Appeal from order of Commonwealth Court, No. 170 C.D., of 1972, in case of Gerald Roth et al. v. C. Dolores Tucker, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al.
Lawrence T. Hoyle, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, with him Alexander Kerr, Deputy Attorney General, and J. Shane Creamer, Attorney General, for Commonwealth, appellants.
Gerald I. Roth, for appellee.
Jones, C. J., Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix and Manderino, JJ. Mr. Justice Eagen dissents. Dissenting Opinion by Mr. Justice Manderino. Mr. Justice Nix joins in this dissenting opinion.
On March 8, 1972, this Court affirmed the order of the Commonwealth Court in this matter and indicated that an opinion would follow.*fn1
This Court is now of the view that the order of the Commonwealth Court should be affirmed on the opinion of the Commonwealth Court. Roth v. Tucker, 4 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 565, 290 A.2d 98 (1972). We also add the following observation.
Both Section 915*fn2 and Section 1002(b)*fn3 of the Pennsylvania Election Code require that the position of the names of candidates on the ballot be determined by the casting of lots. We believe that these sections require that all candidates for a particular elective post shall have equal chances of drawing any particular ballot position.
Under the scheme proposed by the Secretary of the Commonwealth for determining the ballot positions of candidates for party delegate, each candidate does not have the same chance as all other candidates of drawing any particular ballot position. This inequality arises from the fact that within most electoral districts the number of candidates committed to each particular Presidential candidate or uncommitted is not equal.
For example, in the Eighth Senatorial District there are the following candidates for party delegate:
3 committed to Edmund S. Muskie;
3 committed to George M. ...