Court Opinion

ID: 9841417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-22 13:06:43.816765+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:52:09.043416
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In re: Nomination Petition of: Kendra   :   CONSOLIDATED CASES
Brooks as WFP Candidate for the         :
Office of City Council - At Large       :
                                        :
Appeal of: Christopher M. Vogler        :   No. 887 C.D. 2023
and Joseph J. Giedemann                 :
                                        :
                                        :
In re: Nomination Petition of Nicolas   :
O’Rourke as WFP Candidate for the       :
Office of City Council - At Large       :
                                        :
Appeal of: Christopher M. Vogler        :   No. 888 C.D. 2023
and Joseph J. Giedemann                 :   Submitted: August 28, 2023

BEFORE:     HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
            HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge
            HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE FIZZANO CANNON                     FILED: September 21, 2023

            Christopher M. Vogler and Joseph J. Giedemann (collectively,
Objectors) appeal the August 11, 2023 orders (Trial Court Orders) of Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (Trial Court) denying Objectors’ Petition to
Set Aside Nomination Paper of Kendra Brooks for City Council At-Large and
Petition to Set Aside Nominating Paper of Nicolas O’Rourke for City Council At-
Large (collectively, the Petitions)1 and allowing Kendra Brooks (Candidate Brooks)
and Nicolas O’Rourke (Candidate O’Rourke) (collectively, Candidates) to remain
on the ballot for the office of Philadelphia City Council, At-Large in the November
2023 general election.2 For the following reasons, this Court affirms.
                                          I. Background
                 The facts underlying the instant consolidated appeal are straightforward
and not in dispute. On July 31, 2023, the day before the August 1, 2023, filing
deadlines, Candidate Brooks and Candidate O’Rourke each filed with the City of
Philadelphia’s (City) Department of Records (Department) nomination papers to be
placed on the ballot for the office of Philadelphia City Council, At-Large, in the
November 2023 election. Together with their nomination papers, the Candidates
each electronically filed a completed Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Form SEC-1
statement of financial interests (the First SFIs) required by the Public Official and
Employee Ethics Act3 (Ethics Act).4 The Candidates generated and submitted the

        1
         The Petitions, filed by the same counsel on behalf of Objectors, are effectively identical
to one another, with the only differences being the various Candidates’ names appearing in the
caption and the body of the corresponding petitions.
        2
         In consideration of the joint stipulation of counsel for Objectors and counsel for
Candidates that the matters should be consolidated, this Court consolidated these appeals by order
dated August 22, 2023. See Stipulation for Consolidation of Appeals Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 513
filed August 21, 2023; Order dated August 22, 2023.
        3
            65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1101-1113.
        4
          The Candidates also each electronically filed a completed City of Philadelphia Statement
of Financial Interests form. Counsel for Objectors explained at the August 11, 2023, hearing on
this matter that Objectors are not challenging the lack of “wet” signatures on the Candidates’ City
of Philadelphia’s Statement of Financial Interest forms. See Notes of Testimony, August 11, 2023
(N.T. 8/11/2023) at 18-22. Counsel for Objectors acknowledged that, under its Home Rule
Charter, the City of Philadelphia (City) is free to allow electronic signatures in relation to the City’s
Statement of Financial Interests form and has, in fact, done so through duly promulgated
regulations. See id. at 18-19. Objector’s position is that, on the other hand, the Ethics Act requires

                                                   2
First SFIs using a Department web portal (Department Portal) that allows for the
electronic submission of the City and Commonwealth SFI forms to the Department
and that also permits such submissions to be viewed and maintained on file. The
First SFIs each bore the Candidate’s name and required financial disclosures.
However, in lieu of actual, “wet” signatures handwritten by the Candidates on the
signature line, the blank for signatures on the First SFIs displayed the phrase
“COMPLETED AND SIGNED ELECTRONICALLY” in red lettering generated by
the Department Portal.5
                The parties have made the following pertinent factual stipulations: (1)
the First SFIs were generated using the Department Portal; (2) the Department Portal
facilitates submission of the SFIs required by the Philadelphia City Code and also
the Form SEC-1 required by the Ethics Act; (3) the Department is the designated
“governing authority” to which the Candidates were required to submit their Form
SEC-1; and (4) the First SFIs were generated and submitted to the Department before
the applicable August 1, 2023, deadline.
                On August 7, 2023, six days after the deadline for filing nomination
papers and accompanying SFIs, the Candidates each filed a second Form SEC-1

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Form SEC-1 to have an original “wet” signature. See id. at
18-22. It is therefore only the Candidates’ Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Form SEC-1s
submitted by the Candidates electronically on July 31, 2023, that Objectors claims are fatally
flawed requiring Candidates’ removal from the November 2023 election ballot. See id. at 21-22.
        5
          On both the City of Philadelphia Statement of Financial Interests form and the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Form SEC-1, the signature line is preceded by an affirmation of
prospective candidates that the “signature” affixed thereto is made subject to the penalty of law.
Directly above the text of the affirmation, the City of Philadelphia Statement of Financial Interests
form includes the following warning, in all capital letters: “THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED
AND DATED IN ORDER TO BE ACCEPTED.” The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Form SEC-
1 includes the following warning, also in all capital letters, directly below the text of the affirmation
and the signature line: “THIS FORM IS CONSIDERED DEFICIENT IF ANY BLOCK ABOVE
IS NOT COMPLETED.”

                                                   3
(Second SFIs) as an amendment to the First SFIs. The Second SFIs contained the
same information as the First SFIs and differed only in that they contained the
Candidates’ original handwritten signatures in lieu of the Department Portal-
generated “COMPLETED AND SIGNED ELECTRONICALLY” designations that
appeared on the First SFIs.
               On August 8, 2023, Objectors filed the Petitions in the Trial Court
challenging the Candidates’ nomination papers as fatally defective by virtue of
Candidates’ failure to have included original “wet” signatures on the First SFIs. On
August 11, 2023, the Trial Court conducted a hearing on the Petitions.6 At the
conclusion of the hearing, the Trial Court entered an order on the record denying the
Petitions and explaining that the Trial Court viewed the First SFIs as amendable.7
See Notes of Testimony, August 11, 2023 (N.T. 8/11/2032) at 39-41. Objectors
timely appealed.
                                           II. Issues
               On appeal,8 Objectors argue that the Candidates’ names should be
stricken from the ballot for the office of Philadelphia City Council, At-Large, in the
November 2023 election because the First SFIs did not contain original “wet”

       6
        The hearing consisted of the entrance of the parties’ stipulations described supra and
argument by counsel. See generally N.T. 8/11/2023.
       7
         By way of Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a) opinion, on August 17,
2023, the Trial Court filed a single paragraph opinion in each case explaining that the Trial Court
adopted the reasons and rationale for denying the Petitions it placed on the record at the August
11, 2023, hearing.
       8
        “In reviewing an order adjudicating challenges to a nomination petition, our standard of
review permits reversal only where the findings of fact are unsupported by substantial evidence,
where there was an abuse of discretion, or where an error of law was committed.” In re Beyer,
115 A.3d 835, 838 (Pa. 2015).

                                                4
signatures signed in the Candidates’ own hand.9 See Objectors’ Br. at 5, 11-19.
Objectors argue that the Candidates’ failure to sign the First SFIs was a fatal, non-
curable defect. See id. at 5, 19-27. Candidates counter that Objectors’ argument
that the lack of “wet” signatures on the First SFIs requires Candidates’ removal from
the ballot is factually and legally without merit. See Candidates’ Br. at 6-11.
Candidates further argue that, even if a “wet” signature is required, such a defect is
amendable and was timely amended. See id. at 11-12.
                                             III. Discussion
                   Section 1104 of the Ethics Act requires candidates for county-level
public offices in the Commonwealth to file an SFI on or before the last day for filing
a petition or paper10 to appear on the ballot for election. See 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(b)(2).

         9
             Objectors’ “Statement of the Questio[]n Involved” states the issue raised on appeal in two
parts:

                   (1) Whether the Ethics Act, read in the context of the Supreme
                   Court’s decision in In re Scroggin, [237 A.3d 1006 (Pa. 2020),]
                   requires [] Candidates to submit a statement of financial interest in
                   their own hand.

                   (2) Whether Candidates’ failure to timely submit a statement of
                   financial interest signed in their hand is [a] fatal defect that required
                   the [T]rial [C]ourt to set aside their nomination papers.

