Connect with us

Politics

Why won't Pennsylvania voters have results on Election Night?

Published

on

Why won't Pennsylvania voters have results on Election Night?

Pennsylvania election officials – in a bid to avoid controversy in November – are telling voters ahead of time not to expect the results of the high-stakes presidential race to be ready by Election Night.

The battleground state is of such significant importance this election cycle that Vice President Harris visited Pennsylvania on Aug. 18, ahead of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, and former President Trump made back-to-back visits both on Aug. 17, when he returned to Wilkes Barre for the first time since facing an assassination attempt in that town, and again on Aug. 19 in York. 

To avoid repeated controversy from four years ago, Pennsylvania Secretary of State Al Schmidt – a Republican appointed by Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro in 2023 – is explaining to voters that state law prohibits county boards of elections from beginning to process mail-in ballots until 7 a.m. on Election Day. 

“The terminology is normally called pre-canvasing,” Schmidt, a former Philadelphia city commissioner who clashed with Trump online after the 2020 election, explained to Fox News Digital. “Plenty of other states allow the county boards to begin that process in advance of Election Day, whether it’s three days or seven days or however long. But in Pennsylvania, counties can only begin that process at 7 a.m. on election morning.” 

ATTEMPTED TRUMP ASSASSIN SEEN WALKING AROUND PENNSYLVANIA RALLY HOURS BEFORE OPENING FIRE

Advertisement

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro speaks on Day 3 of the Democratic National Convention (DNC) at the United Center, in Chicago on Aug. 21, 2024.  (REUTERS/Mike Segar)

By contrast, states like Florida, with nearly double the population size of Pennsylvania’s approximately 13 million residents, report their preliminary election results on Election Night. 

“It is bologna that Florida, which has more citizens, Texas, which has more citizens and more voters by millions, are able to have their elections counted all in one day. But Pennsylvania is not,” Scott Pressler, a conservative activist leading a grassroots effort to get Republicans to register and vote early in Pennsylvania this election cycle, told Fox News Digital. 

Pennsylvania is among seven states, including the fellow battleground of Wisconsin, where pre-canvassing is prohibited under state law. 

It never posed a major issue until 2020, Dr. Dan Mallinson, a political science professor at Pennsylvania State University, explained to Fox News Digital. 

Advertisement

Mail-in ballots used to be granted only under special circumstances, such as when a voter is sick or traveling around the time of the election. But in October 2019, former Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf signed what he championed as a “historic election reform bill” known as Act 77 into law, allowing most voters to apply for a mail-in ballot and vote by mail without needing to provide a reason or excuse. 

The coronavirus pandemic saw a drastic surge in mail-in ballot use, and four years later, Mallinson said voting still looks similar in the Keystone State. 

“There was a huge inflow of mail-in ballots in both the primary and the general in 2020,” Mallinson said. “Mail-in balloting has kept up in the 2022 cycle. I mean, it doesn’t look like it’s going to really slow down.” 

More than 1.2 million Pennsylvanians voted by mail in the 2022 governor’s election. 

Shapiro’s administration announced in June that mail-in ballot applications would be available two months earlier than in 2020, allowing voters more than eight weeks of additional time to apply for their ballot.

Advertisement

For the commonwealth to begin processing mail-in ballots before 7 a.m. on Nov. 5, Schmidt said the state legislature would need to send pre-canvassing legislation to the governor’s desk. 

PRE-CANVASSING BILL ‘IMPASSE’

Schmidt said he has testified in front of the Pennsylvania state House and state Senate advocating for mail-in ballot pre-canvassing, and it is frequently added to election reform bills. Most recently, the Democratic-controlled state House passed an election reform bill that includes a pre-canvassing measure, but the bill so far has not been taken up by the state’s Republican-controlled Senate. 

“We knew this was an issue in 2020. It was on display for anyone paying attention to election results in Pennsylvania in 2020 and puts Pennsylvania at a unique disadvantage,” Schmidt told Fox News Digital. “It’s a technical problem with a technical solution that does not benefit any candidate. It does not benefit any party. It just allows counties to begin processing mail-in ballot envelopes prior to Election Day.” 

