The appeals court panel is weighing whether a Philadelphia County trial judge got it wrong when he ruled this month that poll watchers could be barred from the new offices because they did not constitute formal polling places under state law.
But Judge Patricia McCullough said during a hearing in the case Tuesday that barring poll watchers from the offices essentially barred the campaign from observing whether elections officials were engaging in any improper conduct such as coaching voters on who to cast their ballots for.
"You won't know if anything is happening that can be challenged unless there's a poll watcher there," she said. "What other opportunity would they have, any party, to challenge anything that would occur that's not proper?"
The Trump campaign filed suit this month alleging that the city's Board of Elections had run afoul of state law by blocking poll watchers from the newly opened satellite offices on grounds that the sites did not constitute official polling places under Pennsylvania election law.
The board opened the first of a planned 17 satellite offices around the city last month to accommodate an expected deluge of mail-in ballot requests as a result of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic and the state's expansion of its mail-in voting program last year.
The campaign's lawsuit came after Trump, as part of a broader barrage of voter fraud claims, warned during his debate with Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden last month that the move to bar his poll watchers was a sign that "bad things happen in Philadelphia."
A judge, however, found that the state's election code limited poll watchers to formal polling places, which are defined specifically as "the room provided in each election district for voting" on Election Day.
While the trial court found that the satellite offices were not tied to any particular election districts or to Election Day itself, and thus could not be considered "polling places" under the law, Judge McCullough zeroed in on the word "voting."
"There's no question that voting is occurring," she said.
Michael Pfautz, an attorney with the city's law department representing the board, said the fact that voting was taking place couldn't be considered by itself.
"The definition of a polling place is more than just that word," he said.
The two other judges sitting on the Commonwealth Court panel, however, homed in on what they suggested was the lack of evidence that staffers at the satellite offices were doing anything improper.
"What evidence did you present to the Court of Common Pleas about any assistance that may or may not be being given at the satellite offices?" Senior Judge Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter asked.
"Your Honor, because we weren't present, we don't have any anecdotal evidence as to what has transpired," said Ronald Hicks Jr. of Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP, who is representing the Trump campaign.
"You have no evidence that it happened, so it's speculative at this point," said Judge Ellen Ceisler.
The panel took the matter under advisement.
The Trump campaign is represented by Ronald Hicks Jr. and Carolyn McGee of Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP and Linda Kerns of the Law Offices of Linda A. Kerns LLC.
The board is represented by Michael Pfautz, Craig Gottlieb, Benjamin Field, Zachary Strassburger and Sean McGrath of the City of Philadelphia Law Department.
The case is Donald J. Trump for President Inc. v. Philadelphia County Board of Elections et al., case number 983 CD 2020, before the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
--Editing by Orlando Lorenzo.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
