Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Act 77 Lawsuit 7/20
Act 77 Lawsuit 7/20
TIMOTHY R. BONNER, P.
MICHAEL JONES, DAVID H. Docket No. ___ M.D. 2022
ZIMMERMAN, BARRY J.
JOZWIAK, KATHY L. RAPP, PETITION FOR REVIEW IN THE
DAVID MALONEY, BARBARA NATURE OF AN ACTION FOR A
GLEIM, ROBERT BROOKS, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
AARON J. BERNSTINE, TIMOTHY
F. TWARDZIK, DAWN W. KEEFER, Filed on behalf of Petitioners,
DAN MOUL, FRANCIS X. RYAN, Timothy R. Bonner, P. Michael Jones,
and DONALD “BUD” COOK, David H. Zimmerman, Barry J.
Jozwiak, Kathy L. Rapp, David
Petitioners, Maloney, Barbara Gleim, Robert
v. Brooks, Aaron Bernstine, Timothy F.
Twardzik, Dawn W. Keefer, Dan
LEIGH M. CHAPMAN, in her official Moul, Francis X. Ryan, and Donald
capacity as Acting Secretary of the “Bud” Cook
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and
COMMONWEALTH OF Counsel of Record for Petitioners:
PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT
OF STATE, Gregory H. Teufel
Pa. Id. No. 73062
Respondents. Robert Cowburn
Pa. Id. No. 328198
OGC Law, LLC
1575 McFarland Road, Suite 201
Pittsburgh, PA 15216
412-253-4622
412-253-4623 (facsimile)
[email protected]
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Petitioners,
v.
Respondents.
NOTICE TO DEFEND
YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the
claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days
after this petition and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally
or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the
claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may
proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without
further notice for any money claimed in the petition or for any claim or relief
requested by the petitioner. You may lose money or property or other rights
important to you.
and
Petitioners,
v.
Respondents.
Barry J. Jozwiak, Kathy L. Rapp, David Maloney, Barbara Gleim, Robert Brooks,
Ryan, and Donald “Bud” Cook hereby file the following Petition for Review
Act of October 31, 2019, P.L. 552, No. 77 (“Act 77”), because provisions of
both provide in relevant part that “The elector shall then fill out, date and sign the
provisions”).
follows:
(3rd Cir. 2022), the court held that the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act,
2
Pa.Stat. §§ 3146.6(a) and 3150.16(a) and directed the District Court to enter an
Section 8 of Act 77 of 2019, which require absentee and mail-in voters to date their
secrecy envelopes.
Section 6 and Section 8 of Act 77 of 2019, the requirements that absentee and
mail-in voters date their secrecy envelopes, to “any person” voting by absentee or
mail-in ballot who does not date his or her secrecy envelope prior to returning his
or her ballot.
Section 6 and Section 8 of Act 77 of 2019, the requirements that absentee and
pursuant to the nonseverability provision and this Court should now declare Act 77
void.
3
Parties
who is a qualified registered elector residing in York County and a member of the
the House serving Warren County, Crawford County (Part), and Forest County
(Part).
4
14. Petitioner David Maloney (hereinafter “Maloney”) is an adult
member of the House serving Westmoreland County (Part) and Allegheny County
(Part).
member of the House serving Beaver County (Part), Butler County (Part) and
member of the House serving York County (Part) and Cumberland County (Part).
5
20. Petitioner Dan Moul (hereinafter “Moul”) is an adult individual who
a member of the House serving Fayette County (Part) and Washington County
(Part).
23. The Petitioners do not bring this action in their official capacities as
House members, but rather in their personal capacities. Each of the Representatives
constitutes both a “candidate” and a “qualified elector” as those terms are defined
in Election Code Section 102(a) and (t), 25 P.S. § 2602(a) & (t). The
Representatives brings this suit in their capacities as past and likely future 1
candidates for office and as private citizens and registered Pennsylvania voters.
1
Ryan is not seeking reelection once his term expires in November.
6
Jurisdiction
25. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 42
26. The Declaratory Judgment Acts grants this Court “power to declare
rights, status, and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be
claimed. The declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect,
and such declarations shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree.”
42 Pa.Cons.Stat. § 7532.
COUNT I
Declaratory Judgment
competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions and applications of Act 77 and all
amendments thereto, such as Act No. 12 of 2020, are now void pursuant to the
her role as Secretary of the Commonwealth and acting under color of state law, has
continued to implement the provisions of the Pennsylvania Election Code that were
7
enacted pursuant to Act 77 and has further urged this Court to follow the Third
30. On May 24, 2022, six days after the Migliori decision, Acting
under color of state law, issued election guidance to county board of elections
directing them to count “ballots with an undated return envelope … for the May
https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/OtherServicesEvents/Documents/2022-
05-24-Guidance-Segregated-Undated-Ballots.pdf.
official position that absentee and mail voters do not need to follow the express
envelope dating requirements of Section 6 and Section 8 of Act 77, rendering that
32. Though a petition for writ of certiorari has been filed in the Migliori
www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-
8
30/229591/20220707140738344_Ritter%20Petition.pdf), the United States
Supreme Court denied an application for a stay (see Ritter v. Migliori, 2022 U.S.
LEXIS 2668 *; __ S.Ct. __; 2022 WL 1743146) and has not yet either granted or
Election Code enacted pursuant to Act 77 and all amendments thereto, such as Act
No. 12 of 2020 are void and providing such other and further legal and equitable
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________________
Gregory H. Teufel
Robert Cowburn
Attorney for Petitioners
9
July 20, 2022
VERIFICATION
P. Michael Jones, the undersigned individual, deposes and says that the
averments in the foregoing Petition for Review are true and correct to the best of
his knowledge, information, and belief; and further that these averments are made
to authorities.
David H. Zimmerman, the undersigned individual, deposes and says that the
averments in the foregoing Petition for Review are true and correct to the best of
his knowledge, information, and belief; and further that these averments are made
to authorities.
Kathy L. Rapp, the undersigned individual, deposes and says that the
averments in the foregoing Petition for Review are true and correct to the best of
his knowledge, information, and belief; and further that these averments are made
to authorities.
David Maloney, the undersigned individual, deposes and says that the
averments in the foregoing Petition for Review are true and correct to the best of
his knowledge, information, and belief; and further that these averments are made
to authorities.
Barbara Gleim, the undersigned individual, deposes and says that the
averments in the foregoing Petition for Review are true and correct to the best of
his knowledge, information, and belief; and further that these averments are made
to authorities.
Robert Brooks, the undersigned individual, deposes and says that the
averments in the foregoing Petition for Review are true and correct to the best of
his knowledge, information, and belief; and further that these averments are made
to authorities.
Timothy F. Twardzik, the undersigned individual, deposes and says that the
averments in the foregoing Petition for Review are true and correct to the best of
his knowledge, information, and belief; and further that these averments are made
to authorities.
Dawn W. Keefer, the undersigned individual, deposes and says that the
averments in the foregoing Petition for Review are true and correct to the best of
his knowledge, information, and belief; and further that these averments are made
to authorities.
Aaron J. Bernstine, the undersigned individual, deposes and says that the
averments in the foregoing Petition for Review are true and correct to the best of
his knowledge, information, and belief; and further that these averments are made
to authorities.
Dan Moul, the undersigned individual, deposes and says that the averments
in the foregoing Petition for Review are true and correct to the best of his
knowledge, information, and belief; and further that these averments are made
to authorities.
Petitioners,
v.
Respondents.
NOTICE TO PARTICIPATE
Pennsylvania, you must serve and file a notice of or application for intervention
I certify that this filing complies with the provisions of the Case Records
Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania that require