Observers press Delaware County for clearer rules on logic-and-accuracy testing and ballot processing transparency

A swarm of public commenters at the April 11 Delaware County Board of Elections meeting urged changes to observation policies for election operations, testing and ballot processing and pressed county staff for more public data on mail‑ballot handling.

Speakers including Scott Thomas, Joy Schwartz of the League of Women Voters of Central Delaware County and independent observers asked the county to allow up to three representatives from an organized group to observe logic-and-accuracy (L&A) testing — citing what they said was a state law entitlement — to permit brief close viewing of machine displays during a test cycle, and to allow photography where unrelated to chain‑of‑custody codes. Thomas and others specifically requested routine hash-code checks and test procedures be visible to observers.

Several observers also described perceived discrepancies during processing at the county’s mail‑ballot facility (the Wharf) and asked for more visible sorting and count verification. Laura Lewis, an observer who said she watched MIB (mail‑in ballot) processing at the Wharf, summarized her group’s tallying effort and said machine totals recorded by the county exceeded observers’ visual estimates of ballots processed by a significant margin; she asked the county to post per‑tray counts and BlueCrest sorter camera images to allow independent verification.

Director James Allen and other staff responded that Pennsylvania law permits the county to adopt reasonable rules for observation but also cited operational limits. Allen said the county enforces rules at different testing steps (noting that “hash testing” is not a statutorily required step and the county performs it as an internal practice) and that camera, phone and bag restrictions have been applied selectively at different events, depending on the testing type and security concerns. Allen said authorized representatives are allowed under statute to attend testing but that logistics, proximity and machine positioning affect what an observer can actually see.

Other speakers recommended publishing daily drop‑box chain‑of‑custody logs and BlueCrest sorter throughput numbers and attaching timestamps or images so the public can reconcile delivered ballots and machine counts. Several speakers also urged expanded return‑board review of mail‑in/absentee ballots (one speaker referred to 25 Pennsylvania Code §3154(c) as a statute governing return‑board duties), noting that, historically, absentee ballots were reconciled at the precinct level and suggesting additional checks to detect discrepancies.

Why it matters: Transparent L&A testing and clear, verifiable chain‑of‑custody records are central to public trust in elections. Observers said limited visibility and camera prohibitions can make testing feel “meaningless,” while county staff said they must balance transparency with ballot security and statutory requirements.

Staff response and next steps: Allen said staff will continue to follow statutory rules and internal procedures, and will compile and provide some operational data (for example, counts of military absentee applications and summary chain‑of‑custody data when available). He also said he would raise observers’ requests with statewide election‑administrator committees to push for consistent practices across counties.

Direct quotes: “When we're upstairs, they're not really needed because we're really close,” Scott Thomas said of binoculars used during prior L&A sessions; Joy Schwartz of the League of Women Voters said the proposed SAVE Act “would significantly disrupt existing voter registration practices.”

Unresolved questions: Observers asked for routine hash‑code testing on all machines and clearer written observation rules that apply consistently to all authorized watchers; county staff acknowledged they will review their procedures but did not commit to wholesale policy changes during the meeting.