inside sources print logo
Get up to date Delaware Valley news in your inbox

GUINEY: Your Freedom Is on the Ballot This November

For an alternate viewpoint see WHITE: It’s Time for Voters to Let Democrats Know That Enough Is Enough

The choices in this year’s election have never been clearer.

Democrats want to protect your freedom while Republicans claim “freedom” in soundbites, while actually taking away your freedoms and liberty.

Democrats are working to protect eligible voters’ access to the ballot box – your freedom to have your vote counted. In Congress, Democrats voted to certify the 2020 presidential election while all but one PA Republican (who were elected on the same ballots) voted to overturn that election, nullifying the majority of Pennsylvania votes. Some Republicans continue to push false election conspiracies and threaten to decertify your voting machines. These ultra-MAGA election deniers threaten your freedom to elect your leaders.

Democratic candidates Josh Shapiro and John Fetterman and local candidates up and down the ballot are working to protect bodily autonomy for women. They have pledged to protect a woman’s right to reproductive health care – including access to contraception and healthcare during miscarriage and therapeutic abortion. Republicans in Washington and Harrisburg have been trying to take those rights away from women for decades and have promised to do so if elected. Republicans want to take away this freedom. Democrats will continue to defend it.

Firearm injuries are now the leading cause of death in the United States for children age 1 to 19. Democrats in D.C. have passed the first firearm safety legislation in decades (with only one Republican vote from Pennsylvania).  The Republican majority legislature in Harrisburg continues to block sensible gun safety legislation that could protect our children. Following intensive efforts by the office of Democratic Delaware County District Attorney Jack Stollsteimer, the rate of gun violence homicide has decreased by 44 percent from 2020 to 2021 in the city of Chester. Democrats protect our children’s freedom to live their lives. Republicans look the other way and rely on “thoughts and prayers.”

Democrats like Mary Gay Scanlon have voted to support the economy and create jobs with the Infrastructure Act. Most Republicans voted against this measure that is helping working families. We are struggling with the effects of COVID and the ongoing effects of the war in Ukraine on our economy. Democrats are doing all they can to strengthen the economy for middle and working-class people and make corporations pay their fair share. Meanwhile, Republicans support tax breaks for the wealthy and have no plan to help the rest of us.

Social Security and Medicare are a lifeline for our seniors. Democrats enacted these programs, and the official Republican Senate and House plans will put them on the chopping block. Democrats support the freedom to enjoy a reasonable retirement for our seniors – who have paid into the system. Republicans threaten that.

Democrats vote to support your voting rights, protect reproductive rights, create good-paying jobs, enable a dignified retirement for our seniors, and more. Please vote for our Democratic candidates so they can support your freedom to choose and shape your own future.

 

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

Lawsuit Seeks to Prevent Double Voting in Philadelphia

An organization that defends election integrity says the City of Philadelphia isn’t doing enough to protect the election system from fraud, and it has gone to court to make its case.

Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections (RITE) has filed a lawsuit against Philadelphia’s city commissioners demanding that poll workers be trained to prevent duplicate votes from being counted. Every one of those ballots, the group argues, cancels a legitimate ballot cast by a law-abiding voter.

In a press release, RITE said the commissioners are “threatening to discontinue critical, commonsense, and legally required election integrity measures that safeguard against duplicate voting. According to a recent report, the justification for this shocking conduct is officials’ unjustified belief that identifying and eliminating duplicate votes somehow jeopardizes their ability to access state election administration funds. The commissioners, who were recently caught deceiving the public regarding the distribution of absentee/mail-in ballots, have ignored RITE’s repeated attempts to correct this misunderstanding of the law, threatening to conduct the 2022 election without these crucial security measures in place.”

The lawsuit asked the court to require the commissioners to conduct a basic audit of the ballots at the conclusion of the election, known as a poll book reconciliation. That matches absentee and mail-in ballots received against in-person votes.

“This simple process identified 40 such duplicate votes during the 2020 election in Philadelphia, and it is becoming increasingly important as absentee/mail-in voting grows more popular in the city and throughout the state,” the organization said. “The lawsuit also challenges Philadelphia’s inadequate training and checks at the polling place on Election Day, which, if done properly, would further reduce duplicate voting opportunities.”

