In re Nomination Petition of Marie DeYoung as a Democrat for State Representative for the 163rd Legislative District; Appeal of Harry M. Riley, IV

Summary

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that a qualified private party has standing to object to a candidate’s Statement of Financial Interests attached to a nomination petition. The court rejected the Commonwealth Court’s sua sponte standing analysis and concluded that the Election Code, rather than the Ethics Act, supplies the mechanism and expedited timeframe for challenging such filings. The court reversed and remanded for a decision on the merits.

Holdings

1. A court may not raise standing sua sponte on the theory that standing is intertwined with subject matter jurisdiction; standing is not a jurisdictional question.
2. A qualified private party who would have standing to challenge a nomination petition may object to a candidate's Statement of Financial Interests attached to that petition; the State Ethics Commission is not the exclusive party entitled to bring the challenge.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Commonwealth Court improperly raised standing sua sponte.
2. Whether a qualified private party has standing and a right of action to challenge a candidate's Statement of Financial Interests attached to a nomination petition.
3. Whether the Commonwealth Court erred by dismissing the challenge for lack of standing.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded