Election Board may require court filing for credit on write-in name variations

Luzerne County’s Election Board may change the process for write-in candidates to seek credit for votes cast under different spelling variations of their name.

Board Chairwoman Denise Williams said she started inquiring about the matter after the November general election because nine candidates submitted letters requesting such credit, known as cumulation, while others did not.

The county had no form or protocol for cumulation online, which made her concerned other candidates had no idea the option was available, she said.

After further statewide research, she found some county election boards accept and decide cumulation requests, while others require candidates to file a petition in their county Court of Common Pleas if they want credit for name variations, she said.

County Assistant Solicitor Paula Radick told the board last week that county election boards have discretion on whether or not they want to get involved in cumulation.

If they don’t, state law allows candidates to seek cumulation through county court within five days after the election board certifies election results, Radick said.

Williams, who was appointed to the board last April, said she had been under the impression the board had to cumulate and was never informed it was optional.

Interpreting whether variations should be accepted puts the board in a difficult situation, Williams said.

She made up an example of someone seeking credit for votes under “B. Smith,” saying there could be another person within that ward or district meeting that description.

“A lot of the names are questionable. I became very aware of that. Some of these names probably would not fly,” Williams said. “Personally, I sometimes am very uncomfortable with that and feel that’s something a court should be doing.”

Board member Patrick Castellani also expressed reservations.

“I have a problem trying to interpret gray. It’s not a place I want to be,” he said.

Many name variations have been presented in cumulation requests, said board member Audrey Serniak. Candidates running write-in campaigns should make sure supporters know how to spell their name, she said.

Williams made a motion to stop future board cumulation and defer to the election law provision for candidates to file a petition in county court.

However, a vote on her proposal was postponed because Castellani and Serniak said they want to further consider the matter. The board may vote at its next meeting Feb. 9.

“Give the public a chance to think about it too because there would be people interested in whether we cumulate or not,” Serniak said.

The board should develop a form and post it online if it opts to continue cumulating, Radick said.

Williams concurred, saying that was her reason for raising the issue.

Board cumulating, if kept, should only be performed in races where it would determine whether someone appears on a ballot as a nominee or wins an office, Williams added. Some of the cumulation requests the board received in November involved candidates who did not have enough votes to win, even with all name variations accepted, she said.

“Because they sent in a request we did it, but it was extra work for nothing,” Williams said.

The tallying of write-in votes is a “very involved and long process” on its own without adding cumulation to the mix, she said.

Candidates have been requesting cumulation from the county election board for many years, according to articles dating back to 2001. These articles reference different request formats required through changing boards and election directors.

At times over the years, the cumulation requests have generated rare laughs at election board meetings as some candidates attempted to obtain credit for spellings barely resembling their names.