Bentman v. Seventh Ward

218 A.2d 261

Page 1421 Pa. 188, 218 A.2d 261

(Cite

as:

421

Pa.

188,

218

A.2d

261)

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.Luba BENTMAN, Patricia W. Evers, Donald W.Cox and Hedvah L. Shuchman, Appellants,v.SEVENTH WARD DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVECOMMITTEE, Harry Melton and Francis R. Smith.March 22, 1966.Mandamus action against political party executivecommittee and others to compel reinstatement asparty committeemen. From an adverse order of theCourt of Common Pleas No. 8 of PhiladelphiaCounty, No. 3158 March Term, 1965, Leo Wein-rott, J., an appeal was taken. The Supreme Court,No. 359 January Term, 1965, Jones, J., held thatcourt had jurisdiction over mandamus action by twopersons who had been duly elected at primary elec-tion as political party committeemen and who hadbeen duly certified and seated prior to their removalfrom office by a party executive committee al-legedly for acts occurring prior to their election,notwithstanding statutory provision that duly elec-ted members of party district committees are subject to the control, direction and supervision of political committee of which they are members.Order vacated and matter remanded for further ac-tion.Cohen, J., dissented.West Headnotes

[1]

Elections

144

121(1)

144 Elections144VI Nominations and Primary Elections144k121 Party Organizations and Regula- tions144k121(1) k. In General. Most Cited CasesBy amendment to Election Code regarding mem-bers of political committee for district Legislature

recognized a status in law in party committees andcommitteemen. 25 P.S. §§ 2601 et seq., 2842.

[2]

Elections

144

121(1)

144 Elections144VI Nominations and Primary Elections144k121 Party Organizations and Regula- tions144k121(1) k. In General. Most Cited CasesInsofar as a political party performs statutorily-im-posed public functions and to the extent that its ac-tions constitute state action, internal organization of such political party is a matter of such concern topublic as to make it subject to constitutional limita-tions and judicial restraint. 25 P.S. §§ 2840, 2862,2864.

[3]

Elections

144

121(1)

144 Elections144VI Nominations and Primary Elections144k121 Party Organizations and Regula- tions144k121(1) k. In General. Most Cited CasesJudicial interference with the internal organizationof a political party is justifiable if such internal or-ganization may directly affect the performance of apublic function and the public interest, but invoca-tion of judicial interference must be restricted tocontroversies where issue raised bears a direct andsubstantial relationship to performance of publicfunctions by the political party. U.S.C.A.Const.Amend. 14.

[4]

Statutes

361

212.4

361 Statutes361VI Construction and Operation361VI(A) General Rules of Construction361k212 Presumptions to Aid Construc-tion361k212.4 k. Useless or Meaningless

Page 1of 117/19/2010http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&rs=WLW10.06&prft=HTMLE...

218 A.2d 261

Page 2421 Pa. 188, 218 A.2d 261

(Cite

as:

421

Pa.

188,

218

A.2d

261)

Legislation. Most Cited CasesIt is presumed that Legislature does not intend aresult which is absurd or unreasonable.U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14.

[5]

Constitutional

Law

92

999

92 Constitutional Law92VI Enforcement of Constitutional Provisions92VI(C) Determination of ConstitutionalQuestions92VI(C)3 Presumptions and Constructionas to Constitutionality92k998 Intent of and ConsiderationsInfluencing Legislature92k999 k. In General. Most CitedCases(Formerly 92k48(2), 92k48)In construction of statute it is presumed that Legis-lature did not intend to violate the constitutions of the United States or the Commonwealth. 46 P.S. §552(1, 3).

[6]

Constitutional

Law

92

1022

92 Constitutional Law92VI Enforcement of Constitutional Provisions92VI(C) Determination of ConstitutionalQuestions92VI(C)3 Presumptions and Constructionas to Constitutionality92k1006 Particular Issues and Applica-tions92k1022 k. Due Process. MostCited Cases(Formerly 92k48(4.1), 92k48(4), 92k48)Court must construe, if possible, statutory law con-cerning selection and removal of party committee-men in such manner as not to violate concept of “due process” embodied in the United States Con-stitution. 25 P.S. § 2842; U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14.

[7]

Elections

144

121(1)

144 Elections144VI Nominations and Primary Elections

144k121 Party Organizations and Regula- tions144k121(1) k. In General. Most Cited CasesThe assumption of duties which bear a direct andsubstantial relationship to selection of public offi-cials by the electoral process by political party or-ganization has marked the entry by such organiza-tions into an area of public activity which renderstheir activities in such area amenable to judicial su-pervision. 25 P.S. §§ 2780, 2939; 46 P.S. § 145.7;71 P.S. § 779.8.

