A Luzerne County Court hearing on Jamie Walsh’s election-related suit came to an abrupt halt on Wednesday when county Attorney Mark E. Cedrone announced he was filing a request to move the case to federal court.
Cedrone, of Saxton & Stump in Philadelphia, is representing two defendants — the county and county election bureau. He said the request to a federal venue was prompted by the plaintiff’s assertions of Constitutional violations.
Attorney Joseph M. Cosgrove of Selingo Guagliardo in Kingston represented the county Election Board, the remaining defendant. Cosgrove told the three-judge county Court of Common Pleas panel the board was not seeking movement to federal court.
During the hearing, both Cedrone and Cosgrove strongly argued Walsh’s request for a preliminary injunction should be denied.
Walsh filed the civil suit on Oct. 25, the same day the county finished processing all remaining Nov. 5 general election voter registration applications. The county election bureau processed all outstanding mail ballot applications two days later, on Oct. 27, and continued accepting new mail ballot requests through Tuesday’s deadline.
The litigation seeks an order requiring the county to process remaining voter registrations and mail ballot applications.
Attorney Charles Kannebecker, of Milford, filed the suit on Walsh’s behalf. He arrived in court with witnesses prepared to testify about issues they have encountered.
Cedrone and Cosgrove said they were not made aware of these witnesses in advance. When the judge panel decided it would proceed with hearing witness testimony, Cedrone and Cosgrove said they must receive the names and birth dates of the witnesses so they could research the status of their voter registrations and/or mail ballot requests. The court recessed to allow time for that due diligence.
When court resumed, Cedrone told the panel a request to move the case to federal court was being prepared. County Judge Tina Polachek Gartley said she was not going to waste the court or citizens’ time proceeding with the hearing.
In response to the venue change request, Kannebecker told reporters he disagreed with the decision. He said he was aware of approximately 27 voters who filed voter registrations before the Oct. 21 deadline and are not listed on registration rolls. He also said approximately 30 to 40 voters have not yet received mail ballots.
Cedrone said the election bureau researched the records of the seven witnesses provided by the plaintiff.
According to Cedrone, one was registered in another county and already voted there. Several already cast Nov. 5 mail ballots that have been received by the bureau. Others were issued mail ballots on Oct. 25, and the county has not yet received completed ballots from them.
Only one of the seven voters remains under review because the bureau was still researching what occurred, he said.
Cedrone reiterated he believes the litigation is “patently frivolous” and noted Walsh, the lone plaintiff, already cast his mail ballot.
Attorney arguments
Before the hearing ended, Cedrone said all voter registrations that met requirements have been processed, and there is a procedure for rejected registrations to be challenged that does not require the “extraordinary” effort of a court injunction.
Cosgrove said the board is following the law and that a court order is not warranted.
Kannebecker told judges he has witnesses who applied for a voter registration but do not appear as registered voters on official records. These voters did not receive a communication stating a reason, he said.
Cosgrove said there’s no reason for the court to further entertain the plaintiff’s request because the filing itself has fatal flaws and “no basis to go forward.”
Cedrone agreed, saying the filing does not meet the required factors.
Kannebecker disagreed that the filing was insufficient and said people not on the voter registration list will have no way to vote on Nov. 5.
Cedrone argued the matter should be moot because Walsh, the only plaintiff, already voted.
Gartley said she and fellow Judges Lesa S. Gelb and Fred A. Pierantoni wanted to hear witness testimony because time is running out if voters are not registered.
Pierantoni said Election Day is imminent.
When Cedrone said he was seeking the transfer to federal court, Gelb said she finds that unfortunate because she would like to “get to the bottom of this in the interest of fairness.”
Cosgrove said anyone with complaints can visit the election bureau to address their concerns, as opposed to testifying in court.
The federal court will have the option to take up the matter or remand it back to county court.
County Manager Romilda Crocamo, an attorney, said after the meeting that the election bureau and administration are “committed to make sure every legal vote counts.”
“Their filing wasn’t specific. It didn’t rise to the level of required specificity, contained vague and unsubstantiated allegations and did not conform to Pennsylvania rules of civil procedure,” Crocamo said. “It certainly failed the substantive requirements of an injunction.”
Federal court
U.S. District Court Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann in Pennsylvania’s Middle District was assigned the case and has scheduled a telephonic case management conference with legal counsel at 1 p.m. Thursday.
“The purpose of the conference is to establish a schedule for the management of the case so as to strive for its just, speedy and inexpensive determination,” Brann wrote.
The post Court hearing on Jamie Walsh’s election suit abruptly halted appeared first on Times Leader.