J.

Matthew Wolfe, Esquire

Attorney I.D. #34814
4256 Regent Square Attorneys for Intervenors
Philadelphia, PA 19104
(215) 387-7300

Andrew Wesley Cole

Attorney I.D. #306760
Kraus Cole Law Firm, P.C.
116 School Street
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
____________________________________
:
JAMES D. LEWIS, JR. : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
and : OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
JAMES F. RYAN, JR. :
:
Petitioners : MAY TERM, 2018
: NO. 003453
:
: ELECTION MATTER
vs. :
:
PHILADELPHIA COUNTY :
BOARD OF ELECTIONS :
:
Respondents :

AMICUS MEMORANDUM OF LAW ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST WARD REPUBLICAN

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, THE 36TH WARD REPUBLICAN EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE, WILLIAM LANZILOTTI IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE REPUBLICAN
CITY COMMITTEEMAN (WARD LEADER) OF THE 1ST WARD AND MICHAEL
BRADLEY IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE REPUBLICAN CITY COMMITTEEMAN
(WARD LEADER) OF THE 36TH WARD

I. MATTER BEFORE THE COURT:

Petitioners Lewis and Ryan have brought this action under 25 P.S. § 3157 arguing

that the County Board of Elections erred in its computation of the elections of eleven Members

of the 58th Ward Democratic Executive Committee (Committeepeople). Two Republicans, the
former ward leader of the 1st Ward and the former ward leader of the 36th Ward, attempted to

intervene and were denied, although they were permitted to submit an amicus brief. The 1st

Ward Republican Executive Committee, the 36th Ward Republican Executive Committee and the

ward leaders of those wards request the same opportunity.

II. QUESTION PRESENTED:

1. Does this court have any jurisdiction to review the

election of any Committeepeople other than those eleven
Democrats that this litigation was filed to review?

Suggested Response: NO

2. Do Committeepeople who secure a plurality of the

votes in their division win election?

Suggested Response: Yes

III. FACTS

The eleven Democratic Committeepeople who were subject of the complaint in this case

each secured a plurality of the votes in their division but failed to secure a minimum of ten votes.

The County Board of Elections completed its computation of the votes and announced that they

had won election to the positions. The County Board of Elections did not certify the election of

these eleven Democratic Committeepeople, but did certify the elections of every other

Committeeperson across the city who had secured a plurality of the votes in their divisions, both

Republican and Democratic, both those who had filed on the ballot and those who had run write

in campaigns and regardless of whether they had secured any minimum number of votes. They

have not certified the results of the eleven Democratic Committeepeople at issue pending the

2
outcome of this litigation.

Dominic Chiavaroli had been the Republican Ward Leader of the 1st Ward and Terry

Quinn had been the Republican Ward Leader of the 36th Ward. At the elections held on June 4,

2018, the date which the Rules of the Republican Party of the City and County of Philadelphia

required ward reorganization meetings to be held, William Lanzilotti was elected the Republican

Ward Leader of the 1st Ward and Michael Bradley was elected the Republican Ward Leader of

the 36th Ward. Both received votes from Republican Committeepeople who were elected by

write in campaigns and from Republican Committeepeople who appeared on the ballot.

Significantly, the election of none of the Republican Committeepeople elected in the 1st

Ward or the 36th Ward have been contested in court. In fact, no one has filed court actions

against any Republican Committeeperson anywhere in the city. Further, other than the eleven

involved in this litigation, no court challenge has been filed against any other Democratic

Committeeperson anywhere in the city.

IV. ARGUMENT

JURISDICTION

The Intervenors have no direct interest in the outcome of the eleven Democratic

Committeepeople who are the subject of this litigation. They do, however, have an interest that

the law in this area be followed and that a bad legal precedent not be promulgated. When it

came to their attention that the two individuals who had lost in elections for Republican ward

leader in the 1st and 36th wards were writing an amicus brief in this matter, it became important

to do the same. Political parties and their officers, including committeepeople, perform public

3
functions and their election is subject to regulation by the Election Code, constitutional

limitations and judicial restraint. Bentman v. Seventy Ward Democratic Executive Committee,

421 Pa. 188, 218 A.2d 261 (1966).

The former Republican ward leaders presumably believe that a ruling that the eleven

Democratic Committeepeople who received a plurality of the votes in their division of the 58th

ward and are subjects of this litigation did not win the election would somehow be applied to

