Republican Jamie Walsh has withdrawn the preliminary injunction portion of his election-related lawsuit against Luzerne County, eliminating the need for a hearing in federal court Monday afternoon in Williamsport, court filings show.

Walsh filed a lawsuit against the county, the county elections office and the county board of elections on Oct. 25. A county court hearing on Oct. 30 was halted because the county and agency requested a change of venue from the county Court of Common Pleas to federal court over the plaintiff’s claim of constitutional violations. Chief U.S. District Court Judge Matthew W. Brann in the Middle District of Pennsylvania is presiding over the case.

The lawsuit sought an order requiring the county to process the remaining voter registrations and mail-in ballots.

The county said processing of both has been completed and that Walsh, the sole claimant, has already voted by mail.

Walsh wanted to present other voters as witnesses to discuss their experiences with voter registrations and ballots.

If the hearing had gone ahead, county elections director Emily Cook would have had to travel to Williamsport to testify because she was required to serve as a county witness.

Attorney Charles Kannebecker of Milford represented Walsh and filed a letter with the court Monday indicating Walsh withdrew the request for preliminary injunction due to the timing of the 4 p.m. hearing on the eve of the election.

“Plaintiff fully understands the court’s schedule and respects his obligations regarding his cases. In light of the above, it would be difficult for any court to issue an order at 4:00 p.m. that could be practically effective,” Kannebecker wrote.

At the court’s request, Kannebecker filed a second brief to clarify Walsh’s position.

He cited an example of why an order issued Monday night would not be effective in practice. He said an order requiring the defendants to mail out ballots would not help because voters must receive and return them by 8 p.m. the next day.

While the issue of the preliminary injunction is off the table, the underlying case will “proceed in the normal manner” with the required filings, Kannebecker wrote.

Attorney Mark E. Cedrone, who represents the county and elections office, issued a statement repeating his description of Walsh’s filing as a “patently frivolous lawsuit” alleging that his constitutional rights were violated by the manner in which the county election office has processed the voter registration. and mail-in ballots.

“Essentially, Mr. Walsh claimed that his individual right to vote was being disenfranchised. He did not claim or advocate acting on behalf of any group or individuals. What Mr. Walsh did not claim is that he has already cast his vote via a properly registered ballot. Therefore, Mr. Walsh is not harmed by the falsely alleged wrongdoing of the county and its elections office,” said the statement from Cedrone of Saxton & Stump in Philadelphia.

Cedrone said the allegations in both the complaint and the injunction petition are “false, irrelevant, frivolous and salacious,” citing “the absence of any supporting evidence.”

Through legal counsel, the county and elections office have notified Walsh and his attorney that they intend to seek sanctions for filing a frivolous charge. The province and the office intend to “vigorously and successfully defend this frivolous action, which falsely defames the hardworking people in the elections office and has to date cost the province significant legal fees and for which the province will seek sanctions,” it said report.

“The province will not allow proponents of unsupported claims of election fraud to tarnish the good work of its employees and otherwise unnecessarily divert scarce resources,” Cedrone’s statement said.