A three-judge Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas panel has dismissed litigation over the race for county Democratic Committee seats in the May 19 primary election.
The litigation centered on local party committee member seats — one male and one female — in each of the county’s 186 voting precincts.
Most seats had to be filled through write-in votes because only approximately 76 men and women filed paperwork to appear on the primary ballot.
Based on section 3155 of the Pennsylvania Election Code, the county took the position it can only certify write-in winners who received the minimum number of voter nomination signatures required to get on the ballot, or at least 10 votes in this case.
County Councilwoman and attorney Joanna Bryn Smith filed the court action in June on behalf of several county Democrats, arguing the election code dictates that committee candidates receiving a “plurality of the votes” in a primary must be certified the winner — even if that is a single vote.
Bryn Smith stepped away from the case to focus on other matters, and attorney Alexander M. Brunelle of Brunelle Law Group LLC in Scranton, is representing the plaintiffs and sought to file an amended complaint, according to an Aug. 6 release.
Following typical protocol in election-related matters, a three-judge panel was assigned to hear oral arguments Wednesday: Judges Michael T. Vough, Jennifer L. Rogers, and Tarah C. Toohil.
In an order issued Thursday, the panel stated the following reasons for dismissing the original filing:
The filing seeks to challenge the county election bureau’s actions in not certifying them as election winners based on write-in votes.
“Clearly, this is an election matter, and the procedural vehicle used by the plaintiffs does not entitle them to relief,” it said.
Appeals must be filed within two days after the bureau’s action.
Plaintiffs were notified they would not be certified winners May 29, and the appeal was filed 10 days later, June 8.
Even if the June 2 election results certification date is used to start the clock, the appeal is still “deemed late.”
Once results are certified, the election code specifies the only method that can be used to challenge results in county court. That method, which includes voter affidavits and the posting of bonds, was not followed in this situation.
The three-judge panel also denied the plaintiffs’ motion, filed Aug. 13, seeking leave to file an amended complaint.
In explaining the amended complaint denial, Thursday’s court order said:
Plaintiffs commenced the action through a document titled as an appeal.
“The motion to amend seeks to file an amended complaint even though this action was commenced by a document labeled an ‘appeal,’” it said,
Legal counsel for the plaintiffs argued the document labeled as an appeal “should be considered as a complaint.”
The county Election Board, county Election Director Emily Cook and the county Democratic Party were named as defendants.
Brunelle said Thursday the plaintiffs do not plan to appeal the ruling, although they may end up refiling a lawsuit in federal court.
The plaintiffs are also trying to “collaborate and work with” the Democratic Party on future solutions that could prevent the need to further litigate the matter, Brunelle said.
“If everyone can avoid fighting it out in the courtroom, I think everybody wins,” Brunelle said. “We want to try to get together and solve it.”
County assistant solicitor Gene Molino informed the election board of the decision Thursday.
County Manager Romilda Crocamo also sent the council an email detailing the court’s reasoning for dismissing the legal action, saying each argument had been presented by Molino in his written filings.
“Lawsuits like this one consume staff time and county resources that should be spent serving the residents of Luzerne County. I appreciate the Court’s thorough and prompt handling of this matter, and I appreciate Attorney Molino’s work defending the county’s interests,” Crocamo wrote.
Brunelle’s amended filings directly challenged the constitutionality of the election code’s section 3155’s minimum write-in vote thresholds for committee elections and maintained the county’s “application of the statute” violates the Pennsylvania Constitution and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Aug. 6 release said.
The amended filings also asked the court to declare the Democratic Party’s June reorganization and chairperson election null and void, alleging the party “left itself short of a quorum” by barring those with a plurality of write-in votes from participating in the process, the release said.
The county had furnished all write-in tallies to the party so it could decide how it wants to handle the filling of vacant seats based on its own party bylaws.
As a result, prior county Democratic chairwoman Mary Ann Petyak had said only 89 committee seat winners were certified, meaning the majority of committee seats were unfilled when committee members voted for a new party chair. Plymouth resident Megan Kocher was elected the new party chair.
The legal action was filed on behalf of the following candidates who received write-in votes but were not certified as winners: Joseph Oprendick, Darlene A. Smith, Mary P. Delaney, Thomas W. Bindus, Andrea Glod, Jessica Rodriquez, James D. Hayward Jr., Nate Eachus, James Conroy, Michele Trimingham, Ruth Wnuk, Kurt Sauer, Michelle Rothenbecker, and Wendy Packard Hamacker.