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 PETITION MIKE BUNK FOR MEMBER GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR 180TH DISTRICT CITY AND COUNTY PHILADELPHIA. OBJECTION THOMAS MALKOWSKI (09/02/88)

decided: September 2, 1988.

IN RE: NOMINATION PETITION OF MIKE BUNK FOR MEMBER OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR THE 180TH DISTRICT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA. OBJECTION OF THOMAS MALKOWSKI


Original Jurisdiction in the case of In Re: Nomination petition of Mike Bunk for Member of the General Assembly for the 180th District of the City and County of Philadelphia -- Objection of Thomas Malkowski.

COUNSEL

Vito Canuso, Jr., for petitioner, Thomas Malkowski.

Samuel C. Stretton, for respondent, Mike Bunk.

Judge Doyle. Opinion by Judge Doyle.

Author: Doyle

[ 120 Pa. Commw. Page 496]

This opinion is written in support of the order of this Court filed on August 26, 1988.

Before us in our original jurisdiction*fn1 is a Petition to Set Aside the Nomination Papers of Mike Bunk (Bunk), an independent candidate for member of the General Assembly from the 180th District in the City and County of Philadelphia. Petitioner in this Court is Thomas Malkowski, the Republican candidate for the same office.

There are several issues presented for our determination. At the outset we recognize that a number of challenges to Bunk's nomination papers were in the nature of challenges to individual signatures on various grounds. As to these individual line challenges the parties, with the cooperation of the Philadelphia County Board of Elections, were able to review the relevant registration binders and agree as to the validity or invalidity of all but sixteen signatures. Those sixteen signatures over which disagreement continues are the ones pled in paragraph 3B of the Petition and pertain only to invalid dating or failure to date the signature lines in question. As to those signatures the parties agreed that testimony would not be necessary and that

[ 120 Pa. Commw. Page 497]

    the Court could decide the propriety of each signature by examining merely the nomination papers themselves. We are, therefore, left with the following stipulations keyed to the paragraphs of the petition:

3-A. Two hundred signatures were challenged on the basis that the signatures were not qualified electors of the 180th District.

Stipulated: 67 -- Valid 133 -- Invalid

3-B. Sixteen names challenged on the basis that signatures were not dated or were invalidity dated.

No agreement to any of these signatures.

3-C. One-hundred-eighty four signatures whose genuiness [sic] is challenged (fraudulent).

Stipulated: 79 -- Valid 105 -- Invalid

3-D. Thirteen signatures challenged because they appear on ...


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.