Group tries to block mail-in ballots | News, Sports, Vacancies

A citizen group is challenging hundreds of mail-in ballot applications in southeastern Pennsylvania, arguing they were submitted by voters who moved to a new address that makes them ineligible to vote in the state.

The challengers, apparently working as organized activists in several counties, argue that these voters are not eligible to vote by mail because the address on the state’s mail-in ballot request file does not match the address associated with the voter’s name in the U.S. Postal Service database.

This cross-checking method has been regularly criticized by election experts as insufficient to confirm that records refer to the same person.

The complaints filed with the counties allege that voters are no longer Pennsylvania residents and therefore are not eligible to vote or receive mail-in ballots.

The complaints appear to cite data from the Postal Service’s National Change of Address Database showing that someone matching the voter’s name applied for a change of address for mail delivery.

Pennsylvania law requires someone to be a Pennsylvania resident to be eligible to vote, but does not require that their Pennsylvania address be the same as where they receive mail.

A coalition of voting rights groups opposes the issues, calling them a “malicious attempt” to disenfranchise voters.

“We are very concerned about the validity and intent of these issues, the intentional abuses of the election system, and the time and energy it will take for our local election officials to address these issues,” said Susan Gobreski, president of the League of Women Voters. Pennsylvania. “We will protect voting freedom for all Pennsylvanians.”

Under Pennsylvania law, mail-in ballot applications can be challenged until 5 p.m. on the Friday before an election—for a fee of $10 each—on the grounds that the applicant is not eligible to vote.

The problems appear to be the result of a coordinated effort. Broad and Liberty, a Philadelphia-based conservative news outlet, reported Monday that it had reviewed a list of 865 challenges targeting registered voters in Bucks, Chester, Montgomery and Delaware counties. Broad and Liberty did not name the group behind the effort and said the problems largely centered on statements from Democratic voters.

Votebeat and Spotlight PA confirmed to Bucks County that its elections office received 191 applications from the same person on Friday. Spokesman Jim O’Malley said the Board of Elections will need to hold hearings to determine the validity of the objections and that no hearings have yet been scheduled.

Chester County spokeswoman Rebecca Brain said the county has received 212 complaints, all using the same standard language, and that a Board of Elections hearing is scheduled for Friday to review the complaints.

Megan Alt, a spokeswoman for Montgomery County, said the county has not yet received any problems but will address them if they arise. Jim Allen, director of elections for Delaware County, said someone recently came in with 140 challenge forms, but when they were told they needed to use county affidavits, they took all 140 forms and left.

The person filing the lawsuits in Chester County is Diane Houser, according to the petition reviewed by Votebeat and Spotlight PA. Houser is a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed this summer by a right-wing group called United Sovereign Americans challenging the preservation of the state’s voter rolls.

Houser did not immediately return a call or email seeking comment.

Similar problems with the use of USPS data may occur in other states. The lawsuit, filed this month in Harris County, Texas, seeks to challenge thousands of registrations based, at least in part, on what the suit describes as “mere comparisons” of change-of-address data with county voter rolls.

David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan nonprofit Center for Election Innovation and Research, said USPS change-of-address data on its own may not be reliable for determining voter eligibility because it does not contain individuals’ unique identification numbers, dates of birth or driver’s licenses. license information and often does not distinguish between family members with the same or similar names, such as an elder and a younger one.

While election officials do use this data to maintain lists, they use it in conjunction with other sources, such as driver’s license records, to increase confidence that they have found the right person.

“No data scientist would ever match a national change of address file with another file and say with certainty that it is the same person,” Becker said. “And of course, you definitely don’t want to say that when you’re in close proximity to an election and could disenfranchise someone.”

The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, in a letter to all 67 counties, warns them that declaring the applications inadmissible based on objections would violate the law, since the only requirement to receive a mail-in ballot is that the person be a registered voter. The ACLU argues that USPS data cannot be used to distinguish between a person’s plans to move temporarily or to move permanently, and therefore the data alone is not sufficient to prove a voter’s ineligibility.

The letter also reminded counties that it is too late to remove voters from the voting rolls, as federal law prohibits systematic removals until 90 days after an election.