A recent decision by Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court has upheld the public’s right to access mail-in and absentee ballots as public records, yet it also allows state election officials to continue concealing certain voting records. The ruling stems from a legal battle initiated by Michelle Previte, who requested access to 2020 election records under the state’s “Right to Know” law.
Previte’s August 2022 request sought electronic copies of mail-in and absentee ballots, outer envelopes with voter signatures, and ballots cast at polling places in Erie County. While the county initially denied the request, citing Section 308 of the Pennsylvania Election Code, the Commonwealth Court later determined that images of mail-in and absentee ballots are public records. However, the court stopped short of granting access to ballots cast in person.
Attorney Thomas Breth, who represents Previte, expressed frustration with the resistance from election officials. “It’s mind-boggling that election officials are reluctant to share public documents at a time of unprecedented skepticism about election integrity,” Breth told The Federalist. He emphasized that transparency is crucial for restoring public trust in the electoral process.
The controversy over public access to voting records isn’t new. Pennsylvania’s Department of State, under the guidance of Deputy Secretary for Elections Jonathan Marks, has advised counties that ballots are not subject to disclosure. Marks’ guidance has led to several legal challenges, including Previte’s case and another high-profile lawsuit involving election systems analyst Heather Honey.
Honey’s request for the Cast Vote Record (CVR) from Lycoming County, which includes images of ballots and data showing how they were counted, was ultimately denied by the Commonwealth Court. The court argued that releasing the CVR could potentially reveal how individuals voted, despite claims that voter identities would remain confidential.
Judge Patricia McCullough, in a dissenting opinion, argued that digital copies of ballots, once scanned, should be considered public records since scanners are separate from the actual voting machines. McCullough’s stance suggests that more transparency is needed to ensure public confidence in election outcomes.
As the legal battles continue, Breth remains committed to challenging the state’s refusal to disclose certain voting records. “As a state that is so fundamentally important to the outcome of presidential elections, we have an obligation to the country to do it correctly, do it transparently, and do it in a fashion that we’re proud of,” Breth said. He added that Pennsylvania’s recent elections have been marred by confusion and secrecy, calling for a return to clear, open processes.
The outcome of these cases could have significant implications for election transparency in Pennsylvania, a key battleground state in national elections. For now, the fight for public access to all voting records continues, with the potential for further court battles on the horizon.
