Judge: Sabot will appear on ballot
A Washington County judge ruled a candidate for North Franklin Township supervisor who received the majority of GOP votes in the May primary – but whose opponent was incorrectly recorded as the winner – will appear as the party’s nominee on the November election ballot.
Noting “evidence clearly shows” Bob Sabot beat incumbent Supervisor Martha Ward by 38 votes, Judge Damon Faldowski, in an order filed Friday, directed the county elections office to correct the numbers posted in the results from the primary race.
“The Republican voters of North Franklin Township have exercised their right to vote in the May 2017 primary election, and in doing so have nominated Mr. Sabot as the party’s nominee for the position of township supervisor.”
Sabot and Ward, both Democrats, each filed for the Democratic primary race and ran write-in campaigns on the Republican side, for which no candidate filed.
Ward won the Democratic nomination. Among GOP voters, the canvass board tallied 106 votes for Sabot to Ward’s 68. But the board recorded an incorrect number of votes for Ward in one of the township’s three precincts, so results that were posted showed Ward receiving 108 votes.
Sabot’s attorney, Dennis Makel, filed his challenge to the posting June 8. The candidate first learned about the discrepancy in the posting when a reporter from the Observer-Reporter called him two days earlier.
Makel called Sabot and elections director Larry Spahr as witnesses during a hearing Wednesday before Faldowski. Sabot testified he spoke to Spahr multiple times following the May 16 primary, and Spahr confirmed he was the unofficial winner and told him to “sit tight” and he’d receive a letter directing him to accept or decline the nomination. Spahr corroborated that account of events and testified the canvass board correctly counted the votes but made a mistake when recording results from the first precinct.
Ward’s attorney, Steve Taczak, argued in a response he filed in the case, and in court last week, that Sabot had failed to file his appeal on time.
Under the election code, the deadline to do so was June 6 – five days after the canvass board completed its work.
Faldowski, however, found Sabot “sufficiently explained the reason for the delay,” and noted he “took action the very next day and contacted Attorney Dennis Makel to consult with him about the next appropriate action,” which led to the appeal.
He also dismissed a petition from Sabot for a recount of votes, finding the error was clerical, not computational.
On Thursday, before Faldowski ruled, the county commissioners signed and certified the Democratic local and countywide office election results, the Republican countywide office results and documentation to be sent to the state for statewide appellate court results.
The election board held in abeyance the signing of Republican local office results because Faldowski had not yet issued a ruling on what the board deemed “a timely filed petition for a recount” on the GOP write-in vote for North Franklin Township supervisor.
In his decision, Faldowski cited a 1946 decision in a similar case in Carbon County. In that case, the court also found “it is important that a majority of the voters should not have a representative forced upon them who is not of their choosing.”
Faldowski also said in a footnote in his opinion he was “surprised to learn” during Spahr’s testimony “it is incumbent upon the candidates to inquire as to when the vote will be certified,” and that the “current practice does not appear to provide the candidates with appropriate notice so that they may exercise their rights as permitted under the Election Code.”
Asked if elections officials were considering any changes to procedures in the office, Spahr said the “so-called system is legally required by the state Election Code. We don’t have much latitude.”
He said candidates have the right to attend the canvass board sessions, and some have called to get the approximate dates when ballots from their race are being counted.
“If the candidate was interested, we’ve checked and double-checked the ballots for the returns while they were there,” he said, “which is their right.”
Staff writer Barbara Miller contributed to this report.