Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Department defends data redaction, cites ERIC for double‑voting detection and declines DOJ PII requests
Summary
Officials described steps to reduce public exposure of sensitive election records, detailed how ERIC helps identify double‑voting cases, and said Pennsylvania declined a DOJ request for Social Security and driver‑license numbers citing state privacy obligations and ongoing litigation.
Department of State officials told the Appropriations Committee the agency has tightened public access to sensitive election documents, instituted address redaction when appropriate, shortened availability windows for some records, and provided additional training to county elections staff to balance transparency and safety.
Deputy Secretary Jonathan Marks said the department can redact addresses for individuals with safety concerns and that changes make records less likely to appear in simple internet searches.
The secretary also described how Pennsylvania relies on ERIC, the interstate Electronic Registration Information Center, to identify potential cross‑state double voting and stale registrations. "Pennsylvania is part of a system called ERIC... that network so that we can work together to identify cases where a voter has voted or registered ... in more than one state," Schmidt told the committee. He described a recent referral that led to a conviction in a cross‑state double‑voting case.
On federal data requests, Schmidt said the department has declined to provide Social Security numbers, driver's‑license numbers and other personally identifiable information to the Department of Justice, citing state law and privacy obligations. He told the committee the department has shared case information with law enforcement when appropriate but asserted that state statutes and federal court decisions have supported states' denials of bulk PII requests in related litigation.
Lawmakers seeking reassurance about both voter security and privacy pressed department officials for more detail; the department agreed to provide additional explanations of how records are shared with federal partners and what information is provided to law enforcement in individual cases.
