Election Day: Where and When to Vote

Find polling places, check your registration, and see more information below.

To find your polling place or see a sample ballot for the 2013 primary election Tuesday, you need to know in which precinct you reside. There are 16 precincts within the Malvern Patch coverage area, which includes East Whiteland, Willistown and Malvern Borough.

Find Your Precinct and Polling Place

You can search by your street address at the state elections website. Enter your county, town and street information, and it will tell you in which precinct you live and where your polling place is.

Another option is to zoom in on one of the municipality maps attached to this article as a PDF, which are taken from the Chester County Voter Services website.

Find Your Sample Ballot on the Chester County Website

Once you know your precinct, click the appropriate link to find your ballot on the Chester County website.

2013 Municipal Primary Republican Sample Ballots

2013 Municipal Primary Democratic Sample Ballots

Cast Your Vote

The polls will be open for the casting of ballots from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. on May 21 for Election Day.

Poll workers may ask you for a valid photo ID but you are not required to present photo ID to vote in this election.

Not sure about your registration status? Check your registration on the state website.

[Edited 5/20/13 to include additional election information.]

Regina DiLabbio Klugh King May 20, 2013 at 11:50 AM
Thanks, Pete, for affording us this opportunity. One can never be too informed when it comes to love or politics!
PHL May 20, 2013 at 04:47 PM
Please remember to know your school board candidates running. This is a reminder you may not want to vote straight party. Region 3 residents don't forget to WRITE IN Delphine Carroll. Region 3 parents are in need of representation who will look out for our children's educational interest.
PHL May 20, 2013 at 04:52 PM
OOPS unfortunately primary is straight party. Regardless Delphine Carroll is our write in candidate for school board.
BefortheKids May 20, 2013 at 05:23 PM
Daga & Barratt - Read the facts before voting http://malvern.patch.com/articles/gvsd-board-meeting-at-a-glance http://malvern.patch.com/articles/gvsd-officials-meet-with-parents-give-some-answers-matthew-lewis-charges (Daga in photo #3 on this one)
GV1984Grad May 20, 2013 at 06:35 PM
BefortheKids This has got to be the ugliest, most despicable campaign tactic undertaken in the history of GVSD! First, everyone should understand that any decisions related to the Matthew Lewis incident were based upon consultation with prior counsel. How would you react if you learned that the GVSD administration acted without consulting with the District's lawyers. Second, the law firm that advised the District no longer represents the district. Voters who support these unfounded scare tactics and the clear disinformation campaigns being waged by the challengers should consider that these challengers who misrepresent the record and parse statements on technicalities a la Bill Clinton are just as likely to misrepresent themselves if they are elected to the School Board. No current incumbent has misrepresented their positions. What they have done is stood by their principles and attempted to manage a very difficult financial situation while being attacked on all sides.
Steve May 20, 2013 at 06:52 PM
Yes, GV1984Grad, the truth hurts and it hurts a lot. Blame it on prior counsel --except the Board, run by your incumbent friends, PICKED prior counsel. Prior counsel didn't get the job by force. You just don't like the information so you call it disinformation. You should be ashamed, very ashamed. The parents who came to the meeting knew and know that the incumbents left their children unprotected. You and your friends can't change that so now you want to make up excuses. There was nothing more important than protecting the children and Mr. Daga and Mr. Barratt did not. All your nonsense can't and will not change that. They failed and they failed at their most important job.
BefortheKids May 20, 2013 at 06:54 PM
Daga & Barratt - Their record is bad. It speaks for itself. I posted links to two patch articles without comment. Are you suggesting that Patch censor its articles to help you get your incumbents reelected. If you think there is negativity here you are correct. Daga & Barrat have negative records and should be fired by the voters. Just read the fairly written Patch stories. http://malvern.patch.com/articles/gvsd-board-meeting-at-a-glance http://malvern.patch.com/articles/gvsd-officials-meet-with-parents-give-some-answers-matthew-lewis-charges IMO Anyone that reads the articles will not be voting for failed incumbents Daga & Barratt . Of course, it you think Patch was unfair in his coverage of that story I'm sure we would all like to hear from you.
ISmell ARat May 20, 2013 at 07:11 PM
Steve, What in the world are you talking about? The board could have sent this dangerous predator home with a paycheck until the courts figured out what to do with him. If he was exonerated they could have reinstated with fanfare. Lawyers give advice - Boards make decisions. Don't blame the attorney for bad advice. BLAME THE BOARD FOR ALLOWING A SEXUAL PREADATOR INTO THE BUILDING WITH LITTLE BOYS !! Use your brain man. Our children are not safe. This was at the same time as the Sandusky affair. They had no leadership and the went like sheep and left children at risk. Like the parent said in the article...Maybe we should let someone else run things.
