Walsh withdraws preliminary injunction request in Luzerne County election suit

Republican Jamie Walsh has withdrawn the preliminary injunction portion of his election-related litigation against Luzerne County, eliminating the need for a Monday afternoon federal court hearing in Williamsport, court filings show.

Walsh filed the litigation Oct. 25 against the county, the county election bureau and county election board. An Oct. 30 county court hearing was halted because the county and bureau requested a venue change from the county Court of Common Pleas to federal court due to the plaintiff’s assertion of Constitutional violations. U.S. District Court Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann in Pennsylvania’s Middle District is presiding over the case.

The litigation sought an order requiring the county to process remaining voter registrations and mail ballot applications.

The county said processing of both has been completed and that Walsh, the lone plaintiff, already cast a mail ballot.

Walsh wanted to present other voters as witnesses to discuss their experiences with voter registrations and mail ballots.

If the hearing had proceeded, county Election Director Emily Cook would have had to travel to Williamsport to testify because she must act as a county witness.

Representing Walsh, Attorney Charles Kannebecker, of Milford, submitted a letter to the court Monday indicating Walsh was withdrawing the preliminary injunction request due to the timing of the hearing at 4 p.m. on the eve of the election.

“Plaintiff fully understands the court’s schedule and respects its obligations to its matters. In light of the above, it would be difficult for any court at all to issue an injunction at 4 p.m. that could be practically effective,” Kannebecker wrote.

Kannebecker filed a second letter at the court’s request to clarify Walsh’s position.

He cited an example of why an injunction issued Monday evening would not be effective as a practical matter, saying an order requiring the defendants to mail out ballots would not help because voters must receive and return them by 8 p.m. the following day.

While the preliminary injunction issue is off the table, the underlying case will “proceed in normal fashion” with required filings, Kannebecker wrote.

Attorney Mark E. Cedrone, who is representing the county and election bureau, issued a statement reiterating his description of Walsh’s filing as a “patently frivolous lawsuit” that alleges his Constitutional rights were violated by the manner in which the county election bureau processed voter registration and mail ballot applications.

“Essentially, Mr. Walsh alleged disenfranchisement of his individual right to vote. He did not purport or plead to be acting on behalf of any group or individuals. What Mr. Walsh did not allege is that he has already cast his vote though a properly recorded mail in ballot. Therefore, Mr. Walsh suffers no harm from the falsely alleged misdeeds of the county and its bureau of elections,” said the statement from Cedrone, of Saxton & Stump in Philadelphia,

Cedrone said the allegations in both the complaint and injunction request are “incorrect, irrelevant, frivolous, and salacious,” and he cited “the absence of any supporting evidence.”

Through legal counsel, the county and election bureau put Walsh and his attorney on notice that they intend to seek sanctions for filing a frivolous suit, it said. The county and bureau intend to “vigorously and successfully defend this frivolous action which falsely maligns the hard-working people in the bureau of elections and has cost the county significant legal fees to date and for which the county will seek sanctions,” it said.

“The county will not allow proponents of unsupported claims of election fraud to sully the good work of its employees and otherwise unnecessarily divert scarce resources,” Cedrone’s statement said.