Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Election Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents ask board to monitor tabulator area and question mail-in ballot envelope window
Summary
During public comment at the May 16 Chester County Election Board meeting, residents asked the board to arrange continuous security at the tabulation area and raised concerns under the Sunshine Act and about a mail-in ballot envelope window and a possible Department of State variance.
At the May 16 meeting of the Chester County Election Board, two members of the public urged the board to address ballot security and transparency concerns ahead of the May 20 primary.
Gayle Newman of Malvern Borough asked whether the county had "scheduled a meeting with the sheriff" to provide 24/7 monitoring of the polling and tabulator area where mail-in ballots are stored. "I'm hoping that you guys have scheduled a meeting with the sheriff, to do that," Newman said. Board leadership responded that staff would provide a follow-up answer.
Dolores Toriani, speaking on behalf of the Republican Party of Chester County, raised procedural and ballot-envelope concerns. Toriani invoked the Sunshine Act, saying the statute permits the agency to "take official action to refer the matter to staff, if applicable, for the purpose of researching the matter for inclusion on the agenda of a future meeting," and urged the board to use that process for public inquiries. Toriani also said she had been told mail-in ballot envelopes distributed in the county contain a window that reveals the party designation printed on the ballot and that, according to Department of State directives she reviewed, an envelope with a window would require a variance from the Department of State. "The mail in ballot envelope that the ballot is sent in has a window on it, and it you could see it says official Republican ballot," Toriani said. She said she had asked the county solicitor for clarification and had not received a complete answer.
Board members said they noted the comments and would follow up with additional information; Director Barsoom told the public that staff would provide answers after the meeting. The board encouraged written comments to its election office e-mail address, ccelectionofficials@chesco.org.
Why it matters: Questions about security near tabulation equipment and about ballot-envelope design relate to public confidence in ballot privacy and election procedures. The board did not make an on-the-record policy change during the meeting but promised follow-up.
Less-critical details: Toriani said she had received a Department of State directive from Montgomery County for comparison and referenced an e-mail she had sent to the county solicitor earlier the same day.
