Court Opinion

ID: 9637833
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:22:44.559095+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:00.987864
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge LEAVITT.
Respectfully, I dissent. Petitioner Paula Smith seeks relief under three specific provisions of the Pennsylvania Election Code (Election Code):1 Sections 951(b), 909, and 977, 25 P.S. §§ 2911(b), 2869, and 2937. There is no mention of a Statement of Financial Interest (financial statement) in any of those provisions or, indeed, in any provision of the Election Code.
Candidates are, of course, required to attach a copy of their financial statement to their nomination petition. The Public Official and Employee Ethics Act (Ethics Act), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(b), forbids the Secretary of State from accepting a petition lacking a copy of this statement. 65 Pa. C.S. § 1104(b)(3). However, the Legislature did not direct the Secretary to inspect the content of the financial statement and examine it for deficiencies. That responsibility has been assigned to the State Ethics Commission (Ethics Commission), the agency charged with enforcement of the Ethics Act. Candidates file the original of their financial statement with the Ethics Commission and append only a copy of that statement with the nomination petition filed with the Secretary of State. The filing of that copy is in aid of the Ethics Commission’s enforcement of the Ethics Act.
Specifically, Section 1107(5) of the Ethics Act gives the Ethics Commission the authority to review the contents of financial statements. Section 1107(5) provides:
In addition to other powers and duties prescribed by law, the commission shall:
* * *
(5) Inspect statements of financial interests tuhich have been filed in order to ascertain whether any. reporting person has failed to file such a statement or has filed a deficient statement. If, upon inspection, it is determined that a reporting person has failed to file a statement of financial interests or that any *151statement which has been filed fails to conform with the requirements of section 1105 (relating to statement of financial interests), then the commission shall in writing notify the person. Such notice shall state in detail the deficiency and the penalties for failure to file or for filing a deficient statement of financial interests.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1107(5) (emphasis added).
The regulation at 51 Pa.Code § 19.32 further explains how the Ethics Commission is to handle deficient financial statements. If the Ethics Commission finds a deficiency in the course of an audit, it must offer the filer an opportunity to amend it. On the other hand, if the Ethics Commission discovers the deficiency as a result of a complaint lodged by a member of the public, then the Ethics Commission has the discretion to proceed under 51 Pa.Code § 19.3(b) to institute an immediate enforcement action. In deciding whether to exercise this prosecutorial discretion, the Ethics Commission considers, inter alia, whether the deficiency was intentional. Alternatively, the Ethics Commission may employ the “procedures of Chapter 21”3 to address the deficiency in a financial statement identified by a private complainant. 51 Pa.Code § 19.3(b).
The Ethics Commission, not the court, has been charged with the initial responsibility to determine whether a financial statement is deficient and, if so, the appropriate response. By addressing the claim in Smith’s petition that Representative Benninghoffs financial statement is deficient, we run the risk of interfering with a duty conferred on the Ethics Commission *152by the Legislature. Accordingly, I believe the doctrine of primary jurisdiction4 is implicated here. See Richard J. Pierce, Jr., Administrative Law Treatise § 14.1 (4th ed. 2002).
Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the agency lays the foundation for determining crucial questions. It does not oust the court’s jurisdiction but, rather, postpones its exercise in order to ensure coordination between the work of the court and that of the agency. United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, 374 U.S. 321, 353, 83 S.Ct. 1715, 10 L.Ed.2d 915 (1963) (“the doctrine requires judicial abstention in a case where protection of the integrity of a regulatory scheme dictates preliminary resort to the agency which administers the scheme.”). See also Elkin v. Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, 491 Pa. 123, 135-136, 420 A.2d 371, 378 (1980) (Eagen, C.J., concurring) (noting that referral to an agency is appropriate to protect the integrity of a statutory scheme and is not limited to cases raising “complex” issues). In this case, application of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction requires that the Ethics Commission determine whether the candidate filed a deficient statement, and, if so, whether the deficiency can be cured5 by an administrative order entered either by consent or by adjudication after a hearing. Only then can it be known whether the candidate must be removed from the ballot for failing to file a financial statement in accordance with the Ethics Act.
The majority rejects the application of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction contending that under the Judicial Code6 our jurisdiction is exclusive. This Court has removed candidates from a ballot for failing to file any timely financial statement with the Ethics Commission. See, e.g., State Ethics Commission v. Baldwin, 498 Pa. 255, 445 A.2d 1208 (1982); Petition of Cioppa, 533 Pa. 564, 626 A.2d 146 (1993). By contrast, this case concerns whether the financial statement filed with the Ethics Commission is deficient. More importantly, Baldwin and Cioppa did not consider the issue of primary jurisdiction.
Section 764(2) of the Judicial Code provides an exception for “nomination ... *153contests within the jurisdiction of another tribunal.” Id.7 Here, Smith challenges Representative Benninghoffs right to appear on the ballot because she claims that the financial statement he filed with the Ethics Commission is deficient as to its content. This claim is for the Ethics Commission to hear, which may, after a hearing,8 determine that the financial statement is not deficient or order the statement to be corrected. Until it has acted, however, it is inappropriate for this Court to usurp the authority of the Ethics Commission to review, investigate and act upon an alleged deficiency in a financial statement.
The majority states that there is “no dispute” that this case concerns “the propriety of the nomination petition.” In fact, Smith has challenged the propriety of a financial statement, not a nomination petition. The majority further notes, in bold type, that “we cannot ignore the clear mandates of the Election Code.” Opinion, n. 2. However, the majority fails to show where in the Election Code the “clear mandates” exist that require the result reached and the ability to reach it in the absence of a determination by the Ethics Commission.
For these reasons, I believe this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Smith’s petition and to remove Representative Bennin-ghoff from the ballot at this time.

. Act of June 3, 1937, P.L. 1333, as amended, 25 P.S. §§ 2600-3591.

. It provides:
19.3. Late or deficient filings.
(a) If an audit or inspection determines that a required filing is deficient or that a required filing has not been made, the Commission will provide written notice to the individual required to file, detailing the deficiency and the penalties for deficient filing or failure to file.
(b) If a complaint is received alleging that a required filing is deficient or has not been made, the Commission may elect to proceed in the matter under this section rather than through the investigative procedures of Chapter 21 (relating to investigations).
(1) Upon election, the complainant will be notified of the decision as well as the final resolution of the matter.
(2) In determining whether to proceed under this section, the Commission may consider whether:
(i) The deficient filing or failure to file was intentional.
(ii)The filer had prior notice of the requirements of the act.
(iii)The filer has in the past complied with the act.
(c) The individual notified in accordance with subsection (a) has 20 days from the mailing date of the notice to correct deficiencies or to file a Statement of Financial Interests. If an individual fails to file or to correct his statement within that time, the Commission will review the matter to determine whether a civil penalty is appropriate under the act.
(d) If the Commission determines that a penalty is appropriate, it will issue a rule to show cause, notifying the individual of his deficiency under the act and of the grounds for the rule and of his opportunity to respond in writing to the rule. If cause is not shown, the rule and penalty therein become absolute.
(e) The Commission may assess a penalty of not more than $25 per day for the time a Statement of Financial Interests remains delinquent up to a maximum of $250 total.
(f) The penalty in subsection (d) is in addition to other penalties provided by law and the filing of a Statement of Financial Interests in accordance with subsection (a) does not otherwise vitiate the failure to comply with-the act.
51 Pa.Code § 19.3 (emphasis added).

. Chapter 21, at 51 Pa.Code §§ 21.1-21.30, establishes a procedure for confidential investigations, hearings and the issuance of different administrative orders, each appropriate to address the violation. Penalties available to the Ethics Commission include ordering restitution, issuing a cease-and-desist order, ordering corrective action or referring the matter to other law enforcement agencies. 51 Pa.Code § 21.30.

. Benninghoff raised the defense of the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission in paragraph 8 of his amended and supplemental response to the petition to set aside the nomination petition and cross motion for leave to amend the nomination petition. In any event, jurisdiction may be raised by a court sua sponte.

. Of course, if the deficiency were not cured or found not curable, the Ethics Commission could initiate an action to remove a candidate from the ballot. See State Ethics Commission v. Baldwin, 498 Pa. 255, 259 n. 4, 445 A.2d 1208, 1210 n. 4 (1982) (stating that Ethics Commission has implicit authority to institute such an action in order to carry out the purpose of the Ethics Act). We recognize that the Ethics Act has been amended since the Supreme Court's decision in this case; however, the amendment does not affect the continued viability of this holding with respect to the authority of the Ethics Commission to seek the removal of a candidate from the ballot.

.42 Pa.C.S. § 764(2) provides that this Court has original exclusive jurisdiction of "matters arising in the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth relating to Statewide office, except nomination and election contests within the jurisdiction of another tribunal.” "Statewide office” is not defined in the Judicial Code. In Lawless v. Jubelirer, 789 A.2d 820, 831 (Pa.Cmwlth.2002), this Court held that a member of the General Assembly, at least for the purposes of the Pennsylvania Constitution, does not hold an "office.” Cases involving state representatives that arise under the Election Code do implicate our jurisdiction under 42 Pa.C.S. § 764. In re Vidmer, 65 Pa.Cmwlth. 562, 442 A.2d 1203, 1204 (1982). However, this case arises under the Ethics Act.

. The majority notes that the Ethics Commission cannot order a candidate to be removed from the ballot. However, it can seek this penalty, and its right to do so was acknowledged in Baldwin. The point is that under the Ethics Act, the Ethics Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a financial statement is deficient.
The majority also notes that the respondent did not argue jurisdiction in his brief. However, the respondent did raise jurisdiction in his answer to the petition. See supra n. 4. In any case, jurisdiction is never waived.

. Administrative agencies may conduct hearings on an expedited basis just as courts do when the occasion arises. Further, the hearing can be waived by a respondent willing to consent to an administrative order that corrects the deficiency in the financial statement. Presumably, the Ethics Commission would not initiate a judicial action to remove a candidate from the ballot if the deficiency was resolved. The majority’s arguments on this point highlight other issues, such as standing and whether there is a private right of action under the Ethics Act. These issues, however, have not been preserved.