PHILADELPHIA, PA – In a landmark decision for voting rights and judicial fairness, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court today issued a strong and unanimous ruling in favor of judicial candidate Mike Huff, striking the order to remove him from the ballot and remanding the case back to the PA Commonwealth Court Judge Lori A. Dumas for reconsideration. The Court rejected the Commonwealth Court’s reliance on an outdated and misapplied provision of election law that ties a married person’s legal residence to their spouse’s address. The Commonwealth Court must issue an expedited ruling on or before April 30th. 

“I’m proud the Supreme Court stood up for fairness and common sense,” said Huff. “I have always been confident in the actual facts of this case. The evidence at trial clearly showed that I live, work, and serve in Philadelphia – the city we all love.”

The case centers on a challenge to Huff’s residency, raised by the Philadelphia Democratic City Committee, based on an antiquated and rarely invoked clause in the Pennsylvania Election Code, Section 704(d), which says a married man’s residence is presumed to be where their wife lives—unless they are formally separated. Despite Huff maintaining a full-time residence in Philadelphia, the Commonwealth Court ruled he was ineligible because his wife resides in Montgomery County.

In the unanimous 27-page opinion, the PA Supreme Court decisively rejected that narrow and outdated view, ruling that Section 704(d) does not apply to candidates running for office, only to voter registration. What matters, the Court said, is where a candidate actually lives and intends to remain, not whether their spouse lives in a different zip code. In its opinion, the Supreme Court stated “[T]he Commonwealth Court eschewed the traditional concept of domicile—’ physical presence at the new residence plus intent to make that new residence the principal home,’ —in favor of a bright-line rule derived from the application of Section 704 of the Election Code’s residency rules. … Section 704 quite clearly provides that it applies only when ‘determining the residence of a person desiring to register or vote.’”

“We will not apply a provision of the Election Code that so clearly does not apply by its express terms to deny a candidate of his right to run for elective office and the electors the opportunity to cast their ballot for the candidate of their choice,” wrote Justice Brobson in the Court’s opinion.

The case now returns to the Commonwealth Court for expedited reconsideration using the legal standard set forth by the PA Supreme Court. Huff expressed confidence in the actual facts of this case, saying the evidence at trial clearly showed he lives, works, and serves in Philadelphia. In other words, he has firmly established his domicile in Philadelphia. 

“This is about more than me, it’s about the kind of democracy we deserve,” said Huff. “We continue to shed light on how outdated laws and political power plays are being used to keep people like us out of judicial races – but we’re not going anywhere. I look forward to continuing to earn the trust of Philadelphia voters.”

###

APRIL 24, 2025

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PA Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Mike Huff –

Huff Remains on the Ballot Pending Lower Court Reconsideration