Bucks County Election Case Before Commonwealth Court — A hearing Wednesday, April 5, in Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court concerned the interpretation of a state law stemming from election challenges filed in Bucks County.
What was in dispute was an apparent conflict between Section 1701 and Section 1703 of Article XVII of the Pennsylvania Election Code.
Section 1701 allows for three qualified voters of a district to demand the “ballot box” be opened “upon information which they consider reliable, they believe that fraud or error, although not manifest on the general return of votes, was committed.”
The respondents, which were the Bucks County Bureau of Elections and the Pennsylvania Department of State, argued that Section 1703 says that for elections that covered more than one district — which would be all elections except for Judges of Elections and similar offices — a petition would have to be filed in each district requiring three voters from each district and the placing of a bond. The bonds in a state-wide race would require several million dollars.
Section 1703 says “a recount or recanvass shall include all election districts in which ballots were cast for the office in question.”
Opening a single machine on suspicion is obviously not recounting an entire race. Improprieties one machine, however, could and should lead to investigating other machines, and a recount. Rigged ballots in one place are prima facie evidence of a stolen election, and the residency and bond requirements would not apply.
Attorney Andrew Teitelman, who was working pro bono, argued for 111 Bucks County residents who saw troubling events in the 2022 elections. Many filed pro se petitions to start things.
A decision is pending. Any decision will not affect the results of the election but would provide clarity for the future.
And we have been told that the Department of State did not insert itself in the case until two days prior to the hearing.
The hearing can be watched here.
There were several of us who watched from the overflow room in the courthouse. Atty. Teitelman was superb. Can’t say the same for the attorneys on the other side. One being from the Attorney General’s office.
I thought the judges asked some thoughtful questions. Hopefully, they will have a decision soon and it will go in the Plaintiffs’ favor.