Table of Contents Election Code Proceedings - Judicial Review of Nomination Petitions and Papers and Related Matters

Transcription

1 Table of Contents Chapter One: Election Code Proceedings - Judicial Review of Nomination Petitions and Papers and Related Matters... 1 Written by: Kristen W. Brown, Esquire, Prothonotary, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg I. Introduction... 3 Basics... 4 A. Vocabulary... 4 B. Applicable Statutes... 5 I Action to Compel Acceptance... 9 A. Introduction... 9 B. Jurisdiction C. Pleading D. Appeals IV. Filing Objections to Nomination Petitions or Papers A. Jurisdiction and Procedure B. Applicable Case Law C. Preparing a Petition to Set Aside a Nomination Petition Standing of Objectors Specificity of Allegations Service on the Candidate Service on the Secretary of the Commonwealth or the Board of Election Time for Filing Objections to Nomination Petitions and Papers Court Action after Petition to Set Aside Nomination Petition or Paper Is Filed D. Objections Challenges to Individual Signatures a. Witnesses b. Signers not registered at all, not registered in the proper party, or not registered in the proper district c. Duplicate signatures d. Inadequate signatures e. Information accompanying signatures Challenges to Circulators Affidavits a. Amendable defects b. Non-amendable defects Challenges to Candidates Affidavits a. Amendments xi

2 b. Residence c. Qualifications Challenges to Candidates Statements of Financial Interest Effect of Voluntary Withdrawal versus Petitions Being Stricken V. Death, Withdrawal and Substitution of Candidates Withdrawal as of right Withdrawal by permission Filling a vacancy a. Vacancy created by death of candidate b. Withdrawal of name VI. Costs Chapter Two: Pennsylvania Campaign Finance Law Submitted by: Kathleen M. Kotula, Esquire, Deputy Chief Counsel, PA Department of State, Harrisburg I. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) A. Syllabus B. Pennsylvania Department of State Statement Regarding the Effect of the U.S. Supreme Court s Decision in Citizens United v. FEC on Pennsylvania Law (March 4, 2010) C. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Independent Expenditure Report Form DSEB-505 (4/10) I Pennsylvania Department of State Campaign Finance Frequently Asked Questions Pennsylvania Department of State Press Release Re: Announcement of Late Filer List on Department of State Website (September 30, 2013) Chapter Three: Pennsylvania Lobbying Disclosure Law Submitted by: Kathleen M. Kotula, Esquire, Deputy Chief Counsel, PA Department of State, Harrisburg I. Pennsylvania Department of State Summary of Act 134 of Manual for Accounting and Reporting How to Comply with Act 134 of Reprinted with permission from the Pennsylvania Bulletin I Lobbying Disclosure Law 65 Pa.C.S. 13A01 (2013) IV. Pennsylvania Bulletin, Doc. No a Annex A: Title 51. Public Officers, Part I Lobbying Disclosure Reprinted with permission from the Pennsylvania Bulletin A. Chapter 51 General Provisions B. Chapter 53 Registration and Termination C. Chapter 55 Reporting D. Chapter 57 Exemption from Registration and Reporting xii

3 E. Chapter 59 Opinions and Advices of Counsel F. Chapter 61 Compliance Audits G. Chapter 63 Commission Referrals, Investigative Proceedings and Noninvestigative Proceedings H. Chapter 65 Prohibition against Lobbying for Economic Consideration as a Sanction I. Chapter 67 Prohibited Activities J. Chapter 69 Severability Chapter Four: Independent Expenditures and Philadelphia s Campaign Finance Law Submitted by: Michael J. Cooke, Esquire, City of Philadelphia Board of Ethics, Philadelphia PowerPoint Presentation Presented by: Michael J. Cooke, Esquire, City of Philadelphia Board of Ethics, Philadelphia I. Philadelphia Campaign Finance Law Candidate I City elective office IV. Three main components of Philadelphia s campaign finance law V. The Super PACs are coming to Philly!! (maybe) VI. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (For Syllabus, see Chapter Two, page 43) V SpeechNow.Org, et al. v. Federal Election Commission, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010) VI Federal Election Commission Advisory Opinions A B IX. Section 1633 (25 P.S. 3253) Contributions or Expenditures by National Banks, Corporations or Unincorporated Associations X. Statement Regarding the Effect of the U.S. Supreme Court s Decision in Citizens United v. FEC on Pennsylvania Law (March 4, 2010) (For Statement, see Chapter Two, page 51) XI. Two major issues raised for Philadelphia s elections by Citizens United and its progeny X Independent Expenditure Report XI City of Philadelphia Bill No Amending Chapter of The Philadelphia Code, entitled Political Contributions and Expenditures (Introduced February 7, 2013) xiii