Philadelphia election officials declined to respond to requests for comment.

“As reports of election abuses in Philadelphia continue to come to light, Pennsylvania voters deserve to know that local election officials are doing all that they are required to do to prevent and eliminate duplicate voting,” said Derek Lyons, RITE’s president, and CEO. “Just weeks before the election, however, officials appear determined to weaken crucial election integrity measures without any justification. Duplicate voting is antithetical to election integrity. RITE is proud to support Pennsylvania voters fighting against this flawed, dangerous, and illegal plan that would undermine the public’s trust and confidence in their elections.”

Joshua Voss, the attorney who filed the suit, said, “Election officials must protect the ballot box from duplicate voting that can occur when someone votes by mail and then later votes in person. Unfortunately, even as mail-in ballots have become more popular, Philadelphia officials have suggested they might weaken safeguards against double voting that have proven effective in the past. Our lawsuit seeks to defend the integrity of Philadelphia’s elections by ensuring that robust protections against double voting remain in place, as required by law.”

Albert Eisenberg, a Republican consultant with RedStateBlue, said that while he does not know the specific details of the lawsuit, “there absolutely needs to be more oversight on the absentee voting, drop-boxes, etc. in Philadelphia so people of all political backgrounds trust our elections. Open drop boxes with no supervision are a bad idea in a first-world democracy.”

Eisenberg added, “I believe (Senate candidate) Dr. Oz will be the first Republican in generations to get to 20 percent of the citywide vote in Philadelphia due to John Fetterman’s radicalism and a growing alienation among working Democrats toward their party’s main priorities, which are all related to social issues as life gets more expensive–and dangerous–for Philadelphians.”

Co-founded in 2022 by Steve Wynn, Karl Rove, and Bobby R. Burchfield, RITE is a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the rule of law in elections.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

McGARRIGLE: Why Voters Should Vote For Republicans

EDITOR’S NOTE: For another view, see “Valyo: Vote for Democrats to Preserve Democracy.”

 

This November, voters in Delaware County, and all across Pennsylvania and the United States of America, should choose the Republican candidates when they cast their vote in this year’s General Election. The Republican candidates are the only ones who have been consistently focused on the issues that are impacting our day-to-day lives; inflation, energy cost, crime, education, and restarting our economy. Additionally, many of these issues we are facing can be directly tied back to Democrat-championed policies and initiatives.

For example, the steadily-rising crime and murder rates we are seeing in Philadelphia are a direct result of Democratic officials, like District Attorney Larry Krasner, choosing to embrace criminals and turn their back on crime victims. We also saw many Democrats who hold local, state, or federal offices calling for policing to be “reimagined” and for the police to be defunded.

As a result of that, criminals now feel emboldened and empowered because they know there will be little-to-no consequences if caught. We have also begun to see the crime begin to spill over into Delaware County from the city of Philadelphia, something that Republicans have warned about for years.

If you’ve been to the grocery store lately, you’ve probably noticed you are paying more for fewer items. Inflation is hitting everyone’s wallets, and without electing fiscally-responsible Republican candidates inflation will only continue to grow worse. The Democrat’s belief that “if we spend more money, inflation will go away,” has been proven wrong time and again. Once again, inflation has not gone away, and without a change in how we address the problem, it will only continue to get worse.

The increased cost of gasoline and other energy sources can be directly tied to the Democrats’ unwavering war on energy. Democrats believe that this is a zero-sum game: you can either have a clean and healthy environment, or you can have a society that depends on fossil fuels. Republicans on the other hand understand that we can use fossil fuels while also protecting our environment, with the use of sensible regulations and incentives for using alternative energy, not burdensome regulations and fees for using fossil fuels.

Republicans are also committed to ensuring that every child gets a quality education, and most importantly, that they have the choice to attend a school that best suits them. Education is not a “one size fits all” issue, which was made even clearer by the COVID-19 pandemic. Our children are still feeling the negative educational, developmental, and social impacts of the lockdowns, and numerous studies have been released detailing the true impact of these closures.

