GEORGIA BALLOT ACCESS HANGS IN THE BALANCE

STATE TELLS JUDGES ONLY WELL-FUNDED CANDIDATES SHOULD BE ON BALLOT; TWO ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JUDGES SEEM TO AGREE

On December 17, the Eleventh Circuit heard Cowen v Raffensperger, 21-13199, the case that challenges the 5% (of the registered voters) petition requirement for candidates for U.S. House who are not members of parties that polled 20% of the vote in the last election for President or Governor.

The three judges are Frank Hull, a Clinton appointee; Britt Grant, a Trump appointee who was formerly Georgia’s Solicitor General; and William Pryor, who was formerly Alabama’s Attorney General. Pryor has heard many ballot access cases, from all three states in the Eleventh Circuit, and has never voted to strike down any state’s ballot access law.

The U.S. District Court Judge in this case had struck down the Georgia law earlier this year, after another panel of the Eleventh Circuit had remanded the case back and instructed her to decide the case on the evidence. The evidence shows that the 5% petition has existed since 1943, and no minor party has ever managed to comply with it; and no independent has complied with it since 1964, when the petition deadline was in October of the election year, the signatures weren’t checked, and U.S. House boundaries didn’t cross county lines.

The evidence shows that at least 20 candidates in this century tried and failed to complete the petition for U.S. House.

At the hearing, Judge Grant expressed the idea that states have a compelling interest in keeping candidates off the ballot if those candidates are not "reasonably diligent".

She and Judge Pryor also seemed to believe that a candidate is not "reasonably diligent" unless he or she has raised enough money to possibly win the election. The attorney for the state pushed this idea. Judge Hull asked if Wayne Parker, a Libertarian who tried to get on the ballot in 2002 and who had rasied $40,000 and had 35 petitioners, was a "reasonably diligent" candidate. The state attorney said he was not, and said he should have raised more money and hired more petitioners.

When Judge Hull asked if a candidate who raises $1,000,000 is "reasonably diligent", the attorney for the state agreed that such a person is "reasonably diligent."

Neither the U.S. Supreme Court, nor any other court, has ever said that states have a compelling interest in keeping candidates off the ballot if they are not "reasonably diligent." The term was used in the U.S. Supreme Court decision Storer v Brown in 1974. The court said that the test of a ballot access law that is too severe is whether a "reasonably diligent" candidate could comply, but it did not say that any harm is done if a candidate who is not "reasonably diligent" gets on the ballot. The only type of candidate that the U.S. Supreme Court has said should not be on the ballot is a "frivolous" candidate.

The Court has also recognized the harm caused by over-crowded ballots, but that is not relevant to this case, because Georgia has never had a regularly-scheduled government-printed general election ballot with more than three candidates for Governor or either House of Congress.

Generally, in the context of minor party and independent candidates, a "reasonably diligent" candidate is one who sets up a campaign webpage, appoints a campaign treasurer, accepts all invitations from groups to fill out candidate questionnaires and to speak, and who prepares and distributes campaign literature.

The idea that a "reasonably diligent" candidate is someone who has raised enough money to win must be balanced by the fact that in the last fifty years, there have been 7,737 instances when a minor party or independent candidate got on the ballot for U.S. House (see the charts on pages four and five to see a state-by-state breakdown, by year). But the only ones who were on the ballot as independent candidates, who won, are Bernie Sanders, Virgil Goode, John Moakley, and Jo Ann Emerson.

And in the last fifty years, no minor party candidate has been elected to the U.S. House. The U.S. Supreme Court understands that minor party congressional candidates are useful, even though neither they nor anyone else expects them to win.

In Sweezy v New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, the Court said, "All political ideas cannot and should not be channeled into the programs of the two major parties. History has amply proved the virtue of political activity by minority, dissident groups, who innumerable times have been in the vanguard of democratic thought and whose programs were ultimately accepted…the absence of such voices would be a symptom of grave illness in our society."

In Lubin v Panish, 415 U.S. 709 (1974), the Court said, "It is expected that a voter hopes to find on the ballot a candidate who comes near to reflecting his policy preferences on contemporary issues…The process of qualifying candidates for a place on the ballot may not constitutionally be measured solely in dollars."

In Anderson v Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) the Court said. "Historically political figures outside the two major parties have been fertile sources of new ideas and new programs; many of their challenges to the status quo have in time made their way into the political mainstream…The primary values protected by the First Amendment are served when election campaigns are not monopolized by the existing political parties."

