IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

MELINDA DELISLE, JACQUES DELISLE, 

ADAM DELISLE, BRYAN IRVIN, CHARLES 

CELLA, DEBORAH CELLA, MARY CAY 

CURRAN, ELIZA HARDY JONES, KRISTA 

NELSON, EILEEN MCGOVERN, CEDRIC 

HARDY,

Petitioners

v.

KATHY BOOCKVAR, IN HER CAPACITY 

AS SECRETARY OF THE 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; 

AND JESSICA MATHIS, IN HER CAPACITY 

AS DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF 

ELECTION SERVICES AND NOTARIES OF 

THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 95 MM 2020

CONCURRING STATEMENT

JUSTICE WECHT

I join the Court’s decision to transfer the Petition for Review to the Commonwealth 

Court for disposition. The statute that conferred exclusive original jurisdiction upon this 

Court to hear constitutional challenges revoked that jurisdiction at the expiration of 180 

days, and there is no question that Petitioners herein filed their petition outside that time 

limit. Moreover, Petitioners fail to assert a compelling basis for exercising our oft-invoked, 

seldom-granted King’s Bench authority.

FILED May 29, 2020
Petitioners raise valid and serious concerns, but they elected to pursue relief under 

fact-intensive constitutional theories requiring a great deal of speculation that generally 

lie outside this Court’s purview, particularly when the time allotted for a satisfactory 

resolution is vanishingly brief, which was the basis of our recent rejection of a very similar 

challenge. See Disability Rights Pennsylvania v. Boockvar, ___ A.3d ___, 83 MM 2020, 

2020 WL 2507661 (Pa. May 15, 2020) (Wecht, J., concurring). But while speculative, 

under the current extraordinary circumstances, the potential for impairment of the ability 

of voters to cast a valid ballot by mail is real and substantial, and the stakes are high. The 

unlikely event of a tragic and unfortunately timed global pandemic undoubtedly has 

strained the local bureaucracies tasked with ensuring the timely processing of absentee 

and mail-in ballots and foisted unanticipated burdens upon a beleaguered United States 

Postal Service. Moreover, it cannot be gainsaid that there is no post hoc remedy sufficient 

to cure the arbitrary deprivation of the “right of suffrage,” which “is a fundamental matter 

in a free and democratic society.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 561-62 (1964). 

Nonetheless, this Court must be cautious to avoid overstepping its bounds imprudently 

and in defiance of legislative intent, as reflected in Point 1 of the per curiam order that this 

statement accompanies. Of necessity, then, the Commonwealth Court’s ruling upon 

remand necessarily will be limited to the vicissitudes of the moment. 

And this is only the primary. Given the stakes of a quadrennial presidential 

election, in the event that present hardships persist as November’s general election 

approaches, it would be incumbent upon the courts to entertain anew any and all claims 

that are raised in due course. Not only may variations upon the present challenges find 

more purchase as circumstances evolve; other challenges could emerge. Consideration 

of any such challenges must await another day. 

[95 MM 2020] - 2