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.

NOMINATION PAPERS GERALD R. CARLSON AS CANDIDATE A POLITICAL BODY FOR OFFICE REPRESENTATIVE UNITED STATES HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES. DAVID B. GLANCEY (06/19/81)

decided: June 19, 1981.

IN RE: NOMINATION PAPERS OF GERALD R. CARLSON AS THE CANDIDATE OF A POLITICAL BODY FOR THE OFFICE OF REPRESENTATIVE IN THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. DAVID B. GLANCEY, PETITIONER


Original jurisdiction in case of In Re: Nomination Papers of Gerald R. Carlson as the candidate of a political body for the Office of Representative in the United States House of Representatives.

COUNSEL

Joseph H. Huston, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, with him Alan C. Kessler, for petitioner.

Gerald R. Carlson, for himself, respondent.

President Judge Crumlish. Opinion by President Judge Crumlish.

Author: Crumlish

[ 60 Pa. Commw. Page 171]

David B. Glancey, Democratic Party Candidate for United States Representative from Pennsylvania's Third Congressional District, contests the nomination papers of White Majority Party candidate Gerald R. Carlson. After a hearing and extensive review of the law and record, we set aside the challenged nomination papers.*fn1

In response to a Special Election called to fill the Congressional seat vacated by former Representative

[ 60 Pa. Commw. Page 172]

Raymond F. Lederer, Gerald Carlson circulated nomination papers as a candidate of the political body "White Majority Party", which were filed with the State Bureau of Elections on June 1, 1981. At issue in this case is whether Carlson has properly secured a position on the ballot for U.S. Congressman by satisfying both Federal and State requirements. We conclude that he has not.

The United States Constitution, Article I, Section 2, Clause 2, provides that "[n]o person shall be a Representative . . . who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of the State in which he shall be chosen." We dispute Carlson's Pennsylvania inhabitancy. However, we note that the Constitution speaks ex post facto, and it is for the Congress to judge a newly-seated Congressman's qualifications after his election. See Barry v. United States, 279 U.S. 597 (1928); Chavez v. Evans, 79 N.M. 578, 446 P.2d 445 (1968).

Glancey directs our attention to Carlson's failure to comply with Section 952 of the Election Code, Act of June 3, 1937, P.L. 1333, as amended, 25 P.S. ยง 2912, which requires that all nomination papers specify, among other things, the name of the candidate, his profession, his place of residency, and the names and addresses of at least three persons to act as a committee and who are authorized to fill vacancies. Carlson's grievous failure to properly and truthfully complete his nomination papers compels us to set aside his papers and strike his name from the ballot.

On his nomination papers, circulator's affidavits, and on his Candidate's Affidavit and Loyalty Oath, Carlson listed and swore that his residence was either 1812 Frankford Avenue or 2007 E. Susquehanna Avenue, Philadelphia.*fn2 From both evidence ...


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.