Trending
The Republican-majority House State Government Committee is calling for creation of a "Select Committee on Election Integrity," triggering an outcry from Democrats and Gov. Tom Wolf, who called the move a "partisan attack."
Given a recent ruling by the state Supreme Court favorable to Democrats, the creation of the committee is "an integral measure that ensures the Legislature can continue to exercise its constitutional prerogative and act as a check on this hijacked process" -- for both the upcoming and future elections, stated Republican House Majority Leader Kerry Benninghoff in a news release.
The resolution was sent on to the full House after a contentious meeting that was "ugly, personal and vicious," because of Democratic objections, despite assurances from the Republican chairman that the proposed new group's work would evaluate how well the election process works "after the fact" -- with the committee's ultimate powers to be advisory only, according to committee member Rep. Lou Schmitt, R-Altoona.
The Democratic members did not seem to be reassured and argued that the resolution needs to be amended on the House floor to make those restrictions clear, Schmitt said.
One issue of contention and ambiguity involves the meaning of "after the fact" -- given that the committee will dissolve when the House session ends
Nov. 30 and given that mail-heavy voting could leave the presidency undecided for weeks, according to information provided by Schmitt.
On its face, that would seem to indicate that if the committee didn't start work until after the election is decided, it might not get to start at all.
The Democrats demanded that operations wait until the election results are certified, but the Republicans didn't commit to that, Schmitt said.
The committee is designed to do its work in November following the election and will make no attempt to interfere in the election, Schmitt said.
The resolution was set to be debated on the House floor Thursday, but the chamber didn't convene after a House member learned he had tested positive for COVID-19, Schmitt said.
When that debate will occur is not uncertain, but is likely to be "at least a couple weeks" away, Schmitt said.
Forming the committee "absolutely" makes sense, because the upcoming election will be the first major test of the nonpartisan change made last year to allow no-excuse mail-in voting -- a method that suddenly became virtually mandatory for many people because of COVID-19 this year, Schmitt said.
"This election will strain that new mail-in process like probably no election for the foreseeable future," he said. "We need to see how well it holds up."
If it holds up in this election, it will hold up in any election, he said.
But if things break down, then the state can make the appropriate changes, he said.
The court's controversial ruling gives a three-day extension for mailed ballots to arrive, provided they're postmarked by election day, and it allows for installation of ballot drop boxes.
Schmitt especially dislikes one feature of the three-day extension in that it presumes the mailed ballots are valid even if there's a missing or illegible postmark.
The burden of proof should be on the side of a clear postmark, he said.
The court really should have left the requirement alone for mailed-in ballots to arrive by election day, because the three-day extension by itself could create an incentive for supporters of a trailing candidate in a close race to stuff mailboxes with ballots bearing fake postmarks, according to Schmitt.
Drop boxes are a problem because they would be unattended and could become depositories for "harvested ballots," he said.
There is probably voter fraud in all elections, although it's generally minimal, he said.
His hope -- and his belief -- is that it will be minimal in this election too, he said.
He intends to accept the results of the election for himself, unless he sees evidence of fraud on a "massive" scale, he said.
He's hopeful that President Donald Trump "will do the right thing" and likewise accept the results, he said. One of the Democrats' concerns is that through the committee's subpoena power, it will try to learn how individual voters voted. That is not true, as voter anonymity is "sacrosanct," the chairman told them, according to Schmitt.
"It would be blatantly unconstitutional" anyway, Schmitt said.
Mirror Staff Writer William Kibler is at 949-7038.