# Genser v. Butler Brd. of Elec. Appeal of: RNC

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · October 23, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10627116

## Case

- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** October 23, 2024
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Dougherty, Kevin M.
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10627116

## Opinion text

[J-82A-2024 and J-82B-2024] [MO: Donohue, J.]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WESTERN DISTRICT

FAITH GENSER AND FRANK MATIS : No. 26 WAP 2024
:
: Appeal from the Order of the
v. : Commonwealth Court entered
: September 5, 2024, at No. 1074 CD
: 2024, Reversing the Order of the
BUTLER COUNTY BOARD OF : Court of Common Pleas of Butler
ELECTIONS, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL : County entered August 16, 2024, at
COMMITTEE, REPUBLICAN PARTY OF : No. MSD-2024-40116.
PENNSYLVANIA, AND THE :
PENNSYLVANIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY : SUBMITTED: September 26, 2024
:
:
APPEAL OF: REPUBLICAN NATIONAL :
COMMITTEE AND REPUBLICAN PARTY :
OF PENNSYLVANIA :

FAITH GENSER AND FRANK MATIS : No. 27 WAP 2024
:
: Appeal from the Order of the
v. : Commonwealth Court entered
: September 5, 2024, at No. 1085 CD
: 2024, Reversing the Order of the
BUTLER COUNTY BOARD OF : Court of Common Pleas of Butler
ELECTIONS, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL : County entered August 16, 2024, at
COMMITTEE, REPUBLICAN PARTY OF : No. MSD-2024-40116.
PENNSYLVANIA, AND THE :
PENNSYLVANIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY : SUBMITTED: September 26, 2024
:
:
APPEAL OF: REPUBLICAN NATIONAL :
COMMITTEE AND REPUBLICAN PARTY :
OF PENNSYLVANIA :

CONCURRING OPINION

JUSTICE DOUGHERTY DECIDED: OCTOBER 23, 2024
I join the majority opinion in full. I write separately only to observe the fact that the

majority and my learned colleagues in dissent interpret the relevant statutes differently

does not in any way suggest “this Court has exceeded the scope of judicial review and

usurped the General Assembly’s power to regulate federal elections.” Dissenting Opinion

at 4 (Mundy, J.), citing Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. 1, 36 (2023) (“state courts may not

transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review such that they arrogate to themselves

the power vested in state legislatures to regulate federal elections”). On the contrary, the

majority’s cogent analysis effectuates the intent of our General Assembly to enable

provisional voting, even if the dissenters disagree. In short, I am confident the Court has

not “so exceed[ed] the bounds of ordinary judicial review as to unconstitutionally intrude

upon the role specifically reserved to state legislatures by Article I, Section 4, of the

Federal Constitution[,]” Moore, 600 U.S. at 37, by merely resolving a state statutory

interpretation question duly raised by the litigants in a case on our normal appellate

docket. That is, quite literally, our job. See, e.g., Robinson Twp., Washington Cty. v.

Commonwealth, 83 A.3d 901, 991 (Pa. 2013) (“Our Constitution vests . . . judicial power

in a unified judicial system and, ultimately, in the Supreme Court. See PA. CONST. art. II,

§1; art. IV, §1; art. V, §1. The judiciary interprets and applies the law, and its proper

domain is in the field of the administration of justice under the law.”) (internal quotations

and citation omitted).

[J-82A-2024 and J-82B-2024] [MO: Donohue, J.] - 2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10627116. Public record. Not legal advice.