4 Philadelphia Board of Ethics Regulation No. 1 Campaign Finance Chapter Five: Political Abuse of the Internet Submitted by: Lawrence M. Otter, Esquire, Doylestown Digital Defamation, Dirty Tricks and Assorted Internet Miscreants Written by: Lawrence M. Otter, Esquire, Doylestown I. Introduction A. Hyperlink B. Facebook Robocalls, site incense legislator Written by: Brad Bumsted, Pittsburgh Tribune Originally published for the Pittsburgh Tribune, October 1, Reprinted with permission Appendix: TheRealDarylMetcalfe.com Chapter Six: Applewhite v. Commonwealth The Challenge to Pennsylvania s Photo ID Statute The Plaintiffs Case PowerPoint Presentation Presented by: Jennifer R. Clarke, Esquire, Public Interest Law Center, Philadelphia The Commonwealth s Defense PowerPoint Presentation Presented by: D. Alicia Hickok, Esquire, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Philadelphia I. This is a case On May 1, I Implementation IV. Procedurally, V. On February 5, VI. The effect of the Amendment V Petitioners sought declaratory and injunctive relief VI The following cases are some of the cases important to evaluating why petitioners did not establish their claims xiv

5 Chapter Seven: The Legal Challenge to Pennsylvania s Certification of Direct Recording Electronic Voting Systems ( DREs ) Banfield v. Aichele Submitted by: Gregory E. Dunlap, Esquire, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Office of General Counsel, Harrisburg I. Opinion by Judge Friedman for the Court en banc, 922 A.2d 36 (PA Comwlth. April 12, 2007), overruling preliminary objections filed by Secretary of the Commonwealth; dissent by Judge Levitt joined by Judges Leadbetter and Cohen I Opinion by Judge Leadbetter for the Court en banc, 51 A.3d 300; 2012 (Pa. Comwlth. August 29, 2012), denying partial summary judgment; concurring and dissenting opinion by Judge McCullough joined by Judge Pelligrini Memorandum Opinion by Judge Leadbetter and Order Granting Summary Judgment (October 1, 2013) IV. Jurisdictional Statement on Plaintiffs Appeal (October 11, 2013) Chapter Eight: The Continuing First Amendment Challenge to Contribution Limits McCutcheon v. FEC, Supreme Court U.S. No Submitted by: Gregory M. Harvey, Esquire, Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP, Philadelphia I. Brief for Appellant Shaun McCutcheon (Statement and Summary of Argument) Brief of the Cato Institute as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants I Brief for the Appellee (Statement and Summary of Argument) IV. Brief Amicus Curiae of Professor Lawrence Lessig in Support of Appellee (Summary and Portion of Argument) V. Brief of the Brennan Center for Justice at N.Y.U. School of Law as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellee (Summary and Portion of Argument) VI. Transcript of Oral Argument October 8, Chapter Nine: Voting Rights Going Forward Submitted by: Gregory M. Harvey, Esquire, Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP, Philadelphia Clifford B. Levine, Esquire, Cohen & Grigsby, P.C. I. Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, Attorney General, et al., 133 S. Ct. 2612; 186 L. Ed. 2d 651; 2013 U.S. (June 25, 2013) United States of America v. The State of North Carolina, et al. Complaint (Filed September 30, 2013) xv

6 I IV. Excerpt of Opinion by Circuit Judge Tatel in State of Texas v. Holder, 888 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D.D.C. 2012; three-judge District Court) United States of America v. State of Texas, et al. Complaint (Filed August 22, 2013) V. Early Voting: What Works Written by: Diana Kasdan, Brennan Center for Juistice at New York University School of Law Reprinted with permission from the Brennan Center of Justice at New York University School of Law, VI. Current Voter Protection Litigation Originally published on the Advancement Project website Advancement Project. Reprinted with permission and courtesy of Marian K. Schneider, Esquire A. Voter Protection B. Protecting the Vote on the Ground Chapter Ten: Citizens United The Background and Consequences Submitted by: Gregory M. Harvey, Esquire, Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP, Philadelphia Citizens United v. FEC: The Background PowerPoint Presentation Originally prepared for the PBI s 2010 Election Law Update I. The history of limitations on corporate political spending A. The first federal prohibition on corporate contributions (requested in 1905) B. The first federal prohibition on corporate contributions (enacted in 1907) C. The federal prohibition on corporate and union expenditures (post-1907) Key decisions preceding Citizens United A. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) B. First Nat l Bank of Boston v. Belotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978) C. Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990) D. McConnell v. Federal Election Comm n, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) E. Federal Election Comm n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (2007) I Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) A. Citizens United the March 24, 2009 Oral Argument B. The Supplemental Question that the Court ordered following the March 24 Oral Argument C. The Supplemental Question stimulated the filing of multiple amicus briefs Citizens United The Supreme Court s Syllabus (For Syllabus, see Chapter Two, page 43) xvi

