PA Commonwealth Court Senior Judge Quigley's Pernicious Election Case Rulings
Posted: Sunday, April 17, 2016 by Pezzonovante in Labels: Restore the Voucher Request Law, The Friends of Tim Mahoney expenditures, Where are the vouchers?The previous post in this space, in part, dealt with the errant opinions in 215 MD 2013 and in 359 MD 2014 reached by Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Senior Judge Keith B. Quigley and how those opinions destroyed the Voucher Request statute and obliterated the right of persons, upon request, to see vouchers (i.e., receipted bills detailing the particulars of expenditures made by campaign committees to influence the outcome of elections).
The post pointed out the "pernicious decision of a judge who contradicted PA Supreme Court case precedent (In re: Canvass of Absentee Ballots of 2003) and his own former ruling (2357 CD 2009) that cited it. . . ."
We turn now to the scintillating election case that resulted in Judge Quigley's ruling in 2357 CD 2009.
The race in the 2009 Municipal Election for Bellevue Council (a suburb of Pittsburgh) Ward 1 pitted Democrat Jane Braunlich against Republican David Piet.
Initially, Braunlich eked out a 210-209 victory in the election -- a razor-thin margin of just one vote.
Days after the election, a lost, sealed, absentee ballot was discovered in the trunk of a vehicle of a judge of elections.
The sealed absentee ballot was taken to the Allegheny County Division of Elections, opened there, and tallied.
The absentee ballot was cast by Walter Daughenbaugh, a National Guardsman serving his country on active duty military service.
What had been a razon-thin margin of victory for Braunlich had now metamorphosed into a 210-210 tie.
To break the tie, Braunlich and Piet drew lots (pellets); Piet won and was declared the victor.
Braunlich appealed the decision by the Allegheny County Division of Elections to the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas. In the court's decision (link pgs. 141-142), it cited numerous sections of case law that pointed toward the paramount importance of enfranchisement of electors, not their disenfranchisement. Moreover, as the absentee ballot remained sealed, there was no possibility of fraud. Thus, the court affirmed the counting of Walter Daughenbaugh's absentee ballot and the tie-break election victory of David Piet.
Braunlich, however, was not through. She appealed the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas decision to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court.
Here is where things really get interesting. The Commonwealth Court judge who decided the case was none other than Senior Judge Keith B. Quigley.
In his decision (2357 CD 2009), Judge Quigley cited In re: Canvass of Absentee Ballots of 2003 and ruled accordingly:
"In In re of Absentee Ballots of November 4, 2003 General Election, 577 Pa. 231, 843 A.2d 1223 (2004), our supreme court held that in the context of the Election Code, the word “shall” carries a mandatory, not a discretionary meaning. Under Section 1921(a) of the Statutory Construction Act, “[w]hen the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.” 1 Pa. C.S. §1921(a). Therefore a court is forbidden from ignoring the clear mandates of the Election Code in pursuit of other considerations. See In re Canvass of Absentee Ballots of November 4, 2003 General Election." [Emphasis added.]
Thus, Judge Quigley's strict interpretation of the mandatory nature of "shall" in the context of the Pennsylvania Election Code overturned an Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas decision which recognized the paramount importance of the franchise under Pennsylvania law, overturned the tie-break election of David Piet, and disenfranchised Walter Daughenbaugh by negating the vote he cast on an absentee ballot while in active duty military service to his country all because the opening of the sealed absentee ballot did not meet the mandatory "shall" requirement of being opened at the precinct. Never mind that the ballot was found six days after the election was over and the precinct closed and Braunlich had decided not to challenge the ballot itself in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, as she was given opportunity to do so by the court!
Although the arguments in the briefs in 215 MD 2013 and in 359 MD 2014 directly confronted Judge Quigley with his ruling in 2357 CD 2009 that "shall" is mandatory in the context of the Pennsylvania Election Code to the Draconian extent that even (in Quigley's view) the enfranchisement and intent of an elector must take a back seat, a review of the rulings in 215 MD 2013 and 359 MD 2014 demonstrates that Judge Quigley failed to address and completely ignored in his consideration of the cases the argument that "shall" is mandatory under the Pennsylvania Election Code as it pertains to the Voucher Request statute, which contains seven instances of "shall," including the provisions in law that vouchers "shall be retained" and "shall be available."
Voucher Request statute from the PA Election Code:
25 P.S. § 3246 (c): Vouchers or copies of vouchers for all sums expended amounting to more than twenty-five dollars ($25) shall be retained by the candidate or the committee treasurer and shall be available for public inspection and copying as herein provided. Any person may inspect or copy such vouchers or copies thereof by filing a written request with the appropriate supervisory office which shall notify the candidate or political committee of such request. The candidate or political committee shall have the option of either forwarding such vouchers or copy of the same to the supervisor for such purpose or making the vouchers or copy of the same available to the requesting person. If a candidate or a treasurer of a political committee shall fail to make said vouchers or copies thereof available for inspection and copying when requested by the appropriate supervisory officer, such officer shall direct the candidate or political committee to promptly deliver the vouchers or copies thereof to the supervisory office for purposes of inspection and copying. Costs of copying and costs of delivery by the candidate or treasurer of the requested vouchers or copies thereof shall be borne by the person requesting same.
An aside: David Piet appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, but in 5 WAL 2010, the PA Supreme Court denied Piet's Petition for Allowance of Appeal and Daughenbaugh's Petition to Intervene. Judge Quigley's ruling stood.
In 2009, Senior Judge Keith B. Quigley so stringently interpreted the mandatory nature of "shall" in the context of the Pennsylvania Election Code that he overturned a lower court ruling, overturned an election, and disenfranchised an elector on active military duty service to his country.
A mere 4 and 5 years later, respectively, Judge Quigley ignored his ruling in 2357 CD 2009 on the mandatory nature of "shall" in the context of the Pennsylvania Election Code, allowed State Rep. Tim Mahoney's (D-51) Friends of Tim Mahoney campaign committee to keep secret the particulars of its expenditures (violating the mandatory requirement that the expense vouchers be made available for inspection and/or copying), and destroyed utterly the Voucher Request statute (i.e., an entire statute of Pennsylvania election law) thereby nullifying the intent of the Pennsylvania General Assembly that voucher requesters have the right to inspect and/or copy vouchers (i.e., receipted bills detailing the particulars of expenditures made by campaign committees to influence the outcome of elections in this commonwealth).
Of his own volition, Judge Quigley also granted the Application of the PA-DOS-BCEL to turn the unreported Memorandum Opinion into a reported Opinion that will be referred to as "case precedent" in Voucher Request cases. In other words, the BCEL will never make a failure determination as it pertains to campaign committee voucher submissions. Campaign committees can submit whatever they want to submit or submit nothing at all, and voucher requesters, if they raise objection, will be pointed to the Quigley decision and its asinine, illogical ruling that the BCEL cannot make sufficiency determinations on campaign committee voucher submissions.
Senior Judge Keith B. Quigley's election case rulings -- resulting in elector disenfranchisement, destruction of election law rights, and destruction of election law -- are models of inconsistency and perniciousness.
Again, where are the state senators and state representatives working to rectify these egregious wrongs?