The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a ruling Friday that means Jamie Walsh did not succeed in throwing out one provisional ballot and counting another, although he still has the unofficial lead over incumbent state Rep. Mike Cabell.
Attorney Shohin H. Vance, who represents Cabell’s campaign, said he is “very pleased with the Supreme Court decision to restore and reaffirm some semblance of integrity in the electoral process.”
Cabell issued a Friday evening announcement that he is contemplating a recount request due to the closeness of the race and as part of his “continued commitment to ensuring every vote is accurately counted and verified.”
Walsh’s unofficial five-vote April 23 primary election lead over Cabell in the 117th District Republican race is expected to decrease to four votes when the Supreme Court-affirmed provisional ballot is tallied because it was cast by Cabell’s cousin, Shane O’Donnell.
Walsh’s appeal to the state Supreme Court sought reversal of a Commonwealth Court decision granting Cabell’s request to reject Lake Township voter Timothy J. Wagner’s ballot and accept the Butler Township ballot cast by O’Donnell.
Wagner did not sign the outer envelope twice, and O’Donnell’s ballot involved a residency question.
Walsh said he is “happy to finally have closure on this matter.”
“Although I’m disappointed with the opinion of the court, at least I made an attempt to get Mr. Wagner’s vote counted,” Walsh said.
Walsh also said it is important that “the people of the 117th District finally have an answer to who will be representing them over the next two years.”
No general election competitors have surfaced in the 117th District. There were no Democratic contenders in the primary, and the election bureau did not receive notification of any write-in campaigns, the bureau said.
A recount request would have to be filed in court within five days of Monday’s first signing of the primary election certification of the 117th District race results.
The county’s five-citizen Election Board will publicly convene at 10 a.m. Monday in Room 301 of the county’s Penn Place Building in downtown Wilkes-Barre to process the provisional ballot that must be accepted, reject the other ballot and complete the first certification signing. While other primary results were certified, the board had to hold off on the 117th portion pending completion of the court challenge.
Precedent case
Vance said Friday’s Supreme Court decision made it clear county election boards must explicitly follow provisional ballot requirements expressly stated in state election law, including the mandate for voters to sign the outer envelope twice as in the case of Wagner’s ballot.
“That law subsection has a number of issues that require election boards to not count a ballot regardless of the circumstances or the board’s subjective feelings of voter intent or enfranchisement or whatever they want to call it,” Vance said.
He advised everyone involved in election administration to read Supreme Court Justice David N. Wecht’s concurring opinion. Vance said it emphasizes the signature requirement, is unambiguous in the state Election Code, and that people with issues about the way unambiguous requirements are written in the code should talk to legislators and the governor and “stop going to the courts.”
Wecht wrote, in part: “This appeal is the latest in a line of cases in which the courts are asked to disregard unambiguous statutory requirements for voting because those requirements are purportedly not a ‘necessity,’ because they are directives rather than mandates, or because they are mere ‘technicalities.’ Although the proffered reasons change, the idea is the same: this Court should disregard plain statutory requirements in favor of counting non-compliant votes. Although the Court has been amenable to such arguments in the past, I continue my efforts to turn this unfortunate tide. We must apply clear statutory mandates.”
Vance said Friday’s precedential decision also will “have a very important impact beyond this election” and “will go a long way in making sure county election boards abide by the election code as written.”
Regarding O’Donnell’s ballot, Cabell argued it should be counted because O’Donnell did not officially relocate to McAdoo borough in Schuylkill County until March 29, and there is a 30-day window to vote at a prior residence preceding an election.
O’Donnell has said he was unaware he selected an option to change his voter registration address to McAdoo in December 2023, when he updated his vehicle to the future address during his vehicle registration renewal.
The county Election Board had rejected his ballot as part of a batch from people not registered to vote in the county.
A three-judge county Court of Common Pleas panel agreed with the board’s decision, saying O’Donnell was not disenfranchised because he could have voted at his new residence but chose not to.
However, the three-judge Commonwealth Court panel said O’Donnell’s ballot must be accepted, indicating the facts show O’Donnell would not have been permitted to vote in McAdoo because he did not reside there at least 30 days preceding the election.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court decision.
Vance said the opinions by both Justice Wecht and the majority also strengthened his argument that the state should not be allowing voter registration changes to be made through vehicle registrations.
Cabell statement
Cabell said Friday’s court decision “upholds the legal integrity of the election.”
“The ruling is seen as a significant affirmation of the need to adhere to election laws, bolstering efforts to ensure that all legal standards are met and respected,” Cabell said.
The ruling also “serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s critical role in resolving electoral disputes and reinforcing the integrity of election laws,” he said.
Cabell’s statement included a quote from Vance citing a “troubling trend” in recent years of counties not abiding by “crucial statutory provisions designed to protect the integrity of our elections.”
“I hope this decision puts a stop to this lawlessness and puts boards of elections throughout the Commonwealth on notice that they don’t have discretion to subvert laws passed by our democratically elected leaders,” Vance said in the statement. “I also trust that the Department of State will act swiftly to issue directives to county boards of elections informing them of their obligations, as reaffirmed (yet again) by the Supreme Court.”
Cabell said the ruling is a “boost for Republicans heading into November’s hotly contested election.”
“It’s a befitting result in that voters can now be assured that the legally passed rules set by the Pennsylvania legislature are actually followed,” said Cabell. “This puts more teeth in the law as written by the people the voters choose to write it.”
On the issue of a potential recount, Vance said there are allowable measures to ensure a recount delay does not negatively impact the county’s Sept. 21 deadline to issue absentee ballots to military and overseas voters. Counties can send blank ballots requiring voters to write in choices along with instructions to check online election bureau updates on candidate lists that may change due to court challenges, he said.