Commonwealth Court issued its final ruling Wednesday in cases related to the tight Republican 117th House District race, concluding candidate Jamie Walsh’s appeal over six mail ballots must be thrown out because his legal challenge was not filed on time in the first place.
County Assistant Solicitor Gene Molino had made the argument that Walsh’s challenge was not filed in a timely manner when the matter was initially adjudicated in the county Court of Common Pleas, but a county judge panel proceeded.
County judges determined that the six ballots should be counted, prompting Walsh to appeal to Commonwealth Court.
Walsh and incumbent Michael Cabell are three votes apart, with Walsh in the lead.
The six ballots Walsh wanted uncounted were cast by voters who filled in the correct month and day on the outer envelope but failed to add “24” in the blank boxes at the end of the year.
As part of a state redesign of mail ballots that took effect in all counties for the 2024 primary, the “20” start of the year was pre-filled, but voters were supposed to write in “24” at the end.
The county Election Board had voted 4-1 to accept the six ballots as part of a batch of 111 mail ballots missing only the last two year digits. Most of the six mail ballot votes were for Cabell based on the tally update. The results already were incorporated in the unofficial results that left Walsh with a three-vote lead.
Walsh’s legal counsel argued a full date was required as affirmed by a 2023 Supreme Court decision.
The three-judge county court panel said the pre-printed 20 was specifically produced for the 2024 primary election and “therefore, it would stand to reason that the date, as written, could only be for the calendar year 2024.”
In Commonwealth Court, the county election board restated its argument Walsh’s filing should never have been taken up by county court in the first place because Walsh did not contest the votes within two days after the election board voted to accept them.
Cabell’s attorneys also made this argument in Commonwealth Court.
The Pennsylvania Department of State also filed a brief in Commonwealth Court supporting dismissal due to the two-day requirement.
Walsh’s attorney had argued the two-day clock did not begin until the board signed off on partial election results a few days later.
The state’s filing disagreed with this interpretation.
“As this court just held, parties cannot dance around the Election Code’s applicable rules by trying to style their petition as something other than what it is,” the state’s filing said.
The election board and state briefs also had said the county court decision to affirm the board’s tallying of the votes was correct.
Wednesday’s opinion was issued by the same Commonwealth Court panel that decided the two other cases: Judges Anne E. Covey, Stacy Wallace and Matthew S. Wolf.
What’s next?
Commonwealth Court issued opinions Monday and Tuesday on the other two pending appeals in the Republican 117th race, denying Cabell’s appeal seeking the tallying of write-in votes, if any, and granting Cabell’s request to accept one provisional ballot and reject another.
The candidates and election board have the right to appeal the rulings to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Petitions for allowance of appeal would have to be filed within 10 days of the orders, and the Supreme Court has discretion over whether it will agree to hear such cases.
It’s unclear if any results will be updated in the Republican race before the appeal period has passed.
In addition to the single provisional ballot that Commonwealth Court decided should be counted, there are 12 more provisional ballots in the race that are no longer contested by either candidate. The processing and tallying of those 12 ballots was put on hold pending adjudication.
While the single ballot that was accepted is likely for Cabell because it was cast by his cousin, the selections of the other 12 remain unknown.
Walsh said
Walsh said Wednesday he will be meeting with his legal counsel to discuss the next steps now that rulings have been issued on all three appeals.
Cabell has not yet issued a statement on the rulings.