Republican Committeepeople in different wards whose elections have not been challenged in any

litigation – and presumably would have some implication on the elections for ward leader. It

would not. Committeepeople are publically elected officials who stand for election in

government run and funded elections regulated by the Pennsylvania Election Code. There are

very strict procedural requirements that must be followed in order to challenge a public election,

as well there should be. The statute at issue in this matter, 25 P.S. § 3157, and any proceedings

under that statute must be filed within two days of the computation. Similarly, a petition for a

recount or a recanvass must be filed within five days of the computation. 25 P.S. § 3154. The

legislature through the Election Code has expressed that the Commonwealth has a substantial

interest in seeing to it that elections are decided with finality quickly.

In this case, no court challenge has been brought against any of the Republican

Committeepeople anywhere in the city, let alone in the 1st or 36th Wards. The sole remedy for

anyone who believed that there was any issue with the election of any Republican

Committeeperson in either of the wards in question needed to file in court within the time frames

set forth by the Election Code. They did not, the deadlines have passes and therefore this court

has no jurisdiction regarding the Republican Committeepeople in the 1st and 36th Wards. At best

a ruling that disqualifies the eleven Democratic Committeepeople at issue in this litigation that

4
was upheld on appeal could set the precedent that the Board of Elections will follow in four

years when Committeepeople are next up for election.

COMMITTEEPERSON ELECTIONS

The Election Code allows each county committee of a political party have its committee

members elected by the voters, but they must be elected consistent with the Election Code. This

is outlined in 25 P.S. § 2837, which reads as follows:

§ 2837. County committees; rules; other party officers

There may be in each county a county committee for each political party within
such county, the members of which shall be elected at the spring primary, or
appointed, as the rules of the respective parties within the county may provide.
The county committee of each party may make such rules for the government of
the party in the county, not inconsistent with law or with the State rules of the
party, as it may deem expedient, and may also revoke, alter or renew in any
manner not inconsistent with law or with such State rules, any present or future
county rules of such party. No such rules shall be effective until a certified copy
thereof has been filed in the office of the county board of elections. The members
of all other party committees, and all other party officers whose election is
required by the party rules, shall also be elected at the spring primary, in the
manner provided by this act.

The Election Code dictates that a candidate for Committeeman who receives a plurality

of the votes must be certified the winner. This means that a candidate must receive more votes

than other candidates running. There is no minimum requirement, so as few as one vote can be a

plurality if other candidates do not receive votes regardless of whether the votes are on the ballot

or written-in. This is covered by 25 P.S. § 2840, which reads as follows:

§ 2840. Who shall be declared elected members of National or State committee

and party offices

Candidates of the various political parties for the office of member of the State
committee, or for the office of member of the National committee, in cases where
the rules of the party provide that such office shall be filled by a vote of the party

5
 electors, who receive a plurality of the votes of the party electors at a primary,
shall be the duly elected members of the State or National committee, as the case
may be, of their respective parties. Candidates for other party offices, who receive
a plurality of the votes of the party electors at a primary, shall be the party
officers of their respective parties. (Emphasis added)

This section was quoted with approval by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Bentman v.

Seventy Ward Democratic Executive Committee, Id.

That section is buttressed by 25 P.S. § 2862, which reads as follows:

§ 2862. Candidates to be nominated and party officers to be elected at primaries

All candidates of political parties, as defined in section 801 of this act, 1 for the
offices of United States Senator, Representative in Congress and for all other
elective public offices within this State, except that of presidential electors, shall
be nominated, and party delegates and alternate delegates, committeemen and
officers who, under the provisions of Article VIII of this act  2 or under the party
rules, are required to be elected by the party electors, shall be elected at primaries
held in accordance with the provisions of this act, except as otherwise provided in
this act. In the years when candidates for the office of President of the United
States are to be nominated, every registered and enrolled member of a political
party shall have the opportunity at the Spring primary in such years to vote his
preference for one person to be the candidate of his political party for President.

This provision further makes clear that elections for Committeeperson are final elections rather

than elections to secure a party’s nomination and proceed to a general election.

The petitioners in this case rely upon 25 P.S. § 3155, which seems to require that a

candidate in a primary election must receive at a minimum the amount of signatures that they

would have needed on a petition to have qualified to be on the ballot. This section conflicts with

§ 2840 and § 2862. The provisions of § 2840 and § 2862 are more specific than § 3155 and

under the rules of statutory construction the more specific statute should be given greater weight.

