Jump To

Top Caption Lead Opinion [Concurrence

                    by Brobson, P. Kevin](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10838817/in-re-nom-of-lavelle-appeal-of-lavelle/#o2)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 7, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In re: Nom. of LaVelle; Appeal of: LaVelle

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 9 EAP 2026

• Judges: Brobson, P. Kevin

• Opinion

• Authorities (1)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Lead Opinion

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 MAY : No. 122 MD 2026
19, 2026 PRIMARY ELECTION :
: SUBMITTED: April 1, 2026
:
APPEAL OF: MARK LAVELLE :

ORDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: April 7, 2026
AND NOW, this 7th day of April, 2026, Appellant’s Application for Relief to File an

Amended Jurisdictional Statement is GRANTED and jurisdiction is noted; Appellant’s

Application for Relief to Supplement the Appellant’s Brief Once the Notes of Testimony from

March 23, 2026 Are Received is GRANTED; and the order of the Commonwealth Court is

hereby AFFIRMED.

Justice Brobson files a concurring statement in which Justices Dougherty and Mundy

join.

Concurrence Opinion

                        by Brobson, P. Kevin

[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