Pennsylvania Tribunal Decides Against Releasing Electronic Voting Figures as Public Records – Sky Bulletin

The legal system in Pennsylvania has determined that tabulations of electronic votes represented in the forms of spreadsheets related to individual ballots are not subject to examination by the public. This decision came on Monday, following a legal initiative spearheaded by an election researcher named Heather Honey, whose activities have stirred controversy within conservative circles about the integrity of voting practices.

The ruling, issued by a 5-2 majority in the Commonwealth Court, was in alignment with Secretary of State Al Schmidt’s stance. It centered on a request put forth by Honey and associates for access to “cast vote records” from Lycoming County’s 2020 General Election results.

Under the present Pennsylvania Elections Code, election records can be made public except for “the contents of ballot boxes and voting machines and records of assisted voters.” Yet, this statute does not explicate what constitutes a voting machine, leading to legal debate.

Initially rejected by the county’s election office–and subsequently by the state Office of Open Records– the request from October 2021 was later backed by a Lycoming County court, stating that the public does indeed have a right to access these records.

In a pivotal verdict, the Commonwealth Court’s majority deemed the electronic cast vote records to be equivalent to a modernized ballot box and acknowledged optic scanners as voting machines pursuant to state law.

The case transitioned to three Williamsport residents who took over litigation from Honey, since she did not reside or cast her vote in Lycoming County. These individuals—comprised of a local entrepreneur, a retired law enforcement officer, and Republican State Representative Joe Hamm—represented by attorney Thomas Breth, expressed disagreement with the court’s majority opinion and are considering an appeal to the higher Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

At the heart of this contention was the December 2022 opinion of a county judge who contended that the optic scanners, which record paper ballot votes, did not meet the legal definition of voting machines. This judge posited that the legal protections are meant for the ballots themselves and the internal components of the machines—not the electronic information they process.

In her majority opinion, Judge Ellen Ceisler emphasized that the optical scanners are inextricably tied to voting and tabulation processes, thus qualifying them as voting machines. She contended that it would not be logical to deny access to physical ballots while simultaneously permitting unrestricted disclosure of their digital equivalents, since the core value of both formats lies in the voting data they encapsulate.

Attorney Breth argued that disclosing the data would not compromise the anonymity of votes, pointing out that the court’s decision did not hinge on the possibility of data reverse-engineering to identify individual voting patterns.

While The Department of State’s press office is formulating a formal response to the judgment, the dissenting opinion of Judge Patricia McCullough highlighted the fact that cast vote records do not connect individual ballots to specific voters and affirmed the impossibility of deducing a voter’s choices without direct observation of the voting process.

Honey’s perspective equates the cast vote records to a simple spreadsheet and is seen as just a numeric aggregation of scanned ballot results post-election, arguing that these reports can be generated via a non-voting system computer and thus are not physically part and parcel of the contents within a ballot box.

What are cast vote records?

Cast vote records (CVR) refer to the electronic, spreadsheet-like data representing each ballot cast in an election, outlining how voting machines have tabulated those votes.

Why were the cast vote records in Pennsylvania not released to the public?

The Commonwealth Court in Pennsylvania ruled that electronic cast vote records are equivalent to the contents of traditional ballot boxes and, therefore, are protected under the state law which excludes the contents of ballot boxes and voting machines from public records.

Is there a possibility of appeal against the court’s decision?

Yes, those opposed to the court’s ruling, represented by their lawyer, Thomas Breth, are considering appealing to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to overturn the decision.