Despite being dealt a decisive blow by Commonwealth Court Judge Lori Dumas—who ruled that Michael Huff is not domiciled in Philadelphia and does not qualify to run for judge—Huff has filed a second appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
This appeal comes just one day after Dumas issued her strongly worded opinion, reaffirming her earlier decision and applying the Supreme Court’s broader residency test. In doing so, Huff is continuing to delay the finalization of Philadelphia’s vote-by-mail ballots, which must be mailed by May 6 to comply with state law.
The Appeal: Huff’s Last Stand
Huff’s latest jurisdictional statement raises two issues:
- Whether Judge Dumas correctly applied the Supreme Court’s six-part “totality of the circumstances” test.
- Whether her finding—that Huff is not domiciled in Philadelphia—was supported by the record.
These are uphill arguments. In her 22-page opinion, Judge Dumas methodically applied each of the six residency factors articulated by the Supreme Court—dubbed by some as the “Huff Test”—and found that five of the six weighed against Huff. The sixth was given minimal weight.
Her opinion made clear that Huff’s claim to live in Philadelphia was not only unsupported, but lacked basic credibility.
A Blistering Rejection of Huff’s Credibility
Judge Dumas’s language was striking:
“We emphatically do not believe Candidate was routinely present at, regularly returned to, or stayed overnight at Greene Street.”
“We generally disbelieve Candidate’s testimony… based on his demeanor and temperament, i.e., it rang hollow.”
She also noted that Huff collected rent on the Greene Street property without a license for nearly three years, calling that behavior “deeply troubling.”
Other observations included:
- Utility bills that were “implausibly low.”
- Testimony from Huff and his witnesses that conflicted or appeared scripted.
- A timeline that suggested Huff reclaimed his Philadelphia apartment only when it became politically necessary.
In short, the court concluded that Huff attempted to retrofit a candidacy into an address—rather than reflect an honest change of residence.
Voter Disruption Grows
The Philadelphia City Commissioners locked the primary ballot at 5:00 p.m. on Monday, April 29, in order to begin printing and pre-election testing. Huff’s name was included in both races: button #4 for Common Pleas and button #18 for Municipal Court.
This contingency ensured his name would appear only if a final ruling permitted it. But as long as Huff continues to pursue appeals, the electoral process remains frozen. Thousands of voters risk casting void ballots if the courts don’t act soon—or at least make the consequences clear.
Petitioners Ask the Court to Protect Voters
With the May 6 ballot mailing deadline fast approaching, the objectors filed an Application for Relief asking the Commonwealth Court to issue guidance that will prevent voter confusion if the Supreme Court has not ruled before ballots are sent.
The proposed remedy includes:
- Clear notices at polling places informing voters that Huff was removed from the ballot and votes for him will not be counted.
- Informational inserts included with any vote-by-mail ballots issued before the Court resolves the appeal.
The petitioners suggest this language:
“Michael Huff… has been removed from the ballot by order of the Commonwealth Court, pending appeal before the Supreme Court. At this time, any votes cast for Michael Huff, other than by write-in vote, will not be counted.”
Read the petitioners’ application for relief here.
Conclusion
Despite being found not credible, legally ineligible, and lacking genuine ties to Philadelphia, Michael Huff continues to pursue a final appeal—delaying the election process and undermining voter confidence. As ballots are prepared, the question is no longer just where Huff lives, but whether the courts will let his case continue disrupting the democratic process.