A citizen group is disputing hundreds of absentee ballot applications in southeastern Pennsylvania, saying they were submitted by voters who moved to a modern address, disqualifying them from voting in the state.
Contestants, apparently acting as organized activists in multiple counties, claim that these voters are ineligible to vote absentee because the address in the state’s absentee ballot application file does not match the address associated with the voter’s name in the U.S. Postal Service database. This method of cross-checking has been regularly criticized by election experts as insufficient to confirm that the records refer to the same person.
The lawsuit filed with the counties claims that the voters are no longer Pennsylvania residents and therefore are not eligible to vote and cannot receive an absentee ballot. The challenge apparently cites data from the Postal Service’s National Change of Address database, which shows that a person matching the voter’s name submitted a request for a change of address for mail delivery purposes.
Pennsylvania law requires a person to be a Pennsylvania resident to be eligible to vote, but does not require a Pennsylvania address to be the address where mail is received.
A coalition of voting rights groups opposes the challenges, calling them a “malicious attempt” to disenfranchise voters.
“We are very concerned about the validity and intent of these challenges, the intentional abuse of the election system, and the time and energy our local elections officials need to address them,” said Susan Gobreski, president of the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania. “We will defend the freedom to vote on behalf of all Pennsylvanians.”
Under Pennsylvania law, absentee ballot applications can be challenged until 5 p.m. on the Friday before the election – for a fee of $10 per ballot – on the grounds that the applicant is ineligible to vote.
The challenges appear to be a coordinated effort. Broad and Liberty, a Philadelphia-based conservative news site, said Monday it had reviewed a list of 865 challenges to registered voters in Bucks, Chester, Montgomery and Delaware counties. Broad and Liberty did not name the group behind the action and said the challenges mainly concern applications from Democratic voters.
Votebeat and Spotlight PA confirmed in Bucks County that its elections office received 191 objections from the same person on Friday. Spokesman Jim O’Malley said a hearing by the board of elections will be necessary to determine the validity of the allegations and that a hearing has not yet been scheduled.
Confusion over absentee ballots at the Bucks County elections office is leading to long lines of frustrated voters
Chester County spokeswoman Rebecca Brain said the county received 212 complaints, all using the same standard wording, and that a hearing before the board of elections was scheduled for Friday to review the complaints.
Megan Alt, a spokeswoman for Montgomery County, said the county has not yet received any citations but will address them if they do. Jim Allen, Delaware County’s elections director, said someone recently came in with 140 objection forms, but when they were told they had to exploit the county’s affidavit, they took all 140 forms and left.
According to a petition reviewed by Votebeat and Spotlight PA, the complainant in Chester County is Diane Houser. Houser is a plaintiff in the case lawsuit brought this summer by the right-wing group United Sovereign Americans questions the maintenance of the voter roll.
Houser did not immediately call or email seeking comment.
Such challenges in using USPS data may exist in other states as well. A lawsuit filed this month in Harris County, Texas, seeks to challenge thousands of registrations based at least in part on what the lawsuit describes as a “straight comparison” of the change in address information to the county’s voter rolls.
David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan nonprofit Center for Election Innovation & Research, said USPS change-of-address data may not be reliable on its own for determining voter eligibility because it does not include individuals’ unique identification numbers, dates of birth or drivers’ license information and often does not distinguish between family members with the same or similar surnames, e.g. senior and junior.
While election officials do exploit this data to maintain lists, they exploit it in conjunction with other sources, such as driver’s license data, to enhance confidence that they have the right person.
“No data analyst would think of matching a domestic address change file to another file and determine with certainty that it was the same person,” Becker said. “And obviously you certainly don’t want to say that when you’re close to the election and you could disenfranchise someone.”
The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, in a letter to all 67 counties, warns them that declaring applications ineligible based on the allegations would violate the law because the only requirement to receive an absentee ballot is that the person must be a registered voter. The ACLU argues that USPS data cannot be used to distinguish between a person’s plan to temporarily relocate and a plan to relocate permanently, and therefore is not sufficient on its own to prove that a voter is ineligible.
The letter also reminded counties that it is too behind schedule to remove voters from the rolls because federal law prohibits the systematic removal of voters within 90 days of an election.
