Just days after Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro independently enacted automatic voter registration for people getting a driver’s license, a government research group designed to improve voting in Pennsylvania tackled that and other issues with a mind on solutions, not divisions.
The Pennsylvania Election Law Advisory Board, a bipartisan group of lawmakers, election officials, and researchers, recommends ways to make elections more fair, secure, and accessible. The board was created in 2020 to review and suggest changes to election laws, assess new election technology, and work with other agencies on election-related matters. Their findings are published annually on the Joint State Government Commission’s website.
Shapiro’s move, its legality and implications was among the agenda items before the board. Members also debated:
- Changing the 2024 primary date from May to March to avoid Passover
- Opening primaries to unaffiliated voters
- Increasing the distance campaign workers must stay from polling places on Election Day
Questions about automatic voter registration
Previously, eligible voters were presented with the option to register to vote when applying for or renewing driver’s licenses and state ID cards. Under the new framework, registration is automatic unless applicants decline.
Some board members questioned whether Shapiro overstepped his executive authority with a unilateral policy change, rather than going through legislative channels.
Leo Knepper, executive director of the state’s Intergovernmental Operations Committee, pointed to legislation introduced this year to establish automatic registration.
“If this were something that the governor had the ability to do, why would legislation be introduced in order to accomplish it? If that’s a procedural concern, that’s something we will look into, to what the authority actually is.”
There are key differences between the documents required to obtain a driver’s license and those required to register to vote.
Those applying for a license need only demonstrate legal residence. To register to vote, however, one must show proof of U.S. citizenship – using such documents as a birth certificate, certificate of citizenship, certificate of naturalization, or a valid passport.
Jesse Daniel, an elections lawyer from Indiana County, said proof of citizenship could be improved.
“I am happy that there are some restraints and Social Security cards, birth certificates, excellent ways to verify these things. But I think the types of documents that can also be utilized to verify these things are a little more loosey-goosey and really don’t show citizenship,” Daniel said. “As I think we all know, there are a lot of people who are not citizens currently in the country. That’s why I’m like, ‘Hey, I don’t have an answer,’ but I have a lot of questions, and I think I’m looking forward to working together to try to create that certainty.”
Lisa Deeley, a Republican commissioner in Philadelphia, said the current required documents are sufficient.
“We’re actually asking for two separate things: The first thing that we’re asking for is proof of citizenship. And the second thing that we’re asking for is that you meet the residency requirements. So, when you meet the residency requirements, that’s when you can show your lease or your utility bills. But it is not an answer to the question, ‘Are you a U.S. citizen?’”
Shapiro did not change the identification requirements for citizens to register to vote.
Presidential primary date change causes concern
Last week, the state Senate voted to move up the 2024 presidential primary date by five weeks from May to March 19 in order to accommodate Passover. The move still requires a vote in the state House before it will reach Shapiro‘s desk for a signature.
Some elected officials, including Shapiro, support moving the date.
Others, such as Republican state Rep. Russ Diamond from Lebanon County, said changing the date would overburden county election offices — and those unable to vote in person can use mail-in ballots.
“I don’t want to stress out our election directors or our election workers any more than we’ve already done over the past few years,” Diamond said. “We’ve lost far too many of them and we need to retain as many of them as possible.”
Yvonne Hursh, lead counsel for the group, said the move could create unfair favoritism toward one faith group over others.
“The pandemic seems like a good reason to change the date for an election,” Hursh said. “Moving the date because it falls on a religious holiday, seems to me to be… potentially problematic.”
Hursh acknowledged both Hindu and Islamic holidays take place in spring 2024, and moving the primary date to accommodate Passover could result in “accusations of favoritism to one particular faith.”
Lisa Deeley also opposed moving the date – but supported codifying a primary day into state election code.
“I would propose that if the presidential primary were to move to March 19th, that’d be a fixed date for future primaries so that it is not a one-off,” Deeley said. “We will always have an increased voice in the presidential nomination process and everyone will have a fixed date so it can be planned around.”
Deeley recognized the move likely has support in the Democrat-controlled state House and from Gov. Shapiro.
“The legislature created this Election Law Advisory Board in Act 77, and yet they have not enacted one of our recommendations,” Deeley said. “And I cannot believe that they would do something as drastic as changing an election date without at least considering what we have to say on the matter.”
Nobody on the board supported moving the primary date, and the group approved a motion to draft a letter to the legislature indicating the board’s disapproval.
Open primaries spark debate
The board also discussed opening up primaries to unaffiliated voters. Pennsylvania currently has closed primaries where only party-registered voters can participate in primary elections.
Some members advocated for allowing independents to participate, since all voters pay for the elections, pay taxes, and are represented by eventual nominees.
Board member Patrick Christmas, who also serves as Chief Policy Officer for government watchdog group Committee of Seventy, said open primaries would create more competitive elections in the state.
When talking to high school students, he describes general elections as “playoffs” for political parties – but liberal and conservative strongholds in the state have made many of these competitions meaningless.
“But what has changed over the past 30-40 years, at least, is that there’s usually not much of a final, right? There’s certainly not in the city of Philadelphia, and there aren’t in many places of the state where the general election isn’t really an election. There are no choices,” Christmas said.
He said allowing independents to participate in primaries would create more favorable candidates.
“When we have a closed primary system, you tend to end up from time to time with folks who, the fuller electorate, everybody who is a registered voter, may not have been too keen on – even if we had high rates of participation.”
Others argued primaries allow parties to nominate their preferred candidates, and open primaries could dilute that purpose.
Joe Kantz, also a Republican Snyder County Commissioner, said primaries should remain closed.
“It makes absolutely no sense to me to even consider allowing somebody who’s not affiliated or independent to vote in a Republican or Democrat primary or, you know, for any of the other parties for that matter," Kantz said.
However, he said taxpayers should no longer foot the bill for them.
“I know members of my party will disown me, then let them pay for the primary. I don’t care. They got the money. And quite frankly, they should be coughing up some dough, because it is for their nominees," Kantz said.
The board identified issues like more ballot variations and administrative burdens that would need to be addressed before the state can safely and securely introduce open primaries. Board members plan to research how other states handle open vs. closed primaries before making any recommendations.
Changing laws for campaign workers and clarifying election code language
The group also raised the prospect of increasing the distance campaign workers must stay from polling places from its current 10 feet to a more substantial 100 feet.
However, the potential change was underscored by various concerns, including the practical implications in different urban and rural settings, and the need to maintain the sanctity of the voting process while safeguarding free speech rights.
The board also considered how to modernize the state’s 1937 election law statute, which Yvonne Hursh acknowledged is “riddled with archaic grammar, sprawling run-on sentences, and a profusion of clauses that urgently require updating into plain, modern language.”
Throughout the process, members recognized the need to maintain the original intent of these provisions – but recognized it could take a while.
“It might end up being my retirement party,” Hursh said. “So, you know, figure I got a good 10 years left.”
Read more from our partners, WITF.
