In a recent ruling, Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court affirmed that mail-in and absentee ballots are public records, yet it allowed the state to continue withholding other voting records from public view. The decision is the latest development in an ongoing legal battle over election transparency in the state, sparked by a 2022 “Right to Know” request from Erie County resident Michelle Previte.
Previte sought access to electronic images of mail-in ballots, outer envelopes, and ballots cast at polling places during the 2020 general election. While the court agreed that images of mail-in and absentee ballots should be made public, it upheld the county’s decision to deny access to in-person voting records. This partial victory for transparency advocates leaves significant gaps in public access to election data.
Attorney Thomas Breth, representing Previte, criticized the reluctance of election officials to release these records. “It’s literally beyond my understanding,” Breth told The Federalist, expressing disbelief at the lengths to which officials have gone to keep election documents under wraps. He argued that greater transparency is essential to restore public confidence in the integrity of elections.
Previte’s case is not an isolated incident. Similar requests for election records have been denied across Pennsylvania, often based on guidance from the state’s Department of State. In an October 2022 letter, Jonathan Marks, Deputy Secretary for Elections, advised counties that ballots are not subject to disclosure under the Election Code, a stance that has led to multiple legal challenges.
Heather Honey, an election systems expert, faced a similar roadblock when she requested the Cast Vote Record (CVR) from Lycoming County. The CVR includes detailed data on how ballots were counted, but Honey’s request was ultimately denied by the Commonwealth Court. The court argued that releasing the CVR could compromise voter privacy, despite Honey’s assertion that names are separated from ballots before scanning.
Judge Patricia McCullough, dissenting in the Honey case and concurring in Previte’s, maintained that digital copies of ballots should be accessible to the public. She argued that scanners, which create digital images of ballots, are distinct from voting machines and that making these images public would not violate ballot secrecy.
Despite the Commonwealth Court’s partial ruling in favor of transparency, significant questions remain about the accessibility of other voting records. Breth, who is involved in multiple similar cases, plans to continue pushing for full transparency in Pennsylvania’s election processes. He emphasized the importance of doing elections “correctly, transparently, and in a fashion that we’re proud of.”
As Pennsylvania prepares for future elections, the state’s ongoing struggles with election transparency are likely to draw continued scrutiny. The outcome of these legal battles could set important precedents for how election records are handled, not just in Pennsylvania but across the nation.
