finding it “clear” that, to the extent a member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives did have “a property interest [in his office], it [was] a highly circumscribed one” because “[a]n elected office is a public trust, not the private domain of the officeholder.”
How later courts described this case
- finding it “clear” that, to the extent a member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives did have “a property interest [in his office], it [was] a highly circumscribed one” because “[a]n elected office is a public trust, not the private domain of the officeholder.”
- finding that the political question doctrine did not preclude judicial review of a claim that the expulsion of a member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives from his seat violated his federal constitutional rights
- stating that because an elected member of the legislature holds office for the benefit of his constituents, the public interest in the office far outweighs any private interest or expectation in holding the office
- rejecting legislator’s property interest claim, and noting that, because an elected official “holds office for the benefit of his constituents and cannot justifiably rely on a private need or expectation in holding office,” an elected office “is a public trust, not the private domain of the officeholder.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MANDERINO, Justice,
concurring.
I join in the opinion of the Court. However, I cannot accept the continued reliance, at pages 712 and 713, on the outmoded method of defining the scope of due process protections in terms of a “property interest.”
It is sufficient to recognize that Mr. Sweeney’s interest is entitled to due process protection without having to analogize it to a right in property.