In re: Nom. of LaVelle; Appeal of: LaVelle
Docket 9 EAP 2026
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Pennsylvania
- Court
- Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- Type
- Concurrence
- Case type
- Administrative
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Judge
- Brobson, P. Kevin
- Docket
- 9 EAP 2026
Appeal from a Commonwealth Court order resolving a petition to set aside a candidate's nomination petition for a May 19, 2026 primary election.
Summary
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered Mark LaVelle’s challenge to a Commonwealth Court standing order that deems candidates notified of petitions to set aside nomination petitions when the court posts the filing on its public website. LaVelle argued this practice violates Section 977 of the Election Code, which requires an order specifying the time and manner of notice to the candidate. The Justice writing separately expressed doubt about the standing order’s compliance with the statute but concluded any defect in notice would only require a new hearing, not dismissal. Because LaVelle had, by stipulation, fewer than the 300 valid signatures required for the ballot, the Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s order for that independent reason.
Issues Decided
- Whether a Commonwealth Court standing order that deems candidates notified when the court posts a petition on its public website complies with Section 977 of the Pennsylvania Election Code.
- What remedy follows if a candidate did not receive the notice required by Section 977.
- Whether the candidate met the statutory signature threshold to qualify for the ballot.
Court's Reasoning
The concurring opinion noted that even if publication on the court website does not satisfy the Election Code’s requirement to specify the time and manner of notice to the candidate, the proper remedy is a new hearing with adequate notice rather than dismissal. However, the candidate had stipulated that 106 of 382 signature lines were invalid, leaving fewer than the 300 valid signatures required to appear on the ballot, so he was ineligible regardless of any notice defect. That factual stipulation independently supported affirmance.
Authorities Cited
- Section 977, Pennsylvania Election Code25 P.S. § 2937
- Section 912.1(14), Pennsylvania Election Code25 P.S. § 2872.1(14)
- Caba v. Weaknecht64 A.3d 39 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013)
Parties
- Appellant
- Mark LaVelle
- Respondent
- Commonwealth Court (standing order challenged)
- Judge
- Justice Brobson
- Judge
- Justice Dougherty
- Judge
- Justice Mundy
Key Dates
- Primary election date
- 2026-05-19
- Submission date to Supreme Court
- 2026-04-01
- Supreme Court decision date
- 2026-04-07
- Commonwealth Court hearing date
- 2026-03-23
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider requesting a new hearing (if seeking relief)
If the candidate believes inadequate notice affected the process and wishes to pursue relief despite the signature stipulation, he could seek a new hearing with adequate notice, though the signature shortfall remains a barrier.
- 2
Review signature validation and records
Campaign counsel should review the challenged nomination petition signatures and the stipulation to determine whether any factual error or overlooked documentation could change the valid-signature count.
- 3
Consult election counsel for future filings
Campaigns should consult election-law counsel about compliance with signature thresholds and monitoring court notice practices to avoid similar procedural disputes in the future.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s order, finding the candidate lacked the required number of valid signatures to appear on the ballot, so any notice issue did not change the outcome.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Mark LaVelle is affected because he will not appear on the May 19, 2026 primary ballot for the 177th Legislative District; the decision also addresses how notice practices interact with election challenges generally.
- Does the court say the website notice practice is lawful?
- No — the concurring justice expressed doubt that website-only notice satisfies the Election Code’s requirements, but concluded that any defect would call for a new hearing rather than dismissal, and it mattered not here because of the signature deficit.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- This is a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision; further appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court would be possible only by petition for certiorari and only if a federal question or constitutional issue were presented.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
[J-47-2026]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EASTERN DISTRICT
IN RE: NOMINATION PETITION OF MARK : No. 9 EAP 2026
LAVELLE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY :
NOMINATION FOR REPRESENTATIVE IN : Appeal from the order of the
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FROM THE : Commonwealth Court at docket
177TH LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT IN THE : No. 122 MD 2026.
MAY 19, 2026 PRIMARY ELECTION :
: SUBMITTED: April 1, 2026
:
APPEAL OF: MARK LAVELLE :
CONCURRING STATEMENT
JUSTICE BROBSON FILED: April 7, 2026
In this election appeal, Mark LaVelle (Candidate) challenges a standing order of
the Commonwealth Court, pursuant to which candidates are deemed to have notice of a
petition to set aside their nomination petitions once the Commonwealth Court publishes
the filing of the petition on the court’s publicly accessible website. Candidate maintains
that this standing order conflicts with Section 977 of the Pennsylvania Election Code
(Election Code), Act of June 3, 1937, P.L. 1333, as amended, 25 P.S. § 2937.1 Under
the provision, Candidate contends that the order issued by the court scheduling the
hearing must also provide for the time and manner by which the petitioner/objector must
notify the candidate specifically of both the petition and the court’s order scheduling the
hearing. Mere notice to the public by way of publication on the court’s website is not, in
Candidate’s view, sufficient to comply with the statute.
1 Section 977 of the Election Code provides, in relevant part, that, “[u]pon the presentation
of . . . a[n objection] petition, the court shall make an order fixing a time for hearing . . .
and specifying the time and manner of notice that shall be given to the candidate or
candidates named in the nomination petition . . . sought to be set aside.” 25 P.S. § 2937.
While I have my doubts about whether the Commonwealth Court’s standing order
complies with Section 977 of the Election Code, it matters not in this case. The remedy
for a lack of adequate notice would not be dismissal of the petition to set aside the
nomination petition but, rather, a new hearing after new/adequate notice is provided. See
Caba v. Weaknecht, 64 A.3d 39, 66 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). Here, if we were to find that
Candidate did not receive adequate notice, a remand would be futile. The parties
stipulated below that 106 of the 382 signature lines proffered by Candidate in his
nomination petitions were invalid.2 See Section 912.1(14) of the Election Code, Act of
June 3, 1937, P.L. 1333, as amended, added by the Act of December 12, 1984, P.L. 968,
25 P.S. § 2872.1(14) (requiring 300 valid signatures for Candidate’s name to appear on
ballot for office of Representative in Pennsylvania General Assembly). Candidate,
therefore, did not secure enough signatures to appear on the ballot. For these reasons,
and these reasons alone, I join the Court’s per curiam order affirming the Commonwealth
Court’s order.
Justices Dougherty and Mundy join this concurring statement.
2 Notwithstanding his allegation of a lack of adequate notice, Candidate appeared,
represented by counsel, at the hearing scheduled before the Commonwealth Court on
March 23, 2026, and did not request a continuance of that hearing.
[J-47-2026, 9 EAP 2026] - 2