[8]

Mandamus

250

74(1)

250 Mandamus250II Subjects and Purposes of Relief 250II(B) Acts and Proceedings of Public Of-ficers and Boards and Municipalities250k74 Elections and Proceedings Relat-ing Thereto250k74(1) k. In General. Most CitedCasesCourt had jurisdiction over mandamus action bytwo persons who had been duly elected at primaryelection as political party committeemen and whohad been duly certified and seated prior to their re-moval from office by a party executive committeeallegedly for acts occurring prior to their election,notwithstanding statutory provision that duly elec-ted members of party district committees are subject to the control, direction and supervision of political committee of which they are members. 25P.S. § 2842; U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14.

[9]

Mandamus

250

16(1)

250 Mandamus250I Nature and Grounds in General250k16 Mandamus Ineffectual or Not Benefi-cial250k16(1) k. In General. Most Cited CasesExamination of supplemental brief and record dis-closed that neither of the districts from which per-

Page 2of 117/19/2010http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&rs=WLW10.06&prft=HTMLE...

218 A.2d 261

Page 3421 Pa. 188, 218 A.2d 261

(Cite

as:

421

Pa.

188,

218

A.2d

261)

sons, bringing mandamus action to compel their re-instatement as party committeemen after their re-moval by executive committee, had been electedhad been divided, so that a ward alignment did notrender matter moot as claimed by defendants.

*189

**262

Henry W. Sawyer, III, and DrinkerBiddle & Reath, Philadelphia, for appellants.

**263

Isadore A. Shrager, Philadelphia, for ap-pellee.Before BELL, C.J., and MUSMANNO, JONES,COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.JONES, Justice.On April 28, 1964-at a primary election-Donald W.Cox and Hedvah Shuchman were duly elected by amajority of the Democratic voters of the 6th and the

*190

10th Divisions, respectively, of the 7th Wardof Philadelphia as Democratic party committeemenfrom such districts. Their election was certified bythe official election board and they were seated,without question, as members of the 7th WardDemocratic Executive Committee, (ExecutiveCommittee).On August 10, 1964, Cox and Shuchman were noti-fied, in writing, that a meeting of the ExecutiveCommittee would be held on August 12, 1964, toconsider and vote upon their removal as party com-mitteemen. At that meeting, Harry Melton, thenDemocratic leader of the 7th Ward, charged Coxand Shuchman with having failed to act in harmonywith the Executive Committee.[FN1] The Execut-ive Committee, allegedly by a 17-5 vote, voted toremove Cox and Shuchman as party committeemen.They were then removed from office and Meltonappointed others to fill the vacancies on the Execut-ive Committee.FN1. Allegedly, Cox and Shuchman hadsupported and worked for the nominationof a candidate for the Democratic nomina-tion for the United States Senate who hadnot been endorsed by the Democratic or-ganization of Philadelphia. The allegeddisloyalty took place at a time when Coxand Shuchman were not party committee-men.Joined by two Democratic party electors who hadvoted for them at the primary election, Cox andShuchman instituted a mandamus action[FN2]against the Executive Committee, Melton, the wardleader, and Francis R. Smith, Chairman of theDemocratic County-City Committee. In this action,inter alia, it was averred:

*191

(a) that Cox andShuchman received no notice of the charges againstthem, although such notice had been regularly re-quested prior to the meeting; (b) that the chargesdid not constitute grounds for their removal fromoffice; (c) that, after the action of the ExecutiveCommittee had taken place, a request was made toSmith concerning the manner and procedure to befollowed in appealing from the action of the Exec-utive Committee but such request was ignored; (d)that their removal was without cause and due pro-cess and in violation of the constitutional rights of Cox and Shuchman; (e) that Cox and Shuchmanhave been denied their right and privilege of takingpart in party functions as regularly elected partycommitteemen.[FN3] The appellees filed prelimin-ary objections which averred: (a) an improper join-der of parties defendant; (b) lack of jurisdiction be-cause mandamus does not lie to interfere with ac-tions of a political party or its internal organization;(c) laches; (d) a failure to allege a want of adequatelegal remedy. The Court of Common Pleas No. 2 of Philadelphia County sustained the preliminary objections Solely upon the jurisdictional ground thatcourts will not interfere with the actions and intern-al organization of a political party. From that orderthe present appeal was taken.FN2. Mandamus, not quo warranto, wasthe appropriate action. In mandamus, thechief issue is the propriety of the removalfrom office; in quo warranto the chief issueis the right or title of one person or anotherto the office, not the propriety of the re-

Page 3of 117/19/2010http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&rs=WLW10.06&prft=HTMLE...