Opinion

Perles v. Northumberland County Return Board

  • 415 Pa. 154
  • 202 A.2d 538
  • 1964 Pa. LEXIS 436
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Jul 21, 1964
Status
Published
Author
Cohen
On the bench
Bell, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts
Cited by
18 cases
Authority
More cited than 9.7%

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

Dissenting Opinion by

Mr. Justice Cohen:

The record in this case clearly indicates that none of the statutory procedures required for the canvassing of absentee ballots was complied with by the return board or the judge specially assigned to hear this matter on appeal to the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County.

This flagrant disregard is aggravated by the fact that two judges of the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County constituted the return board and completely disregarded the mandate of the legislature in the conduct of their official responsibilities. The lack of adherence to the legislative requirement was further aggravated when the judge, specially assigned to hear the case, refused to permit appellant to present evidence in substantiation of his contentions.

In Blatt Appeal, 414 Pa. 449 , 200 A. 2d 882 (1964), this Court handed down an order reversing the lower court and the county board of elections directing them to hold a hearing on each challenged absentee ballot *161 in conformity with the provisions oí the Election Code. How can we do anything other than that in this litigation?

I would vacate the order of the lower court and return this matter to the return board so that a hearing may be held on each challenged absentee ballot.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.