Votebeat’s journalism is made possible by our sponsors.
Interested in becoming one? Learn more here.

Hello, Pennsylvania!

There are just three Tuesdays between us and Election Day! Can you believe it?

This week we have a few new stories for you, and a recap of the election administration references in last night’s governor’s debate. So let’s jump into it.

First up, we have a look at a bill that would effectively ban ICE agents, and other law enforcement, from being at the polls (which is already illegal under federal law). Currently Pennsylvania law says a "police officer” may not be within 100 feet of a polling location, unless they are asked to come there by an election official. But a bill from Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta would expand that prohibition to all law enforcement. It reflects the concerns some have about ICE officers coming to the polls this fall. Read the story here.

Next up, there is a new movement trying to get sheriffs to commit to not interfere with elections. If you’re reading this newsletter, you are probably aware of the sheriff in California who seized hundreds of thousands of ballots in connection to an investigation he undertook into alleged election irregularities. The push to get sheriffs to sign the pledge is small so far, but one PA sheriff is already on board. More about this here.

“I support it.”

This week’s quote comes from Gov. Josh Shapiro, who’s keeping himself in the news on election issues on the campaign trail. Shapiro told The Center Square that he supports a bill that would open up the state’s primary elections to unaffiliated voters.

Read our coverage of that bill here.

Last night, Shapiro, a Democrat, and state Treasurer Stacy Garrity, his Republican challenger, met on the ABC 27 debate stage for their one and only debate this year. If you want to watch the full debate, which I recommend, you can catch it here.

Each candidate got a question on elections, starting at the 45-minute mark. ABC 27 anchor Dennis Owens asked Shapiro if he supported new voter ID requirements.

“I’m open to putting a voter ID bill on my desk for my signature,” Shapiro responded, adding that it can’t disenfranchise voters.

First, I want to note that “on my desk for my signature” isn’t the same as saying “I will sign a voter ID bill.” 

Second, what we didn’t hear from Shapiro was what type of voter ID he’s open to. He’s consistently said some version of that line: that he’s open to a bill so long as it doesn’t disenfranchise anyone. But, policy-wise, how does that work? Does that mean he wants some type of affidavit system where a voter, or someone else on their behalf, could vouch for their identity? What types of ID does he want to see included? The devil is in the details. 

When I asked in 2023 if a specific bill that was being debated in the state House met his requirement, we received no comment.

Shapiro also said, in an apparent reference to President Donald Trump's March executive order on mail voting, that Trump “tried to make it so that you couldn’t vote by mail here in the commonwealth or across the country.” The executive order would have required states to provide lists of mail voters to the U.S. Postal Service and ensure envelopes had a specific type of barcode. The Postal Service would have only mailed ballots to individuals on those lists and if the envelopes met those requirements. 

There’s reason to believe that that system would have led to some people being unable to vote by mail, but it's not a ban on mail voting as Shapiro’s comment suggested. Read our coverage on that issue here.

After a tense exchange in which Shapiro accused Garrity of being beholden to Trump on election issues, Owens turned to the treasurer and asked her if she had reason to believe the state’s elections are not secure.

Garrity responded: “I think that there are always situations that you hear about, in the southeast, in Luzerne County. There’s always some shenanigans. But I am not saying that, you know, our, our…”

At this point, Garrity pivoted and started talking about how she would implement voter ID.

I’ll admit, I’m at a little bit of a loss for how to fact-check Garrity on that one since she didn’t finish her thought. Has Luzerne had problems? Definitely. Have there been issues in the southeast? If she means Chester County or Delaware County, sure, we’ve reported on that. But does she believe that — aside from the kind of one-off issues that pop up from time to time — our elections are systematically secure? It seems like she was about to say that, but stopped herself. So we don’t know how she feels.

Side note: Garrity also hasn’t laid out the details for what type of expanded voter ID system she would like to see implemented.

For more details on the candidates’ records on election issues, check out our story from August. 

What else should I look into? You can always reach me by email at [email protected], on X @ByCarterWalker, or on Bluesky @bycarterwalker.bsky.social. Follow me on TikTok and Instagram for video explainers of Pennsylvania voting and elections news.

And if you know someone who might be interested in our reporting on elections and voting throughout Pennsylvania, forward them this newsletter — they can sign up for it here.

Join Votebeat’s Expert Desk for the 2026 midterms. Journalists can ask questions in Slack and get on-the-record answers from vetted election experts — helping speed up reporting during one of the most hectic stretches of the year. It’s completely free. Reporters and editors can join here.

Looking for your next read? Check out these other great newsletters.