Skip to main content

Pennsylvania Cases September 03, 2020: Pa. Democratic Party v. Boockvar

⤴ Up to Pennsylvania Cases

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Date: Sept. 3, 2020

Case Description

PENNSYLVANIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY,
NILOFER NINA AHMAD, DANILO BURGOS,
AUSTIN DAVIS, DWIGHT EVANS, ISABELLA FITZGERALD,
EDWARD GAINEY, MANUEL M. GUZMAN, JR.,
JORDAN A. HARRIS, ARTHUR HAYWOOD, MALCOLM KENYATTA,
PATTY H. KIM, STEPHEN KINSEY, PETER SCHWEYER,
SHARIF STREET, AND ANTHONY H. WILLIAMS
v.
KATHY BOOCKVAR,
IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA;
ADAMS COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
ALLEGHENY COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
ARMSTRONG COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
BEAVER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
BEDFORD COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
BERKS COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
BLAIR COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
BRADFORD COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
BUCKS COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
BUTLER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
CAMBRIA COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
CAMERON COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
CARBON COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
CENTRE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
CHESTER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
CLARION COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
CLEARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
CLINTON COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
COLUMBIA COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
CRAWFORD COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
DAUPHIN COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
DELAWARE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
ELK COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
ERIE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
FAYETTE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
FOREST COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
FULTON COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
GREENE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
HUNTINGDON COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
INDIANA COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
JUNIATA COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
LACKAWANNA COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
LANCASTER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
LAWRENCE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
LEBANON COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
LEHIGH COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
LUZERNE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
LYCOMING COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
MCKEAN COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
MERCER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
MIFFLIN COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
MONTOUR COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
PERRY COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
PHILADELPHIA COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
PIKE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
POTTER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
SCHUYLKILL COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
SNYDER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
SOMERSET COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
SULLIVAN COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
SUSQUEHANNA COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
TIOGA COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
UNION COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
VENANGO COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
WARREN COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
WAYNE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
WESTMORELAND COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
WYOMING COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;
AND YORK COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS

PETITION OF: KATHY BOOCKVAR,
IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

No. 133 MM 2020

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT

September 3, 2020

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING STATEMENT

JUSTICE WECHT

I join the order granting the motion to intervene ostensibly filed on behalf of the Senate Republican Caucus—notwithstanding the reservations as to the propriety of unicameral legislative standing I expressed in my concurring statement in Disability Rights Pennsylvania v . Boockvar , 83 MM 2020. I also join the denial of intervention as to the remaining applications.

I dissent from the Court's grant of intervention to the Republican Party of Pennsylvania, however, because I do not agree that the political entity has satisfied the requirements for intervention under Pa.R.A.P. 2327. The party claims "a substantial and particularized interest in defending this action to preserve the structure of the competitive environment in which their supported candidates participate and to ensure that Pennsylvania carries out free and fair elections," Application for Leave to Intervene, 7/27/2020, at 5, but ventures what amounts to a general concern in maintaining the electoral status quo. A generalized grievance of this variety is insufficient to justify

Page 2

intervention under these circumstances. See Hollingsworth v . Perry , 570 U.S. 693, 707 (2013) (dismissing appeal for lack of standing where petitioners, sponsors of Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in California, "ha[d] no role—special or otherwise—in the enforcement of" the proposition, and "therefore ha[d] no 'personal stake' in defending its enforcement that [wa]s distinguishable from the general interest of every citizen of California").

In seeking to intervene in defense of a state law, the Republican Party of Pennsylvania can claim only the prospect of injury to its political interests, which does not constitute a cognizable basis upon which to intervene in this case. Whether certain or, as in this case, merely conjectural, the political consequences of a decision at odds with a party's policy preferences are not the law's concern, only the merit of Petitioners' constitutional challenges to the legal status quo vis-à-vis the conduct of elections.

Furthermore, even if the party satisfied the requirements of Rule 2327, it is difficult to imagine that the Senate Republican Caucus would fail to represent their interests entirely, and the state GOP offers no theories in that connection. The party enjoys no law-making prerogatives whatsoever; it lacks even an elector's vote. Its injury is political, not legal, and is secondary to the constitutional questions presented.

In implicitly determining that the Republican Party's interests in this case satisfy Rule 2327, this Court invites a host of other circumstances in which interest groups can claim the right to intervene based solely on their concern about the secondary effects of a given lawsuit's outcome. Accordingly, I dissent.