The Lackawanna County Commissioners (Commissioners) and the Lackawanna County Board of Elections (Board of Elections) seek review of the appointment of Andrew J. Jarbola, Esquire (Jarbola) as district attorney by the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County (common pleas court) for the remainder of the term of the former district attorney, Michael J. Barrasse, Esquire (Barrasse), which expires on December 31, 2001.
On November 2, 1999, Barrasse, Lacka-wanna County’s district attorney, was elected to the common pleas court. On January 3, 2000, Barrasse resigned as district attorney and assumed the office of Judge. In accordance with Section 206(b) of the Lackawanna County Home Rule Charter (Lackawanna Charter), the Lacka-wanna County Republican Party (Republican Party) submitted a list of three individuals to the common pleas court to fill *713the vacancy in the office of district attorney. 335 Pa.Code § 1.2-206(b). On January 11, 2000, the Commissioners scheduled a special election for April 4, 20001 to fill the vacancy.
On January 18, 2000, the common pleas court appointed Jarbola as district attorney for the remainder of Barrasse’s term, which expires on December 31, 2001. On January 18, 2000, the Republican Party requested an injunction and declaratory relief against the Commissioners and the Board of Elections. In particular, the Republican Party requested the common pleas court to enjoin the Board of Elections from holding a special election on April 4, 2000, and thereby avoid any violation of the Pennsylvania County Code2 and the Pennsylvania Election Code.3
On January 25, 2000, the Commissioners and the Board of Elections appealed to the Commonwealth Court the January 18, 2000, appointment and challenged Jarbo-la’s appointed term. The Commissioners and the Board of Elections received an expedited argument before the Comb en banc. On February 14, 2000, the Commissioners and the Board of Elections rescheduled the special election for November 2, 2000,4 during the general election.5
On appeal,6 the Commissioners and the Board of Elections contend that the common pleas court lacked the authority to appoint Jarbola for the remainder of Barrasse’s term,7 pursuant to Section 1404 of the County Code (Section 1404), 16 P.S. § 1404.
Our analysis begins with the statutory framework set forth at Section 1404:
If any vacancy shall occur in the office of district attorney, either by death, resignation, removal from office or from the county, or otherwise, the judges of the court of common fleas shall supply such vacancy by the appointment of a competent person to fill the office during the balance of the unexpired term, (emphasis added).
16 P.S. § 1404. In addition, Section 602 of the Election Code mandates that county officers8 be elected at municipal elections held in odd-numbered years. 25 P.S. § 2752.
These statutory provisions directly conflict with Sections 206(b) and (c) of the Lackawanna Charter which provide:
(b) If a vacancy occurs, the executive committee of the political party of the person elected to the office in question shall submit a list of three persons to the judges of the court and bank [sic] within five (5) days of the vacancy. The court shall appoint one of the three (3) persons recommended to temporarily fill the vacancy.
*714(c) A special election according to the Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania shall be held at the next primary municipal or general election to permanently fill the vacancy.
335 Pa.Code § 1.2-206(b) and (c).9
The Commissioners and the Board of Elections contend that, despite the conflict, the Lackawanna Charter supersedes state law. The Commissioners and the Board of Elections assert that the General Assembly has not precluded a county from enacting a home rule charter at variance with state law.
However, the Pennsylvania Constitution is of paramount importance and must control. Pursuant to Article IX, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the general law pertaining to local government “shall be uniform as to all classes of local government regarding procedural matters.” Article IX, Section 2 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides that “[a] municipality which has a home rule charter may exercise any power or perform any function not denied by this Constitution, by its home rule charter or by the General Assembly at any time.”
The Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans Law, (HRC & OPL), 53 Pa.C.S. §§ 2901-3171, authorized counties to utilize home rule charters to establish a local government framework. Section 2962 of the HRC & OPL pertains to limitation of municipal powers. Specifically, a municipality is prohibited from exercising “powers contrary to, or in limitation or enlargement of, powers granted by statutes which are applicable in every part of this Commonwealth.” - 53 Pa.C.S. § 2962(c)(2). Additionally, uniform statutes “applicable in every part of this Commonwealth shall remain in effect and shall not be changed.... Statutes shall supersede any municipal ordinance ... on the same subject.” 53 Pa.C.S. § 2962(e).
Our Pennsylvania Supreme Court has treated the removal of a city employee as a municipal matter controlled by the charter. In re Addison, 385 Pa. 48, 122 A.2d 272 (1956). The Court reasoned that the administration of Philadelphia’s civil service had no bearing upon Pennsylvania residents outside of the Philadelphia area. In re Addison, 385 Pa. at 56, 122 A.2d at 275. On the other hand, a statute may negate a home rule charter when the conflict involves a matter of statewide magnitude, such as the regulation of firearms. Ortiz v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 545 Pa. 279, 681 A.2d 152 (1996).
In the present controversy, the Republican Party argues that the district attorney represents the Commonwealth’s interests in criminal cases, and there must be uniformity throughout Pennsylvania regarding guidelines on how vacancies are filled for this elected position.
Our Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed a similar issue in Cali v. City of Philadelphia, 406 Pa. 290, 177 A.2d 824 (1962). Therein, Richardson Dilworth (Dilworth) was elected mayor of Philadelphia in November 1959. Dilworth’s four-year term began on the first Monday of January 1960, and was scheduled to end on the first Monday of January 1964. Dilworth resigned on February 12, 1962. Pursuant to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter (PHRC) a vacancy in a mayor’s unexpired term was to be filled during the next municipal or general election. As a result, the city solicitor suggested that a primary election be held in 1962 to nominate a candidate for the vacancy. Anita Cali and James Burns sought to enjoin the City of Philadelphia from conducting the primary and the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County agreed. The question for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court *715was whether the PHRC or the Election Code10 controlled.