In Norman v Reed, 502 U.S. 279, the last time the U.S. Supreme Court heard a minor party ballot access case, the Court said, "For more than two decades, this Court has recognized the constitutional right of citizens to create and develop new parties. The right derives from the First and Fourteenth Amendments and advances the constitutional interest of like-minded voters to gather in pursuit of common political ends, thus enlarging the opportunities of all voters to express their own political preferences."

Judge Pryor spent a great deal of the time in the oral argument, asking about federal campaign laws that limit the amount of money that individuals may contribute to petitioning for congressional congressional candidates. These laws have existed since 1974. Judge Pryor seemed undecided whether the existence of these limits should determine which way he decides this case. Of course it is good that he was considering the impact of restrictions on the amount of money that a minor party candidate can raise.

But, unfortunately, it also seemed to indicate that he believes that only well-funded candidates deserve to be on the ballot. He seemed unaware that in two unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decisions, Bullock v Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972) and Lubin v Panish, 415 U.S. 709 (1974), the Court said that states must allow candidates on the ballot even if they personally and their supporters do not have enough money to pay candidate filing fees. In the Lubin case, the candidate and his supporters together were unable to raise enough money to pay the $701.60 fee. This decision clearly shows that even candidates who have very modest amounts of funds for a campaign have a right to be on the ballot.

The Lubin decision reflects the intent of the founding fathers. When the U.S. Constitution was drafted, all thirteen states did not allow anyone to run for state legislature who did not own property. But the drafters of the U.S. Constitution wanted the U.S. House to be open to all candidates. They set qualifications of age, citizenship and residency, but not property. In U.S. Term Limits v Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) the Court said states cannot add to those qualifications.

The Supreme Court Has Put Candidates on the Ballot Who Did Not Get Big Votes

The U.S. Supreme Court has sometimes ruled in favor of ballot access for candidates who polled a low vote, showing that the Court means it when it says that even candidates without the ability to receive a big vote belong on the ballot. In 1974 the Court ruled that the Communist Party should have been on the ballot in Indiana, in Communist Party of Indiana v Whitcomb, 414 U.S. 441. The party had only polled 25,595 votes for president in the entire nation in the 1972 election, which was when the case had been filed.

Also in 1974, the Court ruled that a lower court had been correct to put the U.S. Labor Party candidate for U.S. House from Pennsylvanis’s First District, even though he had only polled 1,141 votes, or .9%. Salera v Tucker, 424 U.S. 959 (1976, a summary affirmance).

In 1979, the Court ruled that the lower courts had been correct to put the Socialist Workers Party, and the U.S. Labor Party, on the 1977 ballot for Mayor of Chicago. Yet the Socialist Workers Party had only polled 5,546 votes, .9% of the vote; and the U.S. Labor Party had only polled 2,497 votes, .4%. Illinois State Board of Elections v Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173.

Missing Issues in the Argument

The attorney for the Libertarian Party opened his remarks by making reference to the Equal Protection part of the case. Georgia allows Libertarians for all statewide office to be on the ballot automatically, with no petition. Yet it requires a virtually impossible petition for Libertarians who want to run for U.S. House. The attorney for the party wanted to highlight his argument that this disparate treatment violates Equal Protection. But the judges took control of the 39-minute argument, and they never made any reference to this part of the case, nor gave an opportunity for the Libertarian side to talk about it.

Unfortunately, Judge Pryor didn’t even seem aware of this part of the case. He repeatedly asserted in a commanding voice that the 5% petition for U.S. House has not changed since these laws were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971. But they have changed. The difference is that in 1971, Georgia treated all minor party and independent candidates alike. They all needed a 5% petition. The Equal Protection problem hadn’t existed in 1971. But ever since 1986, a new party is free to submit a party petition that doesn’t even mention its nominees, and if it succeeds in completing that petition (which requires 1% of the number of registered voters) it is on the ballot for all statewide office. It retains that status as long as one of its statewide nominees polls at least 1% of the vote. The Libertarian Party did this petition in 1988 and has never had to do it again; one of its statewide nominees always gets the needed number of votes, so the party is always on the ballot automatically for all the statewide races.

