Northampton County moves ahead with satellite 'on‑demand' voting despite legal, political concerns

The Northampton County Election Commission said it is moving forward with a plan to operate satellite ballot‑on‑demand locations for county elections, a decision that has prompted public objections and requests for additional legal and data review.

The registrar, Chris (role: Elections Registrar), said the administration has identified two tentative sites for November — Washington Township Municipal Building and the Fowler Family Southside Center in south Bethlehem — and is coordinating walk‑throughs and local approvals. “We have staffing resources. We have supplies. We have everything we need to be able to execute these locations,” Chris said. The sites would be open at least two days a week, the registrar said, and would allow voters to deposit completed ballots directly into existing county drop boxes located at the site for security.

Why it matters: the change could alter how and where residents cast ballots and has prompted legal and partisan objections that could lead to litigation. Charles Baltic, speaking on behalf of the Northampton County Republican Committee, told commissioners the June vote authorizing satellite offices was “ill considered and unfounded” and said any move to implement satellite offices “is not authorized, valid, or allowable under Pennsylvania election law.” Glenn Geisinger said the action “is an abominable assault on our democracy. Period.” Both men said they would pursue legal remedies if the commission did not reverse course.

The commission’s solicitor, Michael, confirmed there is existing litigation at the state and federal level over aspects of mail‑in ballots and said the county is abiding by current court orders. Michael offered to prepare an attorney‑client memorandum setting out the legal justification for satellite voting sites and advised the commission that such a memo would be privileged. “I can provide the commission with an opinion,” he said; commissioners requested that memo before the next meeting.

Several commissioners urged more data and legal review before implementation. Commissioner Julia said she voted in favor because she believed the county needed to address instances of voters being unable to cast ballots at certain locations, but other commissioners said they expected more empirical justification. Commissioner Scott and others pressed for a needs analysis and legal clarity. Commissioners also discussed staffing, costs and security: Nicole (elections administration staff) said the county will use existing staff and the existing drop‑box collection process, and that there is no additional county budget appropriation for the sites.

Administrative steps: the Washington Township supervisors added the location item to their mid‑August agenda; the county will do a walk‑through at Fowler. The registrar said the county will publish dates and hours once locations are confirmed and that communications to the public will follow. The county also plans to track utilization at the locations to determine whether to continue them after trial deployments.

Process and next steps: the commission acknowledged that a vote authorizing satellite sites was taken previously; several commissioners said that vote stands but that they want the solicitor’s memorandum and additional operational details. The solicitor agreed to provide a written opinion to the commission (privileged) before the next meeting. Public commenters and at least one local attorney warned of litigation if the county implements satellite sites without addressing their legal concerns.

Ending: Commissioners said they would update the public as locations and schedules are finalized and noted that walk‑throughs and local approvals must be completed before opening any site. The commission did not hold a new formal vote on the issue at this meeting.