2 Butler County voters to appeal court’s ballot decision
Two Butler County voters are taking their case to Commonwealth Court after the Butler County Court of Common Pleas ruled earlier this month that the county board of elections was within their right to reject their provisional ballots from this April’s primary election.
The two voters, Faith Genser and Frank Matis, filed suit against the board of elections in May, shortly after the primary. Both attempted to vote in the primary by mail, only to find their votes had been rejected by the board of elections because they neglected to place their ballots inside the included secrecy envelope as instructed.
Before the end of the mail-in voting period, the two were instructed to vote through the provisional ballot process, but those ballots also were rejected.
According to the text of the final decision of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas case, at least one of the voters, Genser, was informed ahead of time that their provisional ballot would not be counted, but both cast provisional ballots on Election Day anyway, which were rejected.
Shortly afterward, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Public Interest Law Center both filed suit on behalf of the two voters. Despite their best efforts, Judge S. Michael Yeager of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas ruled in favor of the Board of Elections on Friday, Aug. 16.
Part of the basis for doing so was that Butler County had no policy for allowing voters to cast a provisional ballot in the specific instance of having to “cure” a mail-in ballot that lacked a secrecy envelope.
During the county case, the Board of Elections argued their policy was to not count provisional ballots from those who sent mail-in ballots without secrecy envelopes. While the original mail-in ballots were defective, those who sent them would not be permitted to cast a provisional ballot since they were deemed to have already cast a mail-in ballot.
“Their position in the litigation has been that the law does not allow them to count these ballots,” said Benjamin D. Geffen of the Public Interest Law Center, who is representing the two voters. “Our position has been the opposite, that the law obligates them to count provisional ballots like this.”
In addition to being disappointed with the decision of the county case, Geffen said the case also points to inconsistencies with how Pennsylvania counties handle such situations.
“Pennsylvania has a very decentralized system for election administration,” Geffen said. “Counties make decisions about a variety of things.”
Geffen pointed to a similar case in which he was involved last year in Delaware County, near Philadelphia, when three voters had their provisional ballots in a primary election rejected. That case ended very differently, when that county’s Court of Common Pleas overturned the county’s election board.
“In that instance, the county just did it,” Geffen said. “They counted the ballots. They did not appeal. And so the case never went up to the Commonwealth Court. But we now have these conflicting decisions from two different Common Pleas courts in Pennsylvania. And so that’s what the Commonwealth Court is faced with now.”
While Geffen admits the inclusion or exclusion of the two votes would not have changed any of the primary elections, he said the principle of voting is what matters in this lawsuit.
“Nothing turns on these two votes. No race or outcome is going to change based on what happens in this lawsuit,” Geffen said. “But this case is really about vindicating the rights of every voter to have a ballot counted, and also about clearing up this legal issue for future elections.”
Neither the Board of Elections nor the law firm representing them, Pittsburgh-based Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, responded to a request for comment.
