holding that “[t]he counting of [] absentee ballots” constituted the board of elections’ “order” for purposes of the Section 1407(a) appeal period
How later courts described this case
- holding that “[t]he counting of [] absentee ballots” constituted the board of elections’ “order” for purposes of the Section 1407(a) appeal period
- affirming the lower court’s decision to count all of the absentee votes even though some but not all of the absentee votes might have been invalid
- “The power to throw out a ballot ... must be exercised very sparingly and with the idea in mind that ... a group of voters are not to be disfranchised at an election except for compelling reasons.”
- "The disenfranchisement of even one person validly exercising his right to vote is an extremely serious matter.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Eagen:
Since the election involved occurred prior to the effective date of the Act of August 13, 1963, P. L. 707, No. 379, 25 P.S. §3146.8 (Supp. 1963), the scope of our review on this appeal is very narrow and limited. *160 We may not inquire into the validity of the ballots involved. Legally, therefore, the result reached in the majority opinion is correct and inescapable.
Albeit, the case presents implications which should not go unnoticed. Serious irregularities in the casting of a large number of absentee ballots are clearly evident which give strong indication that this election may well have been stolen. It is a matter which demands the earnest attention of the law enforcement agencies in order that it shall not happen again and the will of the electorate thwarted by unscrupulous individuals charged with the responsibility of supervising the election machinery.
To me, dishonest and fraudulent election practices smell just as noxious whether they emanate from one area or another.