Centre County elections board rules on disputed primary ballots, agrees to ‘count and segregate’ some undated returns

The Centre County Board of Elections on May 22 voted to count, partially count or reject several disputed mail and provisional ballots from the May 20 municipal primary while segregating a subset that election staff flagged under recent federal guidance.

Board members and elections staff said the decisions were intended to follow evolving court and state guidance while preserving challenge paths for campaigns and litigants. The board approved a package of adjudications after staff summarized problem ballots and legal context, and after members debated whether to count ballots with missing or incorrect dates and how to treat ballots that lacked secrecy envelopes or required witness information.

At the start of the canvass, elections staff walked the board through categories of problematic ballots recovered from mail, drop boxes and precincts. Melanie (elections staff) told the board that “7,124 that were returned,” referring to the total number of mail-in ballots the office received for the municipal primary. Staff then identified ballots they recommended for rejection (for example: “naked” ballots found outside secret envelopes and an outer envelope with no voter signature/witness) and ballots they recommended to count with conditions.

After discussion, the board approved the staff recommendations for the May 20 municipal primary ballot adjudication. The formal action (motion recorded by the board) directed staff to: - Reject certain ballots (examples recorded by category: one item in category b; four in c; one in d; and one marked as K in staff notes). - Count but segregate three ballots that bore dates outside the official range or had incorrect dates, following guidance the board said came from a Western District federal-court decision and subsequent Department of State directions. The board instructed staff to mark those ballots with a comment in the file (“no date counted” or “incorrect date counted”) so they could be tracked separately. - Allow a partial count on one ballot where a single race mark was indecipherable but the rest of the ballot was clear. Staff recreated the ballot for scanning with the ambiguous race omitted so the remaining contests could be counted.

Board members repeatedly returned to legal risk and uniformity: several members urged that county practice be consistent with statewide guidance so voters in Centre County are not treated differently from voters elsewhere in Pennsylvania. Board members and staff discussed a federal decision from the Western District that, as summarized to the board, said date requirements for absentee ballots may implicate equal-protection or constitutional concerns; the board concluded the prudent interim approach was to count those ballots while keeping them segregated for potential review.

The board also considered other categories that arose during canvass: a handful of ballots lacking required witness signatures (including one marked only with an “X” and no witness), ballots that showed marks revealing political preference written on an envelope (the board concluded such generic statements did not identify the voter and instructed staff to count that item), and “naked” ballots placed in drop boxes without the required secrecy envelope (those were treated as overchecks and rejected when they could not be identified).

The board addressed a separate incident at Precinct 41 where an outer envelope had not been sealed and a ballot appears to have been run through a tabulator outside a secrecy envelope. Staff reported the ballot had already been recorded in the unofficial tally; the board requested a clearer narrative from that precinct’s judges of election about how the ballot left and re-entered the tabulator so the office can reduce the risk of recurrence.

Members also voted to count a ballot tied to an active law-enforcement investigation of a voter registration change. The board motioned and approved counting that ballot, noting the office will continue to coordinate with investigators while the matter is adjudicated.

Elections staff briefed the board on additional administrative matters discussed during the meeting: two military/overseas ballots were processed; staff recreated nonstandard ballots (reproducing ballot stock so the tabulators would accept them) for a small number of precincts; and staff recommended — and the board selected — precincts for the county’s post-election random audit. The board selected precincts tied to two different school districts, citing the need for coverage across jurisdictions (the board referenced a 2% audit target and discussed precincts 16 (State College North) and 36 (Bellefonte North) among others as samples).

The board set the next procedural steps: staff will include the canvass changes in the unofficial count uploads as directed, maintain the segregated set of ballots pending further appellate guidance or litigation outcomes, conduct the county’s statistical (2%) audit on Wednesday, and complete the official certification process on the scheduled date.

The board adjourned after making the canvass motions, canceling a planned meeting the next day because the work was finished.

Ending: The Centre County Board of Elections said it will preserve the segregated ballots and the board’s written adjudication notes so that any campaign, litigant or court can review the chain of custody and rationale if the Western District or the Third Circuit issues additional direction before the November general election.