IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. In Re: The Republican Nomination Petition of Luiz Garcia For : No, 315 C.D. 2017 Mayor of Allentown : Submitted: March 28, 2017 Appeal of Jessica Pearse BEFORE: HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOICIK, Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE WOIJCIK FILED: March 30, 2017 Jessica Pearse (Objector) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County (trial court), which dismissed her potition to set aside the nomination petition of Luiz Garcia (Candidate) as a Republican Candidate for Office of Mayor of the City of Allentown in the Pennsylvania Municipal Primary Election to be held on May 16, 2017 (Objection Petition). For the reasons that follow, this Court affirms, On March 13, 2017, Objector filed the Objection Petition to set aside Candidate’s nomination petition. Objector alleged that Candidate is employed as a detective with the City of Allentown’s (City) Police Department and is an “employee” subject to the City’s Administrative Code (Allentown Code).' Section 1 The Allentown Code is available on the City’s. website at: http:/Avww-allentownpa.gow/Portals/0/files/CityCouncil/1%20General%20Administration pdt?v er=2017-02-10-140532-473 (last visited 3/29/17). Relevant excerpts of the Allentown Code were included in the cettified record as part of the hearing exhibits, See Cerlified Record, County Exhibit No. 1.171.07 of the Allentown Code, which is the City’s Code of Ethics, prohibits City employees from taking “an active part in political campaigns for candidates for City office.” Section 910 of the Pennsylvania Election Code? (lection Code) requires a candidate to file with his nomination petition an affidavit swearing that “he is eligible for such office,” and “that he will not knowingly violate any provision of this act, or of any law regulating and limiting nomination ....” 25 P.S. §2870(d), (e). Objector claimed that Candidate, by running for office without resigning from his position with the City, is in willful violation of the Allentown Code. On this basis, Objector asserted that Candidate’s affidavit is false because he is not eligible to run for the office and he swore under oath that he would not knowingly violate any election law. Candidate filed an answer in response. The trial court held a hearing on the Objection Petition. At the hearing, Tim Benyo, Chief Clerk to the Lehigh County Election Board, and Candidate testified. Candidate confirmed that he is now and at all times relevant hereto a City detective. By order dated March 20, 2017, the trial court dismissed the Objection Petition, In the opinion that followed, the trial court found that Objector’s Objection Petition, though framed as a challenge to Candidate's ? Act of June 3, 1937, P.L, 1333, as amended, 25 P.S. §2870. We note that Objector improvidently cited Section 630.1 of the Election Code, which was added by the act of April 18, 1985, as amended, 25 P.S. §2780.1, as the legal basis for her Objection Petition. However, Section 630.1 pertains to special elections, which this is not. From the context of the Objection Petition, it is clear that Objector intended to refer to Section 910 of the Election Code. » Objector also alleged that Candidate violated the City’s Home Rule Charter, However, Objector failed to present any evidence in support of this claim at the hearing, ‘The trial court dismissed this allegation at the hearing. Objector does not challenge the dismissal of this claim on appeal,nomination petition, was nothing more than an allegation of an ethical violation under the Allentown Code, over which the trial court does not exercise jurisdiction. Jurisdiction to hear allegations of Allentown Code violations is vested in the City’s Ethics Board and City Council, per the Allentown Code. See Section 171.10 of the Allentown Code. Objector cited no authority for the proposition that the trial court has jurisdiction to hear complaints based solely on an alleged violation of a city’s administrative code or code of ethics. On alternate grounds, the trial court also determined that Objector failed to produce any evidence in support of her theory that Candidate violated Section 910 of the Election Code. The Allentown Code is not part of the Election Code. Moreover, the Ethics Board has not found Candidate in violation of the Allentown Code’s ethical provisions. Ultimately, the trial court dismissed the Objection Petition for lack of jurisdiction. This appeal now follows. Objector contends the trial court erred in determining that it did not have jurisdiction over the matter where Candidate’s violation of the Allentown Code impugns his qualifications to run for office under the Election Code. Next, Objector asserts the trial court erred in determining