Northampton County Council held a public hearing and lengthy debate on Oct. 3 over an ordinance that would require council review and approval of funds used to establish an on-site voting facility at Lehigh University in Washington Township.

Public comment included Lehigh students who described multi-hour lines at a prior election and urged more accessible voting. Matthew Flower raised questions about public records and the distinctions between inspection and photography; other speakers urged satellite voting to prevent long waits. County Executive Lamont G. McClure and county legal staff said the planned Lehigh site is not a legally defined "on demand" voting site because it will not allow direct ballot submission to election staff on site; instead, it will permit registration, mail-in ballot application and issuance, and use of a nearby drop box.

Solicitor commentary at the hearing cited potential conflicts with the Northampton County Home Rule Charter. The solicitor and the executive argued that, once adopted, the county budget gives the executive authority to direct agency operations and transfer appropriations within an agency (they cited provisions of the Home Rule Charter discussed at the hearing). The solicitor also read the ordinance text that would make council review of election-related expenditures a precondition to spending and said that could conflict with the executive's administrative authority under the charter.

Council debated two competing priorities: access and convenience for voters, particularly students who said they waited up to eight hours in 2024, versus election integrity and the council's desire for oversight of how election-related funds are used. A motion to amend the ordinance by striking the phrase "on demand" from the text was offered and passed 5–4. On the final vote, the amended ordinance failed 4–5, so the ordinance did not pass.

Council members who supported the ordinance cited a need for fiscal transparency and oversight; opponents argued the budget already covered elections and that the election commission and the county executive, not council, administer elections. County Executive McClure also said he would veto the ordinance if it passed, and council members noted a veto would delay any effect until after the election. No funding reallocation or spending restriction resulted from the failed ordinance; the administration continues to plan the satellite office under the election division's authority.