Another part of the case not mentioned at the oral argument involves the disparity between the presidential petition and the U.S. House petition. The presidential petition in Georgia is only 7,500 signatures, whereas a U.S. House petition is approximately 25,000 signatures. Twice, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that district office petitions cannot be a higher number of signatures than petitions for statewide office. Georgia is in violation of these precedents, but that point didn’t seem to be in the consciousness of the judges.

NEW YORK LOSS

On December 22, U.S. District Court Judge John G. Koeltl, a Clinton appointee, upheld the New York statewide petition requirement for independent candidates and the nominees of unqualified parties. He also upheld the new definition of a political party, a group that polls 2% of the vote every two years for the office at the top of the ballot (president in presidential years, and Governor in midterm years).. SAM Party of New York v Kosinski, s.d., 1:20cv-323. The challenged laws were passed in 2020 and increase the statewide petition from 15,000 to 45,000 signatures. The old definition of a qualified party was a group that polled 50,000 votes for Governor.

Judge Koeltl issued the opinion less than 24 hours after the oral argument. His opinion has factual errors. Page 23 says New York requires the seventh highest number of signatures for statewide office. Actually, for president, New York requires either the third highest or fourth highest, depending on how one classifies Florida. The only two states that clearly require more signatures for president are California and Texas. Florida requires no signatures if the party is recognized by the Federal Election Commission.

For other statewide office, New York requires more signatures than any state other than Texas, Alabama, and Georgia. The judge made these errors because he relied on erroneous evidence. For example, one piece of evidence says California requires 220,474 signatures in 2022, but no one in California in 2022 needs more than 65 signatures. One piece of evidence says Pennsylvania requires 57,913, but actually it only requires 5,000, as the result of a 2012 court opinion. One piece of evidence says North Carolina requires 82,542 signatures for an independent, but neglects to say that the North Carolina petition for a new party is only 13,757 signatures.

Page twenty-three says New York is "in the middle of the pack" regarding its 2% vote test for party status, but it fails to mention that the typical state allows the vote test to be met by any statewide office. New York is one of a few states that requires the vote test be met for president. It is far more difficult for a minor party to poll 2% for president, than for a lesser state office like Treasurer. Only four minor parties have polled as much as 2% for president in the last 70 years.

Page twenty-one mentions precedents from courts in other states that upheld vote tests in excess of 2%, but the opinion does not say that all those states (Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Arkansas) have a procedure by which a party that goes off the ballot, can come back on again before the next election, with a petition. New York has no such procedure. In addition, Oklahoma and North Carolina have drastically eased their laws on how parties remain on the ballot since those opinions came out.

Pages four and twenty-three say New York is justified in increasing its requirements, because the vote test was set in 1935 and New York now has four times the population it had back then. But the opinion does not say the the number of votes cast for president in New York was 5,596,399, whereas the New York presidential vote in 2020 was 8,594,826, an increase of 53.6%. The new vote test is now 171,897 votes, so the 2020 legislation increased it by 344%.

The decision was rendered in three separate cases, which had been combined. One is filed by the SAM Party; one by the Working Families Party; and one by the Libertarian and Green Parties. All of these parties will appeal to the Second Circuit. If the new law had been in effect in 2020, it is extremely likely that New York would have been the only state with only two presidential candidates on the ballot. No petition in 2020 for a minor party, minor party candidate, or independent candidate, in excess of 5,000 signatures, succeeded anywhere in the nation in 2020.

New Hampshire: Representative Kevin Craig (R-Lancaster) has introduced two bills to improve ballot access for minor parties and independent candidates. HB 1149 cuts the number of signatures for statewide office from 3,000 to 1,000, and makes similar reductions for U.S. House and legislature. HB 1197 eases the definition of a qualified party from a group that got 4% for Governor or U.S. Senator, to 1%.

New York: Assemblymember John Salka (R-Brookfield) has a bill to restore the pre-2020 statewide petition requirement and the old definition of a party.

