Legal Opinion · Concurrence

In Re Nomination Petition of Farnese

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 29, 2011No. 6 EAP 2008Published

1ConcurrenceJustice Saylor

I agree with the central propositions advanced by the Opinion in Support of Per Curiam Order (“OIS”), that evidence of widespread fraud in the collection of signatures may be relevant in an election challenge, see In re Payton, 596 Pa. 469, 470-72, 945 A.2d 162, 163-64 (2008) (Saylor, J., concurring), but that, as a general matter, an objector cannot prevail in a “global” challenge on the basis of such evidence without pleading and proving that the candidate, or possibly his cam*595paign, was aware of or condoned the fraud. I also agree with Mr. Chief Justice Castille, that Appellants’ novel…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. In Re Nomination Paper of NaderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  2. In Re Nomination Petition of PaytonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
  3. In re Nomination Paper of NaderCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  4. In re Nomination Petition of FarneseCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2008

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

Powered by the Exa API