Luzerne County concludes write-in vote tally, slowed by names written in jest
Jun. 4—"Bruce Springstein!," Luzerne County Election Board Vice Chairwoman Alyssa Fusaro announced to the room of county workers and board members processing May 20 primary election write-in votes.
A few minutes later, another voter write-in selection of Bart Simpson for a school board seat was shouted out by someone else.
To break the monotony of reviewing more than 20,000 write-in votes and illustrate the scale of the problem of write-ins submitted in jest, the group decided to log the questionable ones on a dry-erase board.
The board eventually had to be flipped to the other side to squeeze them all in. A second board would have been needed if the group had recorded off-color write-ins, participants said.
It was funny but not funny.
Fusaro said many voters also write in their own names or those of friends or family, even though none of them want the seat.
Unlike the ones on the dry-erase board, these potential real contenders must be made part of the official record in races that have no candidates appearing on the ballot.
Some voters also go out of their way to write the same name for every single race on the ballot — local, county and statewide offices.
Write-ins that are not serious slow down completion of the write-in tallying while the public is pushing to see the write-in results as fast as possible, Fusaro said.
In addition to the usual cartoon characters, celebrities both dead and alive, classic figures from fiction, national-level politicians and random criminals, there were these verbatim selections in the county primary: "someone different," "no one else," "anybody else," "anybody honest," "unknown," "none of you," "all suck," "stop stealing," "someone new," "why I pay," "I've no kids," "anyone represent taxpayer," "none," "no buddy," "not me," "not you" and "not any of these clowns."
Other voters tried to convey a broader message by writing in "the U.S. Constitution," "life," "liberty," "justice," "property," "corruption," "sleaze," "racist," "connected" and "Free Palestine."
Also worth mentioning were selections of "box of paper," "baloney and ham sammich" and "box of rocks."
County officials started observing a marked increase in write-in votes in 2006 when the county switched to electronic ballot marking devices, with some theorizing the write-in option was more noticeable than it had been on the old lever machines.
The May 20 primary election tallying group spent six days at the county's Penn Place Building in downtown Wilkes-Barre adjudicating write-in votes and ballots that had been flagged due to extraneous marks and other issues.
Around 3 p.m. Tuesday, county Election Director Emily Cook alerted everyone that there were 39 ballots remaining for review.
"We can do this," someone yelled.
A collective countdown erupted when the last ballot review was underway about 10 minutes later.
Cook said a report on the write-in winners will be posted on the election page of the county website at luzernecounty.org.
Letters will be sent to write-in winners asking them to accept or decline the nomination by a certain deadline. Those accepting will be required to submit paperwork.
The election board is set to certify the primary results at 10 a.m. Monday in the county courthouse on River Street in Wilkes-Barre, said Election Board Chairwoman Christine Boyle.
Reach Jennifer Learn-Andes at 570-991-6388 or on Twitter @TLJenLearnAndes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
14 hours ago
What to know about the Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago that legalized same-sex marriage in the US
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago this month, on June 26, 2015, legalized same-sex marriage across the U.S. The Obergefell v. Hodges decision followed years of national wrangling over the issue, during which some states moved to protect domestic partnerships or civil unions for same-sex partners and others declared marriage could exist only between one man and one woman. In plaintiff James Obergefell's home state of Ohio, voters had overwhelmingly approved such an amendment in 2004 — effectively mirroring the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of same-sex couples. That laid the political groundwork for the legal challenge that bears his name. Here's what you need to know about the lawsuit, the people involved and the 2015 ruling's immediate and longer term effects: Obergefell and John Arthur, who brought the initial legal action, were long-time partners living in Cincinnati. They had been together for nearly two decades when Arthur was diagnosed with ALS, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, in 2011. Obergefell became Arthur's caregiver as the incurable condition ravaged his health over time. When in 2013 the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which had denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, the pair acted quickly to get married. Their union was not allowed in Ohio, so they boarded a plane to Maryland and, because of Arthur's fragile health, married on the tarmac. It was when they learned their union would not be listed on Arthur's death certificate that the legal battle began. They went to court seeking recognition of their marriage on the document and their request was granted by a court. Ohio appealed and the case began its way up the ladder to the nation's high court. A Democrat, Obergefell made an unsuccessful run for the Ohio House in 2022. Rick Hodges, a Republican, was director of the Ohio Department of Health from August 2014 to 2017. The department handles death certificates in the state. Before being appointed by then-Gov. John Kasich, Hodges served five years in the Ohio House. Acquainted through the court case, he and Obergefell have become friends. The lawsuit eventually titled Obergefell v. Hodges argued that marriage is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the due process and equal protection clauses. The litigation consolidated several lawsuits brought by same-sex couples in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee who had been denied marriage licenses or recognition for their out-of-state marriages and whose cases had resulted in conflicting opinions in federal circuit courts. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the right to marry is fundamental, calling it 'inherent in the liberty of the person,' and therefore protected by the Constitution. The ruling effectively nullified state-level bans on same-sex marriages, as well as laws declining to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The custody, property, tax, insurance and business implications of of the decision have also had sweeping impacts on other areas of law. Same-sex marriages surged in the immediate wake of the Obergefell decision, as dating couples and those already living as domestic partners flocked to courthouses and those houses of worship that welcomed them to legalize their unions. Over the ensuing decade, the number of married same-sex couples has more than doubled to an estimated 823,000, according to June data compiled by the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law. Not all Americans supported the change. Standing as a national symbol of opponents was Kim Davis, a then-clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, who refused to issue marriage licenses on religious grounds. She was briefly jailed, touching off weeks of protests as gay marriage foes around the country praised her defiance. Davis, a Republican, lost her bid for reelection in 2018. She was ordered to pay thousands in attorney fees incurred by a couple unable to get a license from her office. She has appealed in July 2024 in a challenge that seeks to overturn Obergefell. As he reflects of the decision's 10th anniversary, Obergefell has worried aloud about the state of LGBTQ+ rights in the country and the possibility that a case could reach the Supreme Court that might overturn the decision bearing his name. Eight states have introduced resolutions this year urging a reversal and the Southern Baptist Convention voted overwhelmingly at its meeting in Dallas earlier this month in favor of banning gay marriage and seeing the Obergefell decision overturned. Meanwhile, more than a dozen states have moved to strengthen legal protections for same-sex married couples in case Obergefell is ever overturned. In 2025, about 7 in 10 Americans — 68% — said marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by the law as valid, up from 60% in May 2015.
The Onion
a day ago
- The Onion
Congress, Now More Than Ever, Our Nation Needs Your Cowardice
Published: Who will stand up for our democracy? This question, fraught in even the most peaceful times, has only grown more pressing as our country approaches its 250th anniversary. Each passing day brings growing assaults on essential liberties like freedom of speech and due process. Meanwhile, our delicately assembled legal system faces a constant barrage of threats. Even as this issue reaches publication, the U.S. military has been deployed against peaceful protestors. We teeter on the brink of collapse into an authoritarian state. That is why, today, The Onion calls upon our lawmakers to sit back and do absolutely nothing. Members of Congress—now, more than ever, our nation desperately needs your cowardice. Our republic is a birthright, an exceedingly rare treasure passed down from generation to generation of Americans. It was gained through hard years of bloody resistance and can too easily be lost. Our Founding Fathers, in their abundant wisdom, understood that all it would take was men and women of little courage sitting in the corridors of power and taking zero action as this precious inheritance was stripped away—and that is where we have finally arrived. Now is not the time for bravery or valor! This is the time for protecting your own hide and lining your pocket. Now is not the time for listening to your idiotic constituents drone on about what's happening to their precious democracy. This is the time for getting down on all fours and groveling. Now is not the time to say, 'Enough is enough,' and have the tough conversations about resisting the ongoing assaults on American liberty. This is the time to let the wave of apathy and indifference roll over you as you think about getting a really nice renovation to your house in Kalorama. But what can I, one coward, do alone? you might ask. It's true. As a solitary person, your fecklessness will make little impact. But if you join together with the most craven senators and representatives in the Capitol, the impact will be immense: The corruption, the disregard for the rule of law, the shipping of residents to foreign gulags, the attacks on judges, the censorship and chilling of speech, the punishment of any and all dissent—it can be made that much worse if you just find it in yourself to clutch your head in your hands, wet the bed, and cower in the hope of being spared from the White House's wrath. It won't be easy, but you must search deep within yourself and muster up every ounce of gutlessness you have. Then, bend over and lick the president's boots. Why? Because ultimately