“This is a fixable problem that we’ve just been unable to fix, you know, as a way to head off the rhetoric about, ‘there’s something shifty going on with these mail-in votes,’” Mallinson added. “The option is either the Republican-controlled Senate passes the clean bill and the governor signs it, or the Republican-controlled Senate does what has happened in the past, and they add things that they want to it, and then it probably gets rejected in the House. So we’re still kind of stuck in this impasse…. These, sort of, poison pills that get added, have got attached to the bill in the past, and that’s made it impossible to pass.” 

Advertisement

Al Schmidt, then a former Philadelphia city commissioner, testified during the House Select Jan. 6 Committee on June 13, 2022, in Washington, DC.  (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

There was a brief period in September 2020 when it appeared the state legislature, controlled by Republicans in both chambers at the time, was going to be able to a pass a clean pre-canvassing bill before going out of session and lawmakers went home to campaign, but Mallinson said a measure to ban drop-boxes was tacked on, which the Democratic Wolf administration would not agree to, so the legislation failed. 

“They were close in 2020 at a much later point than right now,” Mallinson said. “There’s time, but I don’t know if there’s the political will or push.” 

A margin of tens of thousands of votes handed a win to Democrat Joe Biden in 2020 and Trump in 2016 in Pennsylvania. The Keystone State has 19 electoral votes, tied with Illinois for the fifth most. 

FORMER VP SHORTLISTER JOSH SHAPIRO STOPS SHORT OF SAYING DEMS HAVE AN ANTISEMITISM PROBLEM

Advertisement

GOP STRATEGY SHIFT 

Republicans, Mallinson noted, have shifted their strategy from emphasizing voter fraud concerns with mail-in ballots after the 2020 election to now encouraging their party to vote by mail. 

Pressler, the founder of Early Vote Action, is leading those efforts in vying to get former President Trump elected in 2024. 

Pressler told Fox News Digital he has been going county-to-county in Pennsylvania delivering letters asking board of election offices what officials are doing to ensure non-citizens are not registered to vote and that paper ballots do not run out on Nov. 5. Pike County officials have been responsive, he said, and Pressler wants to avoid a repeat of what happened in 2022 in Luzerne County, where they ran out of paper ballots during the midterm elections. 

Ballots are dropped off at the Bureau of Elections in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, on May 16, 2023. Primary elections were cast on write-in-paper ballots in Luzerne County after a paper shortage caused havoc during the elections in November.  (Aimee Dilger/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

Advertisement

Since the 2020 election, the state has seen “significant turnover of election administrators,” Schmidt said when asked if paper ballots were stocked this time around. 

“In Pennsylvania, we’ve lost more than 80 senior election directors or administrators since 2020. We only have 67 counties,” Schmidt told Fox News Digital. “But many counties, including Luzerne, have had the election director replaced election after election after election. That issue, with not having enough ballots ready in advance of Election Day, it was one that’s obviously a great cause for concern.”

“We work closely with our counties to make sure that they’re prepared for Election Day,” the secretary added. “We provide guidance to them. We provide directives to them to make sure that they have an ample supply of ballots, whether they’re mail-in ballots or ballots cast at the polling place on Election Day, so that anyone can make their voice heard if they’re a registered voter.” 

In Pennsylvania, every county has three commissioners, two are the majority party, one is the minority. 

Schmidt was the only Republican of three Philadelphia city commissioners overseeing the 2020 election. 

Advertisement

In June 2022, Schmidt testified before the Jan. 6 House Committee that he investigated and found no evidence of claims brought by Trump’s former adviser Rudy Giuliani that more than 8,000 mail-in ballots were submitted on behalf of dead people in 2020 in Philadelphia. Schmidt also told the Democratic-controlled committee that death threats against him and his family worsened after Trump tweeted his name. 

An election worker flattens ballots during the 2024 Pennsylvania primary election at the City of Philadelphia’s Election Warehouse on Tuesday, April 23, 2024.  (Hannah Beier/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

NON-CITIZEN VOTER CONCERNS 

Pressler has implored Shapiro, who was briefly considered as Vice President Harris’ running mate, to enact an election integrity executive order to ensure non-citizens aren’t on Pennsylvania’s voter rolls. 

