The ongoing legal battles over election transparency in Pennsylvania have exposed a significant technological divide in the state’s approach to managing and disclosing election records. This divide, highlighted by recent court rulings, raises important questions about the readiness of election systems to meet modern demands for transparency while maintaining security.
The case brought by Michelle Previte against the Erie County Board of Elections resulted in a Commonwealth Court ruling that images of mail-in and absentee ballots are public records. However, the court maintained restrictions on access to in-person voting records, citing the state’s 1937 Election Code.
This ruling underscores the challenge of applying decades-old laws to modern, digital voting systems. The Election Code, written long before the advent of electronic voting machines and digital ballot images, is struggling to keep pace with technological advancements in election administration.
Attorney Thomas Breth, representing Previte, pointed out the absurdity of treating digital scans differently from physical ballots. “By definition, scanners are not ballot boxes or voting machines. They are separate and distinct parts of the voting process,” Breth argued, highlighting the need for a more nuanced understanding of modern voting technology in legal interpretations.
The technological divide is further exemplified by the case of Heather Honey, who sought access to the Cast Vote Record (CVR) from Lycoming County. The court’s denial of her request, citing concerns about potential privacy breaches, raises questions about the state’s confidence in the security of its own voting systems.
If the CVR data could indeed be used to identify individual voters, as the court suggested, it would imply a significant flaw in the voting system’s design. This contradiction between the system’s certification for use and the court’s privacy concerns points to a deeper issue in how election technology is understood and managed at the state level.
The Pennsylvania Department of State’s guidance to county election officials, suggesting that voted ballots are not subject to disclosure, further complicates the picture. This stance seems to ignore the technical realities of modern voting systems, where digital copies and data files are integral to the voting and counting process.
As Pennsylvania grapples with these issues, it becomes clear that a more technologically informed approach to election law and administration is needed. The current situation, where laws written for paper ballots are being applied to digital systems, is creating confusion and fueling public skepticism about election integrity.
Moving forward, Pennsylvania and other states may need to consider updating their election codes to explicitly address the realities of digital voting systems. This could include clearer guidelines on what constitutes a public record in the context of electronic voting, and how to balance transparency with security in the digital age.
The technological divide exposed by Pennsylvania’s election transparency debate serves as a wake-up call for election officials and lawmakers nationwide. As voting technology continues to evolve, so too must the laws and practices governing its use and the public’s access to election records.
