A recent lawsuit involving a Scranton Republican voter and Lackawanna County highlights significant issues in the electoral process. After failing to receive a corrected mail-in ballot for last year’s election, 83-year-old Eugene Kopecki filed a federal complaint, which has since been settled.
The situation arose when the county Bureau of Elections sent out an incorrect batch of mail-in ballots to 545 Republican voters for the May 2025 primary, mistakenly listing candidates for the May 2024 primary. Despite being assured of receiving a corrected ballot, Kopecki never did, preventing him from voting in the primary election.
The lawsuit argued that inadequate quality control and staff training resulted in a violation of Kopecki’s constitutional voting rights. Of those who received the corrected ballots, 395 Scranton Republicans participated in choosing the GOP nominee for Scranton mayor.
The Settlement
The settlement did not specify any monetary compensation. However, under the consent decree, the county committed to several improvements within six months:
- Create a comprehensive manual covering all election-related procedures, including the drafting, proofreading, and quality control of mail-in and absentee ballots.
- Develop a thorough training program for election workers on handling mail-in ballots.
- Ensure new election employees undergo specialized training on relevant laws, policies, and procedures.
The Mistake
Beth Hopkins, the county’s elections director, attributed the error to the printing company but was uncertain why only the Scranton Republican ballots were affected. The printing delay was due to a challenge to a mayoral candidate’s status, which led to a separate batch being printed incorrectly.
“I’m just not quite sure why the printer selected an old file instead of the current file,” Hopkins remarked.
Policy Manual in the Works
Efforts are underway to develop the new policy manual, with Hopkins confirming that work has begun. Election Systems & Software, the county’s ballot printer, has admitted its mistake and issued an apology. Hopkins acknowledged the oversight in not checking the ballots before mailing and assured that new checklists are now in place.
“Everybody is working hard on rectifying it and we’re working hard on our manual and it will be a good thing,” she added.
Where’s the Ballot?
The fate of Kopecki’s corrected ballot remains unknown, as it was never returned as undeliverable. Caleb Hays, representing Kopecki from the Center for Election Confidence, suggested postal service issues might be to blame, noting broader concerns about changes in postmarking and delivery times.
Hays also indicated that Kopecki was not the only voter affected, though he did not specify how many others missed receiving corrected ballots, describing the number as “decent.”
“I don’t think this was done on purpose… I think that’s what we saw here too,” Hays stated, emphasizing the lawsuit’s aim to enhance the county’s electoral processes.
“There’s been a really collaborative process between Mr. Kopecki and the county in putting together a plan for some better procedures training,” Hays said, highlighting the importance of creating an election procedures manual to prevent future issues.
