Just ten days after the Commonwealth Court allowed judicial candidate Qawi Abdul-Rahman to remain on the ballot—despite failing to disclose any sources of income on his original Statement of Financial Interests (SFI)—his candidacy is once again under legal scrutiny. This morning, the petitioners filed both a motion for post-trial relief and a direct appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, arguing that Abdul-Rahman’s amended filing reveals new contradictions and misrepresentations.
Read the Motion for Post-Trial Relief here
Read the Supreme Court Appeal here
Post-Trial Motion: New Filing, New Problems
The motion for post-trial relief centers on the April 8 amended SFI that Abdul-Rahman filed to comply with the court’s directive. Rather than resolve the issues, the new document raised further red flags:
- He listed the “Law Office of Qawi Abdul-Rahman” as a source of income, but the business does not appear to be registered with the Pennsylvania Department of State.
- He failed to indicate a financial interest in that business on Question 14 of the form.
- He disclosed—for the first time—an SBA loan as a personal debt, despite previously testifying under oath that he had no such liabilities beyond routine bills.
These contradictions, the motion argues, are not minor technicalities but further proof of a pattern of omissions and carelessness that disqualify him from judicial consideration.
The petitioners are requesting that the court either reverse its April 1 decision and strike Abdul-Rahman from the ballot, or schedule a new hearing based on the new evidence.
Supreme Court Appeal: Raising the Stakes
In tandem with the motion, the petitioners also filed a direct appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The appeal challenges both the factual basis and legal reasoning behind the Commonwealth Court’s ruling. Specifically, it argues:
- That the lower court misapplied the standard for “bad faith” under In re Shimkus by treating Abdul-Rahman’s multiple omissions as mere oversight.
- That the court’s finding of “good faith” lacks factual support, given that Abdul-Rahman previously testified he had no income or obligations—only to later admit to earning over $150,000 and owing a federal loan.
- That the court abused its discretion by crediting explanations that would not hold up for any licensed attorney, much less a judicial candidate.
The appeal seeks to have the Supreme Court reverse the Commonwealth Court’s decision and remove Abdul-Rahman from the Municipal Court ballot.
A Campaign Under Legal Cloud
This latest chapter adds further weight to the already troubling questions surrounding Abdul-Rahman’s candidacy. He was originally permitted to stay on the ballot despite what the court called “reckless” filing behavior. But the contradictions in his amended SFI now deepen concerns about his judgment, attention to detail, and respect for the legal process.
Earlier today, Abdul-Rahman was granted permission to withdraw from the Court of Common Pleas race and is now officially seeking a seat only on Municipal Court. But with these two legal challenges pending, even that may not be guaranteed.
Conclusion
The courts—and voters—are again being asked to weigh the credibility of a judicial candidate who has repeatedly failed to meet basic disclosure requirements. With a post-trial motion and a Supreme Court appeal now pending, Qawi Abdul-Rahman’s future on the ballot remains uncertain. What was once viewed as a simple filing oversight now appears to be part of a larger, more troubling pattern—one that raises fundamental questions about transparency, accountability, and readiness to serve from the bench.