 The case was first heard in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania , where , following oral arguments , the judge dismissed both Trinsey 's motion to remove Wofford and the Commonwealth 's motion to dismiss . On June 10 , 1991 , however , the District Court declared the statute unconstitutional , stating that it violated both the Fourteenth and Seventeenth Amendments due to the failure to ensure " popular participation " through the use of primary elections . This decision was reached following an analysis of the legislative history of the Seventeenth Amendment and electoral processes ; based on this analysis , the court concluded that the Pennsylvanian use of a nomination process before a special election implied a right to vote , which was violated by the lack of a primary and necessitated a strict scrutinising of the legislation . After considering the evidence , the court concluded that " the interests the Commonwealth put forth in support of the statute could not outweigh the infringement of the right to vote " , leading to the conclusion that the statute governing special elections was unconstitutional . 
 The case was first heard in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania , where , following oral arguments , the judge dismissed both Trinsey <a href='null_genetive' title='1'><mark>'s</mark></a>motion to remove Wofford and the Commonwealth <a href='null_genetive' title='2'><mark>'s</mark></a>motion to dismiss . On June 10 , 1991 , however , the District Court declared the statute unconstitutional , stating that it violated both the Fourteenth and Seventeenth Amendments due to the failure to ensure " popular participation " through the use of primary elections . This decision was reached following an analysis of the legislative history of the Seventeenth Amendment and electoral processes ; based on this analysis , the court concluded that the Pennsylvanian use of a nomination process before a special election implied a right to vote , which was violated by the lack of a primary and necessitated a strict scrutinising of the legislation . After considering the evidence , the court concluded that " the interests the Commonwealth put forth in support of the statute could not outweigh <a href='None' title='3'><mark>the</mark></a><a href='negative_concord' title='4'><mark>infringement</mark></a> of the right to vote " , leading to the conclusion that the statute governing special elections was unconstitutional . 
Da case was first heard in the United States District Court fa the Eastern District of Pennsylvania , where , following oral arguments , the judge dismissed both Trinsey  motion to remove Wofford and tdaCommonwealth  motion to dismiss . On June 10 , 1991 , however , the District Court declared the statute unconstitutional , stating that it violated both thdaourteenth and Seventeenth Amendments due to thedailure to ensure " popular participation " thru the da of primary elections . dis decision was reached following an analysis of the ldaslative history of the Sedateenth Amendment and electoral processes ; based on this analysis , the coudaconcluded that the Pennsylvanian use of a nomination process before a special election implied a right to vote , which was violated by the lackda a primary and necessitated a strict scrutinising of the legislation . After considering the evidence , the court concluded dat " the interdas the Commonwealth put forth in support of the statutdaould not outweigh no infringement of the right to vote " , leading to the conclusion tdatthe statute governing special elections was unconstitutional .