PA Supreme Court's 6-0 Precedent Revives Bid for 2020 Ballot Records

For legal professionals and election law scholars, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s July 27 order marks a critical juncture in the clash between public right-to-know statutes and election code exemptions. By vacating and remanding, the court is forcing lower courts to squarely apply its 6-0 ruling in Honey, which curtailed the scope of ballot-related secrecy. This case will test how far courts will go to enforce transparency in post-2020 election challenges.

On July 27, 2026, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court took a significant step in a protracted legal battle over public access to 2020 election records, vacating a Commonwealth Court ruling that had denied a township supervisor's request for cast vote records (CVRs) from Lycoming County. The one-page order directs the intermediate appellate court to reconsider the matter "in light of" the state Supreme Court's own April 28, 2026 decision in Honey v. Lycoming County Officers of Voter Services, which held 6-0 that CVRs generated by optical scanners are not exempt from disclosure under Pennsylvania's election code. This revival of the case, brought by Woodward Township Supervisor Jeff Stroehmann, ensures that the clash between right-to-know transparency and the secrecy of ballot-related records will continue to shape election administration law.

“

Joe Hamm and Lycoming County Republican Committee Chairman Donald Peters, the justices unanimously rejected the county's interpretation.

The roots of the case trace back to the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, when Stroehmann, a local official, sought access to certain ballot records, including the machine-created CVRs, under Pennsylvania's Right-to-Know Law. Lycoming County Voter Services denied the request, claiming the records fell within an exemption for the "contents of ballot boxes and voting machines" under the state election code. In May 2023, the Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas sided with the county, and in July 2024, the Commonwealth Court affirmed that ruling, accepting the argument that the equipment generating CVRs qualified as voting machines and thus shielded the data from public view.

However, the legal landscape shifted dramatically with the Supreme Court's Honey decision earlier in 2026. In that case, which Stroehmann joined as an intervenor alongside State Rep. Joe Hamm and Lycoming County Republican Committee Chairman Donald Peters, the justices unanimously rejected the county's interpretation. Writing for the majority, Justice Daniel McCaffery held that the tabulators and optical scanners used to create CVRs do not meet the statutory definition of "voting machines" because they do not directly record votes; instead, they process and tabulate ballots after voters mark them. The ruling thus removed the primary legal barrier to disclosure, effectively making CVRs subject to public access like any other government record unless another exemption applies.

The July 27 order in Stroehmann's own case logically follows from Honey, but it does not automatically grant him access. By vacating the Commonwealth Court's prior ruling and remanding, the Supreme Court is requiring the lower court to apply the new precedent and determine whether any other legal grounds could justify withholding the records. This remand process will test the resilience of the Honey reasoning and could address lingering questions, such as whether after-the-fact ballot anonymization is required, or whether any privacy or security concerns could still override the right-to-know mandate.

The case is more than a local dispute. Pennsylvania was a key battleground in the 2020 election, and access to its 2020 voting data has been a focal point for election integrity advocates, some of whom suspect irregularities. While courts have consistently dismissed claims of widespread fraud, the transparency of voting systems remains a contentious issue. The Supreme Court's willingness to enforce public record access could bolster citizen oversight efforts and pressure counties to release similar data, setting a precedent that may influence other states grappling with analogous statutory conflicts. Conversely, county election officials may raise practical objections, such as the cost and workload of retrieving and anonymizing old CVRs, which could spark further litigation over the scope of the right-to-know.