Five votes now separate the Republican candidates for state representative in the 117th District — incumbent Mike Cabell and Jamie Walsh — and there are still more votes that may be added Monday.
On primary election night, there was an eight-vote difference, with 4,723 for Walsh and 4,715 for Cabell.
Additional votes were accepted and rejected during the county Election Board’s public adjudication of flagged mail ballots Friday.
Both candidates seeking the Republican nomination picked up additional votes as a result, with new tallies of 4,727 for Walsh and 4,722 for Cabell — a five-vote difference.
Additional votes may be accepted Monday following the board’s review of provisional ballots.
Provisional ballots cast at the polls must be checked last to verify the voters were registered and did not also vote with a mail ballot. Provisional ballots must be placed in a secrecy envelope and then inserted in an outer envelope. Three signatures — two from the voter and one from the judge of elections — are required on the outer envelope for the vote to count.
Both campaigns had legal representatives at Friday’s adjudication — Attorney Carter Hoel of Pittsburgh for Walsh and Attorney Shohin H. Vance of Philadelphia for Cabell.
Walsh also attended the adjudication, which ran from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., while Butler Township political media consultant Jason Holly was there on Cabell’s behalf.
Five citizens serve on the election board: Republicans Alyssa Fusaro (vice chair) and Rick Morelli and Democrats Albert Schlosser, Daniel Schramm and Denise Williams (chair).
The board ended up accepting 152 mail ballots and rejecting 269 Friday. In addition, 65 ballots that were in order but could not be read by the scanner/tabulator were transposed onto fresh ballots by a sworn-in, bi-partisan team Friday, bringing the total additions to 217.
Rejections
As required by law, the board unanimously rejected 54 mail “naked” ballots that were not placed inside inner secrecy envelopes as required.
Williams said this number was an improvement from the 2023 general election, when 136 naked ballots were not counted.
Acting Election Director Emily Cook said she received feedback that voters found the state’s switch to yellow secrecy envelopes helpful. The color coding was part of a redesign of mail ballot materials intended to reduce voter errors and confusion.
Some other reasons ballots were thrown out:
• 40 voters did not write any date on the outer envelopment to verify when they filled out the ballot.
A federal appeals court panel recently upheld enforcement of the technical date mandate.
• 71 voters wrote dates deemed “out of range” because they fell outside the April 1-23 period in which mail ballots were issued and permitted to be returned.
• 19 had dates with an in-range month and day but the incorrect final two digits of the year.
As part of the state redesign, the “20” start of the year was pre-filled, but voters were supposed to write in “24” at the end.
• 64 had no voter signatures or mark with a witness verification for those unable to sign due to a disability or illness.
Witness issue
Four ballots were rejected due to questions related to a witness verification.
These ballots were flagged because they were from different addresses, but the same witness signed the outer envelope of all four indicating the voters were unable to sign or place a mark in the signature box due to an illness/disability.
Board members asked the election bureau to reach out to this witness for an explanation.
Acting Deputy Election Director Steve Hahn reported at the end of the day the witness informed him all four residents resided in a nursing home.
She indicated all four made the ballot selections on their own but could not sign or mark the outer envelope signature box because it was too small, Hahn said.
Fusaro questioned how the outer envelope signature box could be too small to leave a mark if the voters were able to shade in small bubbles on the ballot.
“To me all of these are a major red flag,” Fusaro said.
Schramm agreed, saying their inability to put an X or other mark in the signature box makes him question if someone else filled out the ballot selections for them.
“There’s no way of knowing how up and up these ballots are. I really have a lot of doubts about them,” Schramm said.
Fusaro, Schramm, Schlosser and Williams all voted to reject the four ballots. Morelli had to leave shortly before the vote, which occurred at the end of the session, but he said later he also would have voted to reject the four ballots.
Ballots accepted
The lion’s share of the approved mail ballots — 111 — involved voters filling in the correct month and day on the outer envelope but failing to add “24” in the blank boxes at the end of the year.
Williams said voters may not have picked up on the matter because the first two digits were filled in with the state redesign, which was a new change. She questioned if the state should have pre-filled the entire year rather than just the first half, particularly because the outer envelopes are not reused for other elections.
The state issued guidance indicating ballots should not be disqualified due to the two year boxes left blank, and Williams said she supports following this guidance so those voters are not disenfranchised.
Assistant Solicitors Gene Molino and Paula Radick, who were both present throughout the adjudication, summarized the state guidance but said the decision is up to the board.
Fusaro said the date is mandatory based on the court ruling, and state guidance has been wrong before.
Morelli said the month/day is in range for all, and he noted the timestamp marking the ballots as received reinforces the year is 2024.
Fusaro was the lone board member to vote against accepting the 111 ballots.
In another situation, the board unanimously agreed to accept eight ballots with outer envelope signatures that did not match to the correct voter when the bar code was scanned. The reason: the ballots were from four couples or parent/child households, making it likely they were mixed once the outer envelope was sealed, board members said.
Party reps
Friday’s adjudication opened with a disagreement over the Republican representative set to participate in the process.
As part of its formalized structure, the board had been inviting comments from party representatives before each vote on accepting or rejecting ballots — either the party chair or his/her designee.
The county Republican party has no chair because P.J. Pribula resigned from the post in March. Williams said she received an email from county Council Chairman John Lombardo, a member of the party’s executive committee, indicating Angelo LaRocca would represent the party in the adjudication.
Walsh objected, maintaining LaRocca’s representation would be a conflict because his family worked on Cabell’s campaign.
Questions also were raised because LaRocca was on the April 23 primary ballot for a Republican committee seat and delegate candidate.
Williams said it would be challenging to find a representative not on the ballot when a party’s committee seats are up for election, noting a Democratic committee candidate served as that party’s adjudication representative two years ago.
Republican Mary Ann Potsko, who was seated in the audience, stood up and said she is not on the ballot and was prepared to fill the adjudication role.
Williams said Potsko was asked to serve by Fusaro, not the party leadership.
The matter has been “complicated by issues within the (Republican) party,” Williams said.
Williams said it would not be fair to allow a Democratic representative and not a Republican one, and Morelli agreed there must be a “level playing field.”
In response, Williams made a motion to eliminate adjudication participation by any party representatives. Fusaro was the only board member to vote against Williams’ motion.
Collin Doherty and Audrey Serniak would have split duties serving as the Democratic adjudication representative.
Monday schedule
Adjudication will resume Monday, with provisional ballots on the schedule.
The bureau did not have an overall count of provisional ballots countywide.
Adjudication begins at 9 a.m. Monday on the third floor of the county’s Penn Place Building at 20 N. Pennsylvania Ave. in Wilkes-Barre.
Reach Jennifer Learn-Andes at 570-991-6388 or on Twitter @TLJenLearnAndes.
Dallas Post
Source link
