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) The court then noted that Laughlin was the winner in nine of the fourteen precincts she petitioned to open for a recount. Id. The court observed that [i]t is most unusual for a candidate's supporters to ask for a recount of votes in a precinct won by the candidate. This is especially so when the victory is by a wide margin as it was *228 in some cases here. One reason for doing so is the certainty of securing even more votes on a recount. Id. In addressing its decision to set aside the election, the court recognized that, unless it is impossible to separate fraudulent votes **635 from lawful votes, only the fraudulent votes should be stricken. Id. at 5. The court noted, however, that it was not able "to determine with certainty all the ballots that had been altered." Id. Further, "[a]ssuming [that] it was possible to determine all the ballots that had been altered, the voters who cast those ballots would be disenfranchised from their choice of District Justice through no fault of their own." Id. Therefore, "[t]he only way [the court] could assure the integrity of the electoral process and thereby promote confidence in the citizens of Judicial District 36-0-03 [sic] was to order another election." Id. [1] Finally, the court addressed the various remaining matters raised by Laughlin and Zupsic in their appeals. Regarding the allowance of Zupsic's appeal nunc pro tunc, the court acknowledged that 25 P.S. § 3456 requires that election contests be filed within twenty days of an election. However, nunc pro tunc relief is appropriate where a breakdown in the administrative operations of the Election Board occurs. Id. at 7 (citing Appeal of Orsatti, 143 Pa.Commw. 12, 598 A.2d 1341, appeal denied, 529 Pa. 637, 600 A.2d 956 (1991)). Here, the court found that Zupsic's petition sufficiently alleged an administrative breakdown--namely, ballot tampering while the ballots were in the custody of the Board of Elections. Turning to the testimony of the five voters, the court noted that dictum in Orsatti provides that a voter may not waive his right to secrecy in voting conferred by Article VII, § 4 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. However, the court added that Orsatti based this observation on language from Thomas A. Crowley Election Contest, 57 Dauphin Co.Rep. 120 (1945), which also provides: 248 Page 7 We are not prepared to state nor called upon to say that there are no circumstances under which a legal voter will be *229 permitted to take the witness stand on his own volition and testify how he voted. There may be circumstances where it is proper.... But, ... where it is possible to determine from the ballots what the vote of the district was, and there is no proof of fraud, we have no authority to accept the oral testimony of the voter as to his vote.... Petition II, slip op. at 9 (citing Thomas A. Crowley Election Contest, 57 Dauphin Co.Rep. 120 (1945)). While the court recognized that voters should never be compelled to divulge their votes against their will, where a voter's ballot, properly cast, has been altered so as to either void the vote or change the ballot from a vote for the candidate of the voter's choice to the other candidate, the voter should have the right to voluntarily appear and testify. How else can the voter protect the sanctity of his of her ballot? Petition II, slip op. at 9. Regarding Laughlin's claim that the court should have disqualified the Beaver County District Attorney from investigating the election because she openly supported Zupsic during the campaign, the court found no authority for such disqualification. Further, the court noted that, even if the claimed conflict of interest affected any testimony, such conflict would go to weight and not admissibility. Id. at 9-10. Concerning Zupsic's only complaint, that the court should have awarded the election to him, the court first noted that Zupsic had not made such a request in his Petition's prayer for relief. Second, the court noted that it was unable to conclude with reasonable certainty that a sufficient number of ballots were changed to have altered the election's outcome. Id. at 10. [2] We must begin with whether the lower court erred in allowing Zupsic to file his petition nunc pro tunc since the timeliness of a petition affects the court's jurisdiction. See Orsatti, 143 Pa.Commw. at 15, 598 A.2d at 1342. Laughlin first contends that since petitions for district justice contests must be filed within twenty days of an election, Zupsic's *230 Petition to Contest should have been filed no later than © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.