Editorial: The petty animosity of political ballot challenges

On Tuesday, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court looked at the protestations of Westmoreland County Republican Committee Chairman Bill Bretz and shrugged.

Bretz filed a lawsuit in March in the county Court of Common Pleas in an attempt to remove two of the three Republicans challenging incumbents Sean Kertes and Doug Chew for the party’s nominations in the May 16 primary.

The grounds were that, while John Ventre and Paul Kosko had filed required statements of financial interests with the election bureau, they also had not filed them with the chief clerk. Bretz argued state election code demanded two separate county offices get the documents. Judge Jim Silvis ruled the one copy was enough.

But it wasn’t enough for Bretz, who said when he filed the challenge that he saw it as “an opportunity for the two candidates I am supporting to eliminate two rivals without firing a shot.” He appealed the Silvis ruling to the Commonwealth Court, which affirmed it.

The matter was then kicked up to the state’s highest bench. The Supreme Court declined to hear it, clearing the way for Kosko and Ventre to join Kertes, Chew and the remaining challenger, former deputy sheriff Patricia Fritz, on the ballot.

Can we please be done with this now? Not just for this race but for others going forward, it’s important to not let the petty animosity of politics intrude on the process of elections at every turn.

In Westmoreland County, it is this attempt by Bretz to exert his picks on a ballot that is already likely to be as close to a clean sweep for the GOP as legally possible. In Allegheny County, it is ugly mudslinging in multiple county races that are just as likely to be decided in the Democratic primary.

“This is a loss for election integrity,” said Bretz, who still insists on the letter of the two filings.

It is a familiar argument that is rooted in state law that makes for puzzling backup requirements. Remember the many rulings about signatures and dates on multiple envelopes for mail-in ballots?

These belt-and-suspenders requirements seem designed to create opportunities for challenges — but only when convenient. Bretz didn’t seem to care about Chew filing a late campaign finance report that prompted a $250 fine, after all. The GOP committee immediately endorsed all its incumbents in February, before some people had even decided to run.

All the lawsuit and appeals have done is take up court time, waste money and delay the printing of the ballots.

But Bretz is right about one thing. If the courts think only one office really needs to get a copy of the financial statements, the state should make that the rule across the board and prevent this from happening again.