DV Journal

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

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

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

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.

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

Montgomery County officials have taken issue with a video that the county Republican Party obtained through a right-to-know request and released to the news media.

The video shows a woman feeding several ballots into an Upper Dublin ballot box used in last November’s election. Ballot boxes and no excuse mail-in ballots permitted under Act 77 have been an issue in the last three elections, with many voters questioning the integrity of the new system.

Even though individuals are required to put their own ballots into ballot boxes, the county said in a letter to GOP Chair Liz Preate Havey that the woman shown was permitted to submit those ballots because she had “a completed Designated Agent Form in accordance with Pennsylvania law.”

“Each form properly identified the individual voter and designated the individual in the video as the person permitted to act as an agent on the voter’s behalf,” the letter said. “The county maintains each of these Designated Agent forms in its possession. This individual did nothing wrong. In fact, the video shows this voter taking the proper steps to enfranchise residents of a local rehabilitation and long-term care facility so that their votes were legally cast.

“It is irresponsible that MCRC, rather than make a reasonable attempt to get the facts, released this video to a third party and on MCRC social media falsely accusing the individual involved with ‘illegal ballot harvesting,’ when in fact, the individual correctly followed the rules for returning ballots. Mail-in ballots may be returned to the Board of Elections by a designated agent acting on behalf of a voter who, due to a disability, is not able to do so on their own.

“Returning ballots to a secure ballot drop box is one of several ways to return ballots to the Board of Elections. Many voters of both parties choose to deliver their ballot to a secure drop box for the peace of mind they provide. Each drop box has the rules clearly posted, is under 24-hour video surveillance, and has every ballot collected daily by a sheriff’s deputy and delivered directly to Voter Services,” according to the letter, which a county spokesperson released to Delaware Valley Journal.

Not surprisingly, the Republicans disagreed with the county officials’ explanation.

In a press release, GOP officials said, “The Pennsylvania Department of State designated agent form clearly states, ‘the person you designate as your agent is only allowed to serve as a designated agent for one voter, unless the additional voter(s) live in the same household as you (the voter named in this form).’”

They called the county’s response “deeply troubling.”

“The county is interpreting a large senior living facility as one household,” the Republicans said. “The Pennsylvania Department of State Voting Fact Sheet for Long Term Care Facilities specifically states a  ‘household’ for the purpose of designating an agent does not include a long-term care facility.”

Also, “the county fails to note whether or not the woman who did the ballot harvesting lives in the ‘same household as all the people for whom she dropped the ballots as required by Pennsylvania law. That is because she does not live in a senior living facility according to her voter registration. She has been identified by many as a long-time leader in the Democrat Party.”

And the Republicans said, “The county never addressed designated agents using drop boxes for any reason in its published instructions or in any communication with the Republican Party or its candidates.”

“The Democrat-controlled county has chosen to protect one of its own party leaders in direct violation of Pennsylvania law,” the Republicans added. “This kind of blatant disregard for even the simplest election security rules is unacceptable and contributes to the deep distrust many have in our system.”

In addition, the “MCRC is requesting the Montgomery County Election Board provide all the evidence that the county reviewed regarding the woman who dropped the multiple ballots. And we ask that it also provide the information to the district attorney and, if appropriate, the attorney general.

“We would also like to know the county’s conclusions and actions to be taken about each of the other 106 people who dropped more than one ballot at the Upper Dublin drop box. If the county does not provide this information, MCRC is prepared to submit a Right to Know Request for this information.”

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

As state legislatures here in Florida and across the country reconvene, it’s evident that voters are polarized. Many Americans falsely believe the 2020 election was stolen, and some politicians are seizing upon Americans’ concerns about election security for their own personal gain. It is in our interest and our duty as Americans to put aside the partisan vitriol and understand that we have every reason to trust, and uphold, the integrity of our elections.

Ultimately, Americans should trust the integrity of our elections because they are safe, fair, and secure. More than that, our elections are one of the greatest expressions of our freedom as Americans.

