Narrative Opinion Summary
In the case concerning the Delaware County election process following the November 3, 2020 General Election, two Observers sought to intervene and sanction the Board of Elections for alleged violations regarding observer access. The Delaware County Court of Common Pleas denied their Emergency Petition to Intervene and Emergency Petition for Sanctions, citing untimely filing beyond the 30-day appeal period and the doctrine of laches, as their interests were adequately represented by the Delaware County Republican Executive Committee. The trial court's decision was upheld on appeal, with the court noting the absence of an active case or controversy, loss of jurisdiction, and mootness in light of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling in In re Canvassing Observation. The Observers' failure to disclose relevant adverse Supreme Court opinion violated professional conduct rules, and the claims were found to lack legal merit. The court also denied the Board's motion to quash the appeal and request for attorney fees, as the appeal was deemed non-frivolous. Ultimately, the court affirmed the trial court's rulings, maintaining that legislative parameters, not judicial intervention, govern observer access during elections.
Legal Issues Addressed
Candor Toward Tribunal under Professional Conduct Rulessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Petitioners failed to disclose a relevant Supreme Court opinion adverse to their position, violating the rule requiring candor toward the tribunal.
Reasoning: Petitioners’ counsel failed to reference a critical Supreme Court opinion published on November 17, 2020, which was directly adverse to their position, violating the Rule of Professional Conduct requiring candor toward the tribunal.
Doctrine of Lachessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Observers' relief was barred by the doctrine of laches due to their failure to act during the period when the court retained jurisdiction, demonstrating a lack of due diligence.
Reasoning: Their failure to act during this period demonstrates a lack of due diligence, invoking the doctrine of laches, which bars relief due to inaction that prejudices others.
Frivolous Appeals and Attorney Fees under Pa.R.A.P. 2744subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Court declined to award attorney fees to the Board, as the appeal was not considered frivolous, despite lacking merit.
Reasoning: The Court clarified that an appeal is not considered frivolous merely for lacking merit; it must lack any legal or factual basis.
Intervention Standards under Pa.R.Civ.P. 2327 and 2329subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court denied intervention because the Observers' interests were already represented and their delayed application constituted undue delay under the doctrine of laches.
Reasoning: Under Pa.R.Civ.P. 2329(2) and (3), intervention by a non-party is permitted if their interests are not already represented or if they have not unduly delayed their application.
Jurisdiction and Mootnesssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court lost jurisdiction 30 days after its order, and the matter was deemed moot due to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling in In re Canvassing Observation.
Reasoning: The trial court lost jurisdiction 30 days after the November 4, 2020 order, and the Observers did not take timely action; 5) the matter was moot due to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling in In re Canvassing Observation.
Timeliness of Appeals under Judicial Codesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Observers filed their petitions 48 days after the order was issued, exceeding the 30-day limit for appeals as outlined in the Judicial Code, leading to the denial of their petitions.
Reasoning: Observers filed their petitions 48 days after the order was issued, exceeding the 30-day limit for appeals as outlined in the Judicial Code.