Towne v. Allegheny County

Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Date Filed: May 30, 2025

Background: In October 2021, William Towne requested election records from Allegheny County under Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law, specifically envelopes from absentee and mail-in ballots from the 2020 election. When the county failed to respond, Towne appealed to the state’s Office of Open Records, which initially denied his appeal. However, in February 2022, the OOR issued a final determination ordering the county to provide access to the envelopes.

In March 2022, Towne requested additional election data made public under the Election Code. The county sent a partial file, and over the following month, Towne raised concerns about its accuracy. In April 2022, he visited the county’s warehouse in person and requested the voter registration list as of November 2020. He was instead given a current version and was allowed to view and photograph rejected paper applications. After the visit, he followed up for additional information, but received no response.

After the county failed to produce the records, Towne filed a mandamus complaint asking the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas to enforce the OOR’s disclosure order and to compel the county to comply with the Election Code’s transparency requirements. Although the county chose not to appeal the OOR’s final determination, the court allowed it to relitigate the substantive issues of the case. The court ultimately granted partial relief, ordering the county to provide redacted records. 

Towne appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Our Position: The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, joined by the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association, filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Commonwealth Court to reverse the trial court’s decision and remand the case with instructions to enforce the OOR’s final determination and order the production of the records originally requested by Towne under the Right-to-Know Law.

• The Right-to-Know Law includes a procedure to challenge merits decisions on disclosure, and mandamus is not the appropriate proceeding for such attacks.

• Enforcing the Right-to-Know Law procedural mechanisms protects prompt access for journalists and conforms to the legislative intent.

From the Brief: “Permitting such a ‘second bite at the apple’ traps Right-to-Know Law requesters in an unnecessary, expensive, redundant quagmire in which they must repeatedly argue their right to presumptively public records. Further, it would incentivize government officials and agencies to sleep on their appellate rights under the RTKL, knowing they can always ignore the orders of the OOR, withhold records, and resume their arguments against production when the requester brings an action in an attempt to enforce the OOR’s ruling.”