Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court has ruled that images of mail-in and absentee ballots from the 2020 election are public records, granting partial victory to transparency advocates. However, the court’s decision also allows state election officials to keep other voting records hidden, fueling ongoing disputes over election transparency in the state.

The case began in August 2022 when Michelle Previte filed a “Right to Know” request with Erie County, seeking electronic copies of mail-in ballots, envelopes, and in-person voting records. While the court ultimately decided that images of mail-in and absentee ballots must be made public, it sided with Erie County in denying access to ballots cast in person.

Attorney Thomas Breth, who represents Previte, expressed frustration with the decision, calling it “mind-boggling” that election officials continue to resist releasing public records. “These boards of election have the ability to be transparent and demonstrate to the public that the elections are being conducted in a fair and honest manner,” Breth told The Federalist. “They’re choosing to try to put a cloak of secrecy over the information that’s needed.”

The case is part of a broader struggle in Pennsylvania, where election transparency has been a contentious issue since the 2020 presidential election. The Pennsylvania Department of State, led by Deputy Secretary for Elections Jonathan Marks, has advised counties against releasing ballots and other records, citing concerns over voter privacy and election security.

Heather Honey, an election systems expert, faced similar resistance when she requested the Cast Vote Record (CVR) from Lycoming County. Despite arguments that the CVR is a public record, the Commonwealth Court denied her request, agreeing with the state’s position that releasing the data could reveal how individuals voted.

Judge Patricia McCullough, in her dissenting opinion, argued that once ballots are scanned by optical scanners, they should be considered public records. McCullough emphasized that scanners are not voting machines and that releasing the scanned images would not violate ballot secrecy.

While the court’s decision in Previte’s case marks a step toward greater transparency, it also highlights the ongoing challenges in obtaining access to election records in Pennsylvania. Breth, who is involved in multiple cases, plans to continue advocating for full disclosure of all election-related records, including those from in-person voting.