Our Supreme Court reasoned that the home rule charter must not violate “the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution of Pennsylvania, or the Enabling Act of 1949, or the Election Code....” Cal% 406 Pa. at 306, 177 A.2d at 832. Additionally, our Supreme Court stated:
It is unnecessary to decide whether the election of a Mayor of Philadelphia is of State-wide [sic] concern or purely a local matter which is of no concern to citizens of Pennsylvania at large. It will suffice to say that the Charter is subordinate to the Enabling Act, and if they conflict the Enabling Act takes precedence and prevails.
Id. at 312,177 A.2d at 835.
Like in Cali, the County Code and the Election Code are of statewide importance. It is of no concern that the district attorney is a local county office which may or may not have powers of statewide impact.11 The County Code and the Election Code take precedence over the Lackawanna Charter. We must conclude that the common pleas court had the authority to appoint Jarbola as district attorney for Barrasse’s unexpired term.12
Accordingly, we affirm.
*716 ORDER
AND NOW, this 17th day of July, 2000, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County in the above-captioned matter is affirmed.
. The date of the special election coincided with the date of the primary election already scheduled for April 4, 2000.
. Act of August 9, 1955, P.L. 323, as amended, 16 P.S. §§ 101 to 2902.
. Act of June 3, 1937, P.L. 1333, as atnended, 25 P.S. §§ 2600 to 3591. '
. The Commissioners and the Board of Elections delayed the special election because the April 4, 2000 date was less than a month from the March 8, 2000 en banc argument before the Commonwealth Court.
. Lastly, the Commonwealth Court granted the Lackawanna County Democratic Party’s application for leave to intervene. We note that the intervenor filed a brief in support of the appeal by the Board of Elections and argued that the home rule charter supersedes the Pennsylvania County Code, that a special election will not violate the Pennsylvania Constitution, and that the special election provisions are not prohibited by the Pennsylvania Election Code.
. This Court's review is limited to a determination of whether the trial court committed legal error and whether the findings were supported by the evidence. In re McElhatton, 729 A.2d 163 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999).
. This appeal challenges only the term for which Jarbola was appointed.
. Article IX, Section 4 of the Pennsylvania Constitution lists a district attorney as a county officer.
. Although the Lackawanna Charter states that a vacancy is filled by the submission of three names, neither the County Code nor the Election Code promulgates any such procedure. Because this issue is not before us, we need not address it.
. The Election Code provided that city officers must be elected at the municipal election in odd-numbered years.
. We note that district attorneys are limited to geographical areas despite their performance of sovereign duties for state government. Pennsylvania Gamefowl Breeders Association v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 122 Pa.Cmwlth. 52, 551 A.2d 361, 363 (1988). It is well-established that district attorneys are considered county officers for jurisdictional purposes and not Commonwealth officers. Id. (citing Schroeck v. Pennsylvania State Police, 26 Pa.Cmwlth. 41, 362 A.2d 486, 490 (1976)). Thus, this Court does not have original jurisdiction with respect to civil actions against district attorneys.
. The dissent raises the following issues: (1) Whether the prohibitions in Section 2962 of the HRC & OPL, limiting the power of the home rule community, are inapplicable. (2) Whether the type of home rule charter adopted was unspecified by the parties or the common pleas court. As to the first issue, because the County Code does not apply to counties of the first class or second class under Section 102 of the County Code, 16 P.S. § 102, the dissent asserts that Section 1404 is inapplicable throughout the Commonwealth. However, with respect to Pennsylvania's first class county, all Philadelphia county officers were abolished by Article IX, Section 13(a) of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Moreover, the Second Class County Code, Act of July 28, 1953, P.L. 723, as amended, 16 P.S. § 4404, reflects identical language to that of Section 1404. The dissent argues a distinction without a difference. We must reiterate and emphasize that the County Code, although not applicable in every part of the Commonwealth, applies specifically to Lackawanna County, a fourth class county. See 114 The Pennsylvania Manual § 6-12 (1999) and Section 210(4) of the County Code. When a vacancy occurs there must be uniformity throughout the Commonwealth in filling the vacancy. Section 1404 provides that uniformity and mandates that a vacancy in the district attorney's office is to be filled for the unexpired term by the judges of the court of common pleas. With respect to the dissent's generalization that the majority jeopardizes other home rule charters, this decision simply recognizes that statutes of statewide concern prevail if there is a conflict, and at the same time, recognizes a municipality’s authority to conduct local affairs. This Court's decision in no way prevents a local government from adopting and implementing a home rule charter, but where a conflict exists between powers granted, a local government, under an adopted form of home rule, is restrained from violating the Constitution, the Enabling Act or the Election Code. As to the second issue, the dissent recognizes two types of home rule charters, i.e. one suggested by the government study commission or an optional prepackaged form of home rule charter. If Lackawanna County adopted the latter plan, then the dissent agrees that the common pleas court was authorized to fill the vacancy in the district attorney’s office, but for different reasons than the majority. It is noteworthy that this issue was not raised previously. Issues not preserved below "are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.” Pa. R.A.P. No. 302(a). Assuming arguendo, that this issue regarding the type of charter was properly raised, the argument is meritless because, whether the charter is "hand-crafted” or an optional plan, its provisions may not supersede constitutional provisions or statutes of statewide magnitude.