Tired of ads? Subscribers enjoy a distraction-free reading experience.
Click here to subscribe today or Login.

Luzerne County’s approach to tallying write-in votes has come under fire, prompting a lengthy debate at last week’s county council meeting.

West Hazleton Borough Councilman James Bucky Kulaga raised the issue along with several council members, questioning why the the county election board didn’t declare him a Democratic write-in winner in the borough council race after the May 17 primary.

Kulaga, who won one of the four Republican nominations, said 10 Democratic write-in votes were required to receive that party’s nomination.

He said it was “obvious” 14 Democrats wanted him to receive the nomination because there were seven write-ins for James Kulaga, six for James Bucky Kulaga and one for Bucky Kulaga. His name appeared as James Bucky Kulaga on the Republican ballot.

Charles Robert Karchner Jr., who also was on the ballot and secured a Republican nomination in the same race, should have received credit for another Democratic write-in slot, Kulaga said. There were two Democratic write-in votes for Charles Karchner Jr., one for Charles Karchner and seven for Charles Robert Karchner Jr., Kulaga told county council.

“I’m not trying to be rude or anything. I’m just trying to get this so it doesn’t happen again. Nobody should have to go what I’m going through,” Kulaga said. “I’m trying to do what’s good for the people, and the people wanted me in there.”

In the past, the county election board did not consider crediting candidates for write-in votes under different spellings and variations of their names unless the candidates filed paperwork requesting credit — a process known as cumulating.

Past practice

In the 2007 primary, then-election director Leonard Piazza took the extra step of posting thousands of write-in results on the county website to make it easier for candidates to assess if they needed to submit cumulation requests. He also issued an announcement about the cumulation process, posted forms on the website to request cumulation and carved out time to assist candidates who didn’t understand requirements.

The process has changed. On May 17, the county election board sifted through write-ins for each race and made a judgment call on whether variations should be credited to the same person — regardless of whether cumulation requests were submitted.

The write-in tabulation was open to the public, and results were available for public review. However, a breakdown of write-in results was not posted on the website because county officials say there is no requirement to do so. County officials said candidates who disagreed with the write-in tally were free to file challenges in county court.

Case law

County assistant solicitor Mike Butera, who handles election matters, told council that election case law does not mandate candidates file cumulation requests and requires the election board to review all write-ins and form its own conclusion about voters’ intent.

“The election board took it upon itself to cumulate votes where it thought the intent of voters was clear,” Butera said.

Councilman Stephen J. Urban questioned how this is possible.

“You can’t determine what that voter intent is without getting in that person’s head,” he said. “You can’t judge what voter intent is from an ethical point of view.”

“And Commonwealth Court says you could,” replied county Chief Solicitor C. David Pedri, who backed up Butera’s opinion.

“Commonwealth Court says you have to, and the election code says the election board has to make the call on every write-in,” Butera added.

Councilman Stephen A. Urban said the county should post all write-in results on the county website before the challenge deadline has passed and establish and communicate protocol so all candidates understand how they can request cumulation or challenge the board’s decisions.

“That formal process ought to be known to every candidate,” Urban said.

‘Unfriendly’ office

Kulaga said he kept checking the website for results but only saw the overall total, and he was informed the time to challenge the board’s decision had passed by the time he obtained the individual tally from the office. He also maintained the election office was “unfriendly.”

Pedri said he will discuss future website postings of write-in results with election officials.

Election Board member Thomas Baldino said he was unaware of the issue with Kulaga until Tuesday’s council meeting and said the board will discuss protocol.

https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/election-logo-20151.pdf

By Jennifer Learn-Andes

[email protected]

Reach Jennifer Learn-Andes at 570-991-6388 or on Twitter @TLJenLearnAndes.