Kelly v. Philadelphia, 382 Pa. 459 (1955); 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921. The “plurality” requirement in §

2840 simply cannot be reconciled with § 3155 but cannot be ignored.

One case that reconciles the three statutes is Santimyer v. Westmoreland County Board

6
of Elections, 9 Pa.D. & C. 3d 303, 1978 WL 310 (1978).1 In Santimyer the county board of

elections refused to certify an election of a Committeeman who had received four votes, all of

them write-in votes, which was a plurality.

The Santimyer case dealt with a situation in which the board attempted to enforce the rule

in effect for obtaining a party’s nomination in a primary election, which does require a minimum

number of write-in votes equal to the number of signatures required to have been on the ballot in

the primary. The Court reversed the board, noting that an election for Committeeman is a “final

election” since they will be elected in the spring election and there will be no general election in

the fall for the position. The Court stated as follows:

The election board, by refusing to certify Santimyer as committeeman renders ineffective

section 2840. Since the “plurality” section is the keystone of the election process of party
officers it must be the guiding beacon in this case of statutory interpretation. The election
board gives misplaced emphasis to section 3155 in its refusal to certify Santimyer. The
primary election is a “final ballot” in the selection of party committeemen, and the
“minimum vote” requirement of section 3155 cannot be read to undermine the “plurality”
section (section 2840). Section 3155 must be read as governing certification in primary
elections, not final elections. Since Santimyer received four of five votes cast he must be
certified as committeeman, and not precluded from office by reason of the unusual fact
that the “plurality” of votes was less than the minimum required for certification in a
primary election. Id. 9 Pa.D. & C. 3d at 306-307.

In the matter at bar the candidates were all elected in a final election, not a primary election, in

using the reasoning of the Santimyer Court.

In addition, the Court stated that requiring a minimum number of votes would violate the

equal protection clauses of both the state and federal constitutions. In discussing the

constitutional implications, the Court stated as follows:

Membership on a political committee was recognized as in important right, not only to

the committeeman, but to the voters who elected such person to act as their representative
on the committee.

It is presumed that the legislature did not intend to enact a statute which would violate the
1
The notes to 25 P.S. § 2862 reference Santimyer.

7
 constitutions of the United States or of the Commonwealth (Statutory Construction Act of
May 28, 1937, P.L. 1019, sec. 52, 46 P.S. § 552, as amended by the Statutory
Construction Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1339, 1 Pa. C.S.A. § 1922(3) ). Failure to
recognize the plurality of votes cast in favor of Santimyer, not only gives insufficient
weight to the “plurality” section of the election code, but overlooks the constitutional
right of equality of an elector to which each of the four Santimyer voters are entitled. Id.
9 Pa.D. & C. 3d at 307-308.

Likewise, each of the voters in the case of every candidate for Committeeperson across the city

deserves to be treated equally whether they voted for a candidate that was on the ballot or wrote

someone’s name in.

The interpretation advocated by the petitioners would also set up a situation where two

candidates for Committeemen who were on the ballot could each obtain a single vote in the

election, but prevail over a candidate who had nine write-in votes. This would be an absurd

result and even more strongly demonstrates the constitutional implications that the Santimyer

Court discussed. In determining how a statute is to be interpreted, there are several presumptions

to be made. 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1922. It is presumed that the legislature does not intend a result

which is absurd or unreasonable. Commonwealth v. Bartley, 411 Pa. 286, 191 A.2d 673 (1963).

It is also presumed that the legislature did not intend to violate the Constitution of the United

States or of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Commonwealth v. McCoy, 405 Pa. 23, 172

A.2d 795 (1961).

V. RELIEF

Based upon the foregoing, Intervenors respectfully request that this Honorable Court

DENY the Petitioners’ request that the eleven Democratic Committeepeople who are subject of

this litigation be declared to have lost election even though they had received a plurality of the

8
vote in their division. In the alternative it should make clear that any ruling applies only to the

eleven Democratic Committeepeople who are the subject of this litigation.

Respectfully submitted,

By: _____________________________________
J. MATTHEW WOLFE, ESQUIRE
Attorney for the Intevenors

By: _______________________________________
ANDREW WESLEY COLE, ESQUIRE
Attorney for the Intevenors

DATED: June 14, 2018