Poll watching lawsuit: Political stunt or sensible?
Timing of GOP action questioned
Just what the 2016 election needed: a bit of last-minute political drama. This time, it’s thanks to the state Republican Party, which has filed a lawsuit that seeks to overturn state rules governing Election Day poll watchers.
State GOP spokeswoman Megan Sweeney called the lawsuit “a commonsense remedy to ensure the fairest election possible.”
But Pennsylvania Democratic Party chair Marcel Groen called it a “publicity stunt of a lawsuit.” And even nonpartisan observers are unimpressed by the timing of the suit — filed less than three weeks before the election.
The lawsuit was filed Friday in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
against Pennsylvania Secretary of State Pedro A. Cortes, a Democrat.
“You’d have to look with a high degree of suspicion at anything that tries to change the election process two weeks before it’s held,” said David Thornburgh, who heads the Committee of Seventy, a Philadelphiabased nonpartisan government watchdog group.
Poll watchers are recruited by candidates and parties to observe Election Day voting. Watchers track who shows up at the polls to aid get-out-the-vote efforts, and they can also challenge the identity or eligibility of those who arrive to vote.
Current state law, established in 1937, says watchers must be voters in the county they monitor, and they must be certified by their county election board. But Friday’s lawsuit includes an emergency motion to suspend the residency rule immediately.
It is not clear whether the case will be heard by Election Day.
The suit argues that many counties have a dearth of voters from one party or the other to serve as watchers. It also contends that because legislative districts often cover multiple counties, the rule unconstitutionally hobbles voters who want to monitor the selection of their representatives.
“There is no reason to believe that registered voters … are capable of [watching polls in] their own counties, but not when acting in the county next door — or a county across the Commonwealth,” the filing reasons.
The Department of State declined to comment on pending litigation. But Cliff Levine, a Pittsburgh attorney who represents Democrats, said that legitimately challenging voters requires “knowledge and understanding of where people are from. This would upset that balance, and it could be highly disruptive,” with “people coming into neighborhoods they’ve never been in.”
Such concerns have been heightened by Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. In August, Mr. Trump said, “We’re going to watch Pennsylvania [and] make sure other people don’t come in and vote five times.”
“The only way we can lose,” he told an Altoona crowd, “is if cheating goes on.”
Republicans did seek to change the rules before Mr. Trump’s nomination. State Rep. Rick Saccone, R-Elizabeth, introduced legislation in 2015 to allow poll watchers to cross county borders. That legislation, House Bill 29, had been in committee until appearing as an exhibit in last week’s lawsuit.
Mr. Levine characterized that as “highly ironic,” in that Republicans “are literally asking a federal judge to legislate from the bench,” a practice they ordinarily denounce. Mr. Trump himself has praised the late Antonin Scalia as a Supreme Court justice “who did not believe in legislating from the bench.”
Mr. Saccone said the party “didn’t talk to me” about the lawsuit. But although “I’m a legislator, and I want to legislate,” he didn’t necessarily object to pursuing the goal in court.
Mr. Saccone said his proposal could increase voter confidence in elections but had been undermined by “negative media coverage.” Foes “say it’s about intimidation, when it’s the opposite.” His own district, he said, reaches into Allegheny and Washington counties: “My wife can’t watch a poll a quarter-mile away in Washington, but someone on the other side of the county can.”
Asked whether the lawsuit was hypocritical, Ms. Sweeney said, “Republicans are for fair elections.” The Democrats’ “knee-jerk reaction calls into question what is happening that they would not want more sunshine on the process.”
But even groups that favor more political sunlight have concerns about the timing, about which Ms. Sweeney would not comment.
“Any change this close to Election Day throws a wrench in the works,” said Suzanne Almeida, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania.
“We’re talking about the integrity of elections, so this isn’t something you can slap together at the last second,” said Barry Kauffman, executive director of the political watchdog group Common Cause Pennsylvania.
Extending the reach of poll watchers “isn’t an unreasonable request,” said Mr. Kauffman. “I think Rick Saccone’s heart is in the right place.” But “you have to make sure people don’t come in under the guise of being election monitors and try to intimidate or harass legitimate voters.”
In fact, the political website Politico recently warned that “the state’s unique rules make it vulnerable to Election Day mischief,” citing a 2004 incident in which hundreds of Pittsburgh college students waited for hours to vote because of challenges by Republican poll watchers.
Bruce Ledewitz, who teaches constitutional law at Duquesne University, was dubious about the suit’s prospects.
“You have a fundamental right to vote, but you don’t have a fundamental right to vote outside your district,” he said. “So I can’t believe there’s a constitutional right to be a poll watcher outside your district, either.”
In any case, he said, “It’s hard to see the court overturning the settled practice at this point.”