___________________________________________________________________________
When Republican candidate for Fayette County Commissioner Dave Lohr filed a court appeal to overturn the Fayette County Board of Election's rejection of 18 absentee voter ballots, the court action heard before Judge Ralph Warman, naturally, delayed the naming of a winner in that close contest with incumbent Angela Zimmerlink.
What Lohr's court motion also did was force the judge to do the work that the Fayette County Board of Election seems to have failed to do.
No matter how we split hairs about postmark dates on absentee ballots and debate whether the absentee ballots might have or might not have been received in the Fayette County Election Bureau by the state required deadline of the Friday before election day -- i.e., if county workers had picked up the mail -- Warman's decision should hinge on two factors.
Whether there was some formal county declaration to have the Uniontown Post Office named as the county's recipient of absentee ballots the week prior to elections needs to be proven. Anyone who has worked in government knows the old saying: If it is not documented, it did not happen.
While some board of commissioners at some time actually may have made such a formal declaration, nobody on the current Election Board seemed to state matter of factly just when this agreement went on county record. Anyone arguing a case that the post office "historically" has served as the county's recipient of absentee ballots the week prior to elections should have provided proof weeks ago.
Warman, too, may need even more time to confirm with the state that the county is within its legal rights to include any absentee ballots that -- for whatever reason -- were not received in the county Election Bureau by the close of business on the Friday before the election.
Deadlines are to be met, no matter the reason. Absentee ballots need to be in by the state mandated Friday deadline, in order for current and accurate voter lists to be generated for election poll workers to use at the following Tuesday's election.
Prior to accepting any late absentee ballots, the Election Board did not consult with the state for permission to accept them. Not did it clearly give a specific date when the county entered into a formal agreement that the post office was to be named as its recipient for absentee ballots the week prior to election. That should have been a date on the tips of every tongue on the Election Board going into public meetings to discuss ballots late due to "a mix up with the post office."
Should Warman allow none of the 18 late absentee ballots before him to count, what then happens to the unchallenged late absentee ballots that the Election Board counted last week that increased Zimmerlink's lead over Lohr from 12 to 18 votes? If the judge allows none of Lohr's contested 18 ballots to count, must we legally revert back to the earlier vote tally and declare Zimmerlink the winner by 12 votes?
Ultimately, Warman must back track and do the work that the Election Board failed to do. So we wait for his decision -- and may have to wait longer for any challenges that a candidate may have following that decision.
Unless Warman allows all 18 previously rejected votes and all 18 voted for Lohr, resulting in a tie, it's in the best interest of the county to declare Zimmerlink the winner already and move along.
At this point in time, it's so unlikely that someone will find another new batch of late absentee ballots postmarked the second, third or fourth of November, mixed in with the early letters for Santa, in the post office's mailbag.
jt
copyright protected
Homepage Return to Rants&Raves