Q: It is election season in Pennsylvania and our newsroom wants to make sure we understand the laws governing access to polling places and election records and if there have been any changes since last year?
A: Election practices vary by county, but all counties must adhere to Title 25 of the Pennsylvania Statutes, the Pennsylvania Election Code, which governs access to ballots, returns, voter information and polling places. This PNA guide has been updated to reflect developments through October 2026, including new case law and a new criminal statute addressing digital forgery.
The Pennsylvania Department of State has helpful voter-focused information on its website at https://www.pa.gov/agencies/dos/programs/voting-and-elections.
Journalists with questions or concerns can contact the PNA Legal Hotline at (717) 703-3080 or pnalegal@obemayer.com
2026 UPDATED PNA ELECTION GUIDE
Access to Polling Places, Computation and Records
POLLING PLACES
The Pennsylvania Election Code, 25 P.S. § 3060, provides, among other things, as follows:
(a) Until the polls are closed, no person shall be allowed in the polling place outside of the enclosed space at any primary or election, except the watchers; voters not exceeding ten at any one time who are awaiting their turn to vote; and peace officers, when necessary for the preservation of the peace.
(d) All persons, except election officers, clerks, machine inspectors, overseers, watchers, persons in the course of voting, persons lawfully giving assistance to voters, and peace and police officers, when permitted by the provisions of this act, must remain at least ten (10) feet distant from the polling place during the progress of the vote.
In 2013, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held the 10-foot barrier around the polling place was not an unconstitutional barrier on the press’s ability to monitor elections. You can read the decision in PG Publishing Co. v. Aichele, 705 F.3d 91 (3d Cir. 2013). The court characterized a polling place as a nonpublic forum, held that the press has no greater constitutional right of access than the general public, and found that inconsistent county-by-county enforcement of the ten-foot rule, without evidence of intentional discrimination, does not establish an equal-protection violation. As of this update, no Third Circuit, Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Commonwealth Court, Superior Court, or federal district court decision has overruled, narrowed, or materially distinguished PG Publishing, and it remains the controlling authority on press access to polling places.
It is important to remember that “polling place” is statutorily defined in the Election Code, Section 102(q), 25 P.S. § 2602(q), as “the room provided in each election district for voting at a primary or election.” Most voting sites are not a single room wherein voting takes place, so it is important to remember that the 10-foot limitation only applies to the “polling place” as that term is defined by law. Footnote 22 in the PG Publishing decision makes this distinction clear. There can be a 10-foot barrier between the voting room itself (the “polling place”) and press activity, but that will typically be inside the building where voting takes place, not outside the building or on the street.
Some media representatives in Pennsylvania have acted as “watchers” which enables access to polling places in accordance with the statute. Others are granted access by local election officials for the purpose of newsgathering. Additionally, public locations outside the polling place where voters enter, exit and wait in line to vote are public forum for First Amendment purposes, and the press should be able to gather news in these locations without undue government interference.
Practical guidance for 2026: Journalists may observe and record from outside the ten-foot boundary under PG Publishing but have no general right to enter the polling room merely by virtue of being press. A journalist does not become a “watcher” without the formal appointment and county-issued certificate described below.
POLL WATCHERS: WHO QUALIFIES
Under 25 P.S. § 2687, each candidate may appoint two watchers for each election district in which the candidate is on the ballot, and at general, municipal, and special elections, each qualifying political party or political body may appoint three watchers for each election district. A watcher must be a qualified registered elector of the county in which the election district is located but does not need to reside in the particular election district for which the watcher is appointed. Each watcher must carry a certificate from the county board stating the watcher’s name and the candidate, party, or political body represented, and must show it on request.
Watchers may keep lists of voters, challenge a person’s right to vote, and (when no voters are present voting or waiting) inspect the voting checklist and numbered list of voters, but may not mark or alter official election records. Watcher compensation is capped by statute at $120 per diem. 25 P.S. § 3507 separately makes it unlawful to use violence or intimidation to threaten or drive away a watcher, attorney, candidate, overseer, or other authorized representative, or to prevent such a person from performing their duties.
RETURNS
In counties that use electronic voting systems, public access to returns is governed by a specific section of the Pennsylvania Election Code. 25 P.S. § 3031.14(c) states:
“The return printed by the central automatic tabulating equipment, to which have been added write-in votes as recorded on the district reporting form and absentee votes, shall, when certified by the county board of elections, constitute the official return of each election district. Upon completion of the count, the official returns shall be open to the public.”
The Election Code also contains a general provision regarding public access to returns. 25 P.S. § 3152(a) states:
“The general returns from the various districts which have been returned unsealed shall be open to public inspection at the office of the county board as soon as they are received from the judges of election. None of the envelopes sealed by election officers and entrusted to the judge of election for delivery to the county board shall be opened by any person, except by the order of the return board, or of the court of common pleas.”
CAST VOTE RECORDS: A NEW PUBLIC RECORDS RULING
A significant development for the 2026 cycle concerns cast vote records (CVRs) — the spreadsheet-style data reports that modern tabulating equipment generates showing raw ballot-level data. In Honey v. Lycoming County Offices of Voter Services, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that CVRs are not the “contents” of ballot boxes or voting machines that 25 P.S. § 2648 exempts from disclosure, reversing a 2024 Commonwealth Court decision that had reached the opposite conclusion.
The Court reasoned that physical ballots are the contents of ballot boxes, a voting machine is the device through which an elector casts a vote, scanners are voting devices, and tabulators are automatic tabulating equipment distinct from voting machines — meaning CVRs, as reports generated by tabulating equipment, fall within the “reports and other documents and records” that § 2648 makes available for inspection.
The Court also held that requesters seeking CVRs must proceed under the Election Code’s access procedures (the qualified-elector, ordinary-business-hours, and supervised-inspection requirements of § 2648) rather than the Right-to-Know Law’s ordinary procedures.
On ballot secrecy, the Court found that the county’s randomized CVR output did not identify how any particular elector voted but cautioned that the secrecy analysis could come out differently for a county whose CVR-generation method could link records to individual voters — so the availability and format of CVRs may still vary somewhat by county.
BALLOT COUNTING
The location of the count must be public and must be advertised in advance, although the counting room itself is not open to the general public. In addition to election officials and watchers, candidates and their attorneys/representatives are permitted in the counting room. 25 P.S. § 3153; 25 P.S. § 3154; 25 P.S. § 2650.
Election Code, 25 P.S. § 3153(a), requires the county board of elections to arrange for the computation of the votes from each primary and election at its office or some other convenient public place at the county seat. At least one week prior to the computation of votes, the county board of elections must publish notice by newspaper publication, in accordance with 25 P.S. §2606 (Publication of Notices), of the time and place at which the board will hold its sessions for the computation of votes. Copies of the advertisement must be posted in the board’s office until the computation is completed.
MAIL AND ABSENTEE BALLOTS: DEADLINES, DATE ERRORS, AND NOTICE AND CURE
This is a high-litigation area and news organizations and journalists should expect continued disputes through the 2026 cycle.
The core statutory deadlines remain unchanged since 2019-2020: mail-in and absentee ballot applications generally may not be processed before 50 days prior to an election but must be processed if received by 5:00 p.m. on the first Tuesday before the election (25 P.S. §§ 3146.2a, 3150.12a).
Completed mail-in and absentee ballots must ordinarily be received by the county board by 8:00 p.m. on Election Day (25 P.S. §§ 3146.6(c), 3150.16(c)).
Undated or misdated envelopes. The outer return (declaration) envelope must be dated and signed under 25 P.S. §§ 3146.6(a) and 3150.16(a). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held in Ball v. Chapman, 289 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2023), that this dating requirement is mandatory as a matter of state statutory law and that a missing or incorrect date renders a mail ballot invalid under the Election Code.
However, in Eakin v. Adams County Board of Elections (3d Cir. 2025), the Third Circuit held that discarding an otherwise timely mail ballot solely because its return envelope is undated or misdated violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments, reasoning that the handwritten date does not determine timeliness — the county’s own receipt date does — and that the burden on voters is minimal while the consequences of discarding valid votes are severe. The Third Circuit denied rehearing (including en banc rehearing) in October 2025, though several judges dissented from that denial, arguing that a later Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision had undercut the panel’s reasoning.
The result for 2026 is an unresolved tension between Pennsylvania’s own statutory rule (Ball) and the federal constitutional injunction (Eakin). The practical, federally-binding rule for county boards is that a timely-received mail ballot should not be rejected solely for a missing or incorrect date on the envelope — but this remains a live and legally contested area that could change before or during the 2026 elections.
Notice and cure. Pennsylvania has no general statewide statutory right allowing a voter to “cure” or repair a defective mail ballot envelope (e.g., by adding a missing signature or date) so that the original ballot is counted — the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected a court-imposed, statewide cure procedure in Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar, 238 A.3d 345 (Pa. 2020).
Counties vary considerably in whether they offer their own cure or notice policies; as of late 2024, roughly three dozen counties had some form of notice-and-cure policy while others did not.
What is now settled is narrower: in Genser v. Butler County Board of Elections, 325 A.3d 458 (Pa. 2024), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a voter whose mail ballot is void (for example, for missing the required secrecy envelope) is entitled to have a properly cast provisional ballot counted instead — this is a fail-safe through the separate provisional-ballot process, not a cure of the original mail ballot.
