If I Conceal Carry in Pennsylvania After May 16th, I’ll Be A Criminal

PA’s Attorney General recently announced Virginia has “insufficient” background checks, so it won’t recognize my CHP.

If I choose to conceal carry in Pennsylvania after May 16th, I could become a criminal. Why? Me and the thousands of other law-abiding Virginia concealed handgun permit (CHP) holders will be in violation of Pennsylvania law.

The Keystone State’s Attorney General Josh Shapiro announced on April 16th, 2018, that Virginia CHP holders are personae non gratae up there within 30 days of these changes going into effect. His reasoning is rooted in the belief that our state’s background check system is “insufficient.” After Shapiro’s review, Pennsylvania now recognizes 29 states’ agreements—excluding Virginia. Per the review, 21 other states “either have weaker standards or do not enter into such agreements.” Alternatively, 32 states recognize Pennsylvania’s CHP licenses.

“In order to ensure the standards of our Commonwealth are applied fairly and consistently – to both residents and visitors – we have just concluded an exhaustive, labor-intensive review of our concealed carry reciprocity agreements with every state in the nation,” Attorney General Shapiro said at a press conference today while surrounded by law enforcement at the Office of Attorney General in Harrisburg. “This review will not impact any Pennsylvania resident currently licensed to carry a concealed weapon in our state, nor does it change the qualification requirements. Its goal is to set clear standards and provide law enforcement with resources to enforce our existing firearms laws.”

Virginia law clearly enumerates those with criminal convictions are forbidden from obtaining CHP’s or purchasing firearms—pursuant Section 18.2-308.09 of Virginia law:

Persons Not Qualified to Obtain a Permit – Section 18.2-308.09

  1. An individual who is ineligible to possess a firearm pursuant to Section18.2-308.1:1, 18.2-308.1:2 or Section 18.2-308.1:3 or the substantially similar law of any other state or of the United States.
  2. An individual who was ineligible to possess a firearm pursuant to Section 18.2-308.1:1 and who was discharged from the custody of the Commissioner pursuant to Section 19.2-182.7 less than five years before the date of his application for a concealed handgun permit.
  3. An individual who was ineligible to possess a firearm pursuant to Section 18.2-308.1:2 and whose competency or capacity was restored pursuant to former Section 37.1-134.1 or Section 37.2-1012 less than five years before the date of his application for a concealed handgun permit.
  4. An individual who was ineligible to possess a firearm under Section 18.2-308.1:3 and who was released from commitment less than five years before the date of this application for a concealed handgun permit.
  5. An individual who is subject to a restraining order, or to a protective order and prohibited by Section 18.2-308.1:4 from purchasing or transporting a firearm.
  6. An individual who is prohibited by Section 18.2-308.2 from possessing or transporting a firearm, except that a permit may be obtained in accordance with subsection C of that section.
  7. An individual who has been convicted of two or more misdemeanors within the five-year period immediately preceding the application, if one of the misdemeanors was a Class 1 misdemeanor, but the judge shall have the discretion to deny a permit for two or more misdemeanors that are not Class 1. Traffic infractions or reckless driving shall not be considered for purposes of this disqualification.
  8. An individual who is addicted to, or is an unlawful user or distributor of, marijuana or any controlled substance.
  9. An individual who has been convicted of a violation of Section 18.2-266or a substantially similar local ordinance, or of public drunkenness, or of a substantially similar offense under the laws of any other state, the District of Columbia, the United States, or its territories within the three-year period immediately preceding the application, or who is a habitual drunkard as determined pursuant to Section 4.1-33.
  10. An alien other than an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States.
  11. An individual who has been discharged from the Armed Forces of the United States under dishonorable conditions.
  12. An individual who is a fugitive from justice.
  13. An individual who the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, based on specific acts by the applicant, is likely to use a weapon unlawfully or negligently to endanger others. The sheriff, chief of police, or attorney for the Commonwealth may submit to the court a sworn written statement indicating that, in the opinion of such sheriff, chief of police, or attorney for the Commonwealth, based upon a disqualifying conviction or upon the specific acts set forth in the statement, the applicant is likely to use a weapon unlawfully or negligently to endanger others. The statement of the sheriff, chief of police, or the attorney for the Commonwealth shall be based upon personal knowledge of such individual or of a deputy sheriff, police officer, or assistant attorney for the Commonwealth of the specific acts, or upon a written statement made under oath before a notary public of a competent person having personal knowledge of the specific acts.
  14. An individual who has been convicted of any assault, assault and battery, sexual battery, discharging of a firearm in violation of Section18.2-280 or Section 18.2-286.1 or brandishing of a firearm in violation of Section 18.2-282 within the three-year period immediately preceding the application.
  15. An individual who has been convicted of stalking.
  16. An individual whose previous convictions or adjudications of delinquency were based on an offense which would have been at the time of conviction a felony if committed by an adult under the laws of any state, the District of Columbia, the United States or its territories. For purposes of this disqualifier, only convictions occurring within sixteen years following the later of the date of (i) the conviction or adjudication or (ii) release from any incarceration imposed upon such conviction or adjudication shall be deemed to be “previous convictions.”
  17. An individual who has a felony charge pending or a charge pending for an offense listed in 14 or 15.
  18. An individual who has received mental health treatