Kopecki v. Lackawanna County
Voter Disenfranchisement
U.S. District Court (M.D. Pa.)
The Center for Election Confidence (CEC) backed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of Eugene Kopecki, a Korean War veteran whose constitutional right to vote was violated by the failure of Lackawanna County, PA, to transmit correct ballots to voters. On August 3, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania entered a consent decree resolving the CEC-supported lawsuit. Lackawanna County must adopt a comprehensive election procedures manual and task checklists, require two election officers to sign off on ballot accuracy, and institute comprehensive, ongoing training for election workers.
French v. Luzerne County
Voter Disenfranchisement
U.S. District Court (M.D. Pa.)
The Center for Election Confidence (CEC) backed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of William French and Melynda Anne Reese, two voters whose constitutional rights to vote were violated by Luzerne County, PA. The County turned away plaintiffs and other voters due to a catastrophic paper shortage caused by its noncompliance with the clear requirements of the Pennsylvania Election Code concerning the minimum number of paper ballots available in each polling place. In October 2024, Luzerne County settled the lawsuit, leading to the establishment of training programs for election officials and procedures to ensure polling places have adequate ballot paper.
McLinko v. Commonwealth
Rule of Law; Voting by Mail
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
With CEC’s support, Bradford County election official Doug McLinko brought an action in July 2021, to challenge Act 77, which purported to permit voting by mail despite a state constitutional prohibition. On January 28, 2022, the Commonwealth Court struck down Act 77. On August 2, 2022, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court’s decision and upheld Act 77 by a vote of 5-2, with the Court’s five progressive justices in the majority. While the challenge to Act 77 was ultimately unsuccessful, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was forced to overturn 160 years of legal precedent and constitutional interpretation to reach its flawed conclusion. Importantly, this case established invaluable precedent clarifying who has standing to bring such a challenge, whether or not laches applies in these circumstances, and which court has jurisdiction to hear future cases.