During a virtual news conference on Tuesday, Acting Secretary of State Leigh M. Chapman highlighted the Department of State’s (DOS) commitment to transparency about the election administration process in Pennsylvania and provided an update for voters on what’s new since the May primary for the Nov. 8 general election.

“Over the last several years, the election landscape in Pennsylvania has been transformed by legislation such as the bipartisan Act 77, which brought no-excuse mail-in voting to the commonwealth, and by myriad court rulings,” Chapman said. “I want to ensure voters understand not only their rights and their options to cast their ballot in this midterm election, but also what happens behind the scenes so they can feel confident in our election system and in the final results.”

Chapman noted the guidance provided by DOS on various election subjects to help county election directors better understand the impacts of recent legislation and court rulings, including:

• Voting Systems
• Absentee and Mail-In Voting
• Polling Place Management
• Election Administration
• Accessible Voting Options
• Voter Registration

“It is my job as the commonwealth’s chief election official to ensure counties have the information they need to administer each election,” Chapman said. “And that is precisely what these documents do.”

She also spoke on post-election audits – those required by statute and those performed by the DOS.

Pennsylvania election law requires a post-election, pre-certification recount of a random sampling of ballots equal to 2 percent of the total ballots cast or 2,000 ballots, whichever is less. Though this fixed statistical sample is effective at identifying some voting system and human errors within a specific county, it is not adaptable to the facts of a specific election and is not flexible enough to conduct a statewide post-election audit.

The Department of State, along with the 67 counties, also conduct a post-election risk-limiting audit (RLA). Considered the gold standard of election audits, a RLA is a scientifically designed procedure that uses statistical methods to confirm whether reported election outcomes are correct and to detect possible errors or interference.

RLAs have been recommended by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Senate Select Intelligence Committee, and many other experts as a key part of election infrastructure.

The RLAs supplement, but nor replace, the required 2% statistical sample.

Chapman also reminded Pennsylvanians that due to the law stating that pre-canvassing – or opening of mail ballots in preparation for tabulation – may not begin until 7 AM on Election Day. While many of the Commonwealth’s 67 counties may be able to post final results on Election Night, it is conceivable that larger counties may not.

“While Act 88 placed new continuous counting provisions on election workers, it did not do the one thing that would have had the biggest impact on allowing Pennsylvania to have results sooner, and that is provide for meaningful pre-canvassing before Election Day,” Chapman said. “As a result, we must again ask for patience. Election workers must be given a reasonable amount of time to do their jobs thoroughly.

“Unofficial results will be available within a few days of the election, and it’s critically important for everyone to understand that this delay does not mean anything nefarious is happening,” she continued. “An accurate count of all eligible votes is paramount, and it cannot be rushed.”

Chapman also issued a statement on Tuesday regarding the U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding undated mail ballots.

“Every county is expected to include undated ballots in their official returns for the Nov. 8 election, consistent with the Department of State’s guidance. That guidance followed the most recent ruling of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court holding that both Pennsylvania and federal law prohibit excluding legal votes because the voter omitted an irrelevant date on the ballot return envelope.

“Today’s order from the U.S. Supreme Court vacating the Third Circuit’s decision on mootness grounds was not based on the merits of the issue and does not affect the prior decision of Commonwealth Court in any way. It provides no justification for counties to exclude ballots based on a minor omission, and we expect that counties will continue to comply with their obligation to count all legal votes.”