In Re: Nom. of Michael W. Beyer (per curiam order)
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 ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 5th day of May, 2014, the Order of the Commonwealth Court is REVERSED. The Commonwealth Court erred in construing Candidate s knowing and material misrepresentation of occupation on his nomination petition as neither a defect nor, assuming arguendo it were a defect, one knowingly made and material to the nomination process. Pursuant to Section 977 of the Election Code, 25 P.S. § 2937, if the court finds that a nomination petition is defective pursuant to Section 976 of the Election Code, 25, P.S. § 2936, the petition must be set aside. In re Nomination Petition of Driscoll, 847 A.2d 44, 49 (Pa. 2004). This Court has held, however, that defects arising from good faith mistakes may be amendable such that they do not require striking the candidate s name from the ballot. In re Nomination of Paulmier, 937 A.2d 364 (Pa. 2007). In listing his present occupation as lawyer when he was a law school graduate who had neither taken nor passed the bar and who was not presently engaged in working with the law in any way, Candidate s knowing and material misrepresentation cannot be characterized as the product of a good faith mistake. Electors were materially misled by the defect to the effect of potentially defeating their right to nominate on fair information. It is further ORDERED that Michael W. Beyer s name is to be STRICKEN from the primary ballot for the Democratic Party nomination for the Office of Representative in the General Assembly for the 131st Legislative District. Opinion(s) to follow. Mr. Justice Saylor Concurs in the Result and Mr. Justice Baer files a Dissenting Statement.
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.
