Judge denies request to allow poll watchers at Allegheny County satellite election offices

A federal judge Friday denied a request to permit poll watchers at Allegheny County’s satellite election offices, saying there is no constitutional right to have them there.

The ruling, during a telephone conference with U.S. District Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan, was a blow to two Republican congressional candidates in Western Pennsylvania.

They will continue their challenge against Allegheny County’s election board with regard to nearly 29,000 erroneous ballots mailed to voters. Ranjan set a hearing date on that issue for Wednesday but urged the two sides to meet to try to reach agreement.

With regard to the poll watchers issue, Sean Parnell, who is running against U.S. Rep. Conor Lamb, D-Mt. Lebanon, and Luke Negron, who is challenging U.S. Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Forest Hills, said two men had applied for and were denied poll watcher certificates relative to the satellite offices opened by the county on weekends to collect mail-in ballots.

Their complaint, filed Oct. 17, said they had a right to have poll watchers to ensure ballots are being cast properly in those locations.

On Friday, Ranjan said the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden required for a temporary restraining order.

“There’s no individual constitutional right to serve as a poll watcher,” the judge said during the call. “There’s no evidence to support the lack of security in the satellite offices.”

Ranjan noted the satellite offices are public locations and anyone who wishes to may observe the actions there.

This is the last weekend the offices will be open prior to the Nov. 3 election. This weekend, four will be open, in addition to service at the County Office Building in Downtown Pittsburgh.

The bulk of Friday’s discussions revolved around how the county is proceeding with counting the nearly 29,000 erroneous ballots that were mailed to voters, and the correct and replacement ballots sent later.

The error occurred because of a computer mistake by the vendor, which sent the 29,000 voters ballots intended for voters in another district. As a result, people received ballots that included selections for the wrong congressional and state legislative races; the national and statewide races were correct.

Although the hearing is set for next week, Ranjan said he wanted to hear from both sides to “understand that claim factually and legally.”

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit amended their complaint Thursday. They changed their legal theory, initially filed last week based on the elections code, to now being under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Allegheny County Solicitor Andrew Szefi said during the conference the individual identifying bar codes on the mail-in ballot envelopes assigned to each voter are the same for both the erroneous ballots and the replacements.

Replacement ballots that were mailed to affected voters have an orange stripe on the envelope to differentiate them, Szefi said, as well as a letter of explanation inside to provide instruction to the voters.

Szefi told Ranjan that when the replacement ballots are returned to the elections office, they are segregated in a locked ballot room. Erroneous ballots that are submitted also are segregated.

He said it won’t be clear how many voters submit both the erroneous ballots and replacement until 5 p.m. Nov. 6.

The ballots essentially will have to be reviewed by hand to ensure an elector cannot cast two votes, Szefi said.

If a voter returns only the erroneous ballot, he continued, their votes for president and statewide row offices will be counted as normal. If those voters also make selections in the other races, Szefi said, they will become write-in votes for the comparable race in the voters’ correct district.

The plaintiffs, represented by attorney Thomas W. King III, said there is nothing in the law that provides for that to occur.

He said the process laid out by the county is not adequate.

“The plaintiffs just are interested in making sure every vote counts,” King said. “We are not trying to disenfranchise anyone.”

Plaintiffs’ attorney Thomas E. Breth suggested the 29,000 ballots in question ought to be counted as provisional ballots.

“We need to evaluate how each individual ballot is being accounted for — not how they’re doing the math,” he said. “Their position is ‘trust us.’ They’re the ones who made the mistake in the first place.”

He noted that if the ballots are categorized as provisional, challenging them would be without cost.

Otherwise, it would cost the plaintiffs $10 per ballot.

Ranjan asked at what point can a candidate can lodge objection to the ballots? Szefi said any objection would have to be filed by the Friday prior to the election.

Szefi said when the mail-in ballots are counted, candidates and their representatives can be present and can follow the typical Election Code challenge process through the Court of Common Pleas.

Szefi said the challenge in this case is not to the qualifications of the voter.

“(That) they voted an incorrect ballot is not grounds to challenge,” he said. “They have no reason whatsoever that any of these people are not qualified electors.”

Ranjan asked the county what has been done to alert voters about the erroneous ballots. Szefi said there were news conferences, alerts sent out by the county, as well as information on the county’s website.

“We have tried our best, as transparently as possible, to recognize this mistake and remedy this mistake,” he said.

Cliff Levine, who represents the Pennsylvania Democratic Party in the case, said the question is limited only to ensuring each voter is only counted once.

“There’s really no evidence the county has acted in bad faith. To the contrary,” he said.