The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges 670 A.2d 629 543 Pa. 216, 670 A.2d 629 (Cite as: 543 Pa. 216, 670 A.2d 629) ballots not manifest on the general return. Brief for Appellant Zupsic at 11. This recount was conducted on December 20, 1993, and resulted in each candidate gaining only one vote apiece. Thus, after the second recount, the totals were 3,794 votes for Laughlin and 3,748 votes for Zupsic. Petition I, slip order at 2. During this recount, Zupsic challenged seven ballots, and Laughlin challenged an additional five. Record at 288a. FN3. These districts are Center Township 3; Georgetown Borough; Hookstown Borough; and Monaca Borough 3, 4-1, 4-2, and 5. *224 The Election Board also conducted a second machine count on January 5, 1994. Record at 290a-91a. While the Board attempted to duplicate the original machine run, this was not possible because one of the four **633 machines used on election night was not operating properly on January 5. Record at 293a. Thus, the ballots originally run through that machine were run through a different machine. Nonetheless, the January 5 machine count was nearly identical to the result obtained by the recounts, with Laughlin receiving 3,792 votes to Zupsic's 3,750. Record at 294a. This machine run tabulated votes for all offices on the ballot. Zupsic Exhibit No. 7. On January 10, 1994, more than two months after the election, Zupsic filed a Petition to Contest the General Election Nunc Pro Tunc with the Beaver County Court of Common Pleas. Although 25 P.S. § 3456 provides that election contests for district justice races must be filed within twenty days of the election, [FN4] Zupsic claimed that he was entitled to proceed with his petition because he was unaware of any fraud or irregularities until he learned the results of the January 5 machine tabulation. FN4. Section 3456 provides that election contests of the second through fifth classes must be filed within twenty days of a primary or election. District justice races are contests of the fifth class pursuant to 25 P.S. § 3291. The court of common pleas then issued a rule upon Laughlin and the Beaver County Board of Elections [FN5] to show cause why the relief requested by Zupsic should not 246 Page 5 be granted. After Laughlin and the Board filed answers, the court made the rule absolute on February 3, 1994, and granted Zupsic leave to contest the election. Hearings on the petition were held on February 28, 1994, and March 11, 1994. [FN6] FN5. The court of common pleas concluded that the county had standing to participate in the election contest because Zupsic requested that the Board of Elections conduct a new election and "the integrity of the county's election procedures was at issue." Petition I, slip order at 2 n. 4. FN6. A third hearing had been conducted on January 10, 1994, concerning Zupsic's appeal from the final determinations made by the Recount Board in the recount proceedings. Because of the court's disposition of the matter, it did not address Zupsic's appeals. *225 By Order dated April 8, 1994, the court ordered that the challenged election be set aside. Petition I. In support of its action, the court made the following Findings of Fact, inter alia: 9. Sometime between election night and the completion of the work of the Return and Write-in Boards, which commenced on November 5, 1993, a person or persons, presently unknown, gained access to and opened some of the ballot boxes from some of the precincts within Judicial District 36-3-03. 10. After securing access to the ballot boxes, the unknown person or persons altered many of the ballots cast by the voters with respect to the District Justice Office in Judicial District 36-3-03 by placing a mark in the oval designated for Laughlin on the ballots. [FN7] FN7. A footnote inserted at this point in the court's findings states that "of all the many altered ballots, only one contained a similar mark in the oval opposite Zupsic's name." 11. In all probability, a sufficient number of ballots were altered ... so as to change the outcome of the election for that office. 12. It is impossible to accurately strike all the altered bal- © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.