The issues at stake in this year’s election are too important for voters to stay home. If you are tired of paying high prices for gas and food, feeling unsafe in your community, and being concerned about whether your child is getting a quality education, then I implore you to find out about the Republican candidates in your area and to get out and vote for them.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

Picture Proof of Chester County Voters Ignoring One-Ballot Rule, Critics Say

Daryl Campbell and other Chester County residents have repeatedly complained to county commissioners that ballot drop boxes were not secure.

“They always asked us, ‘Where’s your evidence?’” Campbell said. So, the West Chester resident filed a right-to-know request for the video from cameras used to monitor drop boxes during the 2022 primary. He found some 300 pictures of voters putting multiple ballots into a drop box just outside the county Voter Services Center at 601 Westtown Road, along with a video.

Campbell and three other county voters filed a lawsuit last Friday asking the court to order county officials to secure the drop boxes.

Campbell told DVJournal that, as a voter, he is being disenfranchised by the county policy to “secure” the 13 drop boxes with only video cameras that are not monitored.

Asked if perhaps people did not realize they should by law only put their own ballot into a drop box, Campbell pointed out there is a sign on the drop box warning them of that law.

“We are not against the idea of drop boxes,” said Campbell. “We have a problem with them not being secure.”

“My rights are being violated,” said Campbell, who noted that he is not given two or three ballots to fill out when he goes and votes in person. “They were giving people a chance to vote more than once. You’re giving people the opportunity for fraud. This is an election. It’s a sacred thing when you go to vote.”

“Mailed or absentee ballots returned by someone other than the voter are void, invalid, and should not be counted,” the suit said.

Villanova lawyer Wally Zimolong, who filed the lawsuit along with America First Legal Foundation, said, “When the drop boxes are open to receive ballots, the Board of Elections should require monitors to make sure voters are complying with the law. It is no different than the folks that work at the precincts on Election Day who make sure the election is properly conducted. No one objects to having monitors in place there. Drop boxes should not receive special treatment.”

Michael Taylor, the former solicitor for the Chester County Republicans, said, “We had been concerned that the drop boxes were allowing voters (intentionally or mistakenly) to violate the Pennsylvania election code. We wrote to Chester County in March 2022, raising these concerns. We also provided the county with a number of reasonable enhancements for the security of drop boxes in Chester County. We hoped that bringing light to the obvious criminal violations would spur some cross-party reforms that promoted election integrity.

“Sadly, our suggestions were rejected, and our concerns were realized when these photographs were uncovered. Now, before this important general election, it is incumbent that the Chester County Board of Commissioners take meaningful steps to ensure that any drop boxes used in Chester County are not facilitating breaches of the Election Code. Chester County cannot be complicit with or seen to condone those who violate the law.”

Rebecca Brain, a county spokeswoman said, “Since the bipartisan Act 77 came into effect two years ago, Chester County Voter Services has continually reviewed and refined the ways in which mail-in ballots can be cast to ensure all eligible citizens who are registered to vote can do so – whether in person or by mail.

“The county has produced, posted, and publicized informational videos on many aspects of the election process, including voting by the legislature’s newly authorized mail-in ballot. Clear signage on mail-in ballot drop boxes throughout the county notes the rules for returning a mail-in ballot.  Additional efforts by Chester County Voter Services for the November 2022 election, which will be undertaken to further educate Republican and Democrat voters alike on the rules for returning a mail-in ballot, include brightly colored notices inserted with all mail-in ballots that clearly explain the rules for returning a mail-in ballot, and the staffing of drop boxes during the drop box opening hours, to monitor and remind all voters of the mail-in ballot rules.

“All images that were presented to Chester County Voter Services, which allegedly indicate in few instances that more than one ballot may have been submitted through a drop box, have been forwarded to the Chester County District Attorney’s Office for review.”

A spokeswoman for the district attorney said the matter is under investigation and her office could not comment.

 

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

McDANIEL: Why the RNC Sued the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Pennsylvanians deserve much better. The Keystone State is the birthplace of some of America’s greatest achievements, but in recent years it has become better known for its disastrous election integrity issues. There are several reasons for this. But perhaps number one is the state’s failure to ensure uniform election practices apply statewide.

