R. Fagan v. Bucks County Bd. of Elections
690 C.D. 2024
Pa. Commw. Ct.Jun 13, 2025Background
- Renee Fagan filed a complaint and sought a preliminary injunction against the Bucks County Board of Elections and its members, alleging that their election training procedures violated the Pennsylvania Election Code by not requiring hand counting of paper ballots at voting sites.
- The Board uses an electronic voting system and asserted that its procedures are governed by a different section of the Election Code, which does not require hand counting.
- A hearing was held, and the trial court (Common Pleas) denied Fagan’s motion for a preliminary injunction, finding she was unlikely to succeed on her claim.
- Fagan filed her notice of appeal 44 days after the order denying her motion, exceeding the 30-day time limit for appeals and possibly the 10-day period for Election Code matters.
- Fagan argued she was unaware of the proper deadline, believing it referred to business days, and requested leniency from the Court.
- The Commonwealth Court reviewed the timeliness issue before the merits and ultimately quashed the appeal as untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compliance with Election Code | Board’s training procedures violate Sec. 1222 for not including hand counting at voting sites | Use of electronic voting system makes Sec. 1222 inapplicable; procedures follow Sec. 1113-A | Fagan is unlikely to succeed; Board’s interpretation prevails |
| Timeliness of Appeal | Mistakenly construed deadline as business days; requested grace | Deadline is mandatory; no exception applies | Appeal quashed as untimely |
| Eligibility for Nunc Pro Tunc | Unawareness should excuse late filing | No exceptional circumstances; ignorance of the law is no excuse | No grounds for nunc pro tunc relief |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Phila. v. Frempong, 865 A.2d 314 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (timeliness of appeal is jurisdictional and always reviewable)
- Criss v. Wise, 781 A.2d 1156 (Pa. 2001) (nunc pro tunc relief only in unique, compelling cases where unforeseeable and unavoidable events preclude timely appeal)
- Finney v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 472 A.2d 752 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (ignorance of the law does not excuse missed appeal deadline)