Building on that, in Center for Coalfield Justice v. Washington County Board of Elections, 343 A.3d 1178 (Pa. 2025), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the Pennsylvania Constitution’s protection of the right to vote requires counties to code defective mail-ballot packets accurately in the statewide SURE system, so that affected voters are not misleadingly told they can no longer vote at all when they remain eligible to cast a provisional ballot. The Court left open whether counties may lawfully operate broader, traditional notice-and-cure programs that let a voter fix the original envelope.
Pre-canvass and canvass observation. Under 25 P.S. § 3146.8(g)(1.1)-(2), county boards may begin pre-canvassing mail and absentee ballots no earlier than 7:00 a.m. on Election Day, after posting at least 48 hours’ public notice; the canvass of remaining ballots may begin at the close of polls and must continue until all timely-received ballots are canvassed.
One representative of each candidate and each political party may remain in the room during both proceedings, and no one may disclose or publish results before the polls close.
Coalfield Justice also addressed (with a divided court) how far county boards may go in examining and segregating outer envelopes for facial defects before the official 7:00 a.m. start time — the majority held that mere administrative inspection of the envelope’s exterior is permissible before 7:00 a.m., while the dissent argued that this blurs into pre-canvassing itself. This boundary remains contested.
Drop boxes. The Election Code does not establish a detailed statewide drop-box program, minimum number of boxes, uniform hours, or comprehensive security regime; voters may return ballots by mail or by personal delivery to the county board. Drop-box availability, locations, and rules continue to be set largely at the county level, and journalists should confirm current drop-box policies directly with the relevant county board rather than assume a statewide standard.
VOTER IDENTIFICATION
Pennsylvania does not have a general photo-ID requirement for returning voters at the polls. Under 25 P.S. § 3050, identification is required mainly for a voter’s first time voting in a particular election district; a returning, previously verified voter ordinarily is not asked to produce ID simply to vote.
This reflects the enduring practical effect of Applewhite v. Commonwealth, 54 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2012), in which the Commonwealth Court suspended enforcement of a broader photo-ID law after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s remand; that suspension has not been lifted or revisited by a reported appellate decision since.
A voter may still be challenged as to identity or residency under 25 P.S. § 3050(d), and a voter whose registration cannot be verified may cast a provisional ballot.
ELECTION SYSTEM SECURITY, CERTIFICATION, AND AUDITS
Pennsylvania’s Election Code requires the Secretary of the Commonwealth to examine, approve, and reexamine any electronic voting system before it may be used in the state, and an unapproved system may not be used (25 P.S. § 3031.5). Approved systems must meet detailed security standards, including provisions for ballot secrecy, tamper-resistance, secure storage, and a permanent physical paper record of every vote cast (25 P.S. §§ 3031.1, 3031.7, 3031.21).
Before each election, county boards must publicly test their central tabulating equipment no later than the fourth day before the election and must pass the same test again after the count before returns become official (25 P.S. § 3031.14(a)-(b)).
After each election, county boards must also conduct a statistical recount of a random sample of at least 2% of votes cast (or 2,000 votes, whichever is fewer), using a different counting method or device than was used in the original count (25 P.S. § 3031.17).
In 2025, the Commonwealth Court decided PA Fair Elections v. Department of State, a case arising from a manufacturer programming error that inverted two judicial retention candidates’ names on printed records generated by Northampton County’s voting system. The court held that a HAVA Title III complaint is the proper vehicle to challenge a county’s use of a particular voting system, but affirmed dismissal because the error was clerical, did not affect how votes were actually recorded, and had been remedied. A concurring judge took a more critical view, reasoning that inaccurate paper records did implicate HAVA’s manual-audit requirements even though dismissal was still appropriate on the facts. This case is a useful example for journalists of how equipment malfunctions are investigated and resolved, and of the ongoing role paper records play in verifying Pennsylvania election results.
AI-GENERATED CONTENT AND DIGITAL FORGERY
Pennsylvania has not enacted an election-specific law requiring disclosure of AI-generated, synthetic, or deepfake content in political advertising, and the existing political-advertising disclosure statute, 25 P.S. § 3258, requires only that communications identify whether they were authorized by a candidate or identify the person or group that financed an unauthorized communication — it does not impose any AI or synthetic-media labeling requirement. A new law creating liability for AI advertising published without notice sits on Governor Shapiro’s desk for signature after passing the House and Senate but has not been signed as of the date of publication of this post. The PNA will release a member alert as soon as the Governor signs the bill, which takes effect 60 days from the date of his signature.