State	1970	1972	1974	1976	1978	1980	1982	1984	1986	1988	1990	1992	1994
Al	9	12	5	2	2	10	4	6	1	7	2	13	1
Ak	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	2	1
Az	1	0	1	5	4	4	4	3	1	2	0	7	5
Ar	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	1	0
Ca	32	20	26	15	15	47	37	36	38	38	33	79	50
Co	4	4	2	4	3	7	5	7	1	1	2	4	2
Ct	1	1	7	9	2	2	7	5	1	2	1	10	6
De	1	2	4	4	0	1	3	1	1	0	1	1	2
DC	n/a	3	4	3	3	1	0	0	1	2	3	2	2
Fl	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	9	0
Ga	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
Hi	0	0	0	4	3	2	3	2	2	2	2	2	3
Id	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	4	0
Il	0	1	3	4	1	1	3	1	1	2	7	6	2
In	0	1	2	3	8	2	5	11	11	0	0	4	1
Ia	3	1	2	5	2	6	1	0	0	1	1	4	7
Ks	3	5	5	5	1	2	4	4	0	0	0	4	0
Ky	1	3	6	3	3	4	6	2	3	1	1	1	1
La	2	1	2	3	2	1	5	1	2	0	7	4	4
Me	0	0	0	1	6	0	1	1	1	0	0	1	2
Md	2	0	0	2	0	0	0	2	0	0	1	1	0
Ma	1	5	6	8	6	3	2	2	3	2	2	17	3
Mi	7	18	50	59	7	23	20	13	10	19	12	29	24
Mn	2	3	3	10	3	5	4	3	2	3	0	16	2
Ms	2	4	6	3	4	2	3	2	0	2	0	3	1
Mo	6	2	2	3	3	0	2	2	1	5	0	6	6
Mt	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	1	0	0	0	1	1
Neb	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Nev	0	0	1	2	1	1	1	2	1	2	2	4	3
NH	0	0	0	1	1	0	1	3	0	1	0	5	5
NJ	8	12	25	35	19	38	26	10	7	11	27	65	24
NM	0	0	2	1	0	0	0	2	0	1	0	1	2
NY	28	41	38	37	31	39	40	18	29	26	31	29	28
NC	2	2	4	8	3	2	12	1	0	0	0	9	0
ND	0	1	0	1	2	2	1	0	1	1	0	0	1
Oh	3	10	6	19	7	6	16	9	3	0	2	9	5
Ok	2	1	1	7	0	1	3	3	1	0	0	1	2
Or	0	0	0	3	1	1	0	0	0	0	2	1	6
Pa	23	6	7	18	8	16	17	9	7	6	1	11	9
RI	2	1	0	2	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	4	0
SC	3	0	4	3	2	3	2	6	1	2	1	3	1
SD	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	1
Tn	3	5	3	7	3	1	3	0	4	1	10	23	8
Tx	0	5	6	10	2	11	29	1	8	14	2	14	24
Ut	2	2	3	1	5	3	1	5	3	3	5	7	3
Vt	1	0	1	0	1	1	4	3	3	4	2	4	4
Va	1	6	5	6	2	5	4	3	3	3	8	6	7
Wa	4	1	4	12	3	2	3	0	0	0	2	10	1
WV	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
Wi	8	9	4	5	5	4	10	5	4	1	1	7	7
Wy	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	2	0	1	1
Tot	169	189	250	336	174	261	298	188	158	168	171	448	268

State	1996	1998	2000	2002	2004	2006	2008	2010	2012	2014	2016	2018	2020
Al	10	0	7	7	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0
Ak	2	1	3	2	2	3	1	0	2	1	2	0	0
Az	4	7	8	8	8	9	11	12	9	6	2	2	0
Ar	2	1	0	0	1	0	3	4	8	4	4	4	2
Ca	106	77	111	55	42	41	33	42	4	4	2	5	0
Co	5	5	13	14	8	8	4	13	16	8	8	9	15
Ct	10	10	6	3	3	2	7	4	4	4	3	3	6
De	3	2	2	1	2	2	1	3	2	2	2	0	2
DC	2	3	2	1	0	0	1	2	2	2	2	3	7
Fl	1	1	8	5	3	5	11	16	17	9	11	5	6
Ga	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
Hi	5	2	2	3	1	0	3	2	0	1	2	3	4
Id	2	1	3	2	0	5	0	3	2	0	1	5	3
Il	14	6	2	6	3	2	10	13	5	2	2	2	4
In	10	8	11	10	7	3	5	10	5	8	9	1	5
Ia	11	6	9	5	3	5	4	7	6	2	3	6	1
Ks	5	1	4	5	5	4	8	5	3	1	6	2	2
Ky	0	3	6	4	4	4	1	2	5	1	0	6	3
La	0	0	10	8	0	5	6	5	9	8	9	10	6
Me	1	1	1	0	1	1	0	0	0	2	0	1	0
Md	0	0	1	1	7	4	8	10	10	4	11	11	1
Ma	8	4	3	1	2	3	1	10	4	1	5	2	3
Mi	36	32	50	22	30	30	34	40	29	26	30	15	21
Mn	8	12	14	5	5	6	4	13	2	5	3	2	7
Ms	12	9	8	9	5	2	2	11	8	10	8	5	0
Mo	16	11	24	10	17	13	10	12	10	10	11	10	8
Mt	1	2	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0
Neb	2	1	3	4	5	0	0	1	0	1	1	0	3
Nev	6	5	8	8	5	6	9	6	8	8	8	11	7
NH	3	1	3	2	1	1	2	3	2	0	4	2	2
NJ	40	41	37	23	26	19	21	25	29	25	29	25	15
NM	3	2	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	2	0
NY	31	29	39	32	12	5	12	12	15	14	9	15	22
NC	20	12	13	12	0	0	3	4	3	1	1	6	4
ND	1	1	2	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	1
Oh	17	3	32	4	1	1	6	19	10	6	4	6	5
Ok	4	2	9	3	3	2	2	3	6	5	3	3	3
Or	12	11	5	6	9	6	13	7	8	11	6	9	5
Pa	14	10	7	10	17	6	6	5	6	1	2	2	0
RI	6	3	2	2	2	2	1	3	2	0	2	0	1
SC	6	6	13	9	3	4	2	12	3	3	7	5	3
SD	2	0	1	1	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	2	1
Tn	27	10	6	15	9	14	13	33	18	15	12	13	11
Tx	30	28	29	35	35	31	31	36	48	42	41	37	43
Ut	6	7	9	4	8	7	5	8	5	11	4	5	5
Vt	5	4	4	4	2	6	5	2	3	4	1	2	5
Va	9	6	10	3	5	10	5	14	9	16	3	3	1
Wa	4	5	11	8	4	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	0
WV	0	3	3	0	1	0	0	1	0	2	1	1	0
Wi	4	2	1	5	9	3	4	5	2	3	6	3	1
Wy	1	1	2	1	1	1	1	1	3	2	2	2	2
Tot	527	398	559	379	319	285	311	443	344	294	284	271	246

Working Families Party: Hartford, Connecticut, Shonta Browdy, Board of Education.

SAM Party: Newton, Connecticut Mayor, Dan Rosenthal.

Green Party: in Connecticut: Dagmar Noll, Council, Willimantic; Charlie Krich and Cassandra Martineau, Director, Willimantic Taxing Ditrict; Leif Smith, Constable, Redding; Hugh Birdsall and Emery Ng, Zoning Board of Appeals, Clinton; Michael Westerfield, Board of Assessment Appeals, Windham.

In Pennsylvania: Matthew Reitenhauer, School Director, Brandywine Heights, Berks Co.; Jay Sweeney, Auditor, Falls Township, Wyoming Co.; and these five Election Judges: Abigail Hunter, Pittsburgh; Jay Ting Walker, Pittsburgh; Andrew Moses Oliva, Reading; William Pilkonis, Scranton; Bert Schultz, Phildelphia.

Libertarian Party: 122 partisan wins, all in Pennsylvania. They are listed by county:

Allegheny: Township Auditors Jeanne Matucheski (North Fayette) and Michael Prato (Indiana twp.); Constables Andrew Holmes (Bellevue), Christie Ann Ketterman (Bethel Park), John Markiewicz (Hampton), Kamron Krull (Coraopolis), Matthew Darwin and Richard McGough (Pittsburgh), Robert W. Bates (Upper St. Clair).

Armstrong: Benjamin Seevers (North Apollo Boro Council) and Kittanning Boro Constable).

Beaver: Township Auditors James Perricellia (Daugherty), Matos Webb (Hopewell), Theodore Zobb (New Sewickley).

Berks: School directors Zachary Stubits (Brandywine Hts.) and Caroline Brown (Daniel Boone); Constables Ryan Brown (Cumru) and Steven Rittenhouse (Birdsboro).

Bradford: School directors Donna Wioskowski (Towanda), Michael Owen (Athens) and Jaime Alsing (Sayre). Township Auditor Shelley Young (South Creek). Election Judge Julie Perry (Rome).

