On March 26, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Pennsylvania election officials, and Pennsylvania state courts, cannot enforce a state law that says petitioners cannot work outside their home districts. The case is In Re: The Nomination Petitions and Papers of Carl Stevenson, 54-MAP-2010. Here is the decision, by Chief Justice Ronald Castille.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not actually hold that the residency requirement for petitioners is unconstitutional. Instead, it says that because a U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania in 2002 enjoined the residency requirement for circulators for minor party and independent candidates, the law can’t be enforced. This might seem obvious, but in Pennsylvania, it isn’t obvious. There are two concurring opinions (here and here), both of which deal with procedure. The Supreme Court opinion does not say anything about precedents from other states on this issue that have been handed down in the last ten years.

Technically, the in-district residency requirement for petitioners seeking to put someone on a primary ballot is still in effect. If the legislature were responsible, it would now pass a bill repealing all in-district residency requirements, for both types of petition, primary and general. However, the Pennsylvania legislature is noted for almost never updating the election code. There are now seven Pennsylvania ballot access laws on the statutes that have been held unconstitutional, but never repealed. The worst example is that in 1984, two U.S. District Courts in Pennsylvania (the eastern district and the middle district) struck down the petition deadline for minor party and independent candidate petitions, but the legislature has never changed the election code to reflect that.