<aside> <img src="/icons/bell_blue.svg" alt="/icons/bell_blue.svg" width="40px" /> Below is general summary of the potential election administration vulnerabilities identified in Pennsylvania.
To read a detailed analysis of the vulnerabilities, intended to help pro-democracy groups protect our elections and fuel corrective action, please click here to request access. Please include the name of your organization in the request.
By requesting access, you’re opting-in to receive email notifications when our vulnerabilities research is updated with analyses of additional states.
</aside>
Pennsylvania has a number of protections in place to safeguard its election processes from those seeking to undermine democracy and circumvent election results. Some of these vulnerabilities are more systemic in nature, inherent in the design of the Pennsylvania election ecosystem, and shaped by the state’s election laws and historical practice. Other potential vulnerabilities are a result of the possibility that anti-democracy actors exploit these weaknesses for their own designs.
To that end, Informing Democracy has identified these concerns in a thorough review of the processes and personnel involved in the administration of the Commonwealth’s elections.
Concerning findings do not mean an official will seek to undermine the next election, just as a lack of findings is not a guarantee an official will faithfully execute their duties. This research provides guidance on where attention should be focused to ensure that elections are administered properly according to the law. Notably, research showed that the vast majority of local election officials are dedicated public servants, committed to running free and fair elections.
Below are the potential vulnerabilities that should be monitored for and defended against, so that they are not exploited.
While Pennsylvania law provides general uniformity in vote counting and election certification processes, Informing Democracy found notable areas in which the County Boards of Elections have broad discretion.
Competing guidance from the Secretary of the Commonwealth and County Boards of Elections can lead to inconsistency in procedures across the state. For example, due to individual discretion, ballots with undated exterior envelopes were handled differently in different counties in past elections, leading to some confusion and requiring court intervention. Similarly, ballot cure processes vary significantly from county to county because of this local discretion.
Additionally, County Boards of Elections have the ability to decide staffing and resources for their counties, meaning there may be certain instances when bad-faith actors could appoint anti-democracy individuals or when insufficient resources or lack of properly trained staff can have adverse effects on the process.
Finally, County Board of Elections members have the authority to exercise their discretion during the pre-processing, pre-canvassing, and canvassing of absentee ballots. This can include the timing of these processes and other decisions, like in 2020 when seven of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties refused to process mail-in ballots until the Wednesday after Election Day, despite guidance from Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar.
County Boards of Elections are required by statute to certify the results of their canvass. Even in the case of evidence of fraud, they must continue to “justly” certify the results.
However, individual members have violated this duty, like in November 2020 when Allegheny County Commissioner Sam DeMarco cast a minority vote against the certification of election results. In the cases where one person refused to certify the election, the other two members voted to certify, and the results were certified accordingly.
Thankfully, we found that there are robust checks on this individual discretion with the makeup of County Boards of Elections. The Board consists of at least three members and there are accountability measures through the courts.