Court Opinion

ID: 9534266
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:38:06.379558+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:30:07.019664
License: Public Domain

ZAPPALA, Justice,
dissenting.
The constitutional preference for election over the appointment of judges is disregarded by the holding of the majority opinion. Although Section 13(b) was not intended to frustrate the electoral process, the electoral process has been defeated so today. Cavanaugh v. Davis, 497 Pa. 351, 440 A.2d 1380 (1982); Leedom v. Thomas, 473 Pa. 193, 373 A.2d 1329 (1977).
In Berardocco v. Colden, 469 Pa. 452, 366 A.2d 574 (1976), this Court unanimously stated,
whenever possible judicial officers shall be elected by a complete electoral process. The appointive process of section 13(b) was intended to fill a judicial vacancy only until the office could again be filled by a popularly elected officer. The “ten month” provision was designed simply to insure that the electoral process would be complete with a regularly conducted primary election, as well as a municipal election.
469 Pa. at 459, 366 A.2d at 577 (1976) (footnote omitted) (emphasis added).
The majority finds that the basis for the exception to the ten month provision set out in Berardocco and in Barbieri v. Shapp, 476 Pa. 513, 383 A.2d 218 (1978), does not exist in the instant case. As clearly set forth in the quoted portion of the Berardocco analysis of Section 13(b), however, the crucial element underlying this Court’s reasoning was the presence of sufficient time within which a regularly conducted primary and municipal election could be held. The opportunity for the complete electoral process was the basis for this Court’s exception to the ten month provision.
Such an opportunity clearly existed in the present case. Pursuant to the Election Code, on the thirteenth Tuesday preceding the primary, the Secretary of the Commonwealth *634is required to send to the county board of each county a written notice designating the offices for which candidates are to be nominated, including judges to be elected at the succeeding November election. 25 P.S. § 2865. The primary was scheduled for May 21, 1985. The thirteenth Tuesday preceding the primary fell on February 19, 1985. Significantly, the thirteenth Tuesday preceding the primary is also the first date at which nominating petitions may be circulated. 25 P.S. § 2868.
The resignation of Judge Robert W. Williams occurred on February 6, 1985, prior to the critical date of February 19th — the thirteenth Tuesday preceding the primary. It is evident that more than sufficient time existed within which “election officials, party officials, potential candidates and the voting public” could prepare for the election, for even nominating petitions could not have been circulated until after the date of Judge Williams’ resignation. Yet, the majority finds otherwise.
The electorate is ill-served by the majority’s holding today that the very provision which was intended to insure it of a complete electoral process must deprive it of an opportunity to choose its public officer at all in the upcoming election.
LARSEN, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.