Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Pa.'s elections boss says democracy reform, voter security can coexist

Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar

Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar signs a ceremonial petition in the state Capitol last summer, celebrating the 100th anniversary of the state's ratification of the 19th Amendment granting women the right to vote.

Pennsylvania Department of State

Kathy Boockvar has been Pennsylvania's secretary of state only 14 months, but she comes by her passion for elections honestly: She was a poll worker as a young adult, spent years practicing voting rights law, ran a credible race for Congress in 2012 and advised Gov. Tom Wolf, a fellow Democrat, on the most comprehensive overhaul of the state's elections laws in more than 80 years.

That experience has given her something to say about the state of democracy reform and election security eight months ahead of the presidential election.


Pennsylvania's law, enacted last fall, has brought no-excuse absentee voting by mail to the state, permits voters to sign up to receive such ballots in every election, created a 50-day period for early voting by mail, lengthened the pre-election period for registration by 15 days and paid for the installation of new voting equipment in all of the state's 67 counties.

What's as remarkable as the statute's breadth is that it resulted from the sort of negotiation and bipartisan compromise that are extremely rare in American government today. Harrisburg is among just nine state capitals where the governor is not from the same party in control of the legislature. But Wolf and Republican leaders in the state House and Senate were able to strike a deal in which GOP lawmakers got their top wish — the elimination of straight-ticket voting, which they say unfairly favored Democrats — and the governor's side got a package making it easier to vote.

Boockver also co-chairs the Election Committee of the National Association of Secretaries of State. It was in that role that she came to Washington last week. During a break in her time at a National Association of Counties conference, she discussed democracy reform's triumph in Pennsylvania and how election officials nationwide are battling voter mistrust that is the product of Russian attempts to meddle in the 2016 election. This is an annotated and condensed version of the central part of the conversation:

If you could speak to the average voter in Pennsylvania and nationwide, what is your message to them? Should they be afraid?

Of course there are concerns about misinformation and disinformation that are contributing to people's worries, she said. But in Pennsylvania the state has been on a constant path of improving voting systems and security. And so:

"What that means is that I have tremendous confidence in the security and resiliency of Pennsylvania elections. We're really on a mission to make sure that every voter can walk into the poll booth; or three weeks before election day walk into their county election office; or vote by mail; and know their vote will be counted accurately and securely and arguably more securely than at any point in time before now. One of the things Russians and other bad actors have learned is how vulnerable we are to misinformation and disinformation. And we can't let that win."

How do you overcome fear?

"I think the answer is a mix of actions and communication." She said the actions in Pennsylvania have included the rollout of a separate election web page for all 67 counties. In addition, the state adopted its own new, more rigorous security and certification standards for election equipment instead of waiting for the Election Assistance Commission to finish its upgrade of national standards. In addition, she has been traveling the state, meeting with local officials and attending community events.

What were the keys to passing the comprehensive election reform legislation?

"What was key was that the bill genuinely included things both sides wanted. It was kind of what used to happen all the time." She said it reminded her of settlement negotiations as a lawyer. "You are never going to have a settlement where everybody's happy."

"It truly was historic. It's historic in the wins for Pennsylvania voters. But it was historic in the process; in that process of negotiation and give-and-take genuinely working. It doesn't happen enough anymore."

What are the lessons that other states and local governments learn from the experience in Pennsylvania?

"There's no magic. There's no rocket science. The willingness to continue to engage in conversations even after the first attempt failed. Sometimes it's too easy after a first round fails to just give up."


Read More

A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stickers with the words "I Voted Today."

Virginia is on its way to be the 19th jurisdiction to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing the U.S. closer to electing presidents by the national popular vote.

Getty Images, EyeWolf

Virginia On The Path to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, voluntary state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the NPVIC to reach a total of 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all (WTA) regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.

With Virginia's adoption, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, collectively holding 222 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs forty-eight more electoral votes to become active.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less