Can Nomination Challenge Win When Objector Fails to Appear or Sign Verification?

Things looked pretty bleak for Hellertown's Bill Rowe yesterday morning. He oreviously submitted a nomination petition, as a Republican, in Bethlehem area County Council District 1. He was careful to get more than the 250 signatures he needed. He made sure to attach a copy of his Statement of Financial Interests (SFI) to his petition. But he made one rookie mistake. He failed to file a copy of that SFI with the Clerk of County Council as well. This might seem like harmless error, but courts have routinely sustained challenges on that basis because the statute leaves no wiggle room. It is mandatory, not merely precatory. So when Republican Steven R Topp objected to Rowe's nomination petition, it seemed like a slam dunk. Topp was represented by Bucks County election lawyer Larry Otter, who had every right to feel confident going into yesterday's hearing before Senior Judge Ed Reibman. 

The problem with raising a technical defect as a fatal error is that it invites increased scrutiny by the courts. They'd really prefer to see elections decided by voters, not them. So if you give a judge a plausible reason to find a technical defect in the objecting petition that complains about a technical defect, he can and often will dismiss a challenge. Bethlehem lawyer Vic Scomillio, who represented Rowe, gave Judge Reibman  the ammo he needed to reject the challenge in a hearing yesterday. Scomillio'ss something of an election law expert himself, and has won challenges in several cases over the past few years.  

When you file a petition or complaint with the court, it must include something known as a "verification." This is an averment by the petitioner that the facts recited are, to the best of his knowledge, accurate. 

The petition challenging Rowe did contain a verification, but it was signed by Otter, not the complaining party. Moreover, Topp never showed up for the hearing, and Scomillio jumped on this. He argued that the court should refuse to entertain a nomination challenge when the challenger himself fails to show up or even attest to the challenge. 

Otter insisted it has been common practice for him to sign verifications himself over the past 25 years, even in the Commonwealth Court. But Judge Reibman cautioned that it's an "invitation for mischief" in these "hyper partisan times." 

Judge Reibman agreed that Rowe's failure to file a copy of his SFI with County Council is a "major  defect." "You don't throw these challenges out lightly, but having said that, we don't have a petitioner." 

Otter cited some cases for Judge Reibman to consider, and he will do so before he enters an Order. 

If I were a betting man, I'd bet that Rowe will remain on the ballot as the Republican nominee. 

Rowe's family at one time owned and operated Bechtold Orchards in Hellertown. Members of his family also owned and operated Rowe Cycle Service in Bethlehem. 

The Democratic nominee is Ken Kraft. He used to represent Bethlehem on County Council, but resigned in the middle of his term to work for Executive Lamont McClure at the jail. Now he wants to return to the same elected office from which he resigned.  I think it's highly unlikely that he'd be a check on a County Executive who hired him as a political appointee. But it's also highly unlikely he'd lose a race in a heavily Democratic district.