I would like to begin my recounting of a deep dive into the Delaware County election process by describing the efforts we first made to curtail any potential 2024 election mishaps back in the beginning of August of this year. This first step was a thorough exploration of the existing voter rolls. Could the rumors of dead people, foreigners, out of state voters, and even Fido, the pet dog, participating in earlier elections have been true?

One would think this would be a simple question to answer, but in the age of information, nothing is as easy as it seems. First, there are many different databases that can be used to glean information on the eligibility of voters in the rolls. And, as you might suspect, they seldom agree on who is on the rolls, who is eligible to vote, or even who is currently residing in the state of PA.

The first database of voters is found in the registration rolls themselves, which is referred to as the SURE system. The SURE voter file stands for the Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors. It is Pennsylvania’s centralized voter registration database. The SURE system is used by the Pennsylvania Department of State and county election offices to manage voter registration records, ensuring their accuracy and facilitating election administration, including tracking absentee and mail-in ballots. Data from this system can be purchased for election related purposes, and is frequently used by candidates running for office who wish to door knock or call on potential constituents. This database stores a lot of information, including the voter’s name, address, date of registration, party affiliation, vote history, and date of birth. 

Next is the ERIC system, which stands for the Electronic Registration Information Center, and which is not available to members of the public. It is a non-profit organization that purports to assist member states, like Pennsylvania, in improving the accuracy of their voter registration rolls and enhancing access to voter registration for eligible individuals by using state voter registration rolls, driver’s license data and national databases like the Social Security Death Index to identify duplicate registrations, update records, and increase voter registration. 

In addition, there are voter registration rolls for overseas and military voters, commonly known as UOCAVA rolls, named after the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), a federal law enacted in 1986. These rolls include active-duty members of the U.S. Armed Forces, Merchant Marine, and commissioned corps of the Public Health Service and NOAA, along with their spouses and dependents. They also cover U.S. citizens residing overseas, including those who have never lived in the U.S., but are eligible to vote based on their parents’ last residence. Many states, including Pennsylvania, have adopted the Uniform Military and Overseas Voters Act (UMOVA) to expand and modernize these protections at the state level.

Beyond these generally recognized election related databases are the United States Postal Service (USPS) National Change of Address (NCOA) records, which tell when registered voters have moved out of state and give their current forwarding address, and data from other research groups who have paid for voter registration information in all fifty states in order to compile national lists of dual registered voters, and who are willing to share the information they have collected.

We might begin by noting that, aside from a single exception, we found that the rumored deceased individuals reported to be on the voter rolls in the 2020 elections were no longer on the rolls as of the summer of 2024. Nor is Fido, the family pet, clearly listed as a potential voter on the rolls. We might take a moment to point out, however, that should Fido wish to register, it would not be difficult for him to do so. Fido, if a computer savvy canine, could register to vote online without providing any ID, and he would be registered before his ID was verified. There were over 14,000 individuals who, on election day, voted without a verified ID listed on the SURE system, though somehow all of these Delco residents had their IDs verified concurrently days after the election was over. Furthermore, Fido’s voter registration does not require an actual street address or place of residence. A registered voter must provide a location where he lays his head at night, and in the event Fido is homeless, a mere street corner, park bench or two intersecting streets are acceptable as sufficient evidence of Fido’s habitation in a voting district and municipality. How he might gain access to a computer to register given his living conditions is a mystery.

Fido’s voter registration, in each of these situations, might be considered a violation of 25 Pa.C.S. § 1329, which outlines the requirements for voter registration, including proof of identity and address. Additionally, 25 Pa.C.S. § 1301 emphasizes that applicants must meet specific eligibility criteria, which typically include residency and identity verification. Even if Fido is proved eligible to vote at a later date, it could be argued that he should not be placed on the voter rolls prior to confirmation of both his identity and his place of residency, in the event he votes before his eligibility is verified.

But in August, all these concerns were set aside, and we focused on the only item that presented a potentially statistically significant concern for the upcoming November 2024 elections:

On August 10, 2024, a member of our group formally notified the James Allen, Director of Delaware County Elections and Dr. Monica Taylor, Chair of Delaware County Council of nearly 12,000 voter registrations associated with individuals who, according to SURE, ERIC and USPS NCOA data, no longer resided in Pennsylvania. He requested, “Because the addresses of the voters who have moved are no longer registered voter addresses, Main-In-Ballots may not be sent to these addresses,” and that, “These approximately 12,000 HAVE TO BE FLAGGED in case they turn up on Election Day to vote in person.” After over a month and a half, when it appeared no action would be taken to prevent mail-in-ballots being sent to these individuals, a Formal Lawful Notice of Ineligible Voter Registrations and Request for Action was sent to James Allen where we again requested that, “As a precaution, Delaware County should set aside any mail-in or absentee ballots cast by these 12,000 relocated residents until their eligibility can be verified post-election.” We went on to, “respectfully request that Delaware County immediately use the ERIC data provided by the state to review and clean the voter rolls by removing voters who are no longer residents of Pennsylvania and have registered to vote elsewhere.”

James Allen, the Director of Elections, responded by stating that they were under no legal obligation to remove any of these names from the rolls for two primary reasons: 

First, they cited the 90-day quiet period before an election, a federal requirement under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993, often called the “Motor Voter Act.” During this period, voter registration list maintenance activities, such as large-scale removals of voter registrations, are restricted to prevent inappropriate voter roll purges close to an election. The NVRA mandates that states can only perform voter list maintenance that involves removing voters due to a failure to respond to address confirmation notices or inactivity more than 90 days before a federal election. This restriction is in place to ensure that eligible voters are not inadvertently removed from the rolls too close to Election Day, which could prevent them from voting.