that Candidate did not violate Section 910 of the Election Code. According to Objector, the Allentown Code, which specifically prohibits employees from running for office, is “any law regulating and limiting nomination” within the meaning of Section 910 of the Election Code. Because Candidate is not eligible for office and has knowingly violated a law limiting his nomination, Objector claims Candidate’s sworn affidavit is false and not capable of amendment. For these reasons, Objector argues that Candidate’s nomination petition should be set aside,In reviewing an order adjudicating challenges to a nomination petition, our standard of review permits reversal only where the findings of fact are unsupported by substantial evidence, where there was an abuse of discretion, or where an error of law was committed. Jn re Beyer, 115 A.3d 835, 838 (Pa. 2015). Moreover, in reviewing election issues, we must consider the longstanding and overriding policy in our Commonwealth to protect the elective franchise. Id.; In re coll, 847 A.2d 44, 48 (Pa. 2004). In promoting that policy, this Court has made clear that the Election Code must “be liberally Nomination Petition of Dri: construed to protect a candidate's right to run for office and the voters' right to elect the candidate of their choice.” Beyer, 115 A.3d at 838, Indeed, “the purpose of the Election Code is to protect, not defeat, a citizen's vote.” Dayhoff v. Weaver, 808 A.2d 1002, 1006 (Pa, Cmwith. 2002), appeal denied, 819 A.2d 548 (Pa, 2003). 1. Jurisdiction Objector first argues that the trial court erred in determining it lacked jurisdiction to decide the Objection Petition because it is based on an alleged violation of the Allentown Code. Section 977 of the Election Code provides, in pertinent part, that: All nomination petitions and papers received and filed within the periods limited by this act shall be deemed to be valid, unless, within seven days after the last day for filing said nomination petition or paper, @ petition is presented to the court specifically setting forth the objections thereto, and praying that the said petition or paper be set aside. A copy of said petition shall, within said period, be served on the officer or board with whom said nomination petition or paper was filed. ... The office of the Prothonotary of the Commonwealth Court and the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth and the various offices of prothonotary of the court of 4common pleas shall be open between the hours of eight- thirty o'clock A.M. and five o'clock P.M. on the last day to withdraw after filing nomination petitions and on the last day to file objections to nomination petitions. 25 P.S. §2937 (emphasis added). Jurisdiction for a challenge to nomination petitions filed with the local county board of elections lay with the court of common pleas having proper venue under section 931(a) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. §931(a)." The court’s jurisdiction encompasses objections to a candidate’s nomination petition concerning claimed false statements in a candidate’s affidavit accompanying his nomination petition. See Petition of Pippy, 711 A.2d 1048, 1051 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (single judge opinion, Kelley, J.), afd, 709 A.2d 905 (Pa. 1998). Here, Objector filed a petition to set aside Candidate’s nomination petition under the Election Code. Objector alleged defects to Candidate’s qualifications for office and his affidavit under the Election Code, albeit based on alleged violations of the Allentown Code’s Code of Ethics. However, Objector did not file an ethics complaint or ask the trial court to discharge Candidate from employment with the City. Rather, Objector requested the trial court to set aside Candidate’s nomination petition on the basis that he is ineligible to run for office and falsely attested to his eligibility in his Candidate’s affidavit. A petition to set aside a nomination petition is not the proper legal proceeding to resolve alleged ethical violations of the Allentown Code. See In re * Section 931(a) of the Judicial Code provides that “{e]xcept where exclusive original jurisdiction of an action or proceeding is by statute or by general rule adopted pursuant to section 503 (relating to reassignment of matters) vested in another court of this Commonwealth, the courts of common pleas shall have unlimited original jurisdiction of all actions and proceedings, including all actions and proceedings heretofore cognizable by law or usage in the courts of common pleas.”May, 973 A.2d 443, 446 (Pa. Cmwith.) (single judge opinion, Cohn Jubelirer, J.), affd, 971 A.2d 488 (Pa. 2009) (this Court lacked jurisdiction to review a judicial candidate’s conduct under the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct