Delaware County Election Evidence Destroyed on Video — Courts Dismissed Case Without Examining the Facts

A secret recording allegedly captures election workers shredding voting machine tapes, joking about building a “campfire,” and openly acknowledging they were committing a felony. Five years later, no one has been prosecuted — and a Pennsylvania court just closed the door on the lawsuit without examining a single piece of evidence.

When a government employee looks at a colleague, says the words “It’s a felony,” and then keeps going anyway — that is not a gray area. It is either a crime or it is a lie. If it is a lie, every voter in Delaware County, Pennsylvania deserves to know. If it is true, every voter in America deserves to know.

That question — which one is it? — has never received an answer in a court of law. Not once in five years. And in February 2025, a Pennsylvania appellate court made sure it never will, at least not through this legal channel. It dismissed the case on procedural grounds. No trial. No discovery. No sworn testimony about what was on those tapes, what happened to those hard drives, or why a county election worker allegedly joked about building a campfire to destroy shredded ballot materials so no one could ever recover them.

That silence should disturb anyone who believes in the rule of law — regardless of how they voted in 2020.

What the Lawsuit Actually Alleged

The case — Moton, Hoopes and Stenstrom v. Boockvar et al. — was brought by Delaware County residents Leah Hoopes and Gregory Stenstrom alongside co-plaintiff Ruth Moton. Their 104-page complaint was not a collection of vague suspicions. It was a detailed set of sworn allegations, supported by eyewitness accounts and, reportedly, recorded video.

According to the complaint, Delaware County election officials and employees:

• Destroyed voting machine proof and result tapes, tossing them in the trash after the 2020 General Election
• Shredded mail-in ballot envelopes, hard drives, scanners, and other chain-of-custody items required by Pennsylvania law to be preserved
• Created fraudulent “clean V-drives” — blank USB drives fabricated to replace missing certified records — to respond to Right-to-Know Law requests
• Left votes unreconciled across dozens of precincts, with the complaint alleging discrepancies concealing approximately 327,000 fraudulent votes
• Were recorded with one official explicitly saying “It’s a felony” while discussing destroying ballot pads and secondary scanners — then continuing the destruction and signaling others to stop talking in front of staff
• Discussed burning the shredded materials in a “campfire” to prevent forensic recovery

These are not allegations whispered in a podcast. They appear in a formal court filing, under penalty of law, with named individuals and documented conduct. The complaint described a “sweeping, carefully hidden conspiracy to fraudulently change the outcome of the 2020 General Election” in Delaware County.

Why the Courts Walked Away

Here is where the story becomes as troubling as the allegations themselves.

The Delaware County Court of Common Pleas dismissed the case in July 2022 — not because the allegations were disproved, but because the 2020 election was “long over,” the results certified, and the winners inaugurated. The court ruled the matter was moot.

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court affirmed that dismissal on February 24, 2025, adding a second basis: the plaintiffs had failed to use Pennsylvania’s Election Code challenge process within its strict 20-day window. The U.S. Supreme Court had already declined to hear an earlier version of the case in January 2023.

In plain English: the courts never looked at the evidence. They ruled the train had left the station. Case closed.

What makes this especially striking is the dissent filed by Judge McCullough at the Commonwealth Court. She argued that her colleagues had fundamentally misread the lawsuit. The plaintiffs, she wrote, were not simply trying to reverse the election — they were seeking declaratory relief, damages, and accountability for ongoing destruction of public records and violations of Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law. Those claims, she argued, were not moot. They implicated a “great public importance” exception that the majority chose to ignore.

One judge thought the door should have stayed open. The majority shut it anyway.

The Real Stakes: Law, Accountability, and Public Trust

Set aside, for a moment, every argument about the 2020 election. Forget partisan allegiances. Focus on what is alleged at its most basic level: government employees, entrusted with the administration of democracy, allegedly destroyed public records required by law to be preserved, then allegedly fabricated replacement documents to cover their tracks.

If that conduct occurred in any other government context — a school district, a city comptroller’s office, a county health department — it would be treated as a serious criminal matter. The Pennsylvania Election Code explicitly requires the preservation of election materials. Willful destruction of those records constitutes a violation of state law. Fabricating official government documents carries its own serious criminal exposure.

“It’s a felony,” one official allegedly said — then kept going. Five years later, no one has been charged.

The standard of civic accountability cannot be one where evidence of potential wrongdoing is shielded from scrutiny simply because the clock ran out. That is not justice. That is institutional self-protection dressed up as legal procedure.

The Counterargument — and Why It Falls Short

Critics of this lawsuit argue that no court has validated its claims, that multiple post-election reviews found no evidence of widespread fraud in Pennsylvania, and that the 327,000-vote figure has never been verified by independent analysis.

Those are fair points. Courts at every level declined to hear the merits. Official canvasses certified the results. Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State defended the election’s integrity vigorously.

But here is the problem with treating that as a final answer: not a single court examined the underlying evidence. Every dismissal was procedural. The allegations about the secret video, the shredded tapes, the fabricated V-drives, and the “campfire” conversation were never tested under cross-examination, never subjected to discovery, and never ruled upon on their merits.

Saying “no court found fraud” when no court looked is a logical sleight of hand. The absence of a verdict is not the same as a verdict of absence.

What Accountability Actually Requires

Five years have passed since the 2020 election. The individuals named in the complaint remain, as far as the public record shows, uncharged and unprosecuted. The secret video — if it exists and shows what the complaint claims — has never been the subject of a publicly known criminal grand jury proceeding.

This is what the erosion of institutional trust looks like at ground level. Not a dramatic confrontation. Just a slow, procedural walk away from accountability, conducted in legal language most citizens will never read.

Pennsylvania has an obligation to its own voters and its own statutes: answer this question definitively. If the video shows illegal destruction of election records, the people responsible should face prosecution. If it does not, establish that clearly, on the record, so these allegations cannot continue to fester in the public consciousness.

Accountability is not a partisan issue. It is the foundation of every legitimate government.

What is not acceptable — to anyone across the political spectrum — is a system that responds to serious allegations of evidence destruction by running out the clock and calling it justice.

Key Takeaway

A Pennsylvania appellate court dismissed a lawsuit alleging election workers destroyed 2020 ballot evidence on videotape — without ever examining that evidence. One dissenting judge called the decision wrong. No criminal charges have been filed. The public has never received a definitive, evidence-based answer.

Stay Informed. Stay Engaged.

This story is far from finished. The procedural dismissal of a civil lawsuit does not end the questions raised by these allegations — and it should not end your interest in them.

Share this article with anyone who cares about election integrity, government accountability, or the rule of law. Subscribe to stay current as this story develops. And if you believe independent journalism matters — especially when it covers stories powerful institutions would prefer stayed quiet — support the outlets doing that work.

Democracy depends on an informed citizenry willing to ask hard questions and demand real answers. Be one of them.

All allegations referenced in this article are drawn from the public court record in Moton, Hoopes and Stenstrom v. Boockvar et al. (876 & 877 C.D. 2022), including the 104-page complaint and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court’s February 24, 2025 ruling. No court has ruled on the merits of these allegations.