I know firsthand that our elections work because these institutions make up the foundation of my American life. When Cuba was taken over by Fidel Castro and his communist regime, my family fled to America in search of freedom and the rule of law. In 1972, I was sworn in as a citizen in the old bandshell in downtown Miami, and as I took the oath of allegiance, I knew I wanted to be a part of the American dream and participate in the political process. I registered to vote and, as a teacher, enjoyed teaching students of all ages English, civics, and other subjects. I wanted everyone to see what I saw: That the promise of America was, and is, true and attainable, regardless of educational or socio-economic background.

In continuing my public service career in the Florida legislature, I ran for Congress in 1989 and was honored to become the first Hispanic woman elected to Congress. I wanted to help strengthen the traditions that enabled my American journey. In my almost 30 years serving in Congress, I had the privilege of being chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs where I worked to defend our national security and our way of life.

As a Member of Congress, I had many opportunities to meet with young activists and dissidents who were doing more than seeking freedom for their countries. They believed in the idea of America. I was constantly amazed by their admiration for the American way—especially for our free, fair, and open elections. Because while it may seem commonplace and ordinary to us, having free elections is a part of what makes America exceptional. It’s something we should never take for granted. These dissidents told me so, firsthand.

And there’s a reason our system is the envy of so many: It works. Our elections in Florida run smoothly and securely, as Governor Ron DeSantis has explained. Just last October, the governor dismissed calls for an audit of our election results because Florida’s standard election integrity safeguards held and the election succeeded “with flying colors.” 

The integrity and uniqueness of American institutions are worth taking a step back and analyzing the claims made by election skeptics. Perhaps the results of the 2020 presidential election were not the result we wanted, but the truth is clear: President Joe Biden won. Even if we disagree with that outcome, it is our privilege and duty as patriotic Americans to accept the outcomes of free and fair elections and celebrate the peaceful transfer of power that is envied by many around the world.

All across the country, American officials are working hard to make sure voting access does not come at the expense of election integrity and that they are well-equipped to handle the challenges we’ll face in 2022 and beyond. It’s not just Florida doing this, either.

Utah, for instance, is controlled by Republicans from the governor’s mansion to both houses of the state legislature. Utah Republicans also created one of the most accessible election processes in the country, adopting a vote-by-mail system that reached 90 percent voter turnout in 2020. As one Republican elections official explained, “Utah really exemplifies the mantra of ‘Easy to Vote, Hard to Cheat’ with our elections.”

That’s part of why my family fled the brutal repression of the Castro regime, and that’s something I heard over and over again from dissidents fighting for freedom in their countries when I was a Member of Congress.

It’s time for Americans to unite and protect the integrity of our election system. We do that by continuing to create access to the polls while maintaining election security—and by respecting the outcomes of our elections.

Our democracy is unique and many around the world long for the freedoms and respect for the rule of law that we may take for granted. We should proudly defend and uphold our open, free, and fair election process.

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

The woman recently appointed by Gov. Tom Wolf to be acting Secretary of State has come under fire as being a partisan Democrat and an advocate for mail-in ballots.

Republican Bill McSwain, the former U.S. Attorney who is running governor, took aim at Wolf’s appointment of  Leigh Chapman and to name her as an acting secretary rather than going to the state legislature for approval.

McSwain said Wolf knew Chapman “could not be confirmed” and, by appointing here, he is “disrespecting the legislature,” which is majority Republican. Wolf, who is in his last year in office because of term limits, is a Democrat.

A spokeswoman for Wolf did not respond to the Delaware Valley Journal’s request for comment. Chapman, who took office on Jan. 8, also did not reply to a request for comment.

McSwain noted that it is “important to restore people’s faith in the elections,” but instead Wolf chose to appoint someone who is “nakedly partisan.”

Leigh Chapman

Prior to this appointment, Chapman had worked for Deliver My Vote, which is nonpartisan under the tax code, but McSwain noted its “founders are on record saying they are pushing mail-in voting to help Democrats” get elected. Deliver My Vote promotes mail-in balloting that “specifically favors Democrats,” said McSwain.

