Spreadsheets of raw data associated with every ballot are not subject to public oversight, a Pennsylvania court ruled Monday in a request for “voting records” by election researchers whose research has fueled right-wing attacks on voting. The court issued a judgment in a lawsuit arising from the procedure.
The Commonwealth Court ruled 5-2 in favor of Secretary of State Al Schmidt, saying researcher Heather Honey and others were not entitled to receive records from Lycoming County in the run-up to the 2020 general election. .
Pennsylvania election law states that county election records will be made public “except for the contents of ballot boxes, voting machines, and records of voting supporters.” However, the law does not define voting machines.
Hannity’s October 2021 request under the state’s Right to Know Act was denied by the county elections office and released to the state before a Lycoming County judge ruled the public had a right to access the records. The Recorder’s Office upheld this decision.
A commonwealth court majority ruled Monday that the voting record is an “electronic, modern equivalent” of every vote cast in a traditional ballot box, and that optical scanners are considered voting machines under state law. did.
Because Honey did not live in Lycoming County and could not vote, three Williamsport-area residents took over the case: a local businessman, a former state trooper, and Republican state Rep. Joe Hamm. .
Their attorney, Thomas Brace, said Monday that no decision has yet been made on whether to appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
“We respectfully disagree with much of the court’s interpretation of election law,” Bress said.
A county judge said in December 2022 that the optical scanner used to record Lycoming votes cast on paper ballots does not qualify as a voting machine under state law. The judge said that the contents of the ballot boxes and voting machines, information that is prohibited by law from being disclosed to the public, constitute the mechanism of the ballots and voting machines, not the information contained in the voting machines, such as electronic data.
Justice Ellen Schiessler’s majority opinion stated that Lycoming’s optical scanner is “a mechanical, electrical, electromechanical, or electronic component of a voting system that is not capable of performing voting tasks, including mailing and tabulating ballots.” There is no doubt that it will be used in particular.” Therefore, these devices also fit the commonly understood definition of “voting machine.” ”
She said it would be foolish if physical ballots were not available for public inspection. “But what’s special about the ballot is not so much the format of the ballot, but the voting information it contains.”
Brees said releasing the data would not break the secrecy of the ballots.
“I don’t believe the court’s decision was based on the theory that you can reverse engineer data to determine how someone voted,” Brace said.
The State Department’s press office said it was working to respond to the ruling.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Patricia McCullough said voting records do not link a ballot to a particular voter.
“The order of the numbered list of voters does not even correspond to the order in which the ballots are cast,” McCullough wrote. “The only way one can determine the ranking of electors is by personally observing them as they vote.”
Mr. Haney, who heads Haystack Investigations, a Lebanon, Pennsylvania-based company, has previously likened voting records to a spreadsheet, calling it “just a digital report of the votes that have been scanned into a tabulation machine.” He was explaining. The CVR is a report created from his desktop computer after the election, not the contents of the ballot box, not the contents of the ballot box. ”