Objectors’ Br. at 5.

          Section 1104(b) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(b), discusses a candidate’s
         10

obligation to timely file SFIs in terms of nomination petitions, as opposed to nomination papers.
We observe that

                   [t]here is a difference between a nomination petition and a
                   nomination paper. . . . [A “]nomination petition[”] is filed by a
                   person seeking to be a candidate in a political party’s primary. A
                   “nomination paper” is filed by a minor party candidate to get on the
                   general election ballot.

                                                      5
Section 1105 of the Ethics Act provides that “[a]ll information requested on the [SFI]
shall be provided to the best of the knowledge, information and belief of the person
required to file and shall be signed under oath or equivalent affirmation.” 65 Pa.C.S.
§ 1105(a). Further, the Ethics Act states that the failure of a candidate to file an SFI
in accordance with the provisions of the Ethics Act “shall . . . be a fatal defect to a
petition to appear on the ballot.” 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(b)(3). However, in 2007, our
Supreme Court limited the fatality rule of Section 1104 of the Ethics Act to
candidates who either file untimely SFIs or fail to file them altogether by expressly
stating as follows:

              [T]he fatality rule announced in Section 1104 of the Ethics
              Act was intended by the Legislature to bar only those
              candidates from the ballot who fail to file statements of
              financial interests or who file them in an untimely manner.
              Section 1104 does not bar any candidate from the ballot if
              he or she files in a timely manner, even if there are defects
              on the face of the form, so long as that candidate
              subsequently amends the form to correct the defect and
              comes into compliance with the Act in a timely manner.
              In other words, all defects related to the content of
              disclosures on a timely filed statement of financial interest
              are subject to timely amendment.

In re Nomination Papers of Mann, 944 A.2d 119, 124 (Pa. Cmwlth.), aff’d sub nom. In re Mann,
944 A.2d 77 (Pa. 2008). However, as this Court has explained, “the standards for challenging a
nomination paper or petition are virtually the same, as are the procedures.” Mann, 944 A.2d at
124; see also Section 977 of the Pennsylvania Election Code, Act of June 3, 1937, P.L. 1333, as
amended, 25 P.S. § 2937 (Objections to nomination petitions and papers). This Court has further
noted that “Section 1104(b) of the Ethics Act specifically applies to persons who become
candidates by filing nomination petitions or papers.” Reuther v. Delaware Cnty. Bureau of
Elections, 172 A.3d 738, 744 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017), aff’d, 205 A.3d 302 (Pa. 2019). Therefore, the
fact that this matter concerns nomination papers and not nomination petitions has no impact on
our analysis.

                                              6
In re Paulmier, 937 A.2d 364, 371 (Pa. 2007), as clarified (Dec. 28, 2007). The
Supreme Court noted, however, that because “Section 1105 of the Ethics Act
requires that the statement of financial interests be provided to the best of the
knowledge, information and belief of the person required to file[] . . . candidates
must still file in good faith, even though they do have an opportunity to amend.”
Paulmier, 937 A.2d at 371 n.3.
             Thereafter, in an analysis based on Paulmier, this Court ruled in In re
Wissinger that the failure of a candidate to sign a filed SFI does not represent a fatal
defect that renders the SFI a nullity. See In re Wissinger, 18 A.3d 445, 448 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2011); see also Smith v. Brown, 590 A.2d 816, 818 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991)
(affirming trial court denial of petition to set aside nomination petition based on a
candidate’s failure to sign financial disclosure statement, which defect the Court
found to be amendable). The Court expressly found that a failure to sign a filed SFI
represented a defect apparent on the face of the SFI and was therefore amendable.
See In re Wissinger, 18 A.3d at 448. The Court further expressly “reject[ed]
[o]bjectors’ argument that the failure to sign renders the [SFI] legally ineffective and
equates to a lack of filing.” Id.
             In terms of the First SFIs in the instant matter, the instant matter is
strongly akin to Wissinger. Here, Candidates included the requisite personal and
financial information on the First SFIs, but “signed” the First SFIs by using the
Department Portal to place the statement “COMPLETED AND SIGNED
ELECTRONICALLY” on the forms in lieu of original hand signed signatures.
However, even assuming that Candidates’ use of the Department Portal to place this
phrase on the First SFIs in lieu of actual signatures had the legal effect of rendering
the First SFIs unsigned, such defect was amendable. See Wissinger; see also In re

                                           7
Flynn (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 89 M.D. 2021, filed April 19, 2021). Thus, the Candidates
could have amended the First SFIs by timely filing the Second SFIs with the
Department, and the Candidates did so on August 7, 2023.11 Accordingly, the Trial
Court did not err in denying the Petitions.
                Additionally, Objectors’ reliance on In re Scroggin, 237 A.3d 1006 (Pa.
2020), is misplaced.          In Scroggin, our Supreme Court determined that the
Pennsylvania Election Code’s (Election Code)12 requirement that a candidate attach
an original, valid, sworn affidavit to their nomination petition was mandatory and
that, consequently, the candidate’s failure to do so constituted a fatal defect,
rendering her candidacy a nullity. See 237 A.3d at 1017-23. In reviewing the
pertinent sections of the Election Code, the Supreme Court recognized the
longstanding anti-fraud goals of the Election Code’s affidavit requirements and
determined that “[j]ust as the signatures of qualified electors must be submitted in
original, or ‘wet,’ form so as to verify their authenticity, so, too, must candidates
submit genuine, sworn-and-signed affidavits to satisfy their filing obligations.” Id.
at 1019-20. However, Scroggin did not overrule, expressly or otherwise, either
Paulmier, which established that all defects related to the content of disclosures on
a timely filed SFI pursuant to the requirements of the Ethics Act are subject to timely
amendment, or Wissinger, which extended the rule in Paulmier to even unsigned
SFIs. Therefore, as discussed supra, even if the First SFIs are considered to have
been filed without any signatures whatsoever as a result of the insertion of the text

       11
         We observe that Candidates’ amendment of the First SFIs by filing the Second SFIs on
August 7, 2023, predated Objectors’ filing of the Petitions on August 8, 2023.
       12
            Act of June 3, 1937, P.L. 1333, as amended, 25 P.S. §§ 2600-3591.

                                                8
“COMPLETED AND SIGNED ELECTRONICALLY” in place of the Candidates’
signatures thereon, the First SFIs were still amendable. See Paulmier; Wissinger;
see also In re Flynn (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 89 M.D. 2021, filed April 19, 2021). Further,
Scroggin dealt specifically with the Election Code, not the Ethics Act, which does
not serve the same anti-fraud purposes as the Election Code. Instead, the Ethics Act
seeks to ensure that the electorate has information about the individual candidates
on the ballot in an election to prevent them from benefitting financially from the
office at the expense of the public.              See 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101.1(a); see also
Commonwealth v. Norris, 27 A.3d 1025, 1032 (Pa. Super. 2011) (“The distinct
purpose of the Ethics Act was to regulate public office holders and those seeking
public office, and prohibit them from using that office to benefit financially at the
expense of the public.”). Therefore, while considered in pari materia,13 because the
Election Code and Ethics Act serve these fundamentally different purposes, the
requirement that nomination papers filed under the Election Code must contain
original signatures is not inconsistent with the permissible amendment of errors on
the face of SFIs filed under the Ethics Act. For these reasons, the facts and reasoning
of Scroggin are distinguishable from the instant matter.
                                       IV. Conclusion
               For the above reasons, the Trial Court orders are affirmed.

                                            __________________________________
                                            CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

      13
           See Paulmier, 937 A.2d at 371.
                                              9
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In re: Nomination Petition of: Kendra     :   CONSOLIDATED CASES
Brooks as WFP Candidate for the           :
Office of City Council - At Large         :
                                          :
Appeal of: Christopher M. Vogler          :   No. 887 C.D. 2023
and Joseph J. Giedemann                   :
                                          :
                                          :
In re: Nomination Petition of Nicolas     :
O’Rourke as WFP Candidate for the         :
Office of City Council - At Large         :
                                          :
Appeal of: Christopher M. Vogler          :   No. 888 C.D. 2023
and Joseph J. Giedemann                   :
                                          :

                                    ORDER

            AND NOW, this 21st day of September, 2023, the August 11, 2023
orders of Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County are AFFIRMED.

                                        __________________________________
                                        CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge