In Re: Nomination Petition Of Emilio Vazquez For The 179th District In The Pennsylvania House Of Representatives

Outcome: Payton is the Democratic Nominee

Description: This was an election appeal under the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S.A. 1104(b) (Ethics Act). The matter was instituted by way of Petition by Appellee/Objector Tony Payton, Jr. in the Commonwealth Court under its original jurisdiction. On or about March 6, 2006, Payton filed a Petition challenging the nomination petition of Emilio Vazquez, a candidate of the Democratic party for the office of State Representative in the 179th District. In his Petition, Payton asserted that Vazquez failed to timely disclose his direct and indirect sources of income on his Statement of Financial Interests as required by Section 1104(b) of the Ethics Act. The matter was heard by the Honorable Robert Simpson on March 23, 2006. After the hearing, Judge Simpson found that the material facts were largely undisputed. For example, it was undisputed that Vazquez failed to disclose the direct or indirect sources of his income on his Statement of Financial Interest. Vazquez checked the box marked none in the section which called for disclosure of his sources of income. It was also undisputed that Vazquez did not disclose the name of his employer, but only vaguely stated that his occupation was a Parking Enforcement Officer. Judge Simpson issued an Opinion and Order dated March 24, 2006. Given the above undisputed facts, Judge Simpson found Vazquez did not comply, substantially or otherwise, with the disclosure requirements of the Ethics Act. In so holding, Judge Simpson noted that, unlike the situation in In re Nomination Petition of Benninghoff, 578 Pa. 402, 852 A.2d 1182 (2004), Vazquez did not substantially comply with the Ethics Act because from the face of his Statement of Financial Interest one could not discern: (1) where Vazquez was employed, or (2) whether he derived direct or indirect income from such employment. Judge Simpson found this case was controlled by this Courts decision in In re Braxton, 583 Pa. 35, 874 A.2d 1143 (2005), and the Commonwealth Courts decision in In re Nomination Petition of Anastasio, 820 A.2d 880 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), affd per curiam without opinion, 573 Pa. 512, 827 A.2d 373 (2003), both of which set aside a candidates nomination where, as here, the candidate failed to comply with income disclosure requirements under the Ethics Act. The Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court's ruling that Vazquez was removed from the ballot. Thus, Tony Payton was the sole Democratic Nominee for State Representative in the 179th District.