The Fluhr name in Shohola

Posted 8/21/12

SHOHOLA TOWNSHIP, PA — Shohola Supervisor George C. Fluhr has fired back at Shirley Masuo, following her announcement that she will remain a candidate for supervisor despite the fact that her legal …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

The Fluhr name in Shohola

Posted

SHOHOLA TOWNSHIP, PA — Shohola Supervisor George C. Fluhr has fired back at Shirley Masuo, following her announcement that she will remain a candidate for supervisor despite the fact that her legal challenge to Fluhr’s name on the Republican ballot has been denied.

Fluhr wrote a letter to the editor (see page 6), saying that in court, Masuo provided no witnesses or evidence to support her claim that some write-in voters in the May primary may have been confused, and believed they were writing in the name of George J. Fluhr, who served as a township supervisor for 31 years, and is the father of George C.

On June 16, Judge Joseph Kameen issued an order that said in part, “The name of Fluhr on the write-ins was clearly George C. Fluhr and George Fluhr. No evidence of George Fluhr Sr. being involved in the election has been presented. No evidence of confusion has been presented.”

Kameen’s order was brief, about 50 words. Masuo’s petition ran to 31 pages. In it she cited case law regarding requirements for write-in votes, laid out numerous facts that, she argues, would lead to voter confusion, and asked the court to take away nine Republican write-in votes from George C. Seven of the voters in question had only written in “Fluhr,” one had written “Flure,” and one had written “Flur G,” all with no first name.

The petition noted that George C. uses his middle initial in his voter registration and phone listings, yet did not register as a candidate with a middle initial. The petition also noted that township historian George J. still uses an office in the township building two or three days a week.

Also, according to the petition, George J. appeared with George C. at the polling place on the day of the primary while George C. handed out flyers asking Republicans to write-in George Fluhr.

The petition said, “It is not unreasonable to infer that the presence of, not one, but two ‘George Fluhrs’ outside the polling place when cards urging citizens to vote for ‘George Fluhr’ may have clouded voters’ perception of precisely which ‘George Fluhr’ was soliciting their vote.”

Clearly the judge did not agree.

In an email Masuo wrote, “The case law cited in my petition makes it clear that the Supreme Court of PA requires that a write-in vote must be so explicit as to enable the Board of Elections to ‘unmistakably, unerringly and precisely demonstrate [the voters’] intention[s]…’” Given the absence of a first name, I contend that it is impossible for the Board of Elections to know with certainty that the vote was intended for George C. Fluhr (or any of the other six Fluhrs residing in Shohola).

In November, “George Fluhr” will be listed on the Republican and Democratic lines.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here