Opinion

Chalfin v. Specter

  • 426 Pa. 464
  • 233 A.2d 562
  • 1967 Pa. LEXIS 597
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Oct 2, 1967
Status
Published
Author
Eagen
On the bench
Bell, C.J., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien and Roberts
Cited by
26 cases

stating that pros-' ecutorial “powers, functions, [and] duties” involve prosecution'Of crimes committed

How later courts described this case

  • stating that pros-' ecutorial “powers, functions, [and] duties” involve prosecution'Of crimes committed
  • an equitable remedy should lie because unless the court now takes a position forthwith on Specter's status, if Specter is elected Mayor and thereafter declared ineligible, the majority of Philadelphia voters will be disenfranchised, thousands of campaign hours and money would be wasted, and the orderly administration of the city government will be paralyzed
  • "[I]t is important to further note that ... the District Attorney of Philadelphia ... is Elected in municipal [and not] State-wide elections...."
  • sheriff subject to Home Rule Charter

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Dissenting Opinion by

Mr. Justice Eagen:

Four of the seven members of this Court, including myself, are convinced that Arlen Specter is subject to the provisions of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter and that, as a matter of law, he may not be a candidate for Mayor because he has refused to resign as District Attorney.

The Chief Justice, who shares this view, is reluctant to direct that Mr. Specter’s name be stricken from the ballot as a candidate because he feels that previous decisions of this Court misled Mr. ■ Specter. With this I cannot agree. Mr. Specter is no babe-in-the-woods. It was his own conscious attempts to evade the clear provisions of the Charter that gave rise to the unfortunate situation now existing.

*499 Assuming, however, that Mr. Specter was misled in the past, as the Chief Justice believes, he cannot possibly be confused any longer. The law is now clearly defined. Hence, Mr. Specter, who is not above the law, should either withdraw as a candidate or resign as District Attorney. The choice is his. In order to avoid all possible inequities, however, I personally would give him a reasonable time in which to choose.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.