The high court's decision, issued about 5 p.m. yesterday, consisted of a one-sentence order rejecting the Knox backers' petition for allowance of their appeal. The court's denials of such petitions typically don't include explanations.
Paul Rosen, a lawyer for the Knox supporters, had argued in both Philadelphia Common Pleas Court and Commonwealth Court that Brady should be disqualified because his financial-disclosure form did not include his city pension or pension payments that the carpenters' union made on his behalf.
Both courts ruled in Brady's favor, most recently with three Commonwealth Court judges opining that they, too, found the state's disclosure rules for candidates confusing.
"The Supreme Court decided it was not going to explain to the public why the law is not applied evenly. That surprised me," Rosen said late yesterday. In his arguments, Rosen pointed out that city candidates had been tossed off ballots in previous races for similar omissions.
Lawyer Stephen Cozen, who represented Brady, said, "I'm glad for Congressman Brady that Mr. Knox's tactic didn't work, and we'll let the voters decide."
Contact staff writer Marcia Gelbart at 215-854-2338 or firstname.lastname@example.org.