the constable of the ward . . . or 

township subject to approval of the court of common pleas under 

subsection (b).

 (b) Court approval and qualifications.—

 (1) Except as set forth in paragraph (2), no deputy shall be 

appointed, . . . without approbation of the court of common pleas of 

the county, except for special appointments in a civil suit or 

proceeding, at the request and risk of the plaintiff or his agent.
2

In light of the duty imposed by Section 7122, on October 4, 2016, the 

trial court issued Amended Administrative Order No. AD-6-2016 (2016 

Administrative Order), establishing the procedure for the approval of appointments 

of deputy constables to work at the polls on primary and general election days.2 See

Trial Court 8/28/17 Opinion at Exhibit A. The 2016 Administrative Order directed 

that such requests be by petition to the trial court in substantially the same form as 

provided in the order. Id. The 2016 Administrative Order specifically required that 

the petition include: the name and signature of the constable seeking to make the 

appointment; the name and address of the proposed deputy constable; a signed 

certification from the Chief Clerk to the Lehigh County Election Board (Chief Clerk) 

that the proposed deputy constable is a qualified elector in the ward for which the 

appointment is sought; the recommendation and signature of the magisterial district 

judge (MDJ) having jurisdiction over the relevant ward, borough, or township that 

 

 (2) In the event of a deputy’s death or inability or refusal to act, the 

constable of a township may, with approbation of the court of 

common pleas of the county where the deputy served, appoint 

another deputy who shall have full authority to act until the next 

regular session of court.

2 Section 7152 of Act 49 states, in pertinent part:

 The constable of a . . . township or ward, or his deputy, shall do all 

of the following:

 (1) Be present at the polling place in each election district of the 

. . . township or ward at each election during the continuance of each 

election and while the votes are being counted, for the purpose of 

preserving the peace.

 (2) Serve at all elections.

44 Pa. C.S. §7152.
3

the petition be approved, denied, or expressing no opinion on its disposition; and the 

recommendation and signature of the Lehigh County District Attorney (District 

Attorney) that the petition be approved, denied, or expressing no opinion on its 

disposition. Id.

On April 17, 2017, Constable Huber submitted petitions to the trial 

court in the form provided in the 2016 Administrative Order that he had signed 

seeking the appointment of Judith Kern and Marianna Andrea Colon-Ortiz as deputy 

constables for the 19th Ward in the City of Allentown (City) for the 2017 Municipal 

Primary and General Elections (Elections). Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 30a, 32a. 

Although the Chief Clerk, or his designee, signed the petitions certifying that Kern 

and Colon-Ortiz are qualified electors in that Ward, neither the relevant MDJ nor the 

District Attorney indicated a recommendation or signed the petitions. Id. On May 

11, 2017, the trial court denied the petition. Id. 

On April 25, 2017, Constable Bainhauer submitted a petition to the trial 

court in the form provided in the 2016 Administrative Order that he had signed 

seeking the appointment of Joseph Cocco as a deputy constable for the City’s 11th

Ward for the Elections. R.R. at 34a. Although the Chief Clerk signed the petition 

certifying that Cocco is a qualified elector in that Ward, neither the relevant MDJ 

nor the District Attorney indicated a recommendation or signed the petition. Id. On 

May 11, 2017, the trial court denied the petition. Id. 

On April 18, 2017, a petition in the form provided in the 2016 

Administrative Order was submitted seeking the appointment of Scott Koenig as a 

deputy constable for Lynn Township (Township) for the 2017 Municipal Primary 

and General Elections. R.R. at 35a. Although the Chief Clerk signed the petition 

certifying that Koenig is a qualified elector in the Township, and both the relevant 
4

MDJ and the District Attorney signed and recommended approval of the petition, no 

name or signature of a constable appeared on the petition because there is “[n]o 

constable in [the Township].” Id.

3

 Nevertheless, on May 12, 2017, the trial court 

approved the petition. Id. 