McSwain also came out swinging against Act 77, the 2019 legislation that permits 50 days of mail-in ballots prior to elections.

“I think no-excuse mail-in balloting is unnecessarily chaotic,” said McSwain. And Act 77 as it has been carried out is “deeply flawed.”

“I believe in in-person voting,” said McSwain. “I believe in the sanctity of the voting booth” where “nobody can influence you.”

“In-person voting fosters trust in elections,” he said.

“The people who voted for act 77 need to be held to account,” McSwain added, taking a swipe at the state senators who are competing with him for the GOP voters’ nomination to run for governor: Jake Corman, Scott Martin, and Doug Mastriano.

“That is a disqualifying vote, if you voted for Act 77,” said McSwain.

And with the appointment of Chapman as secretary of state, “the deck is being stacked for the Democrats,” he said.

In the 2020 election, former Secretary of State Kathy Boochvar permitted majority Democratic counties to “ engage in illegal ballot curing” or to allow officials to “call up folks and say you can do it again,”  who failed to include the secrecy envelope with their mail-in ballot, while Republican-leaning counties did not.

She and Wolf also allowed money from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg– “Zuckerbucks”–to flow into “counties that favor Democrats.” The money was spent on “voter drives to get more Democrats registered, advertising and media outreach to get more Democrats to vote,” he said. And also for more “unsupervised” ballot drop boxes, he added.

“There was almost no oversight in how they spent the money,” said McSwain.  “And to have a governor to sign that law (Act 77) and he violated it himself without even caring or realizing, allowing his wife to vote for him, is all you need to know about the lax attitude of Gov. Wolf.  It’s crazy but very, very telling.”

“It’s all part of his playbook,” said McSwain. “He’s continuing it…to prop up Josh Shapiro.” Shapiro, the current attorney general, is a Democrat running for governor.

“The Democrats are going to do everything they can to tilt the playing field in their favor,” said McSwain. “They don’t care about fair elections. They care about partisan victories and a part of that is appointing a secretary of state who is a partisan.”

Chapman graduated from the University of Virginia earning an undergraduate degree in American Studies and History and received her J.D. from Howard University School of Law.

She was senior director of the Voting Rights Program at The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. She has experience working on voting issues for nonprofit organizations, state government, and a political organization.

“I am honored and excited to be returning to the Department of State to serve as acting secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,” Chapman said in a press release. “Throughout my career, I have worked to ensure that voting rights are protected and to improve access to the ballot box. I look forward to continuing that work in my new role, and to build on the tremendously successful election reforms in Pennsylvania over the last several years.”

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

In October 2019, Senate leadership brought SB 421 (later Act 77) to the full floor for a vote. I was in my fourth month as a senator after a career of serving 30 years in the US Army.

Act 77 passed the Senate by a 35-14 vote along near party lines. Every single Republican senator voted for it, while nearly every Democrat voted against.

Democrats were against the bill for several reasons. It required all voting machines to be equipped with paper trails to ensure accountability for post-election audits. It also eliminated “straight ticket” voting. Pennsylvania had been one of a handful of states for voters to press a single button that automatically selects candidates of the same party. Numerous studies over the years have shown that straight ticket voting benefits Democrat candidates.  That advantage vanished when the researchers examined voter behavior in elections after straight ticket voting had been eliminated in a respective state.

When the Senate passed Act 77, critical election security safeguards were in place to prevent mass fraud. All mail-in ballots were to be signature verified and turned in by Election Day to count. “Defective” absentee mail-in ballots were not to be counted and poll watchers were expected to be permitted to observe the counting of all mail-in ballots at every location.

However, using the pretext of COVID, Pennsylvania Democrats made their move to hijack Act 77 and transform it into something NO Republican voted for. The Democrat majority Supreme Court, Governor Wolf, and Wolf’s disgraced Secretary of State Boockvar unconstitutionally rewrote Act 77.

