The 2024 elections proved to be a decisive mandate for President Trump and the pro-American agenda of the Republican Party. This is no more true than in Pennsylvania where Trump won by a very large margin – winning over 50 percent of the votes cast – and where Republican Dave McCormick defeated the long-standing incumbent, Senator Robert Casey. While Trump’s margin is significant, McCormick will likely win by around 0.5 percent, potentially triggering Pennsylvania’s recount statutes.
There is, though, little need for a recount. Pennsylvania’s elections process, while still having some hiccups, was open, transparent, and reliable. And as someone who witnessed the process in 2020 and 2024, the differences in GOP readiness, officials’ dedication to an open process, and the tenacity of voters, voters can have full faith in the reported outcome; in this case, Dave McCormick won the Pennsylvania Senate race.
In 2020, the process of canvassing and tabulating absentee ballots was completely opaque. Observers could neither see what election workers were doing, nor really ask any questions. Officials kept shelves and equipment between observers and where workers were reviewing the outer envelopes and, later, the secrecy envelopes. When tabulating votes, most of the machines were turned against the observers, so they could not see whether the officials were properly processing the ballots. Because of the lack of transparency and accountability, it is difficult for people to have confidence in the system or accuracy of the results.
Voters’ lack of confidence was not entirely the fault of the election workers. Between the COVID pandemic and a state supreme court that changed the law at the last minute, officials had to scramble to comply with a confusing system. The state supreme court, for its part, decided to radically reinterpret state law, giving counties or voters flexibility that the Pennsylvania General Assembly never intended. For example, though state law requires officials to match signatures between the voter file and the outer return envelope for absentee ballots, the court determined no matching could take place. At the same time, it still required the outer envelope to have a signature or other mark.
This year, the process was completely transparent. Election workers canvassed absentee ballots in plain view of observers and officials designated several officials to which observers could direct questions or concerns – which they did several times. People could see when workers decided a ballot needed further resolution, such as one lacking a signature or date. Observers could see when voters marked secrecy envelopes, disqualifying them from being counted. When officials ran the ballots through the tabulation machines, the entire process was visible and one could see when a machine rejected a ballot (which means it could not read the ballot for any number of reasons, such as a damaged ballot).
Even the state supreme court avoided playing politics too much. Democrat-affiliated groups attempted to convince the courts to dispense with dating and signature requirements along with the requirement that voters place their ballots in secrecy envelopes – as they have near continuously since before the 2020 election. Each time, though, the state supreme court decided not to change the standards it previously created and corrected several lower court opinions.
The observation process was not partisan. This year, observers from both the Democrat and Republican parties worked side-by-side. When they had concerns, they shared them with each other. When the Republican observers asked officials questions, we shared both the questions and answers with the Democrats. Once they started trusting us, they reciprocated. At the end of the day, we all agreed – regardless of the outcome – we all had confidence that the workers did their best and tabulated the votes accurately.
Ultimately, confidence in the process should be the goal of any observer, official, or activist. When the observers can trust the process, we can convey this trust to the American voter. When voters, in turn, trust the system, they will increase their participation in it.
And this brings us back full circle. The results in Pennsylvania are accurate. Dave McCormick won and Senator Casey should graciously concede.
Jonathon Hauenschild is an associate counsel at the Republican National Lawyers Association.
