A Pennsylvania lawmaker is proposing legislation to set new rules for mapping the state’s congressional and legislative districts. Under House Bill 1344, Pennsylvania citizens – not politicians – would be responsible for drawing the boundaries that equally divide the state’s population during the apportionment that follows each 10-year census.
As of May, 27 states have passed laws offering online voter registration.Pennsylvania isn’t one of them, but Gov. Tom Wolf wants to change that and possibly recommend other election reforms, including allowing early voting, same day registration and no excuse absentee voting. Jeffrey Sheridan, the governor’s press secretary, said Wolf “is committed to implementing commonsense, secure election reforms” that encourage better participation. He noted that the state Senate previously authorized online registration by unanimous vote, but the measure did not come up for a vote by the House.
Legislation that seeks to boost voter turnout by making exercising this constitutional right more convenient in Pennsylvania is being pushed by two Democratic House members and several organizations. Same-day Voter Registration Could Increase Voter Participation, Supporters Say Lawmakers and others are calling for the passage of legislation that would allow voters to register at their polling place on Election Day and vote by provisional ballot. Their ballot t would only be counted after the Department of State approved their voter registration application. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Ryan Bizzarro, D-Erie, and lists 28 Democrats as its co-sponsors, would allow voters to register to vote at their county courthouse or polling place on the day of the election.
Voters in Palmyra Borough ran into a problem casting their ballots in a Primary Election council race Tuesday morning. Three candidates - Scott Mazzocca, Carissa Mellinger, and Ralph Watts - are seeking the Republican nomination to two seats carrying two-year terms, but the electronic voting machines in the borough's three precincts only allowed voters to select one candidate. The programming malfunction was caused by human error and was noticed about an hour after the polls had opened at 7 a.m. and roughly 30 ballots had been cast, said county administrator Jamie Wolgemuth, who sits on the Lebanon County Board of Elections. Once the problem was detected, poll workers began giving voters an emergency ballot to select a second candidate, Wolgemuth said.
On the night before Philly’s primary, four local election officials are accused of casting extra votes in order to balance their numbers. Sandra Lee, 60, Alexia Harding, 22, James Collins, 69, and Gregory Thomas, 60, are all charged with voter fraud. Warrants for their arrests were issued Monday. All four suspects were election officials from Philly’s 18th Ward, 1st Division. “There’s no legally justifiable reason to vote multiple times and you cannot falsely certify that you live in a particular ward and division in order to work the polls and collect a check,” said District Attorney Seth Williams. “Our democracy rests on free and fair elections, but it also relies on the fact that they are conducted properly, which is why these four individuals deserve to be arrested for what they did.”
A state Senate committee on Tuesday took the unusual step of sending Pedro Cortes' nomination for a second stint as Pennsylvania's secretary of state to the Senate floor without any recommendation. The State Government Committee voted without dissent after an hourlong hearing that largely focused on Cortes' role in the case of former Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell, who was convicted of murder and is serving a life sentence for killing three babies born alive during illegal abortions at his former clinic.
Philadelphia's budget plan calls for purchasing new voting machines, but some City Council members are balking at the $22 million expense. The request for new voting machines is based on the age of the current machines, now about a decade old, said Greg Irving of the City Commissioners. "The current voting technology is now 13 years old, it has seen an increase in the number of power failures and printer problems," Irving said. "We also have issues in election board and committeeperson races with missing write in tapes because our machines only produce one copy of write in votes."
A growing number of states have updated their election laws to make the hub of the democratic process more convenient and voter-friendly, but so far Pennsylvania isn't among them. Twenty-one states allow online voter registration and three others have passed similar laws that have yet to take effect. Thirty-six states permit all voters to cast ballots prior to Election Day and 10 allow voters to register and vote on the same day, all according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Philadelphia officials are focused on getting new voting machines to replace the original crop of electronic machines, now more than a decade old. But a bit of bureaucracy may hinder the purchase. The mayor’s new budget sets aside $22 million for new voting machines, with the hope to having them in place for the May 2017 primary. At a city council budget hearing this past week, Chief Information Officer Adel Ebeid said the current machines are past their useful life.
Other states allow voters to register online, permit pre-Election Day voting, and provide for no-excuse absentee ballots. Pennsylvania allows none of those but that efforts are afoot that could change that as soon as this summer. Acting Secretary of State Pedro Cortes told the House Appropriations Committee on Tuesday the administration will be in a position to roll out some form of online voter registration within four months "if it meets with your approval." According to Pew Charitable Trust, 20 states have online voter registration systems and four others have passed legislation to authorize it as a more convenient way to get more people on the state voter rolls.
Inspired by a civil rights anniversary and a new law in the Pacific Northwest, a Philadelphia Democrat is pushing to make voter registration automatic in Pennsylvania. "We will no longer play defense," said state Sen. Vincent Hughes at a Tuesday news conference at the Constitution Center, where he announced a new bill to create a "universal, automatic" registration system. "We will no longer be in a position where we will allow folks to deny us the opportunity to vote. We are now engaging fully in securing the right to vote for every Pennsylvania citizen who legally can do it." Hughes estimates about two million Pennsylvanians are eligible to vote but unregistered. The state is home to about 10 million voting-age residents.
In a unanimous ruling, Pennsylvania's Supreme Court has denied an appeal by a group of 24 voters who asked it to bar the use of some types of electronic voting machines. At issue was whether direct-recording electronic voting systems - DREs - which do not produce simultaneous paper records as each vote is cast, violate the state Election Code and the rights of voters. The state has approved six types of DREs for use in Pennsylvania. Most, if not all, midstate counties use electronic voting systems. Pennsylvania's highest court backed the use of DREs in a 35-page ruling issued this week by Justice Correale F. Stevens. That decision upholds a ruling Commonwealth Court issued in October 2013.
If it doesn't take 30 days to get a sandwich made-to-order, it shouldn't take 30 days to process a voter registration form. That's one York County legislator's take on same-day voter registration, under which people could turn out at the polls the same day as an election, register on the spot and cast a vote. "In this day and age, you can walk into a gas station and get a custom-made sandwich in minutes just by touching a screen," said Rep. Kevin Schreiber, D-York City. "We should make voting that easy." The process of casting a vote is already as effortless as touching a screen, but Schreiber and Erie County Democrat Rep. Ryan Bizzarro are resurrecting a proposal to make registration just as easy.
Citizens in almost half the states can sign up to vote the same way they buy music, order pizza or do their banking. While online voter registration has failed in Pennsylvania, three lawmakers are vowing to try again this year. Twenty-four states either have online voter registration or are in the process of adding it, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The idea has spread because it often enjoys bipartisan support, said Katy Owens Hubler, an election policy specialist for the group. In legislatures beset by gridlock, she noted, politicians often look for ideas that are unanimously popular so they can accomplish something.
In the age of Instagram, Twitter and Snapchat, Pennsylvania is stuck in the past century when it comes to voter registration. Prospective voters can download the necessary form online, but can’t submit it digitally. Instead, they have to mail it or personally deliver it to their county voter registration office. That’s among the voting procedures some members of the General Assembly want to change. It’s early in the new legislative session, but several proposals to modernize voting protocol are already circulating among state lawmakers. One piece of legislation would provide for electronic voter registration and another would allow citizens to register the same day as an election and then vote, which proponents say could increase turnout. “In this day and age, I do truly believe that we should be doing everything we can to make voting easier and as accessible as possible to all eligible voters,” said state Rep. Kevin Schreiber, D-York, who has joined state Rep. Ryan Bizzarro, D-Erie, in sponsoring same-day registration legislation.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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…"