Separately, however, in 2025, Pennsylvania enacted a generally applicable criminal offense known as “digital forgery” at 18 Pa.C.S. § 4101.1. The statute makes it a crime to create and distribute a forged digital likeness (an image, video, or audio recording) as genuine, when the person knows or reasonably should know the likeness is forged. It is graded as a first-degree misdemeanor, or a third-degree felony if done as part of a scheme to defraud, coerce, or commit theft. The statute includes exceptions for constitutionally protected activity, law enforcement, and certain technology and information-service providers, and an affirmative defense where the creator took reasonable steps to disclose that the likeness was not genuine. This is not an election-specific statute, but it is relevant background for any coverage of AI-manipulated political content, candidate deepfakes, or synthetic audio/video circulating during the 2026 election cycle.
VOTER INFORMATION
Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Election Code, 25 Pa.C.S. § 1207; 25 Pa.C.S. § 1401, et seq., the following documents are generally public:
- Records of a registration commission and district registers
- Street lists
- Official voter registration applications
- Petitions and appeals
- Witness lists
- Accounts and contracts
- Reports
Under the statute, these documents may be inspected during ordinary business hours. Public inspection shall be in the presence of an authorized commission employee and shall be subject to proper regulation for safekeeping of the material. You are entitled to copies of the records at cost. The material may not be used for commercial or improper purposes.
Street lists include the names and addresses of all registered electors residing in the district. Public information lists contain the name, address, date of birth and voting history of each registered voter in the county, and they may also contain information on voting districts. Before inspecting a street list or public information list, an individual must provide identification to the public official having custody of the information and must state in writing that any information obtained from the list will not be used for purposes unrelated to elections, political activities or law enforcement. 25 Pa.C.S. §§ 1403 and 1404.
District registers must be preserved for at least five years, and voter-list-maintenance records must generally be preserved for two years and made available for public inspection, subject to specified exceptions. 25 Pa.C.S. § 1405.
BALLOTS
The Pennsylvania Election Code, 25 P.S. § 2968, provides public access to ballots. Section 2968(a) provides:
“The county board of elections shall have on file in its office, on and after the Thursday preceding each primary and election, open to public inspection, forms of the ballots and ballot labels, with the names and such statements and notations as may be required by the provisions of this act, printed thereon, which shall be used in each election district within the county.”
Absentee ballots are governed by a specific provision of the Pennsylvania Election Code. 25 P.S. § 3146.9 states:
“All official absentee ballots, files, applications for such ballots and envelopes on which the executed declarations appear, and all information, and lists are hereby designated and declared to be public records and shall be safely kept for a period of two years, except that no information concerning a military elector shall be made public which is expressly forbidden by the War Department because of military security.”
Completed ballots, e.g., the contents of ballot boxes and voting machines, are not public records. 25 P.S. § 2648. As discussed above, however, this exemption does not extend to cast vote records (CVR data reports), which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held are public records accessible under § 2648’s general reports-and-records provision, subject to the Election Code’s qualified-elector, supervised-inspection procedure.
SUMMARY OF KEY UPDATES SINCE 2025
- Cast vote records are public records. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Honey v. Lycoming County Offices of Voter Services reversed prior Commonwealth Court precedent and held that CVRs must be disclosed under 25 P.S. § 2648, subject to Election-Code access procedures.
- Undated/misdated mail ballots: federal injunction remains in tension with state law. Eakin v. Adams County Board of Elections (3d Cir. 2025) held that Pennsylvania counties may not discard timely mail ballots solely for a missing or incorrect envelope date, creating tension with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s contrary statutory ruling in Ball v. Chapman. Rehearing was denied in October 2025, but dissenting judges flagged continuing uncertainty.
- Defective mail ballots and provisional voting. Genser v. Butler County Board of Elections (Pa. 2024) and Center for Coalfield Justice v. Washington County Board of Elections (Pa. 2025) clarified that voters with void mail ballots must be accurately notified (via SURE coding) of their right to cast a provisional ballot, though there remains no general statewide right to cure the original mail ballot.
- New digital forgery statute. 18 Pa.C.S. § 4101.1 (effective September 5, 2025) criminalizes creating and distributing a forged digital likeness as genuine — relevant background for coverage of AI-manipulated political content, though it is not an election-specific disclosure law.
- Voting system security litigation. PA Fair Elections v. Department of State (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2025) illustrates how equipment malfunctions are investigated under HAVA and underscores the continuing importance of Pennsylvania’s paper-record and statistical-recount requirements.
- No general voter ID and no AI/deepfake election-disclosure law. Despite national trends, Pennsylvania has not adopted a general voter-ID-at-the-polls requirement or an election-specific AI/synthetic-media disclosure law as of this update.
Note on scope: This update reflects research conducted in Pennsylvania statutory, regulatory, and case-law sources through October 2026. Several questions remain unsettled or actively litigated, including the ultimate resolution of the Eakin/Ball tension, the permissible scope of county-level notice-and-cure programs, and county-specific drop-box and watcher-access policies, which can vary and should be confirmed directly with the relevant county board of elections or the PNA Legal Hotline before publication.