Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Election experts in Pennsylvania expect quicker results than 2020

Former officials plead with the media to be thoughtful about unintended consequences of election reporting

Sign that erads "LOVE every vote)

A sign fell to the ground outside the Pennsylvania Convention Center, the central ballot counting facility in Philadelphia, on Nov. 5, 2020.

Bastiaan Slabbers/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Kickols is the communications manager for the Election Reformers Network.

Several election law authorities, elected officials and election administration experts came together recently to discuss potential mail-in ballot counting delays, the challenges of reporting on inaccurate fraud claims, and other election dynamics on the horizon in Pennsylvania. And yet they had a positive message: The Keystone State is well-positioned to count ballots faster this fall.

The discussion took place during an online event with media hosted by the Election Overtime Project, which supports journalists in their coverage of close and contested elections. Election Overtime is an initiative of the Election Reformers Network.


The panel featured esteemed experts including U.S. District Court Judge John Jones, who presided over critical 2020 election challenges; former Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar, who was a defendant in suits filed by President Donald Trump against Pennsylvania officials; Jennifer Morrell, a leading consultant on election administration and auditing; and Emma Shoucair, a legal specialist focused on voting issues.

The event was the third in a series of media briefings that will continue through the election cycle. (A video of the briefing is available here.)

Panelists agreed that state election officials are in a good position to finish the count earlier this year than in 2020, when “four excruciating days” passed before Pennsylvania issued preliminary results, in the words of Shoucair. She cited several reasons for the 2020 delay, including the pandemic and the very recent adoption of universal mail-in voting, which was passed at the end of 2019. Reasons to expect a quicker turnaround in 2024, according to Shoucair, include that “the boards of elections have refined their processes for counting mail-in ballots and have invested in additional personnel and equipment.”

But there are still structural hurdles. “What folks need to know,” said Jones, “is that because our General Assembly lacks the political will to fix a broken election code, we do not have appropriate pre-canvassing [preparing mailed ballots for tabulation] in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. That’s a dreadful flaw, and it leads to delayed results. It will be a couple of days, which will lead into the narrative that there have been these phantom vote drops and something nefarious going on. And that’s not it at all.”

Jones urged reporters to reality test allegations before reporting on them.

Boockvar agreed, and she pleaded with journalists on the call to be informed and thoughtful about their election reporting. Boockvar pointed out the importance of not allowing reporting the news of something outrageous said by a politician to look like confirmation of that politician’s statement. That “can end up unintentionally becoming a source of disinformation that then leads to threats against election officials,” she explained.

Morrell, the co-founder of The Elections Group, cautioned against misrepresenting audits and recounts as an indication that voting results are flawed.

“An audit is a routine part of the post-election process,” Morrell explained. “It’s designed to ensure the systems work as expected. It’s not a bad word. A recount is performed in response to something that happened in a specific contest, such as a close margin, or it could be initiated automatically by statute or requested by a candidate.”

Getting more information in circulation about these procedural elements of election is the goal of Election Overtime. The project website offers a comprehensive set of resources for journalists including guides for reporting on election transparency, verification processes and judicial procedures. The program also offers an extensive speaker bureau to connect journalists with expert commentary for local and national coverage. The program focuses on Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

As ERN Executive Director Kevin Johnson explained, the program is anchored in the idea that, just as in sports, “who won an election is not a subjective question. It’s a matter of fact and a matter of law.” Johnson stressed the importance of helping “voters see the full process of what happens when elections are close and ‘go into overtime” so that it will be “well known and clear that elections, too, have rules that make it absolutely clear who won.”

ERN Vice President Heather Balas called attention to key facts voters should know about presidential elections. “We believe that sound news coverage of the election process — not just of the horse race — is crucial to the future of our democratic republic,” said Balas. “So, with humility, we offer our support to the hardworking election reporters of this nation.”

Materials used on this program have been produced with the generous support of The Carter Center, the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation, and the Bridge Alliance (which publishes The Fulcrum).


Read More

Meta Undermining Trust but Verify through Paid Links
Facebook launches voting resource tool
Facebook launches voting resource tool

Meta Undermining Trust but Verify through Paid Links

Facebook is testing limits on shared external links, which would become a paid feature through their Meta Verified program, which costs $14.99 per month.

