Voting & Elections

We know those who penned our Constitution in 1787 were unequivocal about the importance of putting checks and balances into every level of government and vesting power in the people. It was essential to the Founders to guard against any one person, group or political party seizing control in a way that undermines public will. If our Supreme Court justices ignore 250-plus years of legal precedent, they’ll also be setting the stage for election pandemonium: One set of rules for state and local elections and another for congressional and presidential elections. Imagine, as a voter, having to figure out where and when to vote to cast a ballot for president and then finding out you need to vote at a different time and place while choosing your next governor.

Ideally, Pennsylvania counties should make it as easy as possible to vote, said Khalif Ali, executive director of Common Cause Pennsylvania, a group that advocates for expanding public participation in the government and protecting voting rights.  “It’s the beauty and the pain that’s associated with the commonwealth,” Ali said. “We have essentially a number of fiefdoms and each of them has their own budgets, their own way of looking at the law, and applying that law on the ground level.” ... Ali of Common Cause said that the different practices across the state favor some voters over others based on where they live. He argued that it violates the spirit of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which states “elections shall be free and equal.”  He emphasized that inconsistencies can discourage voters from participating in the process.  “We need to be able to share information and tell people exactly what’s going on,” Ali said.

Some of these asymmetries stem from state legislators’ decision to exempt local governments from the laws they passed. Kathay Feng, an advocate at the voting rights organization Common Cause, said this may have been a tactic in some states to avoid paying the cost of local changes, or to sidestep conflicts with “home rule” laws that give localities wide latitude.

“No matter the time of year, it’s about paying close attention to the laws impacting voters, taking the opportunity to gather the information that’s going to impact their access, and working to keep their best interests in mind,” said Aunna Dennis, executive director of Common Cause Georgia. “We are, of course, a hub for boots-on-the-ground work, but for us, the work is also getting our hands really wet with election reform work, like drafting legislation to create accessibility or even giving testimony, like we will for HB200.”

“My concern always is that a generally positive measure like this might later during the legislative process be amended to include some onerous (anti-voting ) provision which then makes it impossible to support the overall measure,” says Jay Heck of Common Cause Wisconsin. “That occurred a few times in the last session with some voting measures.” One positive aspect of SB-39 is that it’s a stand-alone measure, Heck says, “rather than the mixed packages of bills we saw last session on elections and voting where some parts of the bill might have been something to support but there was always a part (or several parts) of the bill that would be terrible for voters so it could not have been supported as a whole,” Heck adds. “That’s very important.”

Mario Jimenez, executive director of Common Cause New Mexico and a former elections official, applauded the ethics commission for investigating the matter but said he was nonetheless disheartened to learn of the allegations. "When I read it, I was nothing short of infuriated," he told NBC News. "We're losing public trust."