Court denies Luzerne County Democratic Committee’s request to add three candidates to the Nov. 4 ballot

Following a Friday afternoon hearing, a three-judge panel denied the Luzerne County’s Democratic Committee’s request to add three candidates to the Nov. 4 general election ballot.

The ruling was issued by county Court of Common Pleas Judges Tina Polachek Gartley, Richard M. Hughes III and Lesa S. Gelb. Judicial panels are used in the adjudication of election matters.

The court filing stemmed from county Democratic Chairman Thomas Shubilla’s Sept. 19 request to place three candidates on the ballot due to the deaths of the prior office holders.

The party’s nominees and the seats, which would all be two-year terms:

• Rose Mary Frati, of Pittston, city treasurer;

• Anthony Guariglia, of Pittston, city council; and

• Joseph Timothy Cotter, of Dupont, Pittston Area School Board.

A county Election Board majority determined no further action would be taken because the ballot was formally approved on Sept. 17.

County Assistant Solicitor Gene Molino, who represents the election board, said the county Democratic and Republican parties would have been required to submit nominations within a required 50-day deadline, or by Sept. 15.

Because neither party acted on that option before the deadline, Molino said the two Pittston city seats and the Pittston Area School Board seat appear on the Nov. 4 ballot with no listed candidates, which means the seats will be filled through write-in selections.

Representing the committee, Pittston Attorney Peter J. Butera argued case law requires the election code to be “construed liberally” and interpret the 50-day provision as “directory, rather than mandatory.”

Butera’s filing acknowledged the county party is responsible for making nominations but faulted the “glaring inaction” of the election board and election bureau in not responding to or notifying Pittston, the Pittston Area School District or county Democratic Committee about the proper procedure.

However, Molino said in court Friday the election bureau and other county filing offices cannot provide legal advice to private citizens, municipalities and political parties. He also pointed out the committee is aware of the process because it submitted a nominee in July for a Plains Township commissioner seat vacated due to a death, and that candidate will appear on the ballot.

Regarding the argument that the law should be liberally construed, Molino pointed to last year’s Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling and Supreme Court Justice David Wecht’s concurring opinion that the plain statutory language enacted by legislators must be followed. That ruling focused on a county election court case involving provisional ballot signatures.

“Those words are just as true today as when Justice Wecht wrote them last year,” Molino’s reply brief said.

Molino told the panel the cost would be “enormous” to add the three candidates because ballot programming, proofing and testing are already completed.

Cook was called to testify on behalf of the election board and explained the lengthy and complicated process required to build and program the ballot, which contains 1,314 contests and approximately 484 candidates.

The way the system is designed, a small change in one contest could cause other ripple issues or changes elsewhere, which means proofing would have to be redone for every race on all ballots to detect potential errors, Cook testified.

Cook said the county paid $25,000 to program the ballots and approximately $110,000 for the required logic and accuracy testing — expenses that would have to be repeated to start the process over again.

Based on her time estimates to complete all additional tasks, the county could be forced to overnight ballots to mail ballot voters because they would be printed too close to the election, she said. Cook provided an estimate of $1.5 million to overnight ballots to the approximately 25,000 voters signed up for mail ballots.

On cross examination, Butera tried to make the point that Cook’s email reply acknowledging receipt of the Pittston Area School District solicitor’s Aug. 27 email about the vacancy, without further explanation, could have “misled” the solicitor into concluding the request was accepted.