Opinion
May 25, 1964.
May 27, 1964.
Elections — Absentee ballots — Challenge — Sufficiency — Practice — Election Code.
1. A challenge to an absentee ballot which gives as the basis therefor one of the grounds enumerated in the Election Code of 1937, P. L. 1333, § 1308, as amended, and is substantially in the language thereof, is sufficient to require that a hearing be held thereon in conformity with that section of the code. [450]
2. There is no requirement in the Election Code that a challenge to an absentee ballot be supported, at the time of challenge or prior to hearing, by an affidavit or memorandum. [450]
Mr. Justice MUSMANNO and Mr. Justice COHEN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Argued May 25, 1964. Before BELL, C. J., JONES, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.
Appeal, No. 303, Jan. T., 1964, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, March T., 1964, No. 4922, in re Canvass of Absentee Ballots of April 28, 1964 Primary Election. Order reversed.
Appeal to court of common pleas from decision of City Board of Elections of Philadelphia dismissing challenges to absentee ballots without hearing. Before WATERS, J.
Order entered affirming decision of board. Challengers appealed.
Philip P. Kalodner, with him Gregory M. Harvey, for appellants.
Abraham E. Freedman, with him Benjamin R. Donolow, for Democratic County Executive Committee of Philadelphia, appellee.
Levy Anderson, First Deputy City Solicitor, with him Edward G. Bauer, Jr., City Solicitor, for County Board of Elections.
We are all of the opinion that a challenge to an absentee ballot which gives as the basis therefor one of the grounds enumerated in § 1308 of the Pennsylvania Election Code, June 3, 1937, P. L. 1333, added, March 6, 1951, P. L. 3, § 11, as amended, August 13, 1963, P. L. 707, § 24, 25 P. S. § 3146.8 (Supp. 1963), and is substantially in the language thereof, is sufficient to require that a hearing be held thereon in conformity with that section of the Code. There is no requirement in the Election Code that a challenge to an absentee ballot be supported, at the time of challenge or prior to hearing, by an affidavit or memorandum. Furthermore, this record discloses a sufficient and adequate challenge under the law to require a hearing by the Board of Elections on the validity of the challenged ballots.
The order below is reversed and the County Board of Elections is directed to hold a hearing on each challenged absentee ballot in conformity with the provisions of § 1308 of the Election Code, as amended.
Mr. Justice MUSMANNO and Mr. Justice COHEN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.