during a campaign)’ Rather, jurisdiction over ethical violations under the Allentown Code is vested with the City’s Ethies Board. Sections 140.11 and 171.10 of the Allentown Code, A violation of the Allentown Code’s ethics provisions may result in disciplinary action up to and including discharge. Sections 140.11 and 171.99 of the Allentown Code. The trial court properly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to police the ethical behavior of City employees or impose penalties for those violations. See Jn re May. Notwithstanding, the issue of whether a candidate is “eligible” for office and whether the Allentown Code constitutes “any law regulating and limiting nomination” for purposes of the Election Code are questions of law properly before the trial court in the context of a nomination petition challenge. ‘Thus, to the extent Objector sought relief under the Election Code, the trial court erred by dismissing the case on jurisdictional grounds. Nevertheless, the trial court’s opinion offered other grounds in support of its decision, Moreover, this Court may affirm a trial court’s decision if the result is correct on any ground, without regard to the grounds upon which the trial court relied. Commonwealth v, Keaton, 45 A3d 1050, 1073 (Pa. 2012). Therefore, this Court will address Objectors’ allegations of error on the merits. 5 Section 414(b) of this Court's Internal Operating Procedures authorizes the citation of single judge opinions for their persuasive value, but not as binding precedent, 210 Pa, Code §69.414(b).2. Merits Objector maintains that Candidate is “ineligible” for office because the Allentown Code prohibits employees from engaging in political activity. According to Objector, the Allentown Code acts as a bar to running for office and is a “law regulating and limiting nomination” under the Election Code. Consequently, she claims that Candidate’s affidavit is false and incapable of amendment, Section 910 of the Election Code provides in relevant part: Each candidate... shall file with his nomination petition his affidavit stating—(a) his residence, with street and number, if any, and his post-office address; (b) his election district, giving city, borough, town or township; (©) the name of the office for which he consents to be a he will not knowingly violate any provision of this act, or of any law regulating and limiting nomination and election expenses and prohibiting corrupt practices in connection therewith; .... 25 P.S. §2870 (emphasis added) (footnotes omitted). Before a candidate’s affidavit under Section 910 of the Election Code may be declared void and invalid because it contains false information, “there must be evidence that the candidate knowingly falsified the affidavit with the intent to deceive the electorate.” Jn re Shimkus, 946 A.2d 139, 154 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). ‘The court must review the candidate’s intent and if the candidate made the mistake in bad faith in order to deceive the public, the documents are not amendable. Jd. at 155-156; see In Re Nomination Petition of Farnese, 17 A.3d375, 381 (Pa, 2011). Section 171.07 of the Allentown Code provides: “Such appointed officials and employees, or those seeking office on their behalf, ... shall not take an active part in political campaigns for candidates for City office.” “Without 7doubt, the government may place restrictions on the political activities of its employees in order to maintain their integrity and impartiality and thereby promote efficiency in the civil service.” Commonwealth v. Stauffer, 454 A.2d 1140, 1144 (Pa. Super. 1982) (citing C.S.C. v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548 (1973)). The issue in this matter is whether a violation of the Allentown Code would render a candidate ineligible for public office or is a law regulating and limiting nomination under the Election Code. This Court addressed similar issues in Jn re Freeman, 540 A.2d 606 (Pa. Cmwlth, 1988) and In re May. In In re Freeman, we held that a candidate's nominating petition for party office could not be set aside on the basis that the candidate was a federal employee who was prohibited from running for elective office under Section 7324 of the Hatch Act, 5 U.S.C. §7324. The penalty for running for elective office is the employee’s removal from the government position. 5 U.S.C. §7325. However, the objector could not direct this Court to any provision of the Election Code that would preclude a federal employee from running for office. Freeman, 540 A.2d at 615, Even if federal law prevented a federal employee from running for office, a state court would have no jurisdiction to remove that employee from his federal position. id. Even assuming the candidate was in violation of the Hatch Act, such would not form a basis upon which to set aside his nomination petition under the Election Code. Id. Similarly, in Jn re May, an objector filed a petition to set aside a nomination petition on the basis that the candidate for court of common pleas judge was disqualified from appearing on the primary ballot because she violated Canon 7(A)(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct by holding the position of committeewoman while running for office. Canon 7(A)(1) of the Code of JudicialConduct provides that a candidate for judi office should not be an officer in a political organization, In determining whether the candidate was precluded from being placed on the primary election ballot, we examined the statutory requirements that a candidate must meet in order to be placed on a primary election ballot under the Election Code and Section 1104(b) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act (Ethics Act), 65 Pa. C.S. §1104(b). Jn re May, 973 A.2d at 445. “We read the requirements relating to nomination petitions in both statutes, the Election Code and the Ethics Act, ‘in pari materia, as they relate to the same subject matter.” Id. (quoting In re Nomination of Paulmier, 937 A.2d 364, 369 (Pa. 2007)). Thus, a candidate is barred from remaining on the ballot if a candidate violates the Election Code or Section 1104 of the Ethics Act. /d. However, the objector in Jn re May did not allege that the candidate failed to meet the applicable statutory requirements in the Election Code or the Ethics Act for being placed on the primary election ballot for common pleas judge. Rather, the objector asserted that the candidate was ineligible to remain on the ballot because she violated Canon 7(A)(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The objector asked the Court to create a remedy for the candidate’s violation of Canon 7(A)(1) by removing the candidate’s name from the primary ballot. This Court held that a candidate’s compliance with the Code of Judicial Conduct is not a basis for setting aside a nomination petition. In re May, 973 A.2d at 446. “[N]either the Election Code nor the Ethics Act require candidates for judicial office to conform to the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct in order to be placed on an election ballot.” Jd. The Code of Judicial Conduct does not specifically refer to nomination petitions. “Moreover, theElection Code does not specifically incorporate or reference the Code of Judicial Conduct, and there is no statutory authority or case law requiring that the two be read in pari materia.” Id. The Court continued: “There are appropriate tribunals that have jurisdiction to hear a claim that a candidate’s conduct during a campaign is in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.” In re May, 973 A.2d at 446, However, within the context of a nomination petition challenge, the Court lacked jurisdiction to review a candidate’s conduct during a campaign, explaining: It is not this Court’s role to draw inferences as to a candidate’s fitness for office from that candidate’s alleged compliance or non-compliance with the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Such inferences form no statutory basis for precluding one from running for public office, and fall outside our purview. Id. at 446 (emphasis added). Because the objector did not allege that the candidate failed to comply with the applicable requirements of the Election Code or the Ethics Act, the Court denied the objector’s petition to set aside and did not reach the issue of whether the candidate violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. Id. Like the Hatch Act in Freeman and the Code of Judicial Conduct in Jn re May, the Allentown Code is not part of the Election Code. There is no legal authority supporting Objector’s position that the Allentown Code must be read in para materia with the Election Code. The Allentown Code does not specifically refer to nomination petitions nor does it restrict an employee’s ability to ran for office. At best, it is a law that may restrict an employce’s ability to maintain employment while secking political office. However, it is “not a law regulating or limiting nomination” under the Election Code. Consequently, an alleged violation of the Allentown Code would not preclude Candidate from secking office. 10Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order dismissing the LM MICHAEL H. WOICIK, Judge Objection Petition,IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In Re: The Republican Nomination Petition of Luiz Garcia For Mayor of Allentown ‘Appeal of: Jessica Pearse ORDER AND NOW, this 30" day of March, 2017, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, dated March 20, 2017, is AFFIRMED. MICHAEL H. WOICIK, Judg: