Pennsylvania: Montgomery County exploring new voting machines | The Intelligencer

Montgomery County officials are exploring the possibility of purchasing new voting machines. “We just want to be proactive,” said Commissioner Leslie Richards, who is chairman of the county’s election board. “We are always looking to make our voter experience better.” Richards pointed out that only two counties in the state, Montgomery and Northampton, use Sequoia Pacific electronic voting machines. Chief Financial Officer Uri Z. Monson said that, while there are no problems with the current machines, “many are reaching the end of their useful life” and the county does not want to have to scramble if many of them start failing at the same time. The county, which has 425 voting precincts, purchased 1,050 Sequoia machines in 1996 at an approximate cost of some $4 million. Today, the county has 1,133 Sequoia machines, with 10 used as “demos” and another 15 considered out of service while they undergo repairs.

Pennsylvania: State to hear electronic voting challenge | Associated Press

Pennsylvania officials crossed their fingers and hoped for no major problems in the 2006 election as voters in all 67 counties cast ballots electronically for the first time. Despite scattered glitches, that’s what they got — thanks largely to $150 million from the federal government that helped more than half the counties obtain new computerized machines that replaced lever and punch-card systems. But voter-rights advocates concerned about the security and verification of ballots cast in the 50 counties that use direct recording electronic, or DRE, machines are preparing to argue before the state’s high court Wednesday that the devices violate state law and the state constitution. Lawyers sued Pennsylvania’s secretary of state in Commonwealth Court in August 2006 on behalf of two dozen voters. A succession of rulings by that court has gone against the plaintiffs, but the state Supreme Court could overturn those — a possibility that could have wide-reaching implications for Pennsylvania’s 8.2 million voters. At the heart of the plaintiffs’ case is the fact that the 23,500 computerized DRE machines do not create a paper record of each vote as it is cast. Instead, they create electronic records that can be printed out after the election. The other 17 counties use optical scanners to read votes marked on paper ballots, or a combination of the two systems.

Pennsylvania: State Supreme Court Hears Arguments Over Electronic Voting Machines | The Legal Intelligencer

The state Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments as to whether electronic voting machines that do not produce simultaneous paper records of each vote cast violate the Pennsylvania Election Code. The 24 petitioners in the matter, whose case was argued by Michael Daly of Drinker Biddle & Reath, are seeking a declaratory judgment that would direct Carol Aichele, the secretary of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, to decertify the direct-recording electronic voting systems. Before the justices, Daly contended the direct-recording electronic (DRE) machines do not provide a permanent physical record of each vote cast, as the code mandates. Although the machines can print records on request, Daly explained to the court that neither the printed records nor the electronic records satisfied the code’s requirement. Daly highlighted the petitioners’ argument that the digital records couldn’t be considered physical records since they were software-dependent, and the data could be altered or used for a fraudulent purpose without detection. He added that the machines were “utterly incapable” of verifying that a vote was cast the way the voter intended it to be.

Pennsylvania: Minor parties win right to challenge election code | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

A decade after Ralph Nader‘‍s failed attempt to get on the presidential ballot in Pennsylvania, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia ruled Wednesday that minor parties should get another day in court. The 54-page opinion stated the Constitution, Green and Libertarian parties have the standing to challenge the constitutionality of two provisions of state election code regulating ballot access. Third-party candidates are required to submit nomination petitions with signatures, and then to bear administrative and legislative costs if those petitions are successfully called into question.

Pennsylvania: Kensington election craziness raises doubts about weird poll-watcher rules | Philadelphia City Paper

During Tuesday’s primary, various candidates in Kensington alleged that their opponents were bribing voters, campaigning inside polling places, and, in one instance, distributing anonymous fliers that claimed one candidate was gay — and those were just the complaints made to a reporter over a few hours time. An assistant district attorney showed up at Stetson Middle School in Kensington to respond to reports that campaign workers were accompanying voters into voting booths. After observing a raucous scene that involved dozens of different political supporters in colorful campaign T-shirts, his walkie-talkie crackled and he departed — there had been another report of electioneering at the Bayard Taylor School, on the other side of the neighborhood. In theory, there are poll watchers who can respond to such Election Day complaints. Each candidate is entitled to a certain number of poll-watcher certificates, issued by the City Commissioners office, entitling that person to enter and observe activity at any polling place.

Pennsylvania: Corbett says he won’t appeal voter ID law decision | Associated Press

Gov. Tom Corbett put another nail in the coffin of Pennsylvania’s voter identification law on Thursday, announcing he would not appeal a judge’s decision that the law violated the fundamental right to vote. The Republican governor issued a statement that defended the law, but he also said it needed changes and that he hoped to work with the Legislature on them. “It is clear that the requirement of photo identification is constitutionally permissible,” he said. “However, the court also made clear that in order for a voter identification law to be found constitutional, changes must be made to address accessibility to photo identifications.” The centerpiece of the law — a requirement that nearly all of the state’s 8.2 million voters show photo ID at the polls — was declared unconstitutional in January by a Commonwealth Court judge who said it imposed an unreasonable burden on the right to vote and that supporters had failed to demonstrate a need for it.

Pennsylvania: Judge denies Commonwealth’s motion in voter ID case | Philadelphia Inquirer

A Commonwealth Court judge on Monday denied the Corbett administration’s motion to reconsider his ruling overturning the state’s two-year-old voter identification law. In his 29-page decision, Judge Bernard L. McGinley said the law requiring voters to produce photo ID at the polls failed “to provide liberal access to compliant photo ID” and as a result voters were disenfranchised. “The evidence showed the voter ID provisions at issue deprive numerous electors of their fundamental right to vote, so vital to our democracy,” wrote McGinley, who struck down the law in January. The Corbett administation has 30 days to file an appeal to the state Supreme Court. Joshua Maus, spokesman for the governor’s Office of General Counsel. said he had no comment beyond that the office was reviewing the ruling.

Pennsylvania: ACLU seeks info on Pennsylvania voter roll purge | Associated Press

A civil-rights group raised questions Tuesday about Pennsylvania’s participation in a program designed to help purge voters with duplicate registrations in different states. Witold Walczak, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, said state officials have rebuffed his requests for details about how rigorously state officials will oversee the purging of voter rolls under the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program. “Cleaning voter-registration rolls of inaccurate and duplicate information is important, but it must be achieved in a way that does not improperly or wrongly purge voters from the rolls,” Walczak said in a letter to Pennsylvania Secretary of State Carol Aichele.

Pennsylvania: Governor Asks Court to Reverse Decision on Voter ID | ABC News

A judge made a host of mistakes in deciding to throw out the Pennsylvania’s requirement that voters display photo identification, lawyers for Gov. Tom Corbett argued in a court filing Monday. The team of private lawyers and the attorney general’s office asked in 39 pages of post-trial arguments that the law be reinstated, the decision revised or a new trial ordered. The filing says Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley wrongly decided the law was unconstitutional because of how it was implemented, and took issue with his rejection of a Department of State-created ID card. “The statute cannot be declared facially unconstitutional based solely on flaws found in the executive’s reading or administration of the statute,” Corbett’s lawyers argued. McGinley ruled Jan. 17 that the law did not further the goal of free and fair elections, saying it lacked a viable means to make photo IDs easily available.

Pennsylvania: Corbett’s administration signals it will keep fighting for Pennsylvania’s Voter ID law | PennLive.com

The Corbett Administration signaled its intent Monday to keep fighting for a strong voter identification law in Pennsylvania by asking Commonwealth Court to reconsider a judge’s decision striking the law down. The 2012 law – considered one of the more stringent of its type in the nation and requiring nearly all voters to show photo identification when they went to the polling place – was struck down by Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard L. McGinley earlier this month. McGinley said the mandatory photo requirement placed an unreasonable burden on the fundamental right to vote. He also asserted the state had not been able to prove that it was necessary. Because McGinley’s decision followed a trial last summer on complaints brought by voters, Corbett’s first move was to file post-trial motions raising appellate issues before the full court. Under Pennsylvania’s rules, a trial court must have the chance to review its decision before an appeal could be taken to a higher court.

Pennsylvania: Governor asks court to reverse decision on voter ID | Associated Press

A judge made a host of mistakes in deciding to throw out the Pennsylvania’s requirement that voters display photo identification, lawyers for Gov. Tom Corbett argued in a court filing Monday. The team of private lawyers and the attorney general’s office asked in 39 pages of post-trial arguments that the law be reinstated, the decision revised or a new trial ordered. The filing says Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley wrongly decided the law was unconstitutional because of how it was implemented, and took issue with his rejection of a Department of State-created ID card. “The statute cannot be declared facially unconstitutional based solely on flaws found in the executive’s reading or administration of the statute,” Corbett’s lawyers argued.

Pennsylvania: Ruling on voter ID unlikely to be the last word | Philadelphia Inquirer

The ruling Friday that struck down Pennsylvania’s voter-identification law is unlikely to be the last word on the case, or the issue. Supporters and detractors conceded that Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley’s 103-page ruling was almost certain to be appealed to the state Supreme Court. And other federal and state courts nationwide are hearing challenges to their voter-ID laws. Every case remains distinct, but experts say each ruling like the one in Pennsylvania could provide ammunition to both sides on the issue. “This is a tremendous PR victory for voter-ID opponents,” said Richard Hasen, an election-law expert and professor at the University of California Irvine.

Pennsylvania: Attorney General Kane Will Defer to Corbett on Voter ID | PoliticsPA

Attorney General Kathleen Kane has stated that the decision on whether to appeal the overturn of Voter ID will be the Governor’s. Last week, Judge McGinley found that implementation efforts were insufficient to ensure free and fair elections, but also that the voter ID law is unconstitutional. When the ruling came out, many turned to Kane for her decision on whether to appeal the ruling. She served as co-counsel to the Governor and Secretary of the Commonwealth along with an outside firm commissioned by the Office of General Counsel. Today, Kane’s office released a statement saying that “To avoid further public confusion, Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane clarifie[d] that decision to appeal voter ID court ruling rests solely with Governor and Secretary of the Commonwealth.”

Pennsylvania: It turns out disenfranchising people is unconstitutional | The Economist

During the 2012 presidential election I accompanied some canvassers going door to door in Philadelphia. Their aim was to remind people in this pivotal swing state to vote and to vote Democrat. Again and again, the big concern among the folks opening their doors was the state’s new and very strict voter-ID law, which required voters to provide a government-issued picture ID. The law would have made it impossible for hundreds of thousands—some say 750,000—of people to vote, most of them likely to vote Democratic. Not even government-issued welfare cards and military identification cards were acceptable. Plenty of older Philadelphians, many of them black, do not even have a birth certificate.

Pennsylvania: Judge strikes down Pennsylvania’s Voter ID law | Washington Post

A state judge in Pennsylvania has struck down the state’s new Voter ID law. Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley ruled that the law, which has already been delayed by the courts and was not implemented in the 2012 election, is unconstitutional. The ruling sets up a key showdown in the state Supreme Court over the controversial law. “Voter ID laws are designed to assure a free and fair election; the Voter ID Law does not further this goal,” McGinley wrote in his decision, adding: “Based on the foregoing, this Court declares the Voter ID Law photo ID provisions and related implementation invalid…”

Pennsylvania: Judge strikes down restrictive voter eligibility law |The Guardian

A judge in Pennsylvania struck down one of the most restrictive voter identification laws in the country on Friday, in a victory for civil rights campaigners who are seeking to block voter eligibility rules they claim are discriminatory. Commonwealth court judge Bernard McGinley concluded the state’s voter ID law, introduced by Republican-controlled state legislature in 2012, disenfranchised “hundreds of thousands” of voters who could not easily meet the requirements set by the state. “Voting laws are designed to assure a free and fair election; the voter ID law does not further this goal,” the judge said, adding: “Disenfranchising voters through no fault of the voter himself is plainly unconstitutional.” The new law required voters to present photo identification proving their eligibility to vote, replacing other proof-of-address documents such as paychecks or bills. Photo identification had proven difficult for many voters to obtain, despite the state’s promises to the contrary. In one particularly damning section of his ruling, Judge McGinley found there was no evidence the legislation was even intended to stamp out voter fraud, which was the justification given by state lawmakers when they passed the law.

Pennsylvania: Voter ID Law Struck Down as Judge Cites Burden on Citizens | New York Times

In a strongly worded decision, a state judge on Friday struck down Pennsylvania’s 2012 law requiring voters to produce a state-approved photo ID at the polls, setting up a potential Supreme Court confrontation that could have implications for other such laws across the country. The judge, Bernard L. McGinley of Commonwealth Court, ruled that the law hampered the ability of hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians to cast their ballots, with the burden falling most heavily on elderly, disabled and low-income residents, and that the state’s reason for the law — that it was needed to combat voter fraud — was not supported by the facts. “Voting laws are designed to assure a free and fair election,” the judge wrote in his 103-page decision. “The voter ID law does not further this goal.”

Pennsylvania: Attention Candidates: Pennsylvania Has New Nominating Petitions | PoliticsPA

Pennsylvania’s candidate nominating petitions are getting a facelift. The Department of State is taking the process into the 21st century with new petition forms meant to streamline form submission and review. Candidates will be able to fill out their information in the preamble before printing them and will be issued a unique barcode. Previously, candidates and campaign staffers had to individually fill out each form or have them photocopied. Candidates still need to have their signatures completed in hard copy and then have those forms notarized, but a new QR code on the form will allow the Department to count the signatures electronically.

Pennsylvania: Straight-party option would be eliminated under Evankovich bill | TribLIVE

By choosing just one lever or button, Pennsylvanians have had the ability to select either the Democrats’ or Republicans’ entire slate of candidates for more than 70 years. But that would change if a proposal in Harrisburg by state Rep. Eli Evankovich — and 15 Republican cosponsors — becomes law. The House State Government Committee had a hearing Dec. 11 on Evankovich’s legislation to eliminate the straight-party ballot option in Pennsylvania, which would mean voters would have to identify their preferred candidate in each individual race rather than being able to press one button to choose all Democrats or all Republicans automatically. Pennsylvania is one of only 14 states that provides a straight-party option, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Pennsylvania: Voting change proposed | Pittsburgh Tribune

By choosing just one lever or button, Pennsylvanians have had the ability to select either the Democrats’ or Republicans’ entire slate of candidates for more than 70 years. But that would change if a proposal in Harrisburg by state Rep. Eli Evankovich — and 15 Republican cosponsors — becomes law. The House State Government Committee had a hearing Dec. 11 on Evankovich’s legislation to eliminate the straight-party ballot option in Pennsylvania, which would mean voters would have to identify their preferred candidate in each individual race rather than being able to press one button to choose all Democrats or all Republicans automatically. Pennsylvania is one of only 14 states that provides a straight-party option, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Not only would the change reduce some of the polarizing partisanship in elections, Evankovich said, it would encourage voters to review candidates at the bottom of the ballot instead of simply choosing a party’s lineup based on the higher-profile candidates who are running.

Pennsylvania: Lawmakers propose removing state judges from Pennsylvania ballots | TribLIVE

Jaye Cawkins stepped out of her polling place not entirely sure about what she’d just done. Like many of the 1.6 million people who voted in Pennsylvania on Nov. 5, Cawkins didn’t know much about the judicial candidates on the ballot. They’re not like other politicians, who knock on doors for votes, run races with more media coverage and compile easily-digestible records of their votes, she said. “There’s no way you can sit and go over every one” of a judge’s decisions, said Cawkins, 56, of the North Side. Pennsylvania is one of seven states that elects judges in partisan elections, according to the American Bar Association. Two state representatives — Bryan Cutler, R-Peach Bottom, and Brian Sims, D-Philadelphia — introduced a bill to change that.

Pennsylvania: Lawmakers eye package of voter bills | New Castle News

Conflicts caused by the state’s last attempt to improve the integrity of elections was the biggest source of complaints logged by a watchdog group during the 2012 presidential race. But that isn’t stopping lawmakers from trying to tinker even more with the state’s election rules, again in the name of improving voting integrity. The Legislature’s state government committee conducted a hearing on a package of bills that includes tougher penalties for voter intimidation and a ban on promotional materials inside polling places. The bills come up as the state’s controversial voter ID law remains in legal limbo, blocked from taking effect by a state appeals court judge’s order. The law passed in March 2012 has never been enforced, but it has resulted in confusion and anger among poll workers told they had to ask for ID and voters told they didn’t need to show it. Like the voter ID law, a proposed ban on promotions in polling places could create conflict between voters and those who are supposed to be assisting them, advocates worry.

Pennsylvania: Judge weighs options in name-missing-from-ballot case | Meadville Tribune

Bruce M. Peterson, the Democratic Party nominee for a six-year term on the Wayne Township Board of Supervisors whose name was omitted from the November ballot, will have to wait a bit longer for word on the next step. A hearing on Peterson’s request for a special election to decide the winner of the race took place Wednesday morning in Crawford County Court of Common Pleas before President Judge Anthony J. Vardaro. While Vardaro expressed optimism during the hearing that his decision-making would be complete before the close of business Wednesday, in the end, his ruling was not handed down before the courthouse closed. Peterson won the Democratic nod in the May 21 primary while incumbent Lee Singleton won the Republican Party nomination for the same seat. Both names qualified to appear on the township ballot for the Nov. 5 election, but the only name to appear was Singleton’s. Diane Putney Adsit, chairwoman of the Crawford County Democratic Committee and Peterson’s attorney, described the omission of Peterson’s name as “an error.”

Pennsylvania: Lawmakers won’t stop tinkering with election rules | CNHI

Conflicts caused by the state’s last attempt to improve the integrity of elections was the biggest source of complaints logged by a watchdog group during the 2012 presidential race. But that isn’t stopping lawmakers from trying to tinker even more with the state’s election rules, again in the name of improving voting integrity. The Legislature’s state government committee held a hearing last week on a package of bills that includes tougher penalties for voter intimidation and a ban on promotional materials inside polling places. The bills come up as the state’s controversial voter identification law remains in legal limbo, blocked from taking effect by a state appeals court judge’s order. The law passed in March 2012 has never been enforced, but it has resulted in confusion and anger among poll workers told they had to ask for ID and voters told they didn’t need to show it. Like the voter ID law, a proposed ban on promotions in polling places could create conflict between voters and those who are supposed to be assisting them, advocates worry. Barry Kauffman, executive director of the Pennsylvania chapter of Common Cause, said a ban on posters would be acceptable. But it would cause problems, he said, “if that is interpreted to mean you can’t walk in wearing a pin with the name of your preferred candidate.” Poll workers shouldn’t be judging what voters are wearing, Kauffman said.

Pennsylvania: Name left off ballot, candidate seeks special election | Meadville Tribune

Crawford County Court of Common Pleas is being asked to order a special election in the race for a six-year term on the Wayne Township Board of Supervisors. Bruce M. Peterson, a Wayne resident who was the Democratic Party nominee for the supervisor’s post, is petitioning the court because his name was left off the township’s ballot in the Nov. 5 general election. Peterson won the Democratic Party nomination for the supervisor’s post in the May 21 primary while Lee Singleton, another Wayne resident, won the Republican Party nomination for the same position in May 21 primary. Both names were to appear on the township ballot for the Nov. 5 election, but only Singleton’s did, according to the petition filed with county court.

Pennsylvania: Straight party independent vote questioned | Citizens’ Voice

A few onlookers attending the unofficial vote count late Tuesday in Luzerne County questioned whether voters should have had an option to vote straight party for independent candidates. The straight-party option may have helped independent candidate Rick Williams retain a seat on county council. Williams is 79 votes ahead of Republican Sue Rossi for the fifth and final winning slot in the council election, according to the latest unofficial tally on the county website. The unofficial count had 3,861 straight-party ballots for Republicans, 5,956 for Democrats, 758 for independents and eight for non-partisan. Williams is ahead of Rossi 17,226 to 17,147, and the official count is scheduled to start Friday. County Councilman Stephen J. Urban, a Republican, claimed the straight-party option should only be offered to official parties. Bob Caruso, a Democratic committeeman from Wilkes-Barre Township, also objected to straight-party voting for independents.

Pennsylvania: Some Voters Confused About Voter ID Law | NBC10

With elections only one week away, many Pennsylvania residents are still unsure of what is and what isn’t required of them when they head to the polls. On Tuesday, NBC10 spoke with several registered voters who believed that they needed their ID in order to vote next week. This isn’t true however. While you may be asked to show your ID at a voting place, it’s not required. “You will be allowed to vote without ID,” said Leslie Richards of the Montgomery County Elections Chair. “Nobody is required to bring ID to vote.”

Pennsylvania: DePasquale: $1M on Voter ID Ads Like Betting $1M on Steelers | PoliticsPA

Auditor General Eugene DePasquale thinks the Department of State is out of line to spend $1 million this year on its Voter ID ads. The campaign instructs voters to show photo identification at the polls in November, despite a Commonwealth Court injunction on the requirement. Voters are not required to present photo ID. “Wasting $1 million to promote a law that is not even in effect is like putting $1 million on my 2-4 Steelers to win this year’s Super Bowl,” said DePasquale, a Pittsburgh native. “Instead of spending $1 million on a voter education problem that doesn’t exist, we should invest in making it easier for eligible voters to cast their ballot.”

Pennsylvania: Auditor general criticizes $1M voter ID TV ads | Associated Press

Pennsylvania’s fiscal watchdog is calling it a waste of money to spend $1 million on 30-second TV ads promoting the state’s voter ID law. Auditor General Eugene DePasquale’s criticism Tuesday echoes that of other state Democratic lawmakers, and says the ads are fostering confusion ahead of the Nov. 5 election. A judge has blocked the requirement that voters show certain forms of ID before casting a ballot.

Pennsylvania: Voter ID ads draw controversy | Republican Herald

A state-paid ad campaign to showcase Pennsylvania’s voter photo ID law is generating controversy several weeks before the municipal election. Democratic senators called Wednesday for scrapping the “Show It” campaign, saying it only misleads and confuses voters into believing they need a photo ID to vote in the Nov. 5 election. The ads started airing on TV, radio and the Internet more than one month after a state judge ruled in August that voters won’t need to show photo ID at the polls Nov. 5 while a legal challenge continues to the 2012 law. Poll workers will be able to ask voters to show a photo ID on that day, but they can’t stop someone who lacks one from casting a vote. The ad displays a photo ID with a voice-over saying if you care about the election, then show it. As the ad wraps up, it mentions that no ID is required for this election and provides information about how to obtain a photo ID.