Bucks: Boro council Joseph Jackson (Mechanicsville) and School Director Kevin Smith (Morrisville).

Butler: Township Auditors Biidaw Morin (Connoquenessing), Bryan Byers (Winfield), Eric Davis (Buffalo), and Noah Proctor (East Butler). Boro Council Christopher Logan (Connoquenessing). Constable Jessica Lee Gutshall (Middlesex).

Cambria: Boro Mayor Anthony Keiper (Southmont).

Chester: Constables Jason Crane (West Chester), Robert Gallek (West Grove) and Nicholas Ankrom (Franklin). Township Auditors Jeanne McManus (Kennett), John Haibach (North Coventry), and Luke Misciagna (Sadsbury),

Cumberland: Constable Jacob Lockwood (West Pennsboro); Township Auditor James Lane (North Middleton).

Dauphin: Constable Brittney Mutarelli (Upper Paxton); Township Auditor Chris Wall (Derry).

Delaware: Constables Joshua Wagner (Upper Providence) and Patrick Hochstuhl (Swarthmore); Township Auditor Casey Carty; School Director William Draper (Chichester).

Erie: Constable Kristopher Hess (Wesleyville); School Director Frank Grzegorzewski (Harbor Creek).

Franklin: Township Auditor Justin Kint (Washington); Election Judge James Kinton (Chambersburg).

Indiana: Constable Jesse Weber (Indiana Boro).

Jefferson: Constable Matthew Decker (Snyder).

Lackawanna: Constables Bryan Chase (Archibald) and Jason Vo (Newton).

Lancaster: Election Judge James Miller (East Donegal).

Lawrence: Constable Zackary Proctor (New Castle); Township Auditor (Hickory).

Lebanon: Township Auditor Angelene Olesh (West Cornwall); Constables Bryan DeStefano (So. Londonderry), Christopher Moyer (No. Londonderry), and Heidleburg).

Lehigh: Constables Douglas Kunkle and Miguel Santiago (both Allentown); Township Auditors Coby Rush (Lower Milford), Eric Hagan (Upper Saucon), Joann Cannon (Lowhill), and Lynn Clark (No. Whitehall).

Luzerne: Constables Dylan Scherer (Dallas) and John Constantino (Wyoming); Election Judge Betsy Summers (Wilkes-Barre).

Lycoming: Mayor Sally Combs (Jersey Shore); Boro Council Savanna Young Pick (South Williamsport).

Monroe: Election Judge Joel Getz (East Stroudsburg).

Montgomery: Constables John McArdle (Franconia), Kris Hart (Ambler), and Tyler Blaetz (Upper Dublin); Election Judge John Waldenberger (Telford).

Northampton: Township Auditors Daniel Balcom (Palmer), Laura Hackenberg (Lower Mount Bessel), and Justin Smith (Moore).

Northumberland: Commissioners Jacob Wright and John Burd (Coal Township); County Recorder Alison Smeltz (Northumberland); Election Judges Angelina and John Merchlinsky (Sunbury).

Pike: Township Auditor Robert Sweeney (Dingman).

Potter: Mayor Kate Crosby (Austin); Council Andrew Dynda (Austin).

Schuykill: Constables Amy Lauderman (Minersville) and Gregory Wall (South Manheim); Election Judge Avery Rumberger (Cass).

Tioga: Constables Jeffrey Bell (Chatham) and Roger Easton (Westfield).

Washington: Mayor Demo Agoris (Houston); Auditors John-Robert Wood (Union) and Richard Frediani (North Strabane); Constable Randy Kief (Houston); Election Judge JoAnn Pellman (Houston).

Wayne: Auditor Johnny Leland Robinson (Damascus).

Westmoreland: Auditors Arthur Martino and Melinda Fischer (Allegheny); Constables Gregory Kruk (New Florence), Thomas Anderson (Mount Pleasant) and Seth Tuthill (Rostraver).

York: Township Supervisor Craig Miller (Manchester); School Director Matthew Gelazela (Southwestern); Boroough Council Dave Womack (Dallastown); Auditors Brian Siatkowski (West Manchseter), Jay Nolt (Newberry), Michael Helm (East Manchester), Nicole Shultz (Windsor), Tim McMaster and William Lieske (Conawago); Constables Jacob Winograd (Dallastown), Joseph Foehlinger (Wrightsville), and Michael Schearer (Heidelberg).