Conservative Analysis of the Pennsylvania Election Reform of 2019

A major election reform was approved by the Republican-led Pennsylvania General Assembly and signed into law by the Democratic Governor late last month.  As a bipartisan compromise in which the major parties try to use the law to advantage themselves, it is of mixed result in terms of representative government, but is overall a good reform.

The reform bans the straight-party ballot option, whereby a box can be checked or a button pushed to vote for all of a party’s nominees at once instead of choosing each individually, making yesterday’s General Election the last to allow this option.  Only eight other States in the American Union have such an option.  It is more representative for candidates to earn individual votes through the serious consideration of electors instead of through excessive partisanship, or the encouragement of laziness and ignorance.  Democrats, who are more reliant on the straight party option in areas with less educated or responsible voters, opposed this reform that was insisted upon by Republicans.

Other reforms include the extension of the voter registration deadline from 30 to 15 days before the election and the deadline to return absentee ballots to 8:00 PM on Election Day, instead of 5:00 PM the Friday before, which was the earliest deadline in the American Union.  These reforms were not controversial. 

The election reform bill also allows no-excuse absentee ballots, instead of for disability or absence from the municipality, which, although it would make voting more convenient for some, will make it easier than it already is for voters to be unduly influenced by others, especially considering that Pennsylvania is one of the States that permit the mentally incapacitated to vote, or to vote under the influence of alcohol or drugs.  Therefore, unlike the other parts of the election reform, this measure, which was advanced by Democrats, weakens representative government.

            Opening primary elections to participation to all voters, or at least those who are registered non-partisan, which was an idea that had some support in the Legislature, was not part of the election reform.  Although party members should choose their own candidates, because primary elections are funded by the taxpayers, instead of by the parties themselves, some Pennsylvania voters argued they should have a choice in whose names appear on the ballot, as nominations are often effectively determinative of the general election outcome.  A better idea would be not to have names printed on the ballot at all, as was the practice in the early Republic.  The parties, especially the major parties, who have given themselves easier ballot access requirements through legislation, would thus not have the force of law to advantage themselves, and the taxpayers would not be funding their (major) party primaries.  There has also been no effort to expand voter identification requirements beyond first-time voters to prevent voter impersonation.  Reform for federal and state legislative redistricting is being addressed separately.

The election reform law also authorizes the borrowing of $90 million for helping Pennsylvania’s 67 Counties to upgrade their voting machines to ones that are less vulnerable to hacking by having paper backup and being auditable, as per federal recommendation because of Russian hacking into state and some county election systems in 2016.  As I had noted after its passage, the budget approved earlier this year authorizes the spending, but specific legislation is necessary to effectuate the fiscal blueprint.  The Commonwealth has received $14 billion in federal funds for the upgrade, as the hacking is a foreign attack on the United States.  Counties in Pennsylvania are responsible for conducting elections.  Some Counties have already upgraded to the new voting machines, but the upgrade would have been financially burdensome for poorer counties. 

There are many other election reforms Pennsylvania should consider, but the elimination of the straight party option was necessary and improving election security was essential.