Berks urges quick action on appeals
The clock is ticking, and the Berks County commissioners are joining a growing chorus asking for a bit of clarity about the May primary election.
The commissioners and their counterparts throughout the state are asking the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to take swift action on appeals to the state’s new legislative maps to give counties clear guidance and deadlines to properly prepare for the upcoming primary. With so much uncertainty surrounding crucial election items, they say it is increasingly difficult for counties and election offices to complete the tasks necessary to run an election.
“The longer it takes for the court to provide a final decision, the harder it becomes for counties to meet the various deadlines for the May primary,” said Berks Commissioner Kevin Barnhardt, who leads the election board. “Our election services staff does an incredible job each year to run fair and successful elections, but they need clear guidance and a reasonable amount of time in order to pull off such an enormous feat.”
The commissioners said they strongly support the filing of a legal brief by the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania with the Supreme Court on Monday regarding the appeals to the legislative reapportionment maps.
The Pennsylvania Legislative Reapportionment Commission voted last month to finalize the maps for the state’s 203 House seats and 50 Senate seats. The passage of the new maps is a crucial moment in the once-in-a-decade redistricting process.
But the new maps are facing multiple challenges in court.
The state Supreme Court set a deadline of March 7 for all appeals and briefs, and the Legislative Reapportionment Commission has until March 11 to respond. It is unclear how long after that a decision would be rendered by the court.
In its brief, the commissioners association asks the court to expedite its decision in the case and any decisions that would adjust the 2022
primary election calendar. If the primary election calendar is changed, the association asked the court to set a schedule that allows county boards of elections a reasonable amount of time to prepare ballots, program voting machines and complete other tasks imposed by the election code.
“This is not about taking a position on the merits of the case being considered, but a reminder that these cases and any changes that emerge from them, have a direct impact on our ability to properly do our job,” Berks Commissioner Michael Rivera said. “Late decisions and indecision will force counties across the state to further stretch their resources and staff during an already demanding election process.”
The commissioners pointed out that many tasks can only occur after the filing of nomination petitions.
As it stands, the deadline for circulating nomination petitions for state committees and for seats in the state General Assembly is suspended based on various court orders.
They said the county cannot begin preparing paper ballots or programming election machines until nomination petitions have been circulated and filed, objections have been adjudicated and the secretary of the commonwealth has provided a list to each county of the candidates to appear on the ballots. With the election set for May 17, statutory deadlines for these tasks are rapidly approaching.
While the court may consider changing the primary election calendar, the commissioners are strongly against the idea of holding two primary elections. They said holding a second primary election would create a considerable additional cost to rent polling places, print a second ballot and program voting equipment and further complicate the difficult task of securing poll workers on Election Day.
It would also put a strain on the elections staff to conduct a second primary election while already busy completing the canvassing and certification of the first one.
Berks Commissioners Chairman Christian Leinbach said that not having a quick resolution to the legal questions surrounding elections creates a murkiness that could impact voters’ faith in the election.
“The uncertainty and confusion created by these legal delays does not help bolster voter confidence in the electoral process,” he said. “We are hopeful that the court will understand the significant challenges counties and election staffs are facing and rule expediently so that these processes can move forward.”
But, he added, regardless of the final outcome, the team working in the election office will do everything necessary to ensure a fair and free election for voters.