Case Name: In re Nomination Petition of Dr. Kimmika WILLIAMS-WITHERSPOON for the Office of Borough Council in the Third Ward of the Borough of Darby Petition of Donald Deigh
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2008-05-02
Citations: 596 Pa. 541
Docket Number: No. 335 MAL 2007
Parties: In re Nomination Petition of Dr. Kimmika WILLIAMS-WITHERSPOON for the Office of Borough Council in the Third Ward of the Borough of Darby Petition of Donald Deigh.
Judges: Former Chief Justice CAPPY and former Justices BALDWIN and FITZGERALD did not participate in this per curiam opinion.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 596
Pages: 541–546

Head Matter:
946 A.2d 663
In re Nomination Petition of Dr. Kimmika WILLIAMS-WITHERSPOON for the Office of Borough Council in the Third Ward of the Borough of Darby Petition of Donald Deigh.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
May 2, 2008.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal involving the 2007 primary election, this Court entered an expedited, dispositive order on May 1, 2007. That order granted allocatur in part, affirmed the Commonwealth Court order below, and noted that an opinion would follow. The order identified the single issue accepted for review as follows:
Whether the Commonwealth Court misapplied In re Benninghoff, 578 Pa. 402, 852 A.2d 1182 (2004) and In re Carroll, 586 Pa. 624, 896 A.2d 566 (2006), and erred in reversing the trial court's grant of a petition to set aside Nomination Petition where Candidate admittedly failed to disclose known information on her Statement of Financial Interest and as required by the Ethics Act and the information required was not discernible to an elector from the information provided on Candidate's Statement of Financial Interest.
The effect of the affirmance was to reinstate the Candidate to the primary ballot.
Since our per curiam order was filed, this Court has had occasion to address timely-filed, but allegedly defective or incomplete, Statements of Financial Interests (SFIs), and the consequences of such defects, in In re Paulmier, 594 Pa. 433, 937 A.2d 364 (2007).
In the matter sub judice, Candidate Dr. Kimmika WilliamsWitherspoon filed a timely nominating petition for a seat on the Borough Council in the Borough of Darby, Delaware County. Objector Donald Deigh sought to set aside the nomination petition alleging, inter alia, that Williams-Wither-spoon had failed to file a full, complete, and accurate SFI pursuant to the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101-1113. The trial court granted Deigh relief, finding two defects in the SFI. First, in Box 9, WilliamsWitherspoon had failed to list the interest rate for a Fidelity MBNA loan, and second, in Box 10, Williams-Witherspoon did not list that Temple University was a source of income of $1,300 or more. The trial court found these omissions to be fatal defects and set aside the nomination petition. WilliamsWitherspoon appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
The Commonwealth Court reversed and directed that Williams-Witherspoon's name be placed on the May 2007 primary ballot. With regard to the Fidelity MBNA loan, the Commonwealth Court held that since Williams-Witherspoon was merely a co-signer, she was not required to disclose the interest rate on the SFIs. With respect to Box 10, the Commonwealth Court noted that Williams-Witherspoon had listed Temple University as a primary employer in Box 6, even though she failed to identify that employment as a source of income in excess of $1,300 in Box 10. The Commonwealth Court reasoned that this circumstance was sufficiently analogous to the situation in In re Benninghoff, 578 Pa. 402, 852 A.2d 1182 (2004), as to warrant a conclusion that the defect was amendable. Deigh filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal and we granted limited review, as noted above.
In Paulmier, this Court held that "all defects related to the content of disclosures on a timely filed statement of financial interest are subject to timely amendment." In so holding, Paulmier overruled the per curiam affirmance in In re Anastasio, 573 Pa. 512, 827 A.2d 373 (2003) and its progeny, which held that material omissions from a timely-filed SFI were fatal defects. 937 A.2d at 371. Here, it is undisputed that Williams-Witherspoon timely filed her SFI. Because the decision we have already rendered in this case is in harmony with the now-governing law in Paulmier, we need not say any more in support of affirmance.
Former Chief Justice CAPPY and former Justices BALDWIN and FITZGERALD did not participate in this per curiam opinion.
Justice BAER files a concurring opinion.
. In Benninghoff, this Court held that the defect in a SFI was amendable where the candidate listed his occupation as a state representative in Box 6 but failed to disclose that occupation as a source of income in excess of $1,300.00 in Box 10.