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) Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. In re PETITION TO CONTEST the GENERAL ELECTION FOR DISTRICT JUSTICE IN JUDICIAL DISTRICT 36-3-03 NUNC PRO TUNC (Two Cases). Appeal of Joseph ZUPSIC. Appeal of Delores A. LAUGHLIN. Argued Sept. 19, 1994. Decided Jan. 22, 1996. District justice candidate filed petition to contest general election nunc pro tunc. The Court of Common Pleas, Beaver County, Civil Division, No. 10051 of 1994, set aside election. Candidates appealed. The Supreme Court, Nos. 23 and 33 W.D. Appeal Docket 1994, Nix, C.J., held that: (1) candidate's petition was not barred by expiration of 20-day period; (2) candidate was not guilty of laches; (3) candidate's petition sufficiently alleged breakdown in operation of county board of elections to allow petition to proceed; (4) substantial evidence supported finding that ballot tampering occurred to at least some degree in district judge election; (5) trial court's failure to make specific findings regarding degree of ballot tampering in district judge election made it impossible for Supreme Court to review whether setting aside election was appropriate remedy or to evaluate claim that trial court should have awarded election to one candidate based on first machine count, as audited, together with write-in votes; (6) voters, who could identify that ballots because they had designated themselves as write-in candidates for various offices, could voluntarily appear and testify regarding how he or she originally voted; and (7) fact that District Attorney openly endorsed candidate did not render disqualification of District Attorney from participating in district justice election contest necessary. Reversed and remanded. West Headnotes [1] Elections 54 144k54 Most Cited Cases Nunc pro tunc relief is appropriate where breakdown in administrative operations of election board occurs. 242 Page 1 [2] Justices of the Peace 3 231k3 Most Cited Cases District justice candidate's petition to contest general election nunc pro tunc was not barred by expiration of 20-day period where there was no evidence that candidate had any reason to suspect problem with election until filing period had expired. 25 P.S. § 3456. [3] Justices of the Peace 3 231k3 Most Cited Cases District justice candidate was not guilty of laches and, therefore, his petition to contest general election nunc pro tunc, filed after filing period had expired and more than 20 days after recount was completed could proceed; record failed to indicate that opposing candidate was prejudiced by any delay and opposing candidate also raised problem with election after time to contest had expired. 25 P.S. § 3456. [4] Equity 72(1) 150k72(1) Most Cited Cases For laches to apply, there must be lack of due diligence in pursuing a cause of action and resulting prejudice to other party. [5] Elections 278 144k278 Most Cited Cases Petitioner generally cannot delay contesting election while recounts are being completed. [6] Justices of the Peace 3 231k3 Most Cited Cases District justice candidate's petition to contest general election nunc pro tunc sufficiently alleged breakdown in operation of county board of elections to allow petition to proceed; while candidate did not specifically state that board was derelict in its duties, he specifically alleged that fraud in election occurred between first machine count and second machine count and ballots were in exclusive control of board and or court during that time. [7] Appeal and Error 1010.1(4) 30k1010.1(4) Most Cited Cases Supreme Court is bound by trial court's findings of fact unless those findings are not based on competent evidence. [8] Justices of the Peace 3 © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.