A Republican lawyer’s lawsuit to block a change to Philadelphia election rules has temporarily halted a policy that critics argue would further entrench party control and disadvantage write-in candidates for ward committees. The Board of Elections had approved the new policy in February, which would have made it harder for write-in candidates to secure positions on ward committees, vital bodies for electioneering and shaping party leadership.
Attorney Matthew Wolfe, a Republican ward leader in West Philly, successfully argued before Common Pleas Judge Jessica Brown that the proposed change would create an undue barrier, particularly for the city’s struggling Republican Party. Judge Brown sided with Wolfe late last month, blocking the rule change. This decision, however, has been appealed by the city and the Republican City Committee, setting the stage for a potential ruling that could impact the certification of votes following the May 19 primary election.
Wolfe contends the new rule, requiring a minimum of 10 votes for a write-in candidate to win a ward committee seat, is an attempt by entrenched party organizations to maintain their power. He highlighted the unusual unity between Democratic and Republican party lawyers in opposing his lawsuit, stating,
“One might think that what’s good for the Democrats is bad for the Republicans, and what’s good for the Republicans is bad for the Democrats, but they apparently are unified that this is bad for the entrenched party organizations.”
For the Philadelphia Republican Party, which already faces significant challenges in a city dominated by Democrats, the rule change would exacerbate difficulties in filling thousands of ward committee vacancies. Wolfe suggests that Republican Chairman Vince Fenerty, while ostensibly wanting to win elections, prioritizes maintaining his leadership position, even if it means weakening the party’s overall capacity.
Philadelphia Election Rule: Impact on Write-in Candidates
The core of the dispute revolves around the proposed 10-vote minimum for write-in candidates, mirroring the number of petition signatures required for a candidate to appear on the ballot. Anthony Christina, attorney for the Republican Party, argued in a court filing that winning with just one or two votes “insults the hard work” of ballot candidates and that such write-in victories often result from “laziness” or a lack of genuine commitment to serve. However, Wolfe counters that this requirement disproportionately affects parties like the Republicans, where finding 10 registered party members in a division to sign a petition, let alone cast write-in votes, can be nearly impossible due to low registration numbers.
Write-in votes play a crucial role in lower-profile elections, from judges of elections—who often win with a single self-vote—to the numerous ward committee positions. These committees are the grassroots backbone of political parties, responsible for door-knocking, distributing campaign literature, and ultimately selecting ward leaders and party chairs. Adam Bonin, a Democratic election lawyer not involved in the case, emphasized the significance of these granular positions: “Endorsements which come from the wards, and the grassroots get-out-the-vote work which is done by members of the ward committees — all of this matters. All of this helps shape who represents us.”
Context and Broader Implications for Party Structure
The debate over write-in vote thresholds for party positions is not new in Pennsylvania, with varying county policies and past legal challenges. In 2018, a lawsuit in Northeast Philly’s 58th ward attempted to remove 11 committeepersons for receiving fewer than 10 votes, highlighting the ongoing contention. For Republicans in Philadelphia, where registered Democrats outnumber them 7-to-1, filling committee seats is a persistent struggle. Wolfe recounted his own difficulty in securing 10 petition signatures from the 25 registered Republicans in his voting division, underscoring the practical barriers.
While both parties face challenges in filling vacancies, the motivation behind the rule change is seen by critics as an attempt to consolidate power. If a committee seat remains vacant after an election, the ward leader can appoint someone, a process Wolfe and others view as less democratic and one that reinforces the leader’s control. This concern is not limited to Republicans; progressive Democratic groups like Reclaim and the Philadelphia Democratic Socialists of America, through their “Wards That Work” campaign, actively encourage write-in campaigns to fill vacancies and prevent appointments, thereby fostering more representative committees. Alex Reusing, a Democratic committeeperson, highlighted how ward leaders can use appointments “for whatever are their purposes,” citing his own experience of being targeted for removal by the Democratic City Committee for supporting Working Families Party candidates.
Legal Interpretations and Future Uncertainty
The legal arguments hinge on interpretations of state election law. The City Commissioners, in approving the rule change, cited a primary election statute requiring a minimum number of votes equivalent to petition signatures. However, Wolfe’s lawsuit points to another law specifically for party positions, which mandates election based on a “plurality of the votes”—simply the most votes, regardless of the numerical total. This distinction is crucial: ward committee elections, though held on primary day, are argued to be “final elections” that definitively select winners.
The Board of Elections approved the rule change in February without any recorded public discussion of their reasoning. Commissioner Lisa Deeley, the dissenting member, and a spokesperson for the Commissioners’ office declined to comment due to ongoing litigation. Wolfe estimates that under the proposed 10-vote minimum, Republicans would be able to fill less than 10% of the 3,406 committee positions across the city. Furthermore, he argues that the rule would create an unfair advantage for balloted candidates, potentially allowing a candidate with two votes to win over a write-in candidate with nine votes, effectively disenfranchising voters.
As the May 19 primary approaches, the appeals court’s decision on the Philadelphia election rule change looms large. Its outcome will not only determine the immediate future of ward committee elections but also send a significant signal about the balance of power within the city’s political parties and the accessibility of grassroots participation in local governance. This battle over a seemingly minor procedural change underscores the ongoing tension between party establishment control and efforts to broaden democratic engagement at the most fundamental level of local politics. The implications extend beyond Philadelphia, touching on broader questions of party structure and voter access in urban electoral systems across the nation. Similar election challenges are often seen in other major cities.
