suggesting that the true intent of the anti-fusion provisions was "to prevent the election ballot from being cluttered by candidates who are seeking to multiply the number of times their name appears on the ballot under various inviting labels" by limiting each person to appearing as the nominee of only one party
How later courts described this case
- suggesting that the true intent of the anti-fusion provisions was "to prevent the election ballot from being cluttered by candidates who are seeking to multiply the number of times their name appears on the ballot under various inviting labels" by limiting each person to appearing as the nominee of only one party
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LARSEN, J.,
dissents on the basis of denial of equal protection and on the basis of In re Nomination Papers of Smith, 494 Pa. 140 , 430 A.2d 1156 (1981).