Two individuals from Pennsylvania have issued a lawsuit, suggesting that the poor management of their county’s election process has suppressed their voting rights. William French, an honorable Army veteran with disabilities, and Melynda Reese, a committed wife aiding her sick spouse, are challenging Luzerne County directly with the litigation initiated in March 2023. They argue that inadequate preparation and stocking of paper ballots during the 2022 midterm elections deprived them of their rightful ability to make their voices heard in the democratic process.
Despite multiple attempts to exercise their right to vote, French and Reese were dismissed by county officials who repeatedly instructed them to come back at a later time. It’s almost like an intentional ‘hide and seek’ game played on the voters instead of a democratic process. Their life circumstances, however, presented significant obstacles in returning to the polling locations.
This legal action was brought to the courts through the non-partisan Center for Election Confidence, a nonprofit entity whose mission centers on maintaining ethical conduct in our electoral proceedings and fiercely protecting the rights of all eligible voters. Notably, all citizens have the right to voice their opinions through their ballot, free of hassle or obstruction, which these citizens felt they were denied.
Jonathon Hauenschild, an attorney associated with the Center for Election Confidence but not directly representing the complainants in this lawsuit, highlighted the deep-rooted problem. He confirmed that the insufficient supply of paper ballots at polling stations prevented these individuals from casting their votes in person.
A worrying sentiment was shared by Hauenschild as he asserted that the county’s intransigent attitude towards making the necessary adjustments may cause a repeat of such instances on a larger scale in the upcoming presidential election. It’s a legitimate concern considering the higher voter turnout likely to result from the presidential race. He alarmingly signals the potential for history to repeat itself in 2024 or possibly worsen due to the county’s evident lack of preparedness.
Hauenschild conveyed his concerns to The Post, stipulating, ‘Everything that happened in 2022 could very well happen in 2024 or worse because the county’s just not prepared for it’. This foreshadowing is not one to be taken lightly, considering the gravity of what the presidential election implies for the nation.
Adding more red flags to the situation, Luzerne County representatives did not participate in a 2023 congressional inquiry into the issue. As a stark contrast to their firewall strategies, representatives from the House deduced that the county’s election administration was marred by ‘malfeasance, negligence, and incompetence’. These determinations hardly inspire confidence in the democratic process that the county administrators are supposed to protect.
Meanwhile, another account from the Luzerne County district attorney’s office in the previous year held the beleaguered Bureau of Elections accountable for the sloppy electoral proceedings. It identified a lack of proper instruction and training within the Bureau as a significant contributor to the debacle. The question thus remains as to why such a crucial arm of democracy was operated without sufficient training?
Amid all the turbulence, Luzerne County failed to respond to the plaintiffs’ call for a settlement in summer last year. The lack of action saw them turning to the US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to bring this to their attention, keeping this active lawsuit in clear sight of court officials. Without resorting to any self-criticism, Luzerne County officials proceeded to further complicate this avoidable scenario.
Interestlingly, Hauenschild speculates that while it’s understandable that the county may be reluctant to admit error, there still exist viable methods to bring this case to a reasonable conclusion. These don’t necessarily require a full-blown confession of mistakes. For instance, crafting a more forward-thinking administration strategy inclusive of amplified training on the state’s electoral laws for officials can work.
Hauenschild says, ‘We can’t go back and change the past, and that’s a lot of what [French and Reese] are focused on’. Certainly, their pursuit is not simply directed at addressing past grievances but rather laying a stronger foundation so that such disenfranchisement does not recur. They are quite literally embodying the spirit of Democrat scrutiny, attempting to transform failures into concrete steps forward.
The thought of their struggle serves as a grim reminder that the wrongs of yesterday need not inflict the citizens of tomorrow with disenfranchisement. For now, though, the outcome of their endeavor lies unknown. However, as Hauenschild stated, it’s crucial to focus on constructive solutions that can prevent such mishaps in the future.
Taking all of this into account, it’s interesting to contemplate the implications of Luzerne County’s unwillingness to accept their mistakes, or at least, admit there’s room for improvement. Such denial prevents not only the settlement of this lawsuit but also the development of much-needed electoral reforms. These reforms, in the right direction, are capable of rebuilding the lost voter confidence in the democratic process.
This unfortunate incident begs the question of what might happen should similar issues arise in the forthcoming 2024 presidential race. Will history repeat itself under the unprepared administration of Luzerne County, or will they learn from the past and adopt better strategies for the more important election? The outcome remains uncertain.
Regardless of the county’s reluctance to make amends, the noble intention behind French’s and Reese’s pursuit of justice cannot be discounted. Their goal is not merely to point fingers at the authorities; it’s about ensuring that these oversights are history and that no citizen is forced to echo their concerns about the infringement of their voting rights.
In conclusion, the events in Luzerne County have highlighted the pressing need for electoral system reformation. The apparent lack of preparedness and refusal to enact change could leave Luzerne County voters, and potentially many others, with a bitter taste in their mouths come November. And while the county’s handling has been questionable at best, the courage and commitment of people like French and Reese may yet prompt the necessary revisions to our election process.