Court Opinion

ID: 9759109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:06:06.937021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:59.485158
License: Public Domain

SAYLOR, Justice,
Concurring.
Although I join the majority’s disposition, I would not presently overrule existing Commonwealth Court jurispru*691dence concerning the requirements for a valid circulator’s affidavit. In this regard, I note that Appellant does not challenge the prevailing framework, but rather, asserts that the candidate lacked the degree of personal knowledge, as required under the existing decisional law, to support her certification as circulator with respect to certain signatures obtained in Erie County. See Brief for Appellant at 29 (stating that “Objector recognizes that ‘... while it would be preferable for the individual who has actually circulated the petition to make the required affidavit, this is not specifically required by the Code, and it is sufficient if the affiant has knowledge of the facts set out in Section 909’ ”) (citation omitted). The limited flexibility afforded under the construct presently applied in the Commonwealth Court appears calculated to effect the principle that the Election Code is to be liberally construed in favor of ballot access.
Thus, with regard to signatures obtained in Erie County appearing on pages 28, lines 11 through 29, and 43, lines 13 through 20, of the nominating petition, I would merely hold that the record fails to establish that the circulator (in this instance the candidate) possessed the requisite degree of personal knowledge to support her affidavit.
Justice CASTILLE joins this concurring opinion.