Court Opinion

ID: 9387976
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-19 15:08:08.216528+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:16.599965
License: Public Domain

[J-46-2022] [MO: Wecht, J.]
                    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
                                 MIDDLE DISTRICT

 COUNTY OF FULTON, FULTON COUNTY                   :   No. 3 MAP 2022
 BOARD OF ELECTIONS, STUART L.                     :
 ULSH, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS                 :   Appeal from the Order of the
 COUNTY COMMISSIONER OF FULTON                     :   Commonwealth Court at No. 277
 COUNTY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS A                   :   MD 2021 dated January 14, 2022.
 RESIDENT, TAXPAYER AND ELECTOR IN                 :
 FULTON COUNTY, AND RANDY H.                       :   SUBMITTED: October 21, 2022
 BUNCH, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS                :
 COUNTY COMMISSIONER OF FULTON                     :
 COUNTY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS A                   :
 RESIDENT, TAXPAYER AND ELECTOR                    :
 OF FULTON COUNTY,                                 :
                                                   :
                      Appellees                    :
                                                   :
                                                   :
               v.                                  :
                                                   :
                                                   :
 SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH,                    :
                                                   :
                      Appellant                    :

                                  CONCURRING OPINION

JUSTICE DOUGHERTY                                                 DECIDED: April 19, 2023
       I join the majority’s excellent opinion without hesitation. After all, it is difficult to

recall a more brazen abuse of the judicial process during my more than two decades on

the bench, nearly fifteen years of which I served on the front lines as a trial judge. I write

only to amplify the majority’s message, the importance of which is unparalleled. And that

message is this: No one — not elected county officials, not Pennsylvania attorneys, and

certainly not out-of-state attorneys who aren’t authorized to practice here — may ignore,

circumvent, or frustrate the orders issued by the courts of this Commonwealth, least of all
this Court. For those who believe otherwise or think the rules don’t apply when an election

is involved, let this case serve to prove just how wrong you are. In fact, let it be known

far and wide that this Court can — and will — exercise the full might of its constitutional

authority against those who seek to delegitimize this Commonwealth’s elections, or its

judiciary. 1

1 In this case replete with troubling conduct by the individual appellees and their counsel,
the actions of Attorney Carroll appear to be especially concerning and problematic, and
my careful independent review of the record reveals the majority’s description is amply
supported. Like the majority, however, I will restrain myself from commenting further, in
recognition of the fact that there is to be additional disciplinary review of Attorney Carroll’s
conduct. See Majority Opinion at 75 (referring Attorney Carroll to the Pennsylvania
Disciplinary Board “for further examination of his conduct throughout the litigation of the
appeal of our stay order and throughout these sanction proceedings”). But I expect the
Disciplinary Board to look at the record just as closely as we have, and I would specifically
recommend the Board examine for their veracity some of the attestations Attorney Carroll
made to this Court in his continuance requests.

                               [J-46-2022] [MO: Wecht, J.] - 2