Let’s start with the Supreme Court. On September 17, 2020, in direct contravention of the wording of Act 77, the court extended the deadline for mailed ballots to be received from Election Day, to three days after Election Day. Then the court declared that “just for the 2020 general election,” ballots mailed without a postmark should be presumed to have been received on time.  Lastly, the court mandated that mail-in ballots lacking a verified signature were to be accepted.  This meant that any ballot, without a signature, without a postal mark , would be counted– even if received three days after the election. This policy making by the court opened up Pandora’s Box for uncertainty in the outcome of the election.

Not to be outdone, Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar took it upon herself to join in on the hijacking of Act 77 in late October 2020. Boockvar directed certain Democrat counties to “cure” defective ballots.  This allowed voting officials in those counties to correct ballots so that they could be counted. GOP counties did not receive such guidance.

Boockvar dishonestly told the Supreme Court that mail-in ballots received after the November 3 election would be set aside, pending an appeal to nullify ballots collected in the days after the election. However, the secretary then told counties to tabulate the ballots as quickly as possible, co-mingling ballots received by Election Day with those received after. To this date, we don’t know how many late arriving ballots ended up being tabulated in the final results.

It’s worth mentioning that I was one of only FOUR Senators to vote “no” on Secretary Boockvar’s confirmation back in November 2019. During her confirmation hearing, she could not answer my basic questions on how she would secure the upcoming 2020 election from fraud.

Would the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election in PA be different if Boockvar’s nomination had been rejected by the Senate? Considering her actions in the lead up to the November 2020, I think that answer is yes.

In light of how the Democrats successfully hijacked Act 77, I have made numerous attempts to expose and correct the irregularities of the 2020 election.  Since November 2020, I’ve been the loudest, and at times a solitary voice, for a full forensic audit of the 2020 election results. I visited the Arizona audit in June and called for a similar audit in Pennsylvania. In July, as chair of the Intergovernmental Operations Committee, I sent letters to three counties (York, Tioga, and Philadelphia) requesting all ballots, envelopes, and voting machines pertaining to the 2020 election. I scheduled multiple meetings to move forward with the issuance of subpoenas in August before being thwarted by the Pro Tempore of the Senate and subsequently removed as chair of the committee. Regardless of this, I continue to be a tireless voice in the Senate for a full forensic audit that includes precinct canvassing to verify voters.

On the legislative front, it’s clear that Act 77 must be repealed and I have introduced legislation to do just that.  I drafted and introduced SB 884, a constitutional amendment which eliminates “no-excuse” mail in voting and mandates signature verification.

I’m also the co-author of SB 735, which would amend the Constitution to require all voters to show a form of identification when casting a ballot. That bill passed the Senate and awaits a vote in the House.

These bills cannot be vetoed by Governor Wolf and would appear on a ballot for the people to decide on.

The hijacked version of Act 77 is not what I voted for in October 2019.  It’s time we address this problem by passing legislation to secure our elections now.  The millions of voters in our Commonwealth who no longer believe in the integrity of our elections deserve nothing less.

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

How did an election-reform measure in Pennsylvania that was almost universally supported by Republicans become a rallying point for conservative protesters who believe the 2020 election was stolen?

The answer is, in part, Republicans’ dismay in the way the Democratic governor and the Democrat-controlled state Supreme Court enacted procedural changes, based on interpretations of the law, that appear to have favored Democrats in the last presidential race.

“Everybody thought this was a good idea — a great idea, in fact — until Trump spoke out against it,” Duquesne law professor Joe Mistick told PublicSource.

The state law known as Act 77, which enabled “no-excuse” mail-in voting, passed with overwhelming support from the GOP-controlled legislature and was signed by Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf on Oct. 31, 2019.

The Democrat-backed initiative was a compromise between both parties as each got something in return, although one political commentator compared the process to a Looney Tunes-inspired “rabbit season-duck season” standoff between lawmakers ending with Republicans on the wrong side of the barrel.