This change solidifies that verification badges are now meaningless signifiers. Yet it wasn’t always so; the verified internet was built to support participation and trust. Beginning with Twitter’s verification program launched in 2009, a checkmark next to a username indicated that an account had been verified to represent a notable person or official account for a business. We could believe that an elected official or a brand name was who they said they were online. When Twitter Blue, and later X Premium, began to support paid blue checkmarks in November of 2022, the visual identification of verification became deceptive. Think Fake Eli Lilly accounts posting about free insulin and impersonation accounts for Elon Musk himself.

This week’s move by Meta echoes changes at Twitter/X, despite the significant evidence that it leaves information quality and user experience in a worse place than before. Despite what Facebook says, all this tells anyone is that you paid.

Keep ReadingShow less
artificial intelligence

Rather than blame AI for young Americans struggling to find work, we need to build: build new educational institutions, new retraining and upskilling programs, and, most importantly, new firms.

Surasak Suwanmake/Getty Images

Blame AI or Build With AI? Only One Approach Creates Jobs

We’re failing young Americans. Many of them are struggling to find work. Unemployment among 16- to 24-year-olds topped 10.5% in August. Even among those who do find a job, many of them are settling for lower-paying roles. More than 50% of college grads are underemployed. To make matters worse, the path forward to a more stable, lucrative career is seemingly up in the air. High school grads in their twenties find jobs at nearly the same rate as those with four-year degrees.

We have two options: blame or build. The first involves blaming AI, as if this new technology is entirely to blame for the current economic malaise facing Gen Z. This course of action involves slowing or even stopping AI adoption. For example, there’s so-called robot taxes. The thinking goes that by placing financial penalties on firms that lean into AI, there will be more roles left to Gen Z and workers in general. Then there’s the idea of banning or limiting the use of AI in hiring and firing decisions. Applicants who have struggled to find work suggest that increased use of AI may be partially at fault. Others have called for providing workers with a greater say in whether and to what extent their firm uses AI. This may help firms find ways to integrate AI in a way that augments workers rather than replace them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Parv Mehta Is Leading the Fight Against AI Misinformation

A visual representation of deep fake and disinformation concepts, featuring various related keywords in green on a dark background, symbolizing the spread of false information and the impact of artificial intelligence.

Getty Images

Parv Mehta Is Leading the Fight Against AI Misinformation

At a moment when the country is grappling with the civic consequences of rapidly advancing technology, Parv Mehta stands out as one of the most forward‑thinking young leaders of his generation. Recognized as one of the 500 Gen Zers named to the 2025 Carnegie Young Leaders for Civic Preparedness cohort, Mehta represents the kind of grounded, community‑rooted innovator the program was designed to elevate.

A high school student from Washington state, Parv has emerged as a leading youth voice on the dangers of artificial intelligence and deepfakes. He recognized early that his generation would inherit a world where misinformation spreads faster than truth—and where young people are often the most vulnerable targets. Motivated by years of computer science classes and a growing awareness of AI’s risks, he launched a project to educate students across Washington about deepfake technology, media literacy, and digital safety.

Keep ReadingShow less
child holding smartphone

As Australia bans social media for kids under 16, U.S. parents face a harder truth: online safety isn’t an individual choice; it’s a collective responsibility.

Getty Images/Keiko Iwabuchi

Parents Must Quit Infighting to Keep Kids Safe Online

Last week, Australia’s social media ban for children under age 16 officially took effect. It remains to be seen how this law will shape families' behavior; however, it’s at least a stand against the tech takeover of childhood. Here in the U.S., however, we're in a different boat — a consensus on what's best for kids feels much harder to come by among both lawmakers and parents.

In order to make true progress on this issue, we must resist the fallacy of parental individualism – that what you choose for your own child is up to you alone. That it’s a personal, or family, decision to allow smartphones, or certain apps, or social media. But it’s not a personal decision. The choice you make for your family and your kids affects them and their friends, their friends' siblings, their classmates, and so on. If there is no general consensus around parenting decisions when it comes to tech, all kids are affected.

Keep ReadingShow less