H. Honey v. Lycoming County Offices of Voter Services Appeal of: Al Schmidt, in his Official Capacity as Secretary of the Commonwealth
312 A.3d 942
Pa. Commw. Ct.2024Background
- Heather Honey submitted a request under Pennsylvania's Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) for a digital copy of the ClearVote Cast Vote Record (CVR) for the 2020 General Election from Lycoming County’s electronic voting system.
- The Lycoming County Office of Voter Services denied the request, citing an Election Code provision exempting the "contents of ballot boxes and voting machines" from public inspection.
- Honey appealed to the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records (OOR), which upheld the denial, finding that CVRs are the digital equivalent of ballot box contents.
- The Court of Common Pleas reversed OOR, holding that the CVR did not fall under the statutory exemption and that CVRs are public records subject to disclosure.
- The Secretary of the Commonwealth appealed to the Commonwealth Court, which ultimately reversed the trial court and reinstated the denial, holding CVRs are exempt as contents of voting machines and ballot boxes.
- Dissenting opinions argued the CVR is not the same as ballot contents or voting machines and should be available for public inspection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CVR is exempt from disclosure under Section 308 of the Election Code | The CVR is not the physical "contents" of ballot boxes or voting machines, but is a digital spreadsheet report and thus a public record. | The CVR is the digital equivalent of ballot box contents or voting machines; disclosure is barred by Section 308. | CVRs are exempt as digital contents of ballot boxes/voting machines under Section 308. |
| Whether the term "voting machines" includes Lycoming County’s electronic voting system (EVS) | The EVS scanners are not voting machines, but automatic tabulating equipment and distinct under the Election Code. | EVS and its components are functionally voting machines; the law should be harmonized to reflect modern voting technology. | EVS components qualify as voting machines under the Election Code. |
| Whether the word "contents" in Section 308 is ambiguous and requires narrow interpretation | "Contents" is ambiguous and should be interpreted to mean only physical ballots and parts, not digital voting data or reports. | "Contents" plainly includes all voting information, whether in physical or digital form; excluding digital data would be absurd. | "Contents" includes both physical and digital voting data, rendering CVRs exempt. |
| Whether release of the CVR would violate ballot secrecy or the Constitution | No, because CVRs do not allow voter identification; ballot secrecy is preserved even if CVRs are released. | Releasing CVRs could risk voter secrecy or undermine the protections intended by the Election Code. | Disclosure not addressed due to exemption ruling; majority focused on statutory interpretation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Off. of Governor v. Raffle, 65 A.3d 1105 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (discussing the RTKL’s purpose to promote government transparency)
- Crown Castle NG E. LLC v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 234 A.3d 665 (Pa. 2020) (de novo review for pure statutory interpretation questions)
- Bowman v. Sunoco, Inc., 65 A.3d 901 (Pa. 2013) (ambiguity arises when language is subject to multiple reasonable interpretations)
- Kmonk-Sullivan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 788 A.2d 955 (Pa. 2001) (statutory silence does not authorize courts to insert omitted words)
- Cozzone ex rel. Cozzone v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (PA Mun/E Goshen Twp.), 73 A.3d 526 (Pa. 2013) (harmonizing statutory sections)