Managing Partner, Matthew Haverstick comments on the impact of ongoing cases, the future of mail-in ballots, and redistricting issues in Pennsylvania. The article explains that various questions over voting that are set to go to the high court are creating debate among key players and have cast uncertainty on the future of how elections should be conducted.
“I think that we should encourage all Americans to vote, but I also think that we should have rules. And when the rules are understandable and aren’t there for an invidious purpose and are just sort of simple and straightforward, … I don’t think it’s disenfranchisement to require people to follow rules,” said Haverstick, who serves as counsel for Republican members of the state Senate Intergovental Operations Committee in their attempt to subpoena voter information from the Department of State and for Republican intervenors in the redistricting matter.
In addition, Haverstick remains optimistic that parties involved will be able to find common ground and improve the election process.
“My hope is that the white-hot passions on all sides about the 2020 election simmer over the past year. And everybody can agree that there are probably some objective fixes we can make to the election code that aren’t designed to prevent people from voting or discourage people from voting, but rather to make the system function better with more reliable data,” he said.
To read the full article, click here.
