Walsh withdraws motion for preliminary injunction in Luzerne County election case

Republican Jamie Walsh has withdrawn the preliminary injunction portion of his election-related lawsuit against Luzerne County, eliminating the need for a hearing in federal court Monday afternoon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

Walsh filed the lawsuit on Oct. 25 against the county, the county elections office and the county elections board. An Oct. 30 district court hearing was canceled because the district and office requested a change of venue from the District Court of Common Pleas to federal court because of the plaintiff's allegations of constitutional violations. U.S. District Court Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann in the Middle District of Pennsylvania is presiding over the case.

The dispute involved an order requiring the county to process remaining voter registrations and absentee ballot applications.

The county said it has completed processing both cases and that Walsh, the sole plaintiff, has already cast an absentee ballot.

Walsh wanted to feature other voters as witnesses to talk about their experiences with voter registration and mail-in ballots.

If the hearing had taken place, county elections director Emily Cook would have had to travel to Williamsport to testify because she had to serve as a county witness.

Attorney Charles Kannebecker of Milford, who represented Walsh, filed a letter with the court Monday saying Walsh was withdrawing the injunction request because of the timing of the hearing on the eve of the election at 4 p.m.

“The plaintiff fully understands the court’s timeline and respects its obligations in his affairs. Given this background, it would be difficult for any court to issue an injunction that could be of practical effect at 4 p.m.,” Kannebecker wrote.

Kannebecker submitted a second letter at the court's request to clarify Walsh's position.

He gave an example of why an injunction issued Monday evening would not be effective in practical terms: An order requiring defendants to mail ballots would not help, since voters must return ballots no later than 8 p.m received and returned the next day.

While the issue of the injunction is off the table, the underlying case will continue “in the normal manner” with required filings, Kannebecker wrote.

Attorney Mark E. Cedrone, representing the county and election office, issued a statement repeating his description of Walsh's filing as a “patently frivolous lawsuit” in which he claimed his constitutional rights were violated by the way how the county elections office processed voter registration was breached and absentee ballot applications.

“In essence, Mr. Walsh claimed that he had been deprived of his individual right to vote. He neither purported nor claimed to be acting on behalf of any group or individual. What Mr. Walsh has not claimed is that he has already cast his vote via a properly recorded mail-in ballot. Therefore, Mr. Walsh will suffer no harm from the falsely alleged misdeeds of the county and its elections office,” said the statement from Cedrone of Saxton & Stump in Philadelphia.

Cedrone said the allegations in both the complaint and the injunction request were “false, irrelevant, frivolous and salacious,” citing “the lack of any supporting evidence.”

Through legal counsel, the county and election office advised Walsh and his attorney that they intended to seek sanctions for filing a frivolous lawsuit, it said. The county and office intend to “vigorously and successfully defend this reckless action, which falsely maligns the hard-working people at the election office and has cost the county significant legal fees to date, and for which the county will seek sanctions.”

“The County will not allow proponents of unfounded claims of voter fraud to tarnish the good work of its employees and otherwise unnecessarily divert scarce resources,” Cedrone’s statement said.