The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges 290 A.2d 69 447 Pa. 304, 290 A.2d 69 (Cite as: 447 Pa. 304, 290 A.2d 69) Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. In re Opening of Ballot Box in the SECOND WARD, SECOND PRECINCT OF the BOROUGH OF CANONSBURG, WASHINGTON COUNTY, Pennsylvania. Appeal of Councilmanic Candidate Jack PASSANTE. In re Opening of Ballot Box in the SECOND WARD, THIRD PRECINCT OF the BOROUGH OF CANONSBURG, WASHINGTON COUNTY, Pennsylvania. Appeal of Francis J. BUCKLEY, Jr. April 20, 1972. Election contest. The Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, Washington County, Nos. 134 and 223, November Term, 1971, Alexander R. Curran, P. Vincent Marino, and Thomas D. Gladden, JJ., denied candidates' requests for second recount of ballots and they appealed. The Supreme Court, Nos. 50 and 63 March Term, 1972, Eagen, J., held that where trial court was satisfied that computation of ballots by court-appointed recount board in one precinct was correct and conclusion was supported by record, summary denial of one candidate's request for second recount of ballots cast in that precinct was proper, and that other candidate's appeal was untimely and would be quashed where it was filed more than 30 days after trial court's order in the recount proceeding. Remanded with directions. West Headnotes [1] Elections 305(6) 144k305(6) Most Cited Cases Supreme Court's scope of review of orders entered by trial court in recount proceedings initiated by petitions is broad in nature. 25 P.S. § 3261. [2] Elections 299(4) 144k299(4) Most Cited Cases Second recount of ballots cast in contested election is not mandatory merely because some interested party alleges mistake in first recount; rather, trial court may order second 286 Page 1 recount if it is convinced that mistake in first recount occurred. 25 P.S. § 3261(f). [3] Elections 299(4) 144k299(4) Most Cited Cases Where trial court was satisfied that first computation of ballots by court-appointed recount board was correct and such conclusion was supported by record, summary denial of candidate's request for second recount of ballots was proper. 25 P.S. § 3261(f). [4] Elections 180(1) 144k180(1) Most Cited Cases Ballot which was properly marked in pencil with an X in small box opposite one candidate's name but which contained barely visible smudge within outer lines of large square or box on ballot containing names of all candidates was not invalid on theory that smudge was result of an erasure. 25 P.S. § 3063. [5] Elections 186(4) 144k186(4) Most Cited Cases Ballot which was properly marked in pencil next to name of one candidate in councilmanic election but which also contained very light semicircular line made with ink in box opposite opposing candidate's name and small scratch marks made with ink on ballot above names of all candidates was not invalid on theory that voter had attempted to vote for three candidates for two council seats or that voter marked his ballot with two separate writing instruments where voter who cast ballot voted for total of eleven candidates for various offices and, in each instance, an X marked in pencil was properly placed in box opposite candidate's name. [6] Elections 305(4) 144k305(4) Most Cited Cases Candidate's appeal from order entered by trial court in recount proceedings was untimely and would be quashed where it was filed more than 30 days after entry of order; candidate's petition for reargument did not toll time for filing appeal absent order staying proceedings. 17 P.S. § 211.502; 25 P.S.§ 3063. *306 **70 Frank C. Roney, Rodgers & Roney, Washington, for appellant. © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.