County commissioner filed petition challenging procedures set forth in county home rule charter for filling vacancy on county board of commissioners.
A three-judge panel of the Court of Common Pleas denied petition, and commissioner appealed. The Commonwealth Court affirmed. Commissioner’s petition for review was granted in part.
The Supreme Court held that:
- Procedure set forth in county home rule charter for filling vacancy on county board of commissioners did not conflict with Supreme Court rule, and
- Charter did not impermissibly intrude on Supreme Court’s powers to regulate procedure and supervise judiciary.
Procedure set forth in county home rule charter for filling vacancy on county board of commissioners did not conflict with Supreme Court rule setting forth procedures for court of common pleas to follow when filling vacancy in elected office pursuant to statutory duty, and thus rule—as law of state-wide application—did not override charter, even though charter required court to choose from three candidates identified by executive committee of appropriate political party, and rule required court to receive applications from “any interested candidates”; both required appointment of member of same political party as vacating commissioner, and rule did not purport to be exclusive, but instead reflected desire to be sufficiently flexible to accommodate many different triggering statutes.
Procedure set forth in county home rule charter for filling vacancy on county board of commissioners did not impermissibly intrude on Supreme Court’s powers to regulate procedure and supervise judiciary, even if charter conflicted with Supreme Court rule setting forth procedures for court of common pleas to follow when filling vacancy in elected office pursuant to statutory duty; state constitution provided that procedure for filling vacancies in elected county offices was, at its core, legislative, not judicial, function.