State court upholds petition denial in Concord

***Update*** Sources within Concord First now say they do plan to appeal the Commonwealth Court decision to the state Supreme Court. ***End Update***

Voters in Concord Township will not have a ballot question asking whether they want Concord to become a township of the first class.

In an opinion released Sept. 26, Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court upheld a prior decision by a Delaware County Common Pleas Court judge denying the ballot question.

The citizens’ group Concord First filed a petition with the Court of Common Pleas in July to have the question put on the November ballot. In August, Judge James Proud ruled against the petition, eventually saying the petitioners had chosen the wrong election for the question.

According to Proud’s interpretation of statute — 53 P.S. (Section) 55207— the petition should have been filed for the 2013 election. He wrote:

“The first general election occurring at least 90 days after the 2010 United States census was in the calendar year 2012 and the first municipal election occurring at least 90 days after the 2010 census was in the calendar year 2013. Accordingly, petitioners’ petition fails to meet the requirements of 53 P.S. (Section) 55207.”

A township must have a population density of at least 300 people per square mile to become a township of the first class. Concord Township — currently classified as a township of the second class, as are most townships in the state — has more than 1,200 people per square mile, based on the 2010 census.

Concord First, and resident Colette Brown, filed an appeal of Proud’s decision.

In an opinion written by Commonwealth Court Judge Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter, the state court agreed with Proud.

Leadbetter said Concord First argued that the phrase “first election occurring at least 90 days after” applies to both the census and the filing of its petition for the ballot question.

The court sees it otherwise.

“We disagree,” Leadbetter wrote, “and agree with the trial court that ‘first election’ relates only to the phrase with which it is immediately juxtaposed,” meaning the municipal election after the census, the 2013 election.

“The phrase ‘first election 90 days after [ascertainment of population]’ operates as a clear time limitation which serves the necessary purpose of ensuring that the population density upon which the ballot question is based remains accurate when the matter is put to the voters,” wrote Leadbetter. “This limitation would be entirely eviscerated it the petitioners could extend it by waiting several years to file their petition with the court.”

Brown said she and her group were disappointed with what she termed “a potentially precedent-setting decision.”

“The court opined that voters are limited to placing questions on the ballot only once every 10 years following the release of census data. This interpretation seems illogical and totally inconsistent with the intent of the law, which is to provide voters the right to place questions on election ballots,” she said.

Residents will, however, have a question on the ballot asking whether they want a commission to study the possibility of changing the township’s form of government.

Shortly after Concord First filed its petition with county court, the Concord Board of Supervisors filed its own question for the ballot that would ask residents whether they want a study commission formed to explore the possibility of changing Concord’s status, up to and including some form of home rule. That question was approved for this election.

Brown noted the supervisors’ timing in her comments.

“The supervisors submitted their ballot question only after Concord First submitted its own ballot question. It is clear to us that the supervisors shrewdly submitted their question in order to muddy the waters and thwart the efforts of the very residents whom they were elected to serve,” Brown said.

Dominic A. Pileggi, chairman of Concord’s Board of Supervisors, said he’s glad that Judge Proud’s opinion was upheld.

“Having a study commission is a thought-out way to go about it, not a willy-nilly way to change the government,” he said.

Brown is not certain whether or not Concord First will appeal to the state Supreme Court.

About Rich Schwartzman

Rich Schwartzman has been reporting on events in the greater Chadds Ford area since September 2001 when he became the founding editor of The Chadds Ford Post. In April 2009 he became managing editor of ChaddsFordLive. He is also an award-winning photographer.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (6 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...

Comments

comments

This Post Has One Comment

  1. Rob Gurnee

    “…time limitation which serves the necessary purpose of ensuring that the population density upon which the ballot question is based remains accurate when the matter is put to the voters…”

    How ironic! Everyone in this area is incredibly upset over the staggering development and traffic in this area, particularly in Concord Twp, and yet the Court cites uncertainty over population density as a reason to deny citizens the right to vote on its own form of government!

    Having people vote on important issues is not “willy-nilly” Mr. Pileggi. It is called democracy. The term willy-nilly more appropriately describes Concord Township’s planning and development process.

Leave a Reply