In Virginia, Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin said his administration had uncovered more than 6,000 non-citizens on the state voter rolls since he took office.

Advertisement

In Ohio, Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose last week announced that nearly 600 non-citizens were found to be registered to vote, including about 100 who actually voted. He, therefore, ordered an annual audit of the state voter rolls to scan for and remove anyone found to be unlawfully registered to vote. 

Mallinson, meanwhile, said officials are wary of cleaning the rolls during an election year to avoid disenfranchising eligible voters. 

Schmidt said that non-citizens on the voter rolls shouldn’t be a cause of concern in Pennsylvania, stressing that voter registration in the commonwealth requires a Social Security number.

Asked directly if he could guarantee there are no non-citizens currently on the voter rolls, Schmidt said it was “encouraging to see states like Virginia and Ohio catch up with Pennsylvania,” crediting himself for bringing the issue of non-citizens registering to vote in Philadelphia to the attention of then-Pensylvania Secretary of State Pedro Cortés in 2016, and the “Motor Voter” program loophole was “resolved a few years ago.” 

City Commissioners Lisa Deeley and Al Schmidt speak to the media about the vote counting process on Nov. 4, 2020, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Advertisement

“When you register to vote in Pennsylvania, you have to provide a Social Security number, and you have to prove or provide a driver’s license number along with your name and the address where you reside,” Schmidt said. “So, any vulnerability in the system that I’ve encountered as a Republican election commissioner in Philadelphia for ten years is not one where non-citizens would be able to register to vote, especially ones that are here in a sort of undocumented status.” 

The Shapiro administration in December canceled a $10.7 million contract to update the Pennsylvania voter roll system to avoid making the change during a presidential election year. The current system, known as the Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors (SURE), is two decades old and described as outdated by election administrators who use it to check voter registration and track mail-in ballots. 

More than a year ago, however, Schmidt said his department began providing new hardware and software upgrades to counties, insisting that the SURE system is reliable for getting through the presidential race. 

“It’s very dangerous to change an election system in a presidential election cycle with heavy turnout and all the rest,” Schmidt said. 

The state has an open request for bids out to build a replacement system, which Schmidt hopes will be “more user-friendly for our county partners.” 

Advertisement

He stressed that the SURE system is essentially “the database of all registered voters in Pennsylvania” and is “unrelated to voter tabulation.”

“The Shapiro administration has taken many steps to prepare for this election – from setting up a training team to train new election directors to setting up an election threat task force in the event that we encounter any of the ugliness that we encountered in 2020 with threats of violence or intimidation targeting our election officials or our voters,” Schmidt said. “It’s important to be prepared for the coming election. It’s a presidential election. Everyone is going into it with eyes wide open and, working closely with our county partners, I’m confident that we will have a free and fair and safe and secure election in Pennsylvania in 2024.” 

Politics

Trump admin sues Illinois Gov. Pritzker over laws shielding migrants from courthouse arrests

Published

on

Trump admin sues Illinois Gov. Pritzker over laws shielding migrants from courthouse arrests

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The U.S. Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker over new laws that aim to protect migrants from arrest at key locations, including courthouses, hospitals and day cares.

The lawsuit was filed on Monday, arguing that the new protective measures prohibiting immigration agents from detaining migrants going about daily business at specific locations are unconstitutional and “threaten the safety of federal officers,” the DOJ said in a statement.

The governor signed laws earlier this month that ban civil arrests at and around courthouses across the state. The measures also require hospitals, day care centers and public universities to have procedures in place for addressing civil immigration operations and protecting personal information.

The laws, which took effect immediately, also provide legal steps for people whose constitutional rights were violated during the federal immigration raids in the Chicago area, including $10,000 in damages for a person unlawfully arrested while attempting to attend a court proceeding.

Advertisement

PRITZKER SIGNS BILL TO FURTHER SHIELD ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS IN ILLINOIS FROM DEPORTATIONS

The Trump administration filed a lawsuit against Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker over new laws that aim to protect migrants from arrest at key locations. (Getty Images)

Pritzker, a Democrat, has led the fight against the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in Illinois, particularly over the indiscriminate and sometimes violent nature in which they are detained.

