Jamie Walsh issues response to litigation criticism

State Rep. Jamie Walsh issued a lengthy statement Thursday responding to Luzerne County Manager Romilda Crocamo’s “allegations regarding the recent court filing.”

Crocamo placed a scrolling red banner on the county’s website this week to inform voters that Walsh’s election-related litigation, which was dismissed by a federal judge Monday, cost county taxpayers $104,802 to date.

Walsh, R-Ross Township, filed the suit in October to challenge the county’s processing of 2024 general election voter registration and mail ballot applications.

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann in Pennsylvania’s Middle District said in his opinion that Walsh lacked standing because county “election practices could not possibly have caused him any injury as an unopposed and successful candidate for office.”

Walsh, a Republican, won the 117th Legislative District seat in the 2024 general election and was unopposed.

Crocamo had said the judge’s decision “not only underscores the importance of judicial integrity but also highlights the frivolous nature of the claims made in the lawsuit.” She said Walsh should apologize to taxpayers and “take responsibility by repaying the county for the costs incurred in defending against this baseless lawsuit.”

Walsh has asserted the county increased the cost and duration of the litigation by seeking a venue change from the county Court of Common Pleas to federal court. County legal counsel said the change was sought due to the plaintiff’s assertion of Constitutional violations.

Walsh’s Thursday statement said he was “greatly disappointed by the unwillingness of the federal court” to hear the claims he had raised in the county filing — claims he said concerned “the unlawful conduct of Luzerne County Bureau of Elections in failing and/or refusing to timely process thousands of applications to register to vote and applications for mail-in ballots, which deprived voters of their fundamental right to vote.”

His statement continued:

“Rather than constructively address those concerns, and refusing to discuss or directly deny the facts in Mr. Walsh’s complaint, the bureau chose instead to remove the case to federal court and seek dismissal on the basis of a legal technicality called lack of standing, which is an argument not that the facts of the complaint are false, but that the person filing the complaint is not allowed to bring the suit.

“If the bureau had instead constructively addressed the concerns raised, and worked to ensure that these unlawful delays in processing applications to register to vote and applications for mail-in ballots do not deny more voters their right to vote in future elections, all of the money wasted arguing legal technicalities could have been avoided.

“Rep. Walsh was appalled to hear that the defendants assert that they ran up over $100,000 in legal costs when all they did was file motions to dismiss and briefs in support. There was not even an oral argument on the motions to dismiss and no discovery occurred in the case. The legal fees allegedly spent by the defendants dwarf those spent filing the complaint and motion for preliminary injunction and responding to the motion to dismiss.

“Unfortunately, the federal court improperly analyzed the standing issue, which is supposed to be determined as of the date of filing of the complaint. Instead, the court reviewed standing from a post-election perspective and found that Rep. Walsh was not harmed because he won the election. The court failed to give due weight to the potential, at the time the complaint was filed, for the loss of thousands of votes to cost Mr. Walsh the election. The court gave conclusive weight, without any evidence, to the mere fact that Mr. Walsh was the only candidate on the ballot. It is far from unheard of for candidates on the ballot to lose to write-in candidates, and the potential for harm in the 2024 general election as well as the potential for harm in future elections where Rep. Walsh may not be the only candidate on the ballot, should have been recognized by the court as a sufficient harm to Rep. Walsh to give him standing to raise the claims at issue.

“While some have attempted to smear the lawsuit as ‘frivolous,’ the federal court made no comment on the merits of the underlying facts of the lawsuit and did not call the claims ‘frivolous’ or any other such term. Such assertions that the lawsuit was ‘frivolous’ should be met with follow up questions as to the underlying facts. It is unclear whether anyone other than Rep. Walsh has ever demanded an answer to why the applications were delayed and what if anything is being done to prevent a repeat of these problems in the future. If the lawsuit were truly frivolous, the defendants could simply state that there were no such delays, but they know that the unlawful delays in fact occurred.

“There remains time for appeal, but a decision has not been made whether to appeal the improper decision to dismiss for lack of standing. Whether or not Rep. Walsh appeals, he hopes that the Luzerne County Board of Elections holds the Bureau of Elections accountable for their failures to timely process applications for voter registrations and mail-in ballots in the 2024 general election and takes steps to ensure these unlawful delays do not repeat in future elections. There has been no accountability for the failure to process the applications within the time frames set forth in the relevant statutes. Instead, there has been steadfast resistance, at significant taxpayer expense, to do anything to acknowledge, address or correct these problems.”