Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

ROSS NOMINATION PETITION. (05/13/63)

May 13, 1963

IN RE ROSS NOMINATION PETITION.


Appeal, No. 12, Jan. T., 1964, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, No. 63-2791, in re nomination petition of William F. Ross. Order affirmed.

COUNSEL

Jonathan DeYoung, with him Fox and Fox, for appellant.

Alan E. Boroff, with him Morris Gerber, and Wisler, Pearlstine, Talone & Gerber, for appellee.

Horace A. Davenport, Solicitor, for Montgomery County Election Board, appellee.

Before Bell, C.j., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'brien and Roberts, JJ.

Author: Bell

[ 411 Pa. Page 46]

OPINION BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BELL

William F. Ross, the appellee, desiring to have his name printed in the May 21, 1963, Spring primary as a candidate for a six-year term as supervisor in Upper Merion Township, Montgomery County, obtained the required number of signatures to a nomination petition, and filed the petition on March 18, 1963. The petition contained three affidavits executed by Ross, i.e., as circulator, as candidate, and his loyalty oath.

Thereafter Roland J. Urbano, the appellant, filed a petition with the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County asking to have Ross's nomination petition set aside on the ground that while Ross had signed the three affidavits, he had not sworn to them in the presence of the subscribing Notary Public. At the hearing on Urbano's petition, the evidence disclosed that Charles McCracken had identified to the Notary

[ 411 Pa. Page 47]

Public Ross's three signatures to the affidavits and that the Notary, who knew Ross and his signature, had thereupon affixed his jurat in Ross's absence, and without his having taken an oath to any of the three affidavits.

At the hearing before President Judge FORREST on March 28, 1963, and after the time for filing nomination petitions had expired, Ross presented to the Court an amendment to his nomination petition. The amendment contained - and this was the only change - Ross's affidavits as circulator and candidate and his loyalty oath, to each of which he had personally sworn before another Notary Public who thereupon had affixed her signature and seal. The Court thereafter entered an Order denying Urbano's petition to set aside Ross's nomination petition. This appeal followed.

The action of the Court was based on Sections 976 and 977 of the Election Code of June 3, 1937, P.L. 1333, as amended, 25 P.S. ยงยง 2936 and 2937. The first of these two sections (namely, 976) provides the rules to be followed by a county board of elections in examining a nomination petition when filed, and specifies seven grounds for rejection. Only one of these grounds is at all relevant to the facts in the instant case. It provides that "No nomination petition ... shall be permitted to be filed if - (a) it ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.