Second, we were told our demands, “do not comply with Pennsylvania Election Code, which requires one challenge form per voter being challenged, and that the challenger be a voter from the same municipality as the registration that is being challenged. That state law also dictates that the challenge must be submitted on a form prescribed by the Department of State. The DOS form requires that it be signed by the challenger and that it be notarized. You have submitted no such forms.”

We question Delco’s response to our correspondence for several reasons: 

Under 25 Pa.C.S. § 1901 and related sections of the Pennsylvania Election Code, county election officials are mandated to maintain accurate voter rolls by removing ineligible voters, including those who no longer reside in the state. This responsibility is further supported by federal law under the National Voter Registration Act, and while there is a 90-day quiet period before federal elections, exceptions to the quiet period include: Removing voters who have died, removing voters who request to cancel their registration, and removing voters identified as having registered in another jurisdiction.

We would also counter their citation of the 90-day quiet period because the many individuals who were non-residents of Pennsylvania, often years before the quiet period began, should have been removed before this 90-day period commenced. Moreover, Pennsylvania’s participation in the Electronic Registration Information Center, or ERIC, provides Delaware County with definitive evidence that many of these voters were registered in other states. Out-of-state registration is irrefutable proof of ineligibility, not merely an address change requiring voter confirmation. When an individual registers in another state, they affirm their intent to reside and vote there, making their removal from Pennsylvania’s rolls a legal requirement under 25 Pa.C.S. § 1901. In fact, during all provisional ballot reviews, including the one for the November 2024 election just weeks ago, multiple ballots were disqualified for being registered in another county in PA for this very reason. One could go so far as to argue that by keeping these individuals on the rolls after receiving proof the individuals had moved, Delaware County was disenfranchising the voters by making their votes in other states unlawful and invalid. One wonders why Pennsylvania subscribes to ERIC if it is not going to use the proof of out-of-state registry as a reason to remove ineligible voters. We were not asking for the county to violation of federal law, but rather that they take timely action that the data necessitated, which would have ensured compliance with both state and federal requirements.

While federal law provides guidelines, Pennsylvania state law, specifically 25 Pa.C.S. § 1901, places the responsibility for maintaining accurate voter rolls on the county. It is not simply a matter for Congress. In the case of voters registered in other states, their eligibility in Pennsylvania should be revoked promptly; waiting until after an election, when illegal votes have already been cast and harm may already have been done, would be contrary to both state law and the intent of the NVRA.

Importantly, once individuals have moved out of Pennsylvania and established residency in another state, especially by registering to vote elsewhere, they are no longer subject to the protections provided by election law, including the 90-day quiet period. The 90-day rule is meant to protect eligible voters, but individuals who have registered in another state have, by their own action, demonstrated their ineligibility to vote in Pennsylvania. We understood that 52 U.S.C. § 20507 mandates that voters must be kept on the rolls for two federal election cycles unless there’s evidence of ineligibility. However, this rule does not apply to voters registered in other states or those clearly no longer residing in Delaware County, as those circumstances are clear evidence of ineligibility. Based on ERIC and NCOA data, the individuals in question met disqualifying criteria, and the Board had a clear legal obligation to act. Thus, removing them from the voter rolls, even during the quiet period, did not violate the intent of the NVRA.

Nevertheless, our original correspondence did not ask for changes to the voter rolls; it only asked that individuals who have registered to vote in other states or who no longer reside in Pennsylvania should not receive MIBs per Section 1300 of the Pennsylvania Election Code (25 P.S. § 3146.1), and that the 12,000 referenced voters have to be flagged in case they turn up on Election Day to vote in person. We maintain that by sending MIBs to ineligible voters on their voter rolls, Delco fails to make a critical distinction between voter registration and voter eligibility. In the event that MIBs were sent to ineligible voters, we asked for Delco to set aside mail-in ballots from individuals who are no longer residents of Pennsylvania until their eligibility could be verified post-election, after the end of the 90-day quiet period, and to remove those who were deemed ineligible before counting their vote; nowhere in election law does it prohibit post-election verification of voter eligibility or the appropriate removal of ineligible voters and votes before certification.

Furthermore, Delco claimed that we should have challenged each of the registered voters through the online PA system. Under this system, a qualified elector or authorized individual submits a challenge affidavit to an absentee or mail-in ballot, providing details such as the name and address of the challenged voter, the reason for the challenge and the challenger’s information, in addition to a $10 fee. The exorbitant $120,000 that would have been required if we had followed this procedure, would make contesting general issues with the voter rolls financially impossible for the majority of the voting public, and certainly not within the spirit under which the law was originally enacted. This online procedure, requiring $10 per voter challenge, was originally designed to address the individual absentee recipients who comprised approximately two to three percent of Delco residents of voting age prior to 2020; its purpose was never to address comprehensive issues that affect the over one-third of county residents that currently request a mail-in-ballot through a mail-in-ballot system that did not exist at the time of the online fee system’s inception. 

And to repeat, most importantly, both points brought up by the Delco BOE and more recently by Delco Councilwoman Christine Reuther, overlook the intent of our original correspondence: We were only asking that Delco neither send mail-in-ballots to ineligible voters, nor allow ineligible voters to vote. We simply wanted them to follow the existing law. We asked Delaware County to remove ineligible voters from receiving MIBs and followed up by requesting that mail-in-ballots cast by these 12,000 individuals be set aside until their eligibility could be verified post-election. This precautionary measure was essential to ensuring that no ineligible votes were counted, but unfortunately, this was the first of many requests Delco refused to honor.

Respectfully,

L. Lewis

Delco Election Deep Divers