Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re Pennsylvania General Election for Snyder County Commissioner

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 24, 2003Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

Judge LEAVITT.

I respectfully dissent. “The technicalities of the [Pennsylvania] Election [Code1] ... are necessary for the preservation of the secrecy and purity of the ballot and must, therefore, be meticulously observed.” In re Primary Election of April 28, 1964, 415 Pa. 327, 336, 203 A.2d 212, 217 (1964). While it is true that the deci-sional law of this Commonwealth generally frowns upon discounting a vote where voter intent can be discerned, see, e.g., Appeal of James, 377 Pa. 405, 410, 105 A.2d 64, 66 (1954), “violations of substantive provisions of the [Election]…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. James AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
  2. Appeal of YergerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  3. McCracken AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
  4. Democratic County Committee AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
  5. In re April 10, 1984 ElectionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1984

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API