7 Section Three: Citizens United: The Practical Consequences PowerPoint Presentation I. The practical consequences of the Citizens United decision A. The result following the September 6, 2009 reargument of Citizens United B. The second aspect of the result in Citizens United C. The consequences of the Citizen United decision on coordination D. Another consequence of Citizens United the proliferation of 501(c)-4 entities E. The politically-active 501(c)-4 entities have flourished without any effective IRS scrutiny I So what happened in 2012 how did Obama overcome the Republican flood? A. Obama s dominance on television B. Spending by the Super PACs and their 501(c)-4 allies C. The money that Citizens United freed for political purposes was staggering D. The effect on Congressional expenditures was heavily to favor the Republicans E. The absence of effective enforcement has created opportunities for abuse F. Did the flood of money come from corporations? G. Why the flood of individual contributions following the Citizens United decision? An explanation for the flood of individual money after Citizens United Further concerning the flood of individual money after Citizens United The independent expenditures after Citizens United, both through Super PACs and 501(c)-4s and by individuals, heavily skew to the negative H. The anti-obama Super PACs failed to coordinate their attacks on the President The practical consequences of Citizens United in state elections have varied A. Pennsylvania s judicial elections have not yet been significantly affected by Citizens United B. But Michigan may be different IV. Source notes Appendix: Federal Election Commission 21-Month Campaign Activity of the 2012 Election Cycle Section Four: Some Decisions Applying Citizens United to Invalidate State Limitations on Independent Expenditures xvii

8 I. New York Progress and Protection PAC v. Walsh, et al. (2d Cir. October 24, 2013) Fund for Jobs, Growth, & Security v. New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission, et al. (D.N.J. Civil Action No. 3:13-CV MAS-LHG, July 11, 2013) Consent Order for Permanent Injunction Chapter Eleven: Election Recounts in Pennsylvania Submitted by: Lawrence J. Tabas, Esquire, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel, LLP, Philadelphia Election Recounts in Pennsylvania with Selected Case Supplement on Recounts and Election Contests A. Recounts and Recanvasses Defined under the Election Code B. Pre-1980 Voting Methods in Pennsylvania C. Voting Methods in Pennsylvania from the 1980 Amendments to the Election Code The Use of Electronic Voting Systems as A Third Method of Casting Votes at Election Districts D. Article XVII of the Election Code Governs the Judicial Proceedings for a Recount and Recanvass E. The Federal Help America Vote Act of 2002 ( HAVA ) F. Pennsylvania s Incorporation of HAVA and Changes to Recount And Recanvass Proceedings Recounts G. Recount And Recanvass Proceedings Shall be Conducted In An Expedited Manner H. Proceedings For Recounting And Recanvassing Ballots Are Limited To Recounting Selected Case Law Supplement Recounts and Election Contests under the Pennsylvania Election Code In Re: General Election for Township Supervisor of Morris Township, Washington County, 152 Pa. Commw. 590; 620 A.2d 565 (1993) Rinaldi v. Ferrett and Old Forge Borough Council, 941 A.2d 73 (Pa. Commw. 2007) (Opinion of President Judge Leadbetter) Shambach v. Bickhart, 577 Pa. 384, 845 A.2d 793 (2004) In Re: The Matter of the 2003 Election for Jackson Township Supervisor, Six Year Term Appeal of Ben Kupchella, 840 A.2d 1044 (Pa. Commw. 2003) Banfield v. Aichele, 51 A.3d 300 (Pa. Commw. 2012) xviii

9 Appendices: In Re: Recount of Ballots and Recanvass of Voting Machine in East Goshen, 4, in the General Election of November 7, 2006 for Representative in the General Assembly from the 156 th District, Chester County, Pennsylvania Order (December 15, 2006) Pennsylvania Department of State What Constitutes a Vote 33 Pa.B Reprinted with permission from the Pennsylvania Bulletin Secretary of the Commonwealth s Directive Concerning the Use, Implementation and Operation of Electronic Voting Systems by the County Boards of Elections (04/28/2009) Secretary of the Commonwealth s Order of Recount and Recanvass for the Democratic Primary for Judge of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania Re: Primary Election May 17, In Re: Contested Nomination of Democrat Primary for Office of City Council for the City of Harrisburg Yenkevich, et al. v. Luzerne County et al I. Petition to Contest Opinion (Filed June 25, 2013) A. Appendix A-1 Schuylkill County (Filed June 17, 2013) B. Appendix A-2 Carbon County (Filed June 17, 2013) Petition to Contest Order (Filed June 25, 2013) Chapter Twelve: Appendices Comments on the post-2000 Congressional reapportionments A. The Stranglehold on Our Politics Written by: Elizabeth Drew Reprinted with permission from The New York Review of Books. Copyright 2013 by Elizabeth Drew B. Our American Problem Written by: G. Terry Madonna & Michael L. Young Originally published online in Franklin & Marshall Colleges Politically Uncorrected column. Copyright 2013 Terry Madonna and Michael L. Young. Reprinted with permission 2. California Fair Political Practices Commission Chart of The Dark Money Trail (October 24, 2013) Reprinted with permission xix