On April 18, 2017, a petition in the form provided in the 2016 

Administrative Order was submitted seeking the appointment of Sterling Ritter as a 

deputy constable for the Township for the Elections. R.R. at 36a. Although the 

Chief Clerk signed the petition certifying that Ritter is a qualified elector in the 

Township, and both the relevant MDJ and the District Attorney signed and 

recommended approval of the petition, no name or signature of a constable appeared 

on the petition because there is “[n]o constable in [the Township].” Nevertheless, 

on May 12, 2017, the trial court approved the petition. Id. 

Following the denial of the petitions filed by the Constables, counsel 

for the Constables asked the trial court to conduct a hearing so “there could be a 

record made of what the reasons were” for the trial court’s action. R.R. at 39a. At 

the May 12, 2017 hearing, Constable Huber testified that he did not seek the 

recommendation or signature of the relevant MDJ because he did not know who the 

MDJ was for the election district or where the MDJ’s office is located. Id. at 51a, 

 

3 Section 7121 of Act 49 provides the procedure by which the vacancy in the office of 

constable for Lynn Township may be filled:

 When a vacancy occurs in the office of constable, regardless of the 

reason for the vacancy, the court of common pleas of the county of 

the vacancy, upon petition of not less than ten qualified electors 

residing in the . . . township of the vacancy, shall appoint a suitable 

person, who, upon being qualified as required by law, shall serve as 

the constable for the unexpired term of the vacancy.

44 Pa. C.S. §7121.
5

53a-54a. Constable Bainhauer testified that he did not seek the recommendation or 

signature of the relevant MDJ because constables are independently elected officials 

and do not answer to other elected officials. Id. at 58a. The Constables and their 

counsel characterized the trial court’s requirement of their obtaining the 

recommendation and signature of the relevant MDJs on the petition form prior to its 

submission as an “unfunded mandate.” See id. at 45a, 46a, 59a, 60a, 63a.4 

 

4 At the hearing, Counsel summarized the Constables’ position as follows:

 Constables get paid absolutely nothing for going through this 

whole process. Adding an unfunded mandate may be something 

that Your Honor sees as a pathway towards helping to exercise Your 

Honor’s own due diligence. Very, very respectfully suggest to Your 

Honor it’s just as easy, if not more easy, for Your Honor’s court 

administration office – Court Administration Office to accomplish 

that result either by sending them individually, or by converting 

them into a list as . . . the Chief Deputy downstairs at the Clerk’s 

Office already does, and getting that information.

 If it’s Your Honor’s own due diligence Your Honor is concerned 

with, then with tremendous respect, I do suggest that that’s 

something for the Court to engage in, rather than to order the 

constable to run around doing extra work he already gets paid zero 

for.

 Constables are elected officials, and do not report to any other 

elected official. They do indeed need to submit this petition for this 

approval, but that’s done by dropping it off at the Clerk’s Office, 

and that’s – or by mailing it, and running the trip over to the 

magistrate’s office, especially when as in these two cases, these two 

gentlemen don’t even know where their magistrate office is.

 While one might say for something such as, well, perhaps they 

should find out, that’s completely irrelevant. There is no reason why 

they need, or ought to find out since the magistrate does, in fact, and 

by law, have zero role in the election.

R.R. at 63a-64a
6

Nevertheless, the Constables conceded that the trial court itself may obtain the 

recommendations and signatures of the relevant MDJs and the District Attorney as 

part of its due diligence in exercising its duty under Section 1722(b) of Act 49. See 

id. at 53a, 57a. On May 15, 2017, following the hearing, the trial court issued orders 

again denying the three petitions. The Constables subsequently filed these appeals

of all of the trial court’s orders both denying5 and approving the petitions.

