Luzerne County’s Election Board rejects five mail ballots dropped off without required form

Luzerne County’s Election Board voted Wednesday to reject five mail ballots dropped off by two people without the required forms authorizing delivery on behalf of those voters.

County Election Director Emily Cook had said the two voters were questioned when they were observed bringing more than one Nov. 4 general election ballot to the Penn Place lobby drop box in Wilkes-Barre, and they did not produce a designated agent form. One voter had two ballots, and the other brought three.

Under state law, voters are only allowed to mail or hand-deliver their own ballot unless they are serving as an agent for someone with a disability. Disabled voters must fill out an official form authorizing someone to deliver their ballot for them.

Cook referred the matter to the county District Attorney’s Office for investigation, but Election Board Chairwoman Christine Boyle said Wednesday the board must make a decision in preparation for certification of the election results.

The board is scheduled to hold a certification voting meeting on Nov. 24.

All four board members in attendance at Wednesday’s ongoing, post-election adjudication — Boyle, Vice Chairwoman Alyssa Fusaro, Rick Morelli and Daniel Schramm — said they cannot support accepting the five ballots.

Morelli said the law is clear, and accepting the ballots would “open up a can of worms” and contribute to ongoing controversy over the use of drop boxes and claims of ballot harvesting.

He noted it is possible the individuals were delivering the ballots for family members and unaware of the form requirement, but they still proceeded with feeding them into the drop box after they were informed a form was necessary.

Fusaro said the board rejected mail ballots in the past due to the failure to produce forms. The decision of two voters to drop off the ballots after they were informed they cannot without a form is an “illegal activity,” she said.

Schramm concurred, saying, “They were told not to do it and did it anyway.”

Boyle agreed and said the board has no legal guidance permitting the ballots to be accepted.

Albert Schlosser, the fifth board member, was not in attendance on Wednesday.

Pittston referendum

The fate of Pittston’s general election ballot question is still unclear because the latest unofficial results posted Nov. 6 show a one-vote difference, with 715 against the referendum and 714 for it.

The question asked city voters if they want to change the city charter to make the elected treasurer/tax collector position an appointed department director when the current elected term expires at the end of 2027. If a majority of voters approved the referendum, the qualifications, powers, and duties of the director position would be “adjusted to correspond with a position held by a city employee,” an accompanying explanation said.

At least one additional vote for the referendum was detected during Wednesday morning’s portion of the adjudication, which would make the vote tied.

Board members noted two more referendum votes later in the day — one for and the other against.

If the decision ends up tied, Cook said she expects a public process would be necessary to break it. For past ties, the election bureau traditionally places numbered balls corresponding to each party in a container and shakes it before one is selected.

Signature issue

In another vote on Wednesday, all four board members voted to accept eight paper provisional ballots that had been placed on hold.

Provisional ballots are cast at polling places, typically when workers determine additional voter verification is needed. The county reviews provisional ballots last to ensure the voters are properly registered and did not cast a second ballot by mail.

The eight ballots had the required outer envelope voter signatures but were not signed by the polling place judge of elections as specified. The election bureau contacted the judges of elections to see if they would come to Penn Place to verify and sign the outer envelopes, and seven of the eight were signed as a result.

Board members approved all eight, based on current case law, so the remaining faultless voter was not penalized with a ballot rejection. They noted the voter had to receive the provisional ballot from the judge of elections.

Two provisional ballots were also unanimously rejected on Wednesday because the voters did not present the required identification at their polling place and failed to appear at the election bureau by Monday’s deadline to provide identification.

Results update

Updated results from lingering mail and provisional ballots approved by the board will be uploaded to the online results after the tallying of write-in votes, which should continue at least through the end of this week, Cook said.

A row of several county workers tallied the write-in votes on computers at Penn Place on Wednesday under the observation of board members, with large screens set up for the public to monitor their actions.

In all, 30,000 ballots were flagged for review because they contained write-in votes or had other issues, Cook said.