Honey, H. v. Lycoming Co. Offices of Voter Svcs.
Docket 79 MAP 2024
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Pennsylvania
- Court
- Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- Type
- Concurrence
- Case type
- Other
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Judge
- Wecht, David N.
- Docket
- 79 MAP 2024
Appeal from the Commonwealth Court's reversal of the Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas order concerning disclosure of cast vote records under the Election Code.
Summary
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that cast vote records (CVRs) are not the "contents of ballot boxes and voting machines" under Section 308 (25 P.S. § 2648) of the Election Code, and therefore are not exempt from public disclosure. The court rejected the Commonwealth Court’s view that CVRs are the digital equivalent of machine contents and found the statute’s plain language dispositive. The Court noted that if policy concerns exist about disclosure, the proper remedy is legislative change rather than judicial construction of a statute enacted in 1937.
Issues Decided
- Whether cast vote records (CVRs) are "the contents of ballot boxes and voting machines" within the meaning of Section 308 of the Pennsylvania Election Code (25 P.S. § 2648).
- Whether the plain language of the Election Code is ambiguous such that interpretive aids (like administrative practice or consequences) should determine whether CVRs are exempt from public disclosure.
Court's Reasoning
The court reasoned that CVRs are post-election spreadsheet-like reports generated after votes are cast and are not physically contained within ballot boxes or voting machines, so they do not fall within the statutory phrase "contents of ballot boxes and voting machines." Because the statute is unambiguous, the court declined to rely on external interpretive factors or administrative practice. The decision turned on ordinary meaning and textual analysis rather than policy considerations, leaving any change in disclosure rules to the legislature.
Authorities Cited
- Section 308 of the Pennsylvania Election Code25 P.S. § 2648
- Commonwealth Court decision in Honey v. Lycoming County Offices of Voter Services312 A.3d 942 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2024)
- Pennsylvania Statutory Construction Act provisions cited1 Pa.C.S. §§ 1921(c)(6), (c)(8)
Parties
- Appellant
- Jeffrey J. Stroehmann
- Appellant
- Donald C. Peters
- Appellant
- Joseph D. Hamm
- Plaintiff
- Heather Honey
- Defendant
- Lycoming County Offices of Voter Services
- Judge
- Justice Wecht
Key Dates
- Commonwealth Court decision reversed
- 2024-03-04
- Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas order entered
- 2022-12-16
- Argued before Pennsylvania Supreme Court
- 2025-05-30
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision
- 2026-04-28
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Review outstanding public-records requests for CVRs
County election officials should identify pending or future requests for cast vote records and process them in light of this decision, consulting counsel about any confidentiality or statutory limits.
- 2
Consider administrative procedures for producing CVRs
Officials should develop protocols to produce CVRs securely and consistently, including redaction practices if necessary and preserving auditability.
- 3
Seek legislative clarification if policy change is desired
If counties or legislators want different disclosure rules, they should pursue statutory amendments to Section 308 of the Election Code to define whether and how CVRs are exempt.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide in simple terms?
- The court decided that cast vote records are not the physical contents of ballot boxes or voting machines under the Election Code, so they are not automatically exempt from public disclosure.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Election officials, voters, and anyone seeking access to CVRs in Pennsylvania; counties that had resisted disclosure may have to provide CVRs unless another law says otherwise.
- What happens next after this decision?
- Disclosure requests for CVRs may proceed under applicable public-records rules unless the legislature amends the Election Code to change the exemption.
- Can this decision be appealed?
- This is a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision resolving state-law questions, so there is no further state appeal; federal review would be unlikely because the case involves state statutory interpretation.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
[J-45-2025] [MO: McCaffery, J.]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT
HEATHER HONEY : No. 79 MAP 2024
:
: Appeal from the Order of the
v. : Commonwealth Court at No. 57 CD
: 2023, entered on March 4, 2024,
: Reversing the Lower Court Order of
LYCOMING COUNTY OFFICES OF : the Lycoming County Court of
VOTER SERVICES : Common Pleas at No. CV-22-00115-
: OR, entered on December 16, 2022.
:
APPEAL OF: JEFFREY J. STROEHMANN, : ARGUED: May 30, 2025
DONALD C. PETERS, AND JOSEPH D. :
HAMM :
CONCURRING OPINION
JUSTICE WECHT DECIDED: April 28, 2026
I join the Court’s Opinion. Under any straightforward, plain-English analysis, it is
incontestable that cast vote records (“CVRs”) are not “the contents of ballot boxes and
voting machines.” 1 CVRs are, as the Majority aptly describes, akin to “spreadsheet
reports” generated after electors have cast their votes. 2 CVRs are not contained in “ballot
boxes and voting machines,” so they cannot be “contents.” As a result, CVRs are not
exempt from public disclosure. That is the end of this case.
The Commonwealth Court’s contrary holding conceded that Section 308 of the
Election Code is unambiguous while at the same time insisting that this lack of ambiguity
required CVRs to be deemed “contents of ballot boxes and voting machines” within the
1 25 P.S. § 2648. This is denominated Section 308 of the Election Code.
2 Maj. Op. at 30.
meaning of that section. 3 The Commonwealth Court achieved this sleight of hand by
declaring that CVRs are “digitally equivalent” to such “contents.” 4 At the same time, that
court observed that the Election Code is not a “model of clarity” and that the relationship
between “voting machines” and Electronic Voting Systems is “not straightforwardly
apparent.”5 This latter hedging provided the stepstool from which the Commonwealth
Court then leaped into its construction of CVRs as “contents,” buttressing its conclusion
with the insistence that any contrary reading would be “absurd.”6 This analytical straddle
also provides the basis for the arguments that Lycoming County Offices of Voter Services
and their amici curiae have made in this appeal, invoking and discussing interpretive
factors permissible only in the event of ambiguity, such as the consequences of
alternative interpretations and administrative interpretations of the statute. 7
Either the statute is clear or it is not. It can’t be both. Here, it is clear. It just is
clear in a way that the Commonwealth Court majority and Lycoming County Offices of
Voter Services and its amici dislike. Perhaps they all are correct as to the policy infirmities
of this result. If so, their remedy lies in awakening the slumbering General Assembly to
its failure to modernize the language of a provision it drafted in 1937, language that has
not changed since. Citizens should be entitled to expect their legislators to address and
account for advances in voting technologies more frequently than on a centennial basis.
3 Honey v. Lycoming Cnty. Offices of Voter Servs., 312 A.3d 942, 954
(Pa. Cmwlth. 2024).
4 Id.
5 Id. at 950.
6 Id. at 954.
7 1 Pa.C.S. §§ 1921(c)(6), (c)(8).
[J-45-2025] [MO: McCaffery, J.] - 2