6

However, on August 28, 2017, the trial court amended Administrative 

Order No. AD-6-2016 (2017 Administrative Order), establishing a new procedure 

for the approval of appointments of deputy constables to work at the polls on primary 

and general election days. See Trial Court 8/28/17 Opinion at Exhibit B. The 2017 

Administrative Order directs that such requests be by petition to the trial court in 

substantially the same form as provided in the order. Id. However, the 2017 

Administrative Order merely requires the petitioning constable to complete Section 

1 of the petition, including the name and signature of the constable seeking to make 

the appointment and the name and address of the proposed deputy constable, prior 

to its submission to the trial court’s Clerk of Judicial Records. Id. The 2017 

Administrative Order requires the court’s Clerk of Judicial Records to arrange for 

the completion of Section 2 of the form, including the recommendation and signature 

of the MDJ having jurisdiction over the relevant ward, borough, or township that the 

petition be approved, denied, or expressing no opinion on its disposition; a signed 

certification from the Chief Clerk that the proposed deputy constable is a qualified 

 

5

“Our scope of review of a decision by a trial court is limited to a determination of whether 

the trial court abused its discretion, [and] committed an error of law or whether constitutional rights 

were violated. Azzarrelli v. City of Scranton, 655 A.2d 648 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995).” In re 

Appointment of Deputy Constable, 6th Ward, George Charles, (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1073 C.D. 1998,

filed January 8, 1999), slip op. at 2 n.1. 

6 We granted leave for the trial court to file an amicus appellate brief.
7

elector in the ward for which the appointment is sought; and the recommendation 

and signature of the District Attorney that the petition be approved, denied, or 

expressing no opinion on its disposition. Id. In essence, the trial court subsequently 

granted the Constables’ requested relief while the instant appeals were pending.

As a preliminary matter, the Constables have filed a motion asking this 

Court to transfer7the instant matter to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court because it is 

within that Court’s exclusive appellate jurisdiction under Section 722(2) of the 

Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. §722(2). Specifically, Section 722(2) provides that “[t]he 

Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of appeals from final orders of the 

courts of common pleas” in cases involving “[t]he right to public office.” Id. 

However, with respect to its exclusive appellate jurisdiction under Section 722(2), 

the Supreme Court has explained:

In Appeal of Bowers[, 269 A.2d 712, 716-17 (Pa. 1970)], 

the court defined “public office” as an elective or 

appointive position in which the incumbent is exercising a 

governmental function which involves a measure of policy 

making and which is of general public importance. [] 

Because this case does not fall within the scope of a case 

involving the “right to public office,” we need not decide 

whether a constable is a public officer under [Section 

722(2)]. We note, however, that the parties point to 

nothing in the record to suggest that [the elected borough 

constable] himself exercised any policy-making authority.

Commonwealth v. Spano, 701 A.2d 566, 567 n.4 (Pa. 1997) (emphasis added).

Likewise, in the instant matter, there is nothing in the record to suggest 

that the Constables’ submission of the petitions for the appointment of deputy 

 

7

See Section 5103(a) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. §5103(a) (“If an appeal . . . is taken 

to or brought in a court . . . which does not have jurisdiction of the appeal . . . the court . . . shall 

not quash such appeal . . . , but shall transfer the record thereof to the proper tribunal . . . where 

the appeal . . . shall be treated as if originally filed in the transferee tribunal . . . .”).
8

constables relates to the exercise of any policy-making authority such that an appeal 

from the trial court’s approval or denial of such petitions would fall within the 

Supreme Court’s exclusive appellate jurisdiction. As a result, we deny the 

Constables’ request to transfer the instant appeal to the Supreme Court.8

Next, on the merits, the Constables argue that the trial court erred in 

determining that Section 1722 of Act 49 required them to obtain the approval of the 

relevant MDJ prior to their submission of the petitions for the appointment of deputy 

constables to that court. While the instant appeal was pending, the trial court 

apparently saw the merit in the Constables’ argument and issued the 2017 

Administrative Order thereby amending the requirements for petitions for the 

appointment of deputy constables. As a result, we will vacate the trial court’s orders 

denying the petitions seeking the appointment of Kern, Colon-Ortiz, and Cocco as 

deputy constables for the 19th and 11th Wards in the City for the Elections and remand 

the matter to that court to reconsider these petitions under the provisions of the new 

2017 Administrative Order. See, e.g., Section 706 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. 

§ 706 (“An appellate court may . . . vacate . . . any order brought before it for review, 

and may remand the matter and . . . require such further proceedings to be had as 

may be just under the circumstances.”); Eaddy v. Hamaty, 694 A.2d 639, 644 (Pa. 

