Legal Opinion · Dissent

Banfield v. Cortes

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 12, 2007Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

Judge LEAVITT.

Respectfully, I dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the Petitioners have stated a cause of action in mandamus to compel the Secretary of the Commonwealth to decertify seven different Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting systems. Likewise, I do not believe that this Court can, by writ of mandamus, compel the Secretary to adopt “rational and appropriate” standards to guide his approval of DRE voting systems. The Secretary’s decision to approve, or to disapprove, electronic voting systems requires the exercise of discretion and, as such, cannot be…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Pennsylvania Dental Ass'n v. Commonwealth Insurance DepartmentSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  2. County of Allegheny v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  3. Tanenbaum v. D'AscenzoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1946
  4. Maxwell v. Farrell School District Board of DirectorsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
  5. Maxwell v. FARRELL SCH. DIST. BD. OF DIRS.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API