Court Opinion

ID: 9652144
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:19:12.024842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:48.805620
License: Public Domain

ORDER

PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 18th day of April, 2008, the order of the Commonwealth Court is hereby AFFIRMED. With regard to appellant’s claim that the invalidity of specific signatures or pages of the nomination petition invalidates other signatures or the petition as a whole, we note, “The invalidity of any sheet of a nomination petition ... shall not affect the validity of such petition ... if a sufficient petition ... remains after eliminating such invalid sheet.” 25 P.S. § 2936. Thus, a court cannot presumptively invalidate nomination signatures based on nothing more than the invalidity of other signatures obtained by the circulator. See In re Referendum Petition to Amend the City of Pittsburgh Home Rule Charter, 694 A.2d 1128, 1132-33 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997); see also In re Nomination Petition of Flaherty, 564 Pa. 671, 770 A.2d 327, 337-38 (2001) (refusing to invalidate signatures obtained by circulator, despite striking numerous invalid signatures by same circulator).
Candidate’s Petition for Review is hereby DENIED as moot. Appellant’s Application to be Excused from Filing Reproduced Record is hereby DENIED as moot.
Justice SAYLOR files a Concurring Statement which Justice TODD and Justice McCAFFERY join.