Super. 1997) (“We concede that the trial court may have reached the same result had 

it applied the new rules. That fact does not alter the conclusion that the trial court 

failed to apply the correct rules to the motion before it. By failing to apply the new 

 

8 Moreover, this Court has routinely exercised jurisdiction over appeals involving the 

denial of such petitions. See, e.g., In re Oren, 159 A.3d 1023 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017); In re Fry, 110 

A.3d 1103 (Pa. Cmwlth.), appeal denied, 123 A.3d 332 (Pa. 2015); In re Appointment of Deputy 

Constable, 6th Ward, George Charles.
9

rules governing summary judgment motions and to follow proper legal procedures, 

the trial court committed an abuse of discretion.”).

Finally, the Constables argue that the trial court erred in approving the 

petitions appointing Koenig and Ritter as deputy constables for the Township for the 

Elections because a constable did not submit the petitions. However, because the 

Constables never appeared in the trial court with respect to these petitions nor sought 

any relief in that court in this regard,

9 nor preserved any issues in that court for our 

review, this issue will not be addressed for the first time in this appeal. See

Pa. R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be 

raised for the first time on appeal.”); Siegfried v. Borough of Wilson, 695 A.2d 892, 

894 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (“Rule 302(a) clearly states that issues not raised in the trial 

court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Pennsylvania 

courts have consistently applied this rule. Commonwealth v. Piper, [328 A.2d 845 

(Pa. 1974)]. The appellate court may sua sponte refuse to address an issue raised on 

appeal that was not raised and preserved below[.] Tarter v. Linn, [578 A.2d 453 (Pa. 

Super. 1990), appeal denied, 600 A.2d 538 (Pa. 1991)].”) (footnote omitted). As a 

result, the trial court’s orders approving these petitions are affirmed.

Accordingly, the trial court’s orders denying the Constables’ petitions 

seeking the appointment of Kern, Colon-Ortiz, and Cocco as deputy constables for 

the 19th and 11th Wards in the City for the Elections are vacated, and the matter is 

 

9

See, e.g., Appeal of Reed, 164 A. 610 (Pa. 1933) (“[A]t the time the appointment of [Reed] 

was approved [as deputy constable] by the court . . . the question of his residence within the ward 

was not then at issue. Subsequently, . . . on petition alleging [that Reed] was not, at the time of his 

appointment a bona fide resident of the ward wherein he was appointed, a rule was granted upon 

the constable of the Fifth ward and [Reed] to show cause why the appointment should not be 

revoked. The matter came on for hearing[, t]estimony was taken as to the residence of [Reed] and 

thereafter . . . the court in an order and opinion disapproved the appointment and vacated its

previous order.”).
10

remanded to the trial court to reconsider these petitions under the provisions of the 

2017 Administrative Order. The trial court’s orders approving of the petitions 

appointing Koenig and Ritter as deputy constablesfor the Township for the Elections

are affirmed. The motion to transfer the appeal is denied.

MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Re: Lehigh County Constables :

: No. 774 C.D. 2017

Appeal of: Dennis C. Huber :

and Frederick Bainhauer, III :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 6

th day of October, 2017, the May 15, 2017 orders of 

the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas (trial court) denying the petitions of 

Dennis C. Huber and Frederick Bainhauer III for the appointment of Judith Kern and 

Marianna Andrea Colon-Ortiz as deputy constables for the 19th Ward in the City of 

Allentown for the 2017 Municipal Primary and General Elections, and Joseph Cocco 

as a deputy constable for the City’s 11th Ward for those Elections, are VACATED 

and the matter is REMANDED to the trial court for reconsideration of those petitions 

under the provisions of the court’s August 28, 2017 Administrative Order on or 

before fourteen (14) days of the date of this order. The trial court’s May 12, 2017 

orders approving the petitions for the appointment of Scott Koenig and Sterling 

Ritter as deputy constables for Lynn Township for the 2017 Municipal Primary and 

General Elections are AFFIRMED. The motion to transfer the above-captioned 

appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is DENIED.

Jurisdiction is RELINQUISHED.

MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge