Opinion ID: 2397006
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: The Requests for a Stay

Text: Following the August 30, 2004 Order setting aside the Nomination Papers and striking the Candidates' names from the ballot, the Candidates appealed to this Court, which ordered the parties to file briefs by September 10, 2004. Pending this appeal, the Candidates requested a stay from the Commonwealth Court of its Order, which the Commonwealth Court denied on September 9, 2004. On September 13, 2004, the Candidates filed a Petition for Review of Appellants of the Denial of Their Request for a Stay and Supersedeas with this Court. Based on our disposition of the matter sub judice, denied Candidates' Petition as moot by Order dated September 20, 2004. In its Memorandum and Order denying the stay, the Commonwealth Court concluded that although it had yet to review a single signature, the likelihood of success on the ultimate merits appears slim indeed. Commonwealth Court Memorandum and Order dated September 9, 2004, at 2. The court noted that on August 19, 2004, the Candidates objected to [its] Order directing the use of multiple judges sitting at different locations to hear the challenges, and requested additional time to review the signature challenges. Id. at 2-3. Further, at that conference, Candidates' counsel offered to conduct a statistical review of some of the challenged signatures and to withdraw the papers if patterns of fraud were discerned. Counsel for Candidates indicated that the Objectors had talked to someone and developed a plan regarding how to select signatures to include in the random analysis. Transcript at 15-16. However, the record does not indicate that this was done. In denying the stay, the Commonwealth Court explained that when it convened next, on August 27, 2004, the Candidates' volunteers had reviewed only 1,371 of the 23,149 signatures challenged in Philadelphia, or, roughly six percent (6%). At this rate, the court calculated that less than half of the challenged signatures in Philadelphia would be reviewed, for the limited purpose of stipulations only, prior to Election Day. Id. at 3. The court questioned whether Candidates' counsel had adequate resources for the matter. Because the Candidates' preliminary review showed that of the 1,371 signatures checked, fifty-three percent (53%) were not registered voters, another twenty-one percent (21%) had address or timing discrepancies, which were not amendable, and, at this rate of invalidity, the number of signatures would be below the mandated 25,697. Id. at 4. Accordingly, the Commonwealth Court held that Candidates were unlikely to succeed on the merits, and did not meet the criteria for a stay established by Pennsylvania Public Utility Comm'n v. Process Gas Consumers Group, 502 Pa. 545, 467 A.2d 805 (1983). The court also stated that it was uncontested that Camejo signed a false candidate's affidavit in the instant matter and that [t]his alone would prevent him from appearing on the ballot. Commonwealth Court Memorandum and Order dated September 9, 2004, at 4. With respect to potential harm, the Commonwealth Court held that the Candidates, at that juncture, were not irreparably harmed because if the matter did proceed to signature challenges, further delay or inability of the Candidates to commit resources for a timely review of the challenged signatures would harm the objectors, upon whom the ultimate burden of proving invalidity rests. Id. at 5. Because there were so many signatures involved, if the Candidates did not commit significant resources toward attempting to resolve as much as possible by stipulation, the result would be that Candidates, merely by being obstreperous, could remain on the ballot through the device of delaying the Court's proceedings through Election Day. Id. at 5. The Commonwealth Court took notice that prospective absentee military voters and others would have to be notified of the names to be included on the ballot, and that [e]very time a court order changes these names, additional notifications are or may be required. The public interest, therefore, dictates that these changes should be kept to a minimum. Id. The Commonwealth Court cited the failure of Candidates' counsel to cooperate in a preliminary review of signatures, even though the court placed the resources of the Philadelphia Election Commission and the Allegheny County Board of Elections at its disposal. Based on that, the court concluded that for whatever reasons the Candidates are seeking to obstruct a timely review in all of the issues in this case. Id. at 6. The Transcript contained numerous instances where Candidates' counsel complained that he lacked the time, resources, and volunteers to conduct the signature review in accordance with the Case Management Order. With regard to his involvement in the signature review process, Candidates' counsel stated that we try to do our best, but we are busy lawyers.... I took this on with a very limited scope of representation for the Nader campaign. Transcript at 9. He further testified that I can't control the volunteers. Id. at 10. [W]e didn't have enough volunteers. Id. I have not been sitting on my hands, and, yes, I have been on trial all over the state, but that's me. I try a lot of cases. Id. at 15. [I]t's not proceeding fast enough, and that's the problem. Id. at 17. [T]hey have to get me the volunteers. I don't have that stock of volunteers. Id. at 22. To illustrate further, in Petitioners' Opposition to Respondents' Petition and Motion to Dismiss, the Objectors note that at the August 19, 2004 pre-trial conference, Candidates' counsel requested a delay of several weeks, which was denied because time was of the essence. At the same conference, the court granted Candidates' counsel's request that the hearings not begin on September 1, 2004, because he had another court appearance in another matter scheduled that day, and directed, instead, that the hearing commence on September 2, 2004. From August 23-27, 2004, the Objectors note that Candidates' counsel acknowledged that he was before a District Justice on August 23, 2004, in the morning and a Common Pleas judge in Chester County in the afternoon, arguing the constitutionality of the driving under the influence legislation. On August 24, 2004, he was in Columbia County Court of Common Pleas in a criminal case; on August 25, 2004, he was in Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas in a criminal case; on August 26,2004, he was in Adams County Court of Common Pleas in the morning on a criminal case. During the week of August 30-September 3, 2004, Objectors noted that counsel may be required to conduct two federal trials. RR at A-190. President Judge Colins noted that he called Judge McVerry of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to free you from those commitments. Transcript at 5.