Why Does Delco Fight Election Questions?

Why Does Delco Fight Election Questions? — A hearing was heard yesterday, Dec. 6, to open ballot drop boxes and do a recount of the Nov. 7 election in 13 election districts in Delaware County, Pa.

Presiding was Common Pleas Court Judge John P. Capuzzi.

The county is vehemently trying to stop it.

“(It) essentially enables them to audit the vote in each precinct,” said a letter signed by Manley Parks and Nick Centrella, attorneys for the county Board of Elections.

And that’s a problem because?

Recounts are wanted for Middletown 1-1, Middletown 3-2, Middletown 3-3, Edgmont 1, Upper Darby 1-4, Upper Darby 1-6, Upper Darby 4-9, Upper Darby 3-1, Upper Darby 5-8, Upper Darby 3-3, Upper Darby 4-11, Haverford 8-1 and Upper Providence 3.

There are 54 plaintiffs including Joy Schwartz and Bill Dennon, who were Republican candidates for County Council; Pat Bleasdale and Kathryn Buckley, who ran for Rose Tree Media School Board; and poll watchers Gregory Stenstrom and Leah Hoopes.

Most of them were representing themselves with a few being represented by attorney Renee Mazer. Stenstrom did most of the speaking for the pro se people.

It was emphasized that fraud was not being alleged nor were the results being challenged.

The issue was the county’s alleged reluctance to follow state law — which allows for by-right ballot checks — and its strange reticence for election transparency.

The plaintiffs had two hearings this week with the first being Dec. 4 with regard to the recounts.

None of the 54 showed up as the Office for Judicial Support failed to properly notify them. They only learned about it when they were asked by a Daily Times reporter why they hadn’t attended.

The Office for Judicial Support is run by the county and not the judges, noted Capuzzi.

Plaintiffs not being notified — and obviously they weren’t else at least some would have appeared — is rather problematic.

Ms. Hoopes told the court the county purposely intimidates those expressing election concerns. She noted the large number of uniformed law enforcement in the courtroom.

“This doesn’t happen in other counties,” she said. “This is why people are afraid to come forward about elections.”

Soon after she made the point most of the law enforcement personnel left.

One of the big issues concerned the status of the Wharf building in Chester where the county counts the mail-in and dropbox ballots.

Was it an election district? The county says no, as no one votes there. The plaintiffs said yes as that’s where votes are tallied.

Poll watchers and candidates may challenge votes at election districts. The county prohibits challenges at the Wharf, so poll watchers can’t check signatures or flag suspicious activity.

“Who gets to see ballots at the counting of mail-in ballots,” Mrs. Schwartz said. “Who is oversight for citizenry at the Wharf.”

Post-election challenges require a $50 bond per precinct. One would have to put down $20,000 — nonrefundable –for a recount of ballots at the Wharf as each of the county’s 428 election districts would need a $50 bond.

Which leads to another issue.

The 428 figure is what Delco officially touts. Mrs. Schwartz noted, however, that the counting center computers display 430 election districts and correspondence with Fort Orange Press of Albany, N.Y., which prints the ballots, indicates that there are 429.

Could one of the extra districts be the Wharf?

Centrella said that the extra precincts might concern machine testing. He said he wasn’t certain, though.

Mrs. Schwartz said, however, that she is a regular observer at testing and that a machine numbered 429 or 430 has never been tested. She said the county has spare machines and she has never seen these tested either.

The county is required to do 2-percent audit of votes. The mail-in ballots are not included in this, Mrs. Schwartz said.

According to the law they should, she said.

Centrella said mail- ballots can be included in recounts because they are recorded by precinct.

That principle, however, is not being applied to the 2-percent audits says Mrs. Schwartz.

The most concerning testimony came from Kathryn Buckley who noted that she won in-person vote but lost due to mail-in ballots

“Where is chain of custody,” she asked

She reiterated the point that poll watchers were not allowed to observe counting at the Wharf and told a story concerning her experience as a poll watcher in 2022.

She said arrived for a 10 a.m. to noon shift the day after the primary election and found it nearly vacant as counting had stopped at 1 a.m.

As the county ballot counters meandered in, she heard one say “I have to get ballots from my car.”

She immediately protested and was just as immediately escorted from the premise by sheriff deputies, she said.

She brought her issue before the Board of Elections and was ignored.

So she filed a complaint with the District Attorney’s office.

She called a week later and was told the matter was resolved. She was not told how.

Mrs. Buckley asked for her report and was told it had been sealed.

She said she has been trying to get her report since.

Mrs. Bleasdale noted that contrary to claims by the defendants, Delco routinely ignores right-to-know requests.

She said she had sought dropbox surveillance video from the county via right-to-know and was denied. She then appealed to state’s Office of Open Records  which ruled in her favor.

Rather, that cut their losses, however, Delco appealed to Common Pleas Court which upheld the county’s claim.

Mrs. Bleasdale never got the video.

That does not help increase trust in government or elections.

Bill Dennon noted ballots appeared to be have been dumped as municipal waste at Wharf.

Why Does Delco Fight Election Questions?