# In Re Nomination Paper of Nader

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · August 22, 2006 · 588 Pa. 450

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9734694

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re Nomination Paper of Ralph NADER and Peter Miguel Camejo as Candidates of an Independent Political Body for President and Vice President in the General Election of November 2, 2004. Linda S. Serody, Roderick J. Sweets, Ronald Bergman, Richard Trinclisti, Terry Trinclisti, Bernie Cohen-Scott, Donald G. Brown and Julia A. O’Connell. Appeal of Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo, and Their Independent Electors. in Re Nomination Paper of Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo as Candidates of an Independent Political Body for President and Vice President in the General Election of November 2, 2004. Linda S. Serody, Roderick J. Sweets, Ronald Bergman, Richard Trinclisti, Terry Trinclisti, Bernie Cohen-Scott, Donald G. Brown and Julia A. O’Connell. Appeal of Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo, and Their Independent Electors
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** August 22, 2006
- **Citations:** 588 Pa. 450; 905 A.2d 450
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Eakin
- **Judges:** Cappy, C.J., and Castille, Newman, Saylor, Eakin, Baer and Baldwin
- **Cited by:** 19 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/9734694

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding statute placing restrictions on candidates’ eligibility was an “eminently reasonable” regulation which was rationally related to the Commonwealth’s interest in ensuring honest and fair elections

## Opinion text

Justice EAKIN,
concurring and dissenting.
I agree with Mr. Justice Saylor’s analysis of 25 P.S. § 2937; however, I write separately to note certain costs the Commonwealth Court ordered appellants to pay may have been awarded under separate authority.
The Commonwealth Court’s October 14, 2004 order required appellants to pay transcription and stenography costs, but did not cite any authority for that charge. The court did not write an opinion explaining its rationale. The Commonwealth Court’s January 14, 2005 order directed appellants to pay $81,102.19 in total costs and likewise omitted any citation to authority or opinion explaining its rationale. As the majority notes, a bill of costs submitted to the Commonwealth Court identified $42,835.19 of the total amount as costs of court reporter appearances, transcription of proceedings, and transcripts. Majority Slip Op., at 7 (citing Appellees’ Reproduced Record, 17 MAP 2005, Petitioners’ Bill of Costs, II. “Itemized Listing of Costs.”). The costs imposed for handwriting expert witnesses totaled $38,267.00. Id.
While § 2937 cannot provide the basis for the January 14, 2005 order, the court could have levied the $42,835.19 in costs under § 322 of its Internal Operating Procedures. 1 However, there is no alternate provision authorizing the imposition of expert witness fees in this instance; 2 thus, the Commonwealth Court lacked authority to charge appellants for the $38,267.00 in expert witness costs. Accordingly, I would affirm the January 14, 2005 order to the extent it awarded $42,835.19 in *468 costs, and I would reverse it to the extent it awarded an additional $38,267.00 in costs.
. Section 322 provides in relevant part, "In any proceeding where a stenographer is present, the presiding judge or duty judge shall, incident to the disposition of the proceeding, provide by order for the allocation of the costs for the stenographer. Such costs normally include the appearance fee and the cost for the transcription of the notes of testimony .42 Pa.C.S. § 322.
. The rules of civil procedure are not applicable to a challenge to a nomination petition or paper. In re Nomination Petition of Johnson, 509 Pa. 347 , 502 A.2d 142, 145 (1985).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9734694. Public record. Not legal advice.