Lesson learned?
Critz ruling sends mixed message Unless Republican Party officials choose to push the envelope further, U.S. Rep. Mark Critz’s foray into the election polls last month will result in little more than a slap on a wrist.
We’re OK with that, despite the fact he did violate Pennsylvania election law, and should have known better.
He’s no stranger to election campaigns, having served as a longtime aide to his predecessor, John Murtha.
For his actions, Critz will receive a warning letter, nothing more, from the county election supervisor’s office.
We suspect, as apparently county election officials do also, that no harm was done.
In fact, the whole episode might serve some good going forward. It will keep election officials, poll workers, and, hopefully, future candidates on their toes. We don’t expect to see similar violations anytime in the near future.
According to Election Supervisor Fred Smith, a longtime veteran, Critz violated election law when he went into the polls on election day without a watcher’s certificate.
However, Smith said, there are no fines or sanctions under state law for such violations.
Seeking action against Critz was Robert A. Gleason Jr. – as the county’s Republican chairman (he also serves as state GOP chief).
Gleason’s complaint was that Critz had “illegally and improperly campaigned inside polling stations in Westmont Borough in precincts No. 3, 4, 5 and 6” on election day.
We respect Gleason’s position in filing the complaint.
No one should believe that we’ve heard the last of Critz’s misadventure. Some folks will continue using it as a campaign issue going into the fall election, when Democrat Critz faces Republican Tim Burns.
And we expect we’ll see some rules tightening at the polls.
Smith said last week that he again will be instructing the election boards in the fall about the rules.
He promised that signs will be posted at the polls warning that only voters are allowed inside unless the visitor has a watcher’s certificate.
Will that mean small children will no longer be able to accompany parents while they vote?
Will some voters argue that the youngsters could be “disrupting the voting” or “trying to influence voters?”
Hardly.
But perhaps this raises a debate for another time.
The Tribune-Democrat