In re General Election for District Justice 670 A.2d 629 543 Pa. 216, 670 A.2d 629 (Cite as: 543 Pa. 216, 670 A.2d 629) lots so that the result of the election can be reached by ascertaining the honest intent of the voters without disenfranchising the voters who cast the ballots which were altered. Petition I, slip order at 9-12. Based on these findings, the court then made the following Conclusions of Law: 3. A substantial number of ballots were altered by a person or persons other than the voter in the election for the office of District Justice in Judicial District 36-3-03. 4. The number of ballots altered by an unknown person or persons cannot be ascertained with reasonable accuracy; the correctness of the result of the election cannot be determined. *226 5. Should any of the altered ballots be stricken, the rights of the voters who cast those ballots would be prejudiced through no fault of their own. They would be disenfranchised. Petition I, slip order at 5. Therefore, the court concluded that the election should be **634 set aside and a special election conducted to ascertain the true intent of the voters. Laughlin then filed her Notice of Appeal from the Order of the lower court to the Commonwealth Court on April 15, 1994, while Zupsic filed his Notice of Appeal with this Court on April 18, 1994. By Order dated May 2, 1994, we noted probable jurisdiction over Zupsic's appeal, and on May 4, 1994, the Commonwealth Court transferred the Laughlin appeal to this Court. On May 5, 1994, the court of common pleas filed an opinion in this matter pursuant to Rule 1925(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), to "more fully explain" why it set aside the election. Petition II. In this opinion, the court noted that, although the voting machines operated properly on both election night and on January 5, there were substantial differences in the vote totals for the two candidates. Petition II, slip op. at 1. Further, most of the significant differences occurred in five specific polling places and only within the Zupsic-Laughlin race. Id. More specifically, the court noted that both the undervote and overvote totals recorded by the machines changed in Laughlin's favor. Id. at 1-2. An overvote occurs when the elector votes for more candidates for a given office than are Page 6 to be elected, while an undervote occurs when the elector votes for fewer candidates than are to be elected. In the present case, the January 5 machine count showed that the number of overvotes increased (such that votes previously counted for Zupsic were now considered void), while the number of undervotes decreased (such that ballots previously counted for neither candidate were now counted for Laughlin). Id. The court explained that the increase in overvotes was attributable to "a number of ... altered marks" that had been placed next to Laughlin's name on ballots where Zupsic's oval *227 was completely filled. Id. Likewise, the number of undervotes increased because "a number of the altered marks" had been placed next to Laughlin's name where the ballot previously bore no marks for either candidate. Id. Additionally, the court noted that the testimony of five voters who maintained that they did not place a mark in the oval for Laughlin even though their ballots had such marks. Id. at 3. Further, the court found "overwhelming" evidence that more than five ballots were altered, noting that forty-five of the eighty-seven contested ballots had marks for Laughlin that were "substantially inconsistent" with most other marks on the ballot. Id. at 3, 8. However, the court did not identify which forty-five ballots these were. Also, while the court concluded that at least two persons did the tampering based on the types of marks made, the court did not explain what made the marks for Laughlin "inconsistent." Id. at 6-7. Regarding how the ballots were altered, the court concluded that the Board of Elections had not adequately secured the ballot boxes because the seals placed on the ballots after the election night machine count were not recorded until the Recount and Write-in Boards had completed their work. Id. at 2-3. Further, the court noted that although each ballot box had been padlocked during this period, "numerous" keys for the padlocks had been distributed on election day, and any one key could open all the ballot boxes. Id. at 3. Also, even though the ballot boxes had been stored in a locked room during this period, more than one person had a key to the room. Id. Therefore, the court concluded that someone must have gained undetected access to the ballot boxes and made the alterations before the boards commenced their work. Id. © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 247