none of this matters. Democracy? Equality? The U.S. Constitution? These are hollow phrases. They mean nothing. But money—delicious money? That is solid. You can hold it in your hands. You know this. We know this, too. Only our infantile citizenry fail to appreciate how much you stand to gain by kissing the ring. In our nation's darkest moments, the public often looks to Congress for profiles in meekness. We search for men and women much like yourselves, emotional weaklings who are afraid to meet their own glance in the mirror, insignificant do-nothings who quake in their boots at the mention of the slightest exertion. Many of you have already distinguished yourselves as such individuals. To them, our country's oligarchs can only offer their boundless thanks. Take solace knowing you are not alone in this endeavor. Over the grand expanse of American history, there have been countless lawmakers who managed to summon up their complete lack of backbone and do the easy thing. Think of the members of Congress who turned a blind eye to Japanese American internment, McCarthyism, or the horrors of the Holocaust, all because doing something seemed a little too hard, a little too inconvenient. These men should be your inspiration. Never forget: You stand on the shoulders of spineless giants. But we have not descended entirely from a nation of fearful men, have we? Let this be the moment to make amends for any missteps of American bravery and valor. Congress, we are asking, nay, demanding: This coming Independence Day, don't wave the Stars and Stripes, that enduring symbol of liberty and rebellion. Instead, wave the white flag of surrender. Tu Stultus Es, The Onion Editorial Board
Miami Herald
a day ago
- Miami Herald
Louisiana Classroom Ten Commandments Requirement Blocked by Court
A three-judge panel from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday struck down Louisiana's requirement for displaying the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. Newsweek reached out to the office of Governor Jeff Landry via email on Saturday for comment. The ruling represents a decisive legal victory for advocacy groups challenging the state mandate on constitutional grounds. This constitutional challenge reflects broader national tensions over religious expression in public education, with the mandate previously receiving support from President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers. The ruling's implications extend beyond Louisiana, as Texas advances comparable legislation that affects nearly 6 million students in the nation's second-largest school system, while Arkansas faces parallel legal challenges as well. Louisiana Republican Governor Jeff Landry enacted the classroom display requirement in June 2024, mandating poster-sized presentations of the Ten Commandments across all public-school facilities. The law was quickly challenged by parents of Louisiana school children from various religious backgrounds, who filed a lawsuit arguing it violates First Amendment language that guarantees religious liberty and forbidding government establishment of religion. The ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals marked a major win for civil liberties groups who said the mandate violates the separation of church and state. The decision upholds an order issued last November by U.S. District Judge John deGravelles who declared the mandate unconstitutional and ordered state education officials not to enforce it. In a court with more than twice as many Republican-appointed judges, two of the three judges involved in Friday's ruling were appointed by Democratic presidents. Historical precedent shows the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1980 that a Kentucky law requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, finding it had no secular purpose but served a plainly religious purpose. In 2005, the Court held that displays in Kentucky courthouses violated the Constitution, while simultaneously upholding a Ten Commandments marker on the grounds of the Texas state Capitol in Austin. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) senior staff attorney Heather L. Weaver told the Associated Press: "This is a resounding victory for the separation of church and state and public education. With today's ruling, the Fifth Circuit has held Louisiana accountable to a core constitutional promise: Public schools are not Sunday schools, and they must welcome all students, regardless of faith." Americans United for Separation of Church and State spokesperson Liz Hayes told the AP: "All school districts in the state are bound to comply with the U.S. Constitution. Thus, all school districts must abide by this decision and should not post the Ten Commandments in their classrooms." Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry wrote in a statement on Friday: "The Ten Commandments are the foundation of our laws—serving both an educational and historical purpose in our classrooms." Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said she would appeal the ruling, including taking it to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. Landry stated Friday that he supports the attorney general's plans to appeal. Reporting from the Associated Press contributed to this article. Related Articles Mahmoud Khalil Blasts Trump After Release: 'They Chose The Wrong Person'Trump Admin Gives Update on Using Military to Support ICE in 3 StatesMahmoud Khalil Cannot Be Detained or Deported, Judge RulesLouisiana Father Charged With Murder After Toddler Dies in Hot Car 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