The mail-in expansion meant voters no longer required valid excuses, such as illness or out-of-state travel, to cast absentee ballots. And Republicans, at least initially, felt they won by eliminating straight-ticket voting, which tended to favor down-ballot Democrats because of the imbalance in the number of registered Democrats to Republicans in some areas, like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

That meant more voters could conceivably split their ticket by voting for one party in the presidential election and for another in state and local races.

Prominent state leaders touted the accomplishment at the time, with Republican state Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman, now a gubernatorial candidate, calling it “probably the most historic reform bill we’ve ever done, not only in my time but in decades.”

Those feelings quickly dissipated once President Donald Trump lost the 2020 election. He and his allies, including Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, disputed Pennsylvania’s electoral process with unproven claims about mail-in voting and election results.

Hawley argued against the Electoral College certification of Biden’s victory, saying Pennsylvania hadn’t followed its own election laws – a common refrain among Republicans raising legal challenges over the Keystone State’s voting.

Corman, who was among the Republicans who voted for Act 77, now has buyer’s remorse. In a statement to the Delaware Valley Journal, he accused Wolf and former Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar of “giving illegal, last-second directions” to county officials about how to process mail-in ballots.

“Their behavior led two counties in one senatorial district to tabulate votes differently and change the outcome of an election,” he said. “That’s unAmerican and why I’m pushing forward with the legislature’s constitutional responsibility to review our elections. As governor, I will make sure something like this can never happen again. All Pennsylvanians must have confidence that their vote will be counted fairly and legally.”

Republicans continue to try to overturn Act 77, which survived a previous court challenge.

Over the summer, a pair of lawsuits were filed challenging the constitutionality of Act 77. Those cases were combined and are moving forward, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported.

Meanwhile, Republican state Sen. Doug Mastriano (R-Franklin) introduced a measure in November that seeks to repeal parts of the historic election-reform law via a referendum. If SB 884 is passed by the General Assembly, voters will decide whether to do away with “no-excuse” mail-in voting altogether.

The bill would also impose a deadline for mail-in ballots to be received by the Friday before Election Day, unlike the 2020 election when courts ruled ballots postmarked by Nov. 3 counted as long as they arrived within three days of Election Day. It would also mandate signature verification for all mailed ballots.

Attorney General Josh Shapiro, the lone Democrat running for governor, says passing SB 884 would be a complete repudiation of the votes of Republicans in the legislature. Act 77 had the support of all 27 Republicans, and passed 138-61 in the House, he noted.

A spokesman for Shapiro told DVJournal the law “helped millions of Pennsylvanians make their voices heard and led to the highest voter turnout in the last six decades. Attorney General Shapiro believes it is critical to make voting accessible to all eligible Pennsylvania voters, and as governor, he would veto any bill that eliminates or restricts mail-in voting.”

Mastriano’s bill attempts to quash that by making it impossible for the winner of the gubernatorial race to veto the bill, which awaits action from the state government committee, before it appears on the ballot in May 2023.

“As we witnessed in 2020, Act 77 in its current form is susceptible to unconstitutional changes that weaken its election security safeguards,” said Mastriano, citing a poll that found a third of Pennsylvania voters who cast ballots in the 2020 election “were not confident” in the results. “Significant doubt in the validity of one’s vote has serious repercussions for our republic. SB 884 will allow the people of Pennsylvania to have the final say on these important election security measures.”

Gubernatorial candidate Sen. Scott Martin (R-Lancaster) said in a statement that Republicans who voted for the bill didn’t expect “what came about” after Act 77 was signed into law.

“Gov. Wolf weaponized the State Department to pervert the law as passed, and a partisan Supreme Court allowed those perversions to stand,” he said. “I have voted for legislation to reverse the State Department’s misdeeds, implement Voter ID and the other things necessary to ensure the integrity of future elections.  I support these changes and even a constitutional amendment if necessary to make sure bureaucratic misdeeds that do not follow the law can never happen again, whether we have an Act 77 or not.”

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