Pennsylvania’s Constitution is clear: It says that election rules must “be uniform throughout the state.” But under  Gov. Tom Wolf and Democrat leadership, the rules for counting your vote vary drastically depending on where you live. Last week, a coalition led by the Republican National Committee and several concerned citizens sued the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in an effort to help right this significant wrong in Pennsylvania’s unequal treatment of voters.

Our lawsuit seeks to ensure that all counties treat their voters the same when it comes to counting their ballots. In recent elections, some counties have begun the practice of contacting voters who return ballots with mistakes, such as lack of a signature, and allowing them to fix–or “cure”–the problem. State officials admit that allowing for such a practice is nowhere to be found in Pennsylvania law, but many counties are ignoring the law.

To be clear, the Republican Party is not against allowing absentee voters to fix mistakes. Just last year, Republicans in the General Assembly sent a bill to Gov. Wolf that would standardize the process for voters to fix their ballots. However, he vetoed it because the legislation also contained such commonsense measures as voter ID and restrictions against ballot harvesting. That is truly unfortunate and a loss for Pennsylvania election integrity. But it doesn’t change the fact that without a law allowing for curing on the books, counties cannot create one out of thin air.

Our lawsuit simply asks Pennsylvania’s courts to ensure uniformity throughout the state and not punish county election officials or their voters for following the law. Counties that allow for curing may be well-intentioned, but their practices are doing nothing more than undermining the rule of law and causing voters who witness this dysfunction to lose confidence in the state’s elections. It has to stop.

The same rules should apply to a voter voting in the Delaware valley and a voter across the state in Pittsburgh. And these rules should be set by the legislature which is elected by you, the voters. We don’t need counties going rogue and making decisions about election guidelines that should be made by elected representatives in the legislature.

Our recent lawsuit against Pennsylvania was the RNC’s 59th example of election integrity litigation so far this cycle. Since suing North Carolina’s Board of Elections last week, we’re at 60.

This is part of our broad, nationwide effort to ensure transparency and fairness in elections across America. When states like Pennsylvania fail to administer their elections in a standard, fair manner, it falls to groups like ours to step in. We’ll continue fighting to ensure that elections in the Keystone State are free, fair, and transparent – because Pennsylvanians deserve nothing less.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

Hearing on Quinn Open Primaries Bill Held at Villanova University

Should Pennsylvania join the states with open primaries where people with no party affiliation can vote to nominate Democrat or Republican candidates?

That was the question considered at a House State Government Committee hearing Tuesday at Villanova University. State Rep. Chris Quinn (R-Media) is the prime sponsor of a bill that would allow open voting.

“I want all Pennsylvanians to have a role in our democracy and play a part in our primary elections,” said Quinn. “For this reason, I’ve introduced HB 1369, better known as the Open Primaries Bill. As Pennsylvania becomes more and more politically polarized, partisanship has become more relevant than ever in our politics. Primaries are the marquee election that determines who represents us in Washington, Harrisburg, and in our local communities.”

Nearly 1.2 million state residents cannot vote in the primaries because they are registered independent and not affiliated with one of the two major parties, he said.

Reps. Chris Quinn (left) and Craig Staats

John Opdyke, president of Open Primaries, a group that lobbies to convert cities and states to open primaries, was among those who testified. He said the traditional image of independent voters being less engaged is wrong.

“Their levels of engagement are very high,” he said. A recent Arizona State University study analyzed social media and found independent voters are just as engaged as Republicans and Democrats but have more politically diverse networks as far as their contacts, he said.

“I think that giving independents the right to vote in primaries is not just an issue of fairness; in some ways, it’s like laying down a red carpet for those voters that I believe have a really important role to play in American politics right now, given how polarized it’s become, given how divisive. And how the temperature has gone up in many ways. Bringing independents into the equation I think creates much more opportunity of bridging the partisan divide at both the legalization level and the community level.”

Closed primaries decrease turnout in the primaries and decrease turnout in the general election by 20 percent, according to a University of Southern California study, he said.

“This is the norm around the country,” he said of open primaries. Pennsylvania is one of only nine states with closed primaries. However, voters can change their party up to 15 days before a primary to vote in it. And according to an Associated Press poll, 69 percent of voters favor open primaries.

He noted that in 35 percent of Pennsylvania districts only a Democrat or Republican is running in the general election. So the primary determines who represents the voters.

Former Republican State Chairman Alan Novak and T.J. Rooney, former Democratic State Chairman, both testified in favor of the bill.

“From a party perspective, it’s a smart thing to do,” said Novak. In Chester County, where he lives, 18 percent of the voters are independent, with 12 percent statewide. “The swing voters today are independent voters.” And those voters decide close elections. He says he believes candidates should start communicating with them earlier in the process.

Reps. Paul Schemel (left) and Jared Solomon

Rooney said it would be “healthy for democracy” to allow independent voters to vote in primaries.

Jack Wagner, with Ballot PA Vets and Pittsburgh Hires Veterans, also spoke in favor of open primaries, along with Army veteran Marilyn Kelly-Cavotta with Ballot PA Vets, who is also the executive director of veteran and military services at Moravian University. Both said open primaries would benefit veterans.

Wagner, a former Marine who also served as state auditor general said, “I don’t know of any issue in a democracy that is more fundamental than the right to vote.”

Because many veterans identify as Americans rather than as Democrats or Republicans, they tend to register as independent, which prevents them from voting in the primaries, he said.

“How about the veteran who shows up that lost both legs in Iraq or Afghanistan? In a wheelchair and shows up thinking they can vote on the primary election day and they find out they can’t. They’ve just given part of their body to their country by serving their country,” said Wagner.

Wagner added, “The country called on them to serve the country, and they did so. And now they’re being excluded from voting 50 percent of the time (as independents).”

Rep. Paul Schemel (R-Franklin Co.) asked, “If they don’t want to be with either party, why do they want to select that party’s nominee? The general election is to select who serves in the office.” Schemel does not believe it’s the government’s responsibility to fix this problem, but rather it should be up to the political parties.

Rep. Jared Solomon (D-Philadelphia) said he does not have a Republican opponent. “Maybe my unaffiliated voters like me, maybe they don’t…So independents have no say. They have zero say in the process,” said Solomon.

The Open Primaries bill will be taken up by the House State Government Committee before going to the full House for a vote. In the last session, the state Senate passed a similar bill.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

MENSCH: Ensuring Election Integrity Has Never Been More Important

Americans are debating an array of contentious issues. As profound as they are, none of those debates can be truly settled without an election process the people trust.

The bad news is, most Pennsylvanians say they are dissatisfied with the way elections are conducted in the state, according to a May 2022 Franklin and Marshall poll.

The good news is, we’re a step closer to giving the people the power to restore confidence in Pennsylvania’s election process.

The General Assembly passed two proposed amendments to the Pennsylvania Constitution addressing elections. If approved again in the 2023-24 legislative session, the questions will be put on the ballot for voters to decide. One of these amendments would require all voters to present a valid form of identification prior to voting. This would apply to voting in person or by mail.

Valid ID would include any government-issued identification. To ensure no voter is prevented from participating in the election process, anyone without a valid ID could receive one at no cost.

Pennsylvania is woefully behind the times when it comes to requiring voter ID. Thirty-five other states require some form of voter ID, and studies show that states where voter ID was implemented have not seen a drop-off in voter participation in any demographic.

When asked, citizens have consistently said they want voter ID. A Franklin and Marshall poll last year found that 74 percent of Pennsylvanians support requiring voters to present identification to vote. A separate proposed amendment would require the General Assembly to provide for audits of elections, including the administration of elections and the results.

The work would be performed by the state Auditor General, who is elected independently by the voters. In years when the Auditor General is on the ballot, the election audit would be conducted by a separate, independent auditor.

Election audits would provide transparent and fact-based analysis of election results, giving voters across the political spectrum assurance that elections are fair and accurate.

In addition to moving these constitutional questions one step closer to voters, the General Assembly passed Act 88 to get private money out of the administration of our elections. The legislation was created in response to the use of grant money from the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) during the 2020 Election.

Even if you’ve never heard of CTCL, you’ve heard of one of its chief financial backers: billionaire Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. Correspondence between CTCL, the Wolf Administration, and county officials demonstrates that millions of dollars in “Zuckerbucks” were directed predominantly to counties that favor Democrats.

Common sense tells us that using private funding to pay for the administration of elections is going to undermine confidence in the process, so we banned it. However, counties do face substantial costs related to primary and general elections, and we ensured the state will help them do it right.

The new law creates grants for counties to cover costs such as hiring and training staff, printing ballots, and managing voting machines and tabulation equipment.

In return, counties that accept the money are required to take several critical steps to ensure the integrity of the process. They must clean up voter rolls, including removing deceased voters and report the total number of voters registered prior to an election. They must disclose the number of mail-in votes received within four hours of polls closing and ensure the safekeeping of all ballots. Finally, counties must count ballots on Election Day without interruption.

Our republic began in Pennsylvania, and we’re taking the lead in keeping it healthy and strong. Act 88 and the above constitutional amendments make up one of the most significant election integrity packages enacted in America.

Passions are running high across Pennsylvania and the nation. People need to know we can resolve our differences peacefully through the election process. Such resolution can only occur when the integrity of the process is assured. We can do it, and it’s my hope that soon the voters themselves will play a key role in providing it.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

 

Counterpoint: Mandatory Voting Is a Bad, Unconstitutional Idea

For another point of view see: Point: Universal Voting Makes Sense for a Full, Healthy Democracy

A handful of countries, most notably Australia, impose mandatory voting, with citizens facing fines and punishments if they don’t appear at the polls. And every few years, somebody proposes bringing this practice to the United States as a good-government reform that would allegedly improve the health of our democracy.

Luckily, Americans remain unimpressed by the idea. A report advocating mandatory voting by the Brookings Institution and Harvard Kennedy School’s Ash Center acknowledged as much. When polled, they found only 26 percent of Americans favored the idea, with 64 percent opposed.

The claimed benefits of mandatory voting are highly dubious. All available evidence is that it would have little effect on election outcomes since non-voters tend to break down about the same as for voters in their partisan preferences. The main effect visible in Australia is the frequency of the so-called “donkey ballot,” where voters randomly pick a candidate or party without giving it any thought, often simply choosing the option listed first on the ballot. Others return a blank ballot, clearly going through the motions only to avoid punishment.

Beyond the lack of clear, practical benefit, mandatory voting sits uneasily with American principles. The First Amendment protects not only freedom of speech but also freedom from compelled speech. And even if a coerced voter shows up and casts a spoiled ballot, participating in an election is a speech act. It implies affirmation of the legitimacy and desirability of the electoral system and our current constitutional order. That might be a correct opinion, in my view, but it is not one Americans should be forced to affirm.

There is a long history in the United States of principled abstention from voting, including groups such as the Quakers and Jehovah’s Witnesses, who are motivated by a thoroughgoing religious faith in strict pacifism. Others, such as anarchists ranging from libertarians to socialists, reject the moral legitimacy of all governments and do not want to lend their endorsement to the state. Faced with the need to accommodate such groups or at least some of them, compulsory voting faces two bad options. Either any person can invoke a religious or philosophical exemption, rendering the whole exercise pointless, or must put the government in the untenable position of judging which reasons are good enough.

Even if the First Amendment argument doesn’t convince you, the last thing our bloated criminal justice system needs is yet another reason to impose fines and enforcement actions on Americans, especially when such burdens will fall disproportionately on minorities and the poor. Every law must be enforced, and the police in our country already have more than enough laws to enforce.

Even if the political will could be mustered to pass a compulsory voting law, the courts are unlikely to permit it under longstanding First Amendment principles. During World War II, the court faced another attempt at coercing civic affirmation: mandatory recital of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. Again, Jehovah’s Witnesses refused, believing that this was an act of flag-worship akin to idolatry.

