Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

SHAHEED ABDUL HAQQ ET AL. v. DEPARTMENT STATE (10/06/80)

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


decided: October 6, 1980.

SHAHEED ABDUL HAQQ ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ET AL., RESPONDENTS

No. 638 E.D. Misc. Docket 1980

COUNSEL

Terris J. Green, Philadelphia, for petitioners.

David F. Phifer, Gen. Counsel, Dept. of State, Harrisburg, for respondents.

O'Brien, C. J., and Roberts, Nix, Larsen, Flaherty and Kauffman, JJ. Nix, J., files a dissenting statement.

Author: Per Curiam

[ 491 Pa. Page 299]

ORDER

Order of the Commonwealth Court is affirmed.

NIX, Justice, dissenting.

Appellant, Shaheed Abdul Haqq, had sought to withdraw as the Consumer Party's candidate for the office of United States House of Representatives, First Congressional District of Pennsylvania. The Secretary of the Commonwealth, through the Bureau of Elections, refused to accept Mr. Haqq's proffered withdrawal, ruling that it was untimely filed. See Act of June, 1937, P.L. 1333, Article IX, as amended, 25 P.S. ยง 2938. Mr. Haqq appealed this Administrative Ruling to the Commonwealth Court arguing, inter alia, that the "late filing" was as a result of misinformation

[ 491 Pa. Page 300]

    supplied to his representatives by employees of the Bureau of Elections, and that he relied on these misrepresentations to his detriment.


*fn1 Although the Secretary, through counsel, agreed that Mr. Haqq had attempted to raise and pursue the issue, there was no agreement that these misrepresentations were in fact made. Thus, this was an issue of fact for the Commonwealth Court to resolve.

*fn2 In the Welsh Appeal nomination papers by a candidate for the office of State Senator had been refused by the Office of the Board of Elections because of late filing. A unanimous court held that where it appeared that the candidate had been informed by personnel of that office that the date for filing had been extended, it would be unfair to set aside the nomination papers as untimely filed.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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