In Re: Nom. of Michael W. Beyer (dissenting)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[J-51-2014] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT : : : : : : : : APPEAL OF: DAVID EISENHAUER AND : LINDA EISENHAUER : IN RE: NOMINATION PETITION OF MICHAEL W. BEYER, CANDIDATE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION FOR THE OFFICE OF REPRESENTATIVE IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR THE 131ST LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT No. 35 MAP 2014 Appeal from the order of the Commonwealth Court at No. 150 MD 2014, dated April 17th 2014. SUBMITTED: April 24, 2014 DISSENTING STATEMENT MR. JUSTICE BAER I respectfully dissent from the Court s order striking Michael W. Beyer s name from the primary ballot for the Democratic Party nomination for the Office of Representative in the General Assembly for the 131st Legislative District. While I find it reasonable for this Court to pronounce prospectively that a candidate may only designate his occupation as lawyer or attorney on a nomination petition and a statement of financial interest when he or she is an attorney on active status, who has passed the bar exam and is in good standing, neither a majority of this Court nor the Commonwealth Court has ever made such a declaration. Absent such directive, and in view of the fact that the Commonwealth Court made a specific factual finding that Beyer had no intent to deceive the electorate by listing his occupation as lawyer, but rather believed that he was a lawyer because he had studied law and graduated from law school, I dissent from the Court s conclusion that Beyer made a knowing and material misrepresentation warranting the striking of his name from the ballot.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.