From the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania’s decision In re: General Election, 2024, a unanimous three-judge decision (lightly revised):
On Election Day, November 5, 2024, counsel for the [Trump] Campaign [and RNC] appeared at Philadelphia’s Election Court and requested an order prohibiting badges worn by the [Pennsylvania Democratic] Party’s poll watchers inside polling places. . . . Generally, the evidence indicated poll watchers had entered polling places in Philadelphia wearing badges on lanyards with the words: “PA DEMS VOTER PROTECTION.” The badges included a statement that they were “paid for by [the] Pennsylvania Democratic Party.” The Campaign’s witnesses did not indicate any poll watchers spoke to voters while inside polling places.
Counsel for the Campaign contended wearing the badges while inside polling places was electioneering in violation of Section 1220(c), based on guidance by the Pennsylvania Department of State (Department). . . .
Counsel for the Party maintained wearing the poll watcher badges was not an attempt to persuade voters and, therefore, was not electioneering. . . .
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court announced it would deny the Campaign’s request. The trial court reasoned the Campaign had not objected to the words “VOTER PROTECTION” on the poll watcher badges, and “PA DEMS” was printed in small font, so that “no one, unless they are going up to the watcher, leaning down and trying to read their badge is going to see what it says.” . . .
Section 1220 of the Election Code provides a series of regulations in force at polling places on Election Day. These include Section 1220(c), which instructs that “[n]o person, when within the polling place, shall electioneer or solicit votes for any political party, political body or candidate, nor shall any written or printed matter be posted up within the said room, except as required by this act.” 25 P.S. § 3060(c). The Election Codes does not define the term “electioneer.” As a result, we may turn to dictionaries to discern the statute’s meaning. “Electioneering” means “[t]he practice or an instance of trying, us[ually] within established rules, to influence the outcome of election by distributing pamphlets, making speeches, door-to-door canvassing, etc.” Black’s Law Dictionary 655 (11th ed. 2019). Similarly, to “electioneer” means “tak[ing] an active part in an election; [specifically,] to work for the election of a candidate or party.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 371 (10th ed. 1997).
The poll watcher badges at issue included the Party’s nickname, “PA DEMS,” the words “VOTER PROTECTION,” and language indicating the Party paid for the badges. The Election Code provides poll watchers are identified by certificates they receive from the county board of elections and does not contemplate poll watcher badges. See Section 417(b) of the Election Code, 25 P.S. § 2687(b). By wearing the badges while inside polling places, the Party’s poll watchers showed association with, and encouraged voters to cast ballots for, the Party and its candidates. This was impermissible electioneering under Section 1220(c).
Although we conclude that allowing poll watchers to wear a political party’s name, such as “PA DEMS,” while inside a polling place is enough to violate Section 1220(c), two other factors weigh in favor of our decision. First, the badges included language applicable to political advertising, indicating the Party paid for them. This demonstrates the Party understood the badges to promote its interests and serve an electioneering purpose. . . .
Second, the badges did not describe individuals wearing them as poll watchers but as “VOTER PROTECTION.” Protecting voters is an admirable objective, which might persuade the public to vote for the Party and its candidates. Alternatively, the badges could imply to voters that opposing political parties or candidates pose a risk of harm that warrants the Party’s “protection.” This is a partisan message that serves no purpose other than electioneering. Indeed, the Election Code does not depict poll watchers as “protecting” voters but empowers them to challenge voter qualifications and review records. . . .