But the governor’s office reaffirmed that he is not against arresting illegal migrants who commit violent crimes.

“However, the Trump administration’s masked agents are not targeting the ‘worst of the worst’ — they are harassing and detaining law-abiding U.S. citizens and Black and brown people at daycares, hospitals and courthouses,” spokesperson Jillian Kaehler said in a statement.

Advertisement

Earlier this year, the federal government reversed a Biden administration policy prohibiting immigration arrests in sensitive locations such as hospitals, schools and churches.

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s “Operation Midway Blitz,” which began in September in the Chicago area but appears to have since largely wound down for now, led to more than 4,000 arrests. But data on people arrested from early September through mid-October showed only 15% had criminal records, with the vast majority of offenses being traffic violations, misdemeanors or nonviolent felonies.

Gov. JB Pritzker has led the fight against the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in Illinois. (Kamil Krazaczynski/AFP via Getty Images)

Immigration and legal advocates have praised the new laws protecting migrants in Illinois, saying many immigrants were avoiding courthouses, hospitals and schools out of fear of arrest amid the president’s mass deportation agenda.

The laws are “a brave choice” in opposing ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, according to Lawrence Benito, executive director of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights.

Advertisement

“Our collective resistance to ICE and CBP’s violent attacks on our communities goes beyond community-led rapid response — it includes legislative solutions as well,” he said.

The DOJ claims Pritzker and state Attorney General Kwame Raoul, also a Democrat, violated the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which establishes that federal law is the “supreme Law of the Land.”

ILLINOIS LAWMAKERS PASS BILL BANNING ICE IMMIGRATION ARRESTS NEAR COURTHOUSES

Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino leaves the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse in Chicago. (Brian Cassella/Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

Raoul and his staff are reviewing the DOJ’s complaint.

“This new law reflects our belief that no one is above the law, regardless of their position or authority,” Pritzker’s office said. “Unlike the Trump administration, Illinois is protecting constitutional rights in our state.”

The lawsuit is part of an initiative by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to block state and local laws the DOJ argues impede federal immigration operations, as other states have also made efforts to protect migrants against federal raids at sensitive locations.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Supreme Court rules against Trump, bars National Guard deployment in Chicago

Published

on

Supreme Court rules against Trump, bars National Guard deployment in Chicago

The Supreme Court ruled against President Trump on Tuesday and said he did not have legal authority to deploy the National Guard in Chicago to protect federal immigration agents.

Acting on a 6-3 vote, the justices denied Trump’s appeal and upheld orders from a federal district judge and the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that said the president had exaggerated the threat and overstepped his authority.

The decision is a major defeat for Trump and his broad claim that he had the power to deploy militia troops in U.S. cities.

In an unsigned order, the court said the Militia Act allows the president to deploy the National Guard only if the regular U.S. armed forces were unable to quell violence.

The law dating to 1903 says the president may call up and deploy the National Guard if he faces the threat of an invasion or a rebellion or is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”

Advertisement

That phrase turned out to be crucial.

Trump’s lawyers assumed it referred to the police and federal agents. But after taking a close look, the justices concluded it referred to the regular U.S. military, not civilian law enforcement or the National Guard.

“To call the Guard into active federal service under the [Militia Act], the President must be ‘unable’ with the regular military ‘to execute the laws of the United States,’” the court said in Trump vs. Illinois.

That standard will rarely be met, the court added.

“Under the Posse Comitatus Act, the military is prohibited from execut[ing] the laws except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress,” the court said. “So before the President can federalize the Guard … he likely must have statutory or constitutional authority to execute the laws with the regular military and must be ‘unable’ with those forces to perform that function.

Advertisement

“At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois,” the court said.

Although the court was acting on an emergency appeal, its decision is a significant defeat for Trump and is not likely to be reversed on appeal. Often, the court issues one-sentence emergency orders. But in this case, the justices wrote a three-page opinion to spell out the law and limit the president’s authority.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who oversees appeals from Illinois, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. cast the deciding votes. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh agreed with the outcome, but said he preferred a narrow and more limited ruling.

Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.

Alito, in dissent, said the “court fails to explain why the President’s inherent constitutional authority to protect federal officers and property is not sufficient to justify the use of National Guard members in the relevant area for precisely that purpose.”

Advertisement

California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta filed a brief in the Chicago case that warned of the danger of the president using the military in American cities.

“Today, Americans can breathe a huge sigh of relief,” Bonta said Tuesday. “While this is not necessarily the end of the road, it is a significant, deeply gratifying step in the right direction. We plan to ask the lower courts to reach the same result in our cases — and we are hopeful they will do so quickly.”

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had allowed the deployments in Los Angeles and Portland, Ore., after ruling that judges must defer to the president.

But U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled Dec. 10 that the federalized National Guard troops in Los Angeles must be returned to Newsom’s control.

Trump’s lawyers had not claimed in their appeal that the president had the authority to deploy the military for ordinary law enforcement in the city. Instead, they said the Guard troops would be deployed “to protect federal officers and federal property.”

Advertisement

The two sides in the Chicago case, like in Portland, told dramatically different stories about the circumstances leading to Trump’s order.

Democratic officials in Illinois said small groups of protesters objected to the aggressive enforcement tactics used by federal immigration agents. They said police were able to contain the protests, clear the entrances and prevent violence.

By contrast, administration officials described repeated instances of disruption, confrontation and violence in Chicago. They said immigration agents were harassed and blocked from doing their jobs, and they needed the protection the National Guard could supply.

Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said the president had the authority to deploy the Guard if agents could not enforce the immigration laws.

“Confronted with intolerable risks of harm to federal agents and coordinated, violent opposition to the enforcement of federal law,” Trump called up the National Guard “to defend federal personnel, property, and functions in the face of ongoing violence,” Sauer told the court in an emergency appeal filed in mid-October.

Advertisement

Illinois state lawyers disputed the administration’s account.

“The evidence shows that federal facilities in Illinois remain open, the individuals who have violated the law by attacking federal authorities have been arrested, and enforcement of immigration law in Illinois has only increased in recent weeks,” state Solicitor Gen. Jane Elinor Notz said in response to the administration’s appeal.

The Constitution gives Congress the power “to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.”

But on Oct. 29, the justices asked both sides to explain what the law meant when it referred to the “regular forces.”

Until then, both sides had assumed it referred to federal agents and police, not the standing U.S. armed forces.

Advertisement

A few days before, Georgetown law professor and former Justice Department lawyer Martin Lederman had filed a friend-of-the-court brief asserting that the “regular forces” cited in the 1903 law were the standing U.S. Army.

His brief prompted the court to ask both sides to explain their view of the disputed provision.

Trump’s lawyers stuck to their position. They said the law referred to the “civilian forces that regularly execute the laws,” not the standing army.

If those civilians cannot enforce the law, “there is a strong tradition in this country of favoring the use” of the National Guard, not the standing military, to quell domestic disturbances, they said.

State attorneys for Illinois said the “regular forces” are the “full-time, professional military.” And they said the president could not “even plausibly argue” that the U.S. Guard members were needed to enforce the law in Chicago.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Video: Trump Announces Construction of New Warships

Published

on

Video: Trump Announces Construction of New Warships

new video loaded: Trump Announces Construction of New Warships

transcript

transcript

Trump Announces Construction of New Warships

President Trump announced on Monday the construction of new warships for the U.S. Navy he called a “golden fleet.” Navy officials said the vessels would notionally have the ability to launch hypersonic and nuclear-armed cruise missiles.

We’re calling it the golden fleet, that we’re building for the United States Navy. As you know, we’re desperately in need of ships. Our ships are, some of them have gotten old and tired and obsolete, and we’re going to go the exact opposite direction. They’ll help maintain American military supremacy, revive the American shipbuilding industry, and inspire fear in America’s enemies all over the world. We want respect.

Advertisement
President Trump announced on Monday the construction of new warships for the U.S. Navy he called a “golden fleet.” Navy officials said the vessels would notionally have the ability to launch hypersonic and nuclear-armed cruise missiles.

By Nailah Morgan

December 23, 2025

Continue Reading

Trending