Court Opinion

ID: 9764661
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:34:48.533826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:59.768928
License: Public Domain

PELLEGRINI, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent. The majority holds that the School District lacks standing to challenge the Nominating Petitions of candidates for office who fail to file Statements of Financial Interest required to be filed by the Ethics Act.1 I believe the majority’s decision is in conflict with Commonwealth State Ethics Commission v. Baldwin, 66 Pa.Commowealth Ct. 40, 444 A.2d 767, affirmed, 498 Pa. 255, 445 A.2d 1208 (1982).
Prior to the 1989 amendments, all Statement of Financial Interest forms were required to be filed by the candidates with the State Ethics Commission.2 Addressing whether *383the Ethics Commission had standing, this Court stated in Baldwin:
“Section 4(b) of the Ethics Act sets out the requirement that a candidate who fails to file a Financial Interest Statement with the Commission in the proper manner may not have his or her name placed on the Ballot and may not take office or receive compensation from the public funds for performing duties of the office concerned ...” We believe that there is a duty consequently imposed upon the Commission to ensure that proper filings are made and we must therefore conclude that the Commission has the power and standing to challenge nomination petitions in a manner utilized here so as to enforce the provisions of the Ethics Act in a timely fashion.
66 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 44-45, 444 A.2d at 769. Even though it reversed on other grounds,3 the Supreme Court upheld that holding. Neither opinion cited any other provisions of the Ethics Act other than Section 4(b) to give the Ethics Commission standing. My examination of that Act, including Section 7, 65 P.S. § 407, setting forth the Ethics Commission’s powers and duties, reveals no specific powers conferred on the Ethics Commission to challenge a candidate’s nominating petition.
In 1989, the General Assembly amended the Ethics Act to provide that local candidates would file Statements of Financial Interest with the political subdivision with which they were seeking office and only candidates for statewide office would continue to file with the Ethics Commission. Section 4(b) now reads:
(b)(1) Any candidate for a State-level public office shall file a statement of financial interests for the preceding *384calendar year with the commission on or before the last day for filing a petition to appear on the ballot for election. A copy of the statement of financial interests shall also be appended to such petition.
(2) Any candidate for county-level or local office shall file a statement of financial interests for the preceding calendar year with the governing authority of the political subdivision in which he is a candidate on or before the last day for filing a petition to appear on the ballot for election. A copy of the statement of financial interests shall be appended to such petition.
(3) No petition to appear on the ballot for election shall be accepted by the respective State or local election officials unless the petition has appended thereto a statement of financial interests as set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2). Failure to file the statement in accordance with the provisions of this act shall, in addition to any other penalties provided, be a fatal defect to a petition to appear on the ballot.
If, under Section 4(b), “a duty [is] ... imposed upon the Commission to ensure that proper filings are made” to give them standing to challenge candidates’ nominating petitions, then that duty also devolves to the political subdivision by the 1989 amendments to the Ethics Act. The language of old Section 4(b) is substantially the same as new section 4(b), except for the split in responsibility between the Ethics Commission and political subdivisions. Just as that provision gave authority to the Ethics Commission to challenge the nominating petitions in Baldwin, it also gives that authority to the School District to challenge the nominating petitions. To hold that the Ethics Commission has standing while a political subdivision does not, is at odds with Baldwin, not to mention logically inconsistent.4
*385Absent our Court’s and the Supreme Court’s holding in Baldwin, I would hold that neither the Ethics Commission nor a political subdivision has standing to challenge a nominating petition of a candidate. The Statements of Financial Interest filed prior to . an election are not filed for their benefit, but instead, for that of the electorate, who votes on the candidates. Consequently, I believe an elector is the only person who has standing to challenge a candidate’s nominating petition.
However, because I am bound by the Baldwin decision, I believe under the rationale of that decision that the School District has standing to challenge James Granat’s failure to file the required Statement, and because under Section 4(b)(3) failure to file is no longer euráble (see In Re: Nomination Petition of William Baranyai, Jr. for the Nomination of the Democratic Party for Councilman of the Borough of Millvale, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, Donald Andrezjwski and John F. Kearney, Appellants, 139 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 320, 590 A.2d 824 (1991)), I would set aside his Nominating Petition.

. Act of October 4, 1978, P.L. 883, No. 170, as re-enacted and amended, June 26, 1989, P.L. 26, 65 P.S. §§ 401-413.

. Section 4(b) of the "old” Ethics Act provided:
Each candidate for public office shall file a Statement of Financial Interests for the preceding calendar year with the Commission prior to filing a petition to appear on the ballot for election as a public official. A petition to appear on the ballot shall not be accepted by an election official unless the petition includes the affidavit that the *383candidate has filed the required statement of financial interests with the Commission. 65 P.S. 404(b).

. The Supreme Court in Baldwin stated that an additional question was raised as to the legal authority of the Ethics Commission to institute this action. We agree with the Commonwealth Court that the power to bring this suit fell within the implicit authority conferred to permit that body to carry out the stated purposes of the Ethics Act. 498 Pa. at 259-260, 445 A.2d at 1210.

. Section 4(d) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 404(d), lends no support to the majority’s position that it can be filed later. The term "public official" includes both elected and appointed officers. It requires that “elected officers” who are filling an unexpired term and appointed officers must file an ethics form prior to assuming office.