Steve May 20, 2013 at 08:08 PM
Earnest that is really sad. You told a fib (really a lie but I am trying to be nice). The article specifically says that Mr. Barratt was the President. As the linked Patch article says, “Superintendent Alan Lonoconus, school board President David Barratt and district legal counsel Guy Donatelli fielded questions and comments from concerned, angry and vocal parents regarding school district policies and the safety of district students." Earnest, please don't tell anymore fibs. You misrepresent and call others disgusting. You attempt to drive wedges by putting labels on people and say others are divisive. Too bad for you that the linked Patch article is there so we know who is making things up. Truth and records are not negative, they are facts.
Steve May 20, 2013 at 08:18 PM
Earnest, Calm down, the facts seem to be getting to you. We all have the Patch article so we KNOW that Mr. Daga and Mr. Barrett were not doing all they possibly could to protect the children. Read the article. It has the facts. Read what the parents said. You seem fixated by the Tea Party. Maybe you should see someone about that. I didn't see that anywhere in the Patch article. I guess you think that will help you. I think it will not. People want facts, not Internal Revenue Service-like persecution of fellow citizens expressing their views. Oh, please read the article carefully, Mr. Barratt is the School Board President when the children are put at risk.
John A May 20, 2013 at 08:22 PM
As GV1984Grad states above, the Tea Party (GV Stakeholder) attacks on Daga, Barratt and Gillespe are very sad. Now the supporters of McSweeney, Carrrow and Lyddane are resorting to throwing the name Sandusky out there in a pitiful attempt to scare voters. Over the past couple of weeks, I Smell A Rat, PonderThisGVSD, Steve and BefortheKIds have been throwing out anything and everything in their sad attempts to make Daga, Barratt and Gillespe look bad. Funny how they don't have anything positive to say about their candidates. But then again, this has been the key tactic of the GV Stakeholders for the past several elections.
Steve May 20, 2013 at 08:34 PM
John A, Why don't we have a beer together? Perhaps we could work through this "Tea Party/Stakeholders" thing. It seems all consuming with you and your alter egos. You use labels and accuse others of attempting to "scare" voters. You denigrate people who band together to make things better and accuse others of attacks. The one thing you don't want to talk about is the record of Mr. Daga and Mr. Barratt. The only thing I asked people to do is read the Patch article. That is the record for your candidates. Common sense should dictate that in evaluating whether to rehire an incumbent, you start with the record of the incumbent. But you want to talk about anything but that. I think people can figure out why.
John A May 20, 2013 at 09:00 PM
Steve, I have been quite impressed with the job the current board has done in developing and implementing a long term plan to deal with the impending PESRS crisis while preserving as many instructional programs as possible. The Bacon Hill deal was a mistake, but that was several boards ago. Yes, Barratt was President of the board on 12/22/2011 when the meeting covered in The Patch article was held, but he had been president for only 17 days having been elected president at the 12/5/2011 organizational meeting. Earnest is correct. For all but a few days of time covered by the incident with Mr. Lewis (Mid-July through Mid-December 2011), Mr. Chambers was president of the board. These months under Mr. Chambers' time as president of the board is, as your stated above, "when the children are put at risk." Steve, get your facts straight.
Steve May 20, 2013 at 09:28 PM
The fact stated was correct. Mr Barratt was President for a period of the Lewis time and he defended the indefensible at the Board meeting. If you want more, prior to that, Mr. Barratt was Vice President. No one could have more responsibility, period. If you want to criticize Mr. Chambers, feel free --but he is not seeking reelection as Mr. Barratt is doing here. You and Earnest just want to say Tea Party and Stakeholders as many times as you can. I don't understand why you think it helps to try to demonize the members of those organizations but that is what you do. People see through that: for all the times you mention those organizations you do not point to any bad things they have done or advocated. When people decide whether to vote for an incumbent, they need to and want to evaluate the how the incumbent performed. You and Earnest want to be sure and keep the conversation elsewhere. Free country, you can try but don't pretend you are just being fair. You rightly complain about the Bacton Hill deal but the Barratt/Daga group brought Ms. Gillespie to the Board. Ms. Gillespie, over years, supported the Rita Jones-led board that created the Bacton Hill disaster. Ms. Behrle is the campaign manager of Daga, Barratt and Gillespie and she spoke glowingly every meeting about the board that brought us a wildly expensive Rita Jones contract, a ridiculous early teachers' union contract extension and the Bacton Hill deal.
Thought May 20, 2013 at 10:25 PM
Read the Patch linked articles . I received a flyer which quoted from a Patch article The flyer also had the article link. I used the link, read the full article, and compared it to the article. Everything seemed to be presented accurately. It was a very bad situation. Regardless of the side you take in the election I would hope all can agree that GVSD should not have permitted this individual to roam freely and unsupervised through all four elementary school bathrooms with principals in both Charlestown & KD Markley kept in the dark. Who is to blame? Plenty of shame to go around. Should the School Board having been informed in July not permitted him back in the elementary schools in October? Real good question. I see nothing wrong with this issue and that question being raised. I think it is relevant and critical to judging the incumbents. Protests that it isn't relevant or if it is it's nasty are silly. The situation was nasty. Should the incumbents performance on this matter be evaluated as they proclaim that they deserve reelection. I think so. Is their performance on this issue relevant to the election. I say Yes. Should they be reelected? I probably would not want to risk hoping the incumbents would get a critical issue like child safety right the second time. They had their chance and sadly fell way short.
John A May 20, 2013 at 10:33 PM
Oh Steve, where to start? Let's go back to your post of 4:18pm. You wrote, "Oh, please read the article carefully, Mr. Barratt is the School Board President when the children are put at risk." As I posted earlier, Mr. Barratt was elected president on December 5. Mr. Lewis as arrested and fired from the district on Dec 16. The meeting covered in The Patch article was held on Dec 22. Your insinuation (and that of ISmellaRat) is a clear attempt to fault Mr. Barratt with the handling of the Lewis situation. I did not criticize Mr. Chambers. I simply stated the fact that he was the board president for the two years prior to Dec 5, 2011 and was in that role during the time when all of the decision about how to handle the Lewis situation were made. In your 5:28 post, you state Mr. Barratt was vice president of the board prior to Dec 5 and "No one could have more responsibility, period." I don't know? Maybe, the person who was actually president during the time when all the decision were made? Or maybe members of the district's administration. Your problem is that you've be called out on your bending of the truth and misrepresentation of the facts in an attempt to tarnish Barratt, Daga and Gillespe. As far as the Tea Party - Great Valley Stakeholder thing goes, you know, I know and anyone who's been involved with the GVSD for the past 5 or 6 years knows that the Stakeholders group was (and still is even though the website is gone) a Tea Party inspired group.
BefortheKids May 20, 2013 at 10:54 PM
Lewis in bathrooms Daga & Barrat were on the Board. Daga & Barrat want your vote They don't deserve your vote. Who cares when Barrat became President . Is the Prez before Barrat running for election Answer No. Get over it. In one parents account Lewis was fixing the "Raptor" system in a school Isn't that the system to keep people convicted of the thing Lewis later plead guilty to from entering the schools. Daga & Barratt presided over a real clown car but in this case our kids safety was at risk. Sorry can't trust them with four more years. End of story. Zero tolerance for mistakes on this one guys
BefortheKids May 20, 2013 at 10:59 PM
Zero tolerance on risk for kids - jack taxes, charge fees, hoard money - we might still vote for you. Put kids at risk - you are outta here Vote No on Daga & Barrat. 4 more years is simply too risky
Steve May 21, 2013 at 01:59 AM
Sad that you can't be forthright. I will set the record straight though since you wrongly accuse me of misrepresenting. Mr. Barratt was President or Vice President of the Board during the entire "Lewis" time. No one could have more responsibility. No other person was President, Vice President or both for the entire period. The day Mr. Barratt became President he still didn't do anything. Seems simple but apparently you either don't get it or just want to hide the ball. As to "the administration" having more responsibility than the board -the administration works for the board, they should be fired if they caused this disaster. I did not "insinuate" that Mr. Barratt was at fault. I said it: Mr. Barratt was at fault. I say, you insinuate. The fact that others who are not up for election may also be at fault is not germane. I don't support your candidate so I am tarred. We all know that you are not concerned with accuracy or records because you constantly demonize. Above again. Tea Party/Stakeholders. Now they are the same. For the sake of argument, let's assume so. Two problems though, number one; you keep saying it but don't provide anything demonstrating the candidate who is Tea Party/Stakeholders. More important, where is the evidence that Tea Party/Stakeholders are evil like you and your ilk pretend? People promoting the Constitution seems good to me. Stop the nonsense. I hope we meet so we can kick this around in person.
John A May 21, 2013 at 03:02 AM
Steve, please stop putting words in my mouth. I never said the Tea Party or the GV Stakeholders were/are "evil." I disagree with the approach and goals of both groups, but I never called them evil. But please Steve, you and I both know there is a very real connection between the GV Stakeholders, Chester County ACTION, several local Tea Party organizations, the group that currently holds the majority on the WCASD board and the Chambers, Cummings, Foret, Kozik, Daga majority on the GVSD board from a few years ago. Thankfully, the voters of GV rejected the Stakeholders approach two years ago. So if Mr. Barratt was at fault for the Lewis situation, so was every other member of that board. Technically, each board member is only one of nine with all decisions requiring a majority vote. So if Barratt was at fault, so was Chambers, Leisenring, Foret, Oswald, McTear, Kozik and the rest of them. But yet, you wait until the eve of the election the throw this accusation out there against only Barratt and Daga. Leisenring is up for re-election, but no mention of his fault? Typical GV Stakeholder tactics.
John A May 21, 2013 at 03:09 AM
But even though the board is suppose to operate as a group of nine individuals ruled by a simple majority vote, it is fairly common knowledge that the board operated under Mr. Chamber's presidency as he directed. Chambers had a rubber stamp majority from 12/09 through 12/11. If you really want to lay blame for the Lewis situation, it's pretty clear where it belongs.
John A May 22, 2013 at 04:53 AM
Well the results are in. Looks like Gillespe, Barratt and Daga have all won in both the Rep and Dem primaries. Congrats to the winners! Once again the GV Stakeholder/Tea Party crowd has been rejected by the voters of GV. Looks like their vicious attacks failed. I wonder if we'll ever hear from I Smell A Rat, PonderThisGVSD, Steve and BefortheKIds again on these pages any time soon?
John C Martin Jr May 22, 2013 at 11:28 AM
I echo John A. Malvern Boro ought to rename itself "Dagaland" - what a job someone did there - almost a 100 vote margin. Obviously the "Goebbels" strategy of vicious and false attacks failed the GV Stakeholders. And who are "GV Parents for the Truth" hiding out at Republican Committee Headquarters in West Chester ? They made Republican leadership look like a bunch of limp you know whats. BeforetheKids was so boisterous before Tuesday - like to hear the postmortems
BefortheKids May 22, 2013 at 02:50 PM
Congratulations to the Incumbent team on their victory.
Steve May 22, 2013 at 07:37 PM
John C. Martin Jr. & John A., Before getting to you, I join BeforetheKids incongratulations to the winners. Well said. That is our system; there are winners and those who do not win. As for you two "Johns," just what I would expect, unfortunately. Classless, petty and personal attacks are your stock in trade. Winning is not enough, there needs to be nastiness too. Facts and issues being brought to the forefront is a crime in your vicious, name-calling, demonizing world. So you have heard from me, your question is answered. Prefer to have you hear from me in person but I suspect that is not an option for you.
PonderThisGVSD May 22, 2013 at 10:15 PM
Congraulations to the real winners
John A May 23, 2013 at 01:43 AM
Thanks for showing up folks. I'm impressed. Steve, want to talk about nastiness? How about the mailer Carrow and McSweeney sent out? Trying to blame Barratt and Gillespe alone for the Lewis thing. Yea, that was real classy. Facts? You folks seem to have your own set of facts. Just because you disagree with the facts that we two Johns present doesn't make them wrong. I'm just happy enough wise voters of GV rejected the Stakeholder/Tea Party approach - again. Maybe if you all presented some real ideas for the district instead of just throwing out grandiose platitudes and attacking moderate members of the board and/or candidates, you do a little better in these elections.
area man May 23, 2013 at 04:22 AM
Huge win for the teachers union on Tuesday. Looks like the candidates backed by the Democrats/teachers union will remain in the majority for the upcoming teachers contract negotiations. Heaven help the poor taxpayer. Duane Milne (teacher union supporter, and double dip pension recipient as a teacher and legislator), as well as Berhlre, Gunderson, Armstrong, Daga, Barrett, and Gillespie will hand over the to the union whatever they demand. What about the kids. Shouldn't a quality education be the goal. I don't fault the teachers, but their union led them astray.
John A May 23, 2013 at 03:05 PM
Area man, on one hand you say the union led the teachers astray, but on the other you claim the six board members listed "will hand over the to the union whatever they demand." If you are correct about the upcoming contract negotiation, I'd say the teachers did pretty well in Tuesday's voting. On the other hand, I think you and the rest of the GV Stakeholder/Tea Party supporters will be surprised by the outcome of the contract negotians. Go to the district's website and look at the 5 year budget projections. The board is projecting 1% salary increases for the years under the new contract period. I wouldn't exactly call that giving the union "whatever they demand." As far a quality education being the goal, we have that and more at GVSD.
PonderThisGVSD September 13, 2013 at 04:25 PM
Negotiation time - When will the teachers sign for the 1% raises? Remember we were promised no more than 1% increases by the winning candidates in this spring's election. "board is projecting 1% salary increases for the years under the new contract period"


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »