In Re: Nom. Petition of Guzzardi, of: Stewart

[J-48-2014] [MO: Saylor J.]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT
IN RE: NOMINATION PETITION OF : No. 29 MAP 2014
ROBERT GUZZARDI FOR THE :
REPUBLICAN NOMINATION FOR : Appeal from the order of the
GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE : Commonwealth Court at No. 158 MD 2014
REPUBLICAN PRIMARY OF MAY 20, : dated April 15, 2014.
2014 :
:
:
APPEAL OF: RICHARD W. STEWART, :
ROBERT K. ROBINSON, RICHARD :
TEMS AND DONNA M. COSMELLO : SUBMITTED: April 21, 2014
CONCURRING OPINION
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE CASTILLE DECIDED: May 1, 2014
OPINION FILED: August 18, 2014
I join the Majority Opinion, which accurately sets forth the proper approach to late
filings of statements of financial interests and fact-intensive equitable exceptions to clear
statutory language. That equitable approaches are unwieldy and can lead to
inconsistent results is borne out by the circumstances of this case. I do not believe that
placement on the ballot should depend upon credibility determinations of a court – acting
in the compressed time-frame in which all election cases are prosecuted – weighing
non-textual “exceptions” to clear statutory mandates. I thus agree that Robert
Guzzardi’s untimely filing with the Ethics Commission was fatal to his candidacy.
I also write to note that, in my view, Guzzardi’s nomination petition was deficient for
an additional reason. For the reasons set forth in my Dissenting Statement in In re
Rankin, 874 A.2d 1145, 1145-48 (Pa. 2005), I would also hold that, when Guzzardi
identified himself as a “semi-retired businessman and lawyer” on his nomination petition,
he misrepresented his occupation and misled the electors who signed his petition. In
proceedings before the Commonwealth Court, Guzzardi testified that he is a “lawyer on
inactive status” who has not “practiced in a number of years, three or four at least.” N.T.,
4/3/14, at 177. As all Pennsylvania lawyers know, there is no “semi-retired lawyer”
status for members of the Pennsylvania Bar; attorneys are either active or inactive. At
least one grammatically correct reading of the notation “semi-retired businessman and
lawyer” indicates that Guzzardi is practicing law on a part-time basis; another fair reading
would be that he was semi-retired from business, but still a lawyer. Either reading by an
elector would reveal that the elector had been misled by the candidate, who was inactive
and not licensed to practice law, on either a full-time or “semi-retired” basis.
In Rankin, a candidate for the office of Magisterial District Justice was on inactive
status as an attorney for a number of years before she filed her nomination petition, which
listed her current occupation as “attorney/publisher.” The trial court held that, as a result,
electors who signed Rankin’s nomination petition were “falsely led to believe that [she]
was a practicing attorney.” 874 A.2d at 1146 (Castille, J., dissenting). On appeal, a
single judge of the Commonwealth Court reversed in an unpublished memorandum
opinion, allowing the candidate to remain on the election ballot. This Court declined to
exercise discretionary review over that decision, leaving the legal question open for
determination another day.
That day has come in an appeal before us as a matter of right; and I stand by my
view in Rankin, although the facts are slightly different here. In my Rankin dissent, I
explained why I agreed with the trial court’s holding that the candidate’s nomination
petition should have been set aside, as follows:
Words are a lawyer's standard in trade, and lawyers should be held
to their meaning. A former occupation is not a current occupation. A
conditional or equivocal status is not an unequivocal one. And even
[J-48-2014] [MO: Saylor J.] - 2
formerly admitted attorneys are expected to know how to comport
themselves – at least when it comes to representation of their status as
lawyers. What respondent viewed as an “explanation” of her conduct at
the hearing below, properly understood, was a confession. During the
hearing, respondent testified as follows[:] “I tell everybody that I practiced
law until four years ago, and then I began publishing the newspaper.” But,
that is not what her nominating petitions demonstrate. Respondent did not
have personal contact with every elector who signed her petitions to inform
them, contrary to what the petition said, that she was actually a “formerly
admitted attorney.” Instead, she created a false impression that she was a
practicing attorney. How was the electorate to know that respondent was
not admitted to practice in Pennsylvania, and furthermore, was in apparent
violation of disciplinary and ethical rules for holding herself out as such?
874 A.2d at 1148 (citations omitted).
In this case, Guzzardi used the qualifying term “semi-retired” when identifying his
occupation, without making clear whether semi-retired applied to his being a business
person or both a business person and a lawyer. Even if the qualification is read as
applying to both professions, there is no reason to expect that the electors who signed his
petition understood the meaning of this ambiguous term, which has no relevant meaning
in terms of an actual status within the Pennsylvania Bar. The fact that a candidate for
Governor is a lawyer obviously would be a material consideration for electors.
Guzzardi’s description of his occupation was misleading and improper, and thus serves
as an independent, additional ground to order that Guzzardi’s nomination petition be set
aside.
Mr. Justice Stevens joins this concurring opinion.
[J-48-2014] [MO: Saylor J.] - 3