Justice Robert H. Jackson, writing for a 6-3 court, offered one of the most stirring articulations of America’s radical free speech jurisprudence: “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional firmament, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion.”

Showing up to vote may well be a laudable act, one to be encouraged, an admirable exercise of civic duty and participation in our system of government. But as a matter of opinion, it is not the government’s role to impose that view as compulsory orthodoxy. If you don’t want to vote, it’s your right not to vote.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

SAMMIN: Pennsylvania Needs Ranked-Choice Voting

In the polls for Pennsylvania’s gubernatorial race this year, no candidate has reached thirty percent. In the Senate contest, the same situation prevails. The candidates we say are “winning” based on poll results only claim the support of about a quarter of Pennsylvania Republicans, at best.

Depending on who earns the top spot in the actual vote next week, that might be just fine. Most of the candidates are normal enough Republicans, and in a perfect world, all GOP voters will rally around the chosen nominee. But that is not necessarily what will happen. If a candidate is far enough outside the mainstream, a party minority might hijack the ballot slot and lose a great many votes.

In other states, this would be impossible. States like Louisiana, California, and Washington use a two-round system of voting with all candidates competing in one primary. A general election follows between the top two vote-earners. Alaska will do something similar starting this year — the top four candidates will advance to the general election and voters will choose among them with ranked-choice voting.

That last scenario is more applicable to a state like Pennsylvania. Here, a California-style primary would retain all the problems of our current system, with the winners likely being one Democrat and one Republican, neither of whom is certain to command the support of his entire party. But if each party instead selected its nominees in a more consensus-based method, the following general election would be more like what we usually want to happen: each party puts forth a candidate that represents a majority of its party members.

One way to do this is to abolish primaries altogether and have party members select nominees at a convention. Virginia Republicans selected their gubernatorial candidate this way in 2021. Glenn Youngkin had the support of only 32.9 percent of convention delegates on the first ballot, but when the lowest vote–earners were eliminated from the ballot in each of five further rounds of voting, the delegates got to consider where to shift their support. In the sixth round, Youngkin claimed victory with a majority of delegates’ votes. He went on to defeat the Democratic candidate (chosen by primary ballot in the usual way), with his party — and many independents and even Democrats — rallying to his cause.

The convention system creates an opportunity for party members to discuss their choices and arrive at a consensus about who best represents the party — and who is likely to actually win the election. But conventions are somewhat limited, in that they are made up of the party members who are most active, and most willing to travel to a convention and spend days doing the party’s business.

If Pennsylvanians want to achieve that level of consensus while making it easier for the rank-and-file party members to participate, they could look to New York City’s recent shift to ranked-choice voting. New York City Democrats had to choose from among thirteen candidates for the Democratic nomination for mayor in 2021. They used a ranked choice system, where voters were able to rank which candidates they liked in order of preference, rather than just choosing one of the thirteen. Lower-ranking candidates were eliminated, and the voters’ next preferences followed.

The result was a nominee, Eric Adams, who claimed more of a consensus mandate after eight rounds of counting (50.4 percent) than he did after the first round (30.7 percent). This system works especially well in primary elections. In a general election, sides are chosen, and few voters would say, for example, “I’ll vote for Clinton, but if she can’t win, I’ll pick Trump.” By November, it’s either-or, us-versus-them.

But in a primary like the one next week, Pennsylvania Republicans might have one preferred candidate, but would probably support others, as well. It is not uncommon to say, “David McCormick is my first choice, but I also like Jeff Bartos and Carla Sands.” In our current system, only the first choice matters. But that is not typically how we think about primary candidates, and it does not capture the complete picture of each voter’s sentiments.

It is too late to fix things this year, and since the state party establishment refused to endorse anyone, it is almost guaranteed that we will have senatorial and gubernatorial nominees who are backed by only a minority of primary votes. In 2024, Pennsylvania Republicans should do better. Whether through a convention or a ranked-choice primary, anything is better than the virtual crapshoot we are about to embark upon.

This article first appeared in Broad and Liberty.

Group Wants GOP Primary Voters to Press Officials to Repeal Act 77

A new group is telling Pennsylvania residents to rise up and reclaim the voting process it says went awry when the state legislature passed Act 77 in 2019.

Act 77, among other things, gives voters 50 days of no-excuse mail-in voting before an election and brought ballot boxes, which have proved controversial. The group, BallotSecurityNow.org, is sending text messages to Republican primary voters targeting state representatives and senators who passed Act 77

Messages sent on Wednesday targeted Rep. Seth Grove (R-York). Texts are going out to Sen. Jake Corman’s district on Thursday. Corman (R-Centre) is a candidate for governor.

“Blame GOP State Rep. Seth Grove for the 2020 election fraud in PA. He voted for the unconstitutional Act 77, which led to ballot-box stuffing and the defeat of President Trump. Now Grove will not do what it takes to repeal the bogus law. Help us convince him to do what is right.”

Ballot Security Now wants voters to demand their representative or senator sign a pledge to support action to repeal Pennsylvania’s unconstitutional Act 77 and restore all voting methods to those clearly described in the state constitution; support an amendment to the Pennsylvania constitution to specify voting will only be by processes in the constitution with no universal mail-in voting allowed; support a law to require photo identification for all methods of voting, in-person or by mail; support a law to require that all voter rolls be cleaned (removing dead voters or those who have moved away) before every election; support a law which requires that all ballots except military ballots must be received in the election office by poll closing time on Election Day.

Grove declined to comment about the texts, although he acknowledged receiving one.

“I have launched our state constitutionally mandated review of the 2020 election in a transparent fashion,” said Corman. “I have significant issues with Act 77 and how Gov. Wolf violated the law. As governor, I’m going to pass legislation that eliminates drop boxes, institutes photo ID requirements, and ends what has been a disastrous, no-excuse mail-in-ballot program. All Pennsylvania voters, regardless of party, must have confidence that their vote will be counted. If we don’t have faith in our elections, we have nothing.”

Locally, the Montgomery County Republican Party has accused Democrats of ballot-box stuffing and aired a video showing a woman placing multiple ballots in a box in Upper Dublin in November 2021. However, county officials claim that what she did is permitted.

Doug McLinko

Doug McLinko, a Bradford County commissioner, is passionate about fair elections. McLinko, also a member of the Bradford Board of Elections, is a plaintiff in a case against the Pennsylvania Secretary of State, who is in charge of elections. He contends that because the move to mail-in voting was done unconstitutionally, he was placed in the untenable position of being required by the state to “act unlawfully.”

He argued on constitutional grounds and won in Commonwealth Court, which found Act 77 violates Pennsylvania’s constitution. Attorney General Josh Shapiro appealed to the state Supreme Court, where it is pending.

McLinko argues Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court has long held that the state constitution requires in-person voting.

McLinko, a Republican, blames his party for Act 77 since Republican legislators passed it without Democratic votes.

“They destroyed the voting system in Pennsylvania,” he said. “And they never did anything to fix it. They can say they have, but they haven’t.”

While many people believe the pandemic led to mail-in ballots, Act 77 was approved before COVID.

While the legislature has held hearings and discussed auditing the vote, McLinko called that “smoke and mirrors,” which has not led to any meaningful action. A constitutional amendment needs to be placed on the ballot as soon as possible, he said. Otherwise, Pennsylvania and its crucial Electoral College votes will go to the Democrats in the 2024 presidential election and beyond.

He believes the Keystone State is the key and necessary for any Republican to retake the White House.

“Pennsylvania is the prize of swing states,” he said. And even if a Republican is elected governor in the fall, without removing Act 77, the 2024 election remains in jeopardy. The legislature must act to repeal the bill, he said.

“They screwed it up once, and they are capable of screwing it up again,” McLinko said.

If elected representatives will not take the Ballot Security Now pledge, McLinko called on voters to mount primary challenges.

“The deplorables are angry in Pennsylvania,” said McLinko. “And when you find out how bad this is, and what the state legislature did to your precious right to vote, you are going to be furious, too. And they don’t have any desire to fix it.”

“They all say they want investigations and audits, which means nothing,” said McLinko. “We need a constitutional amendment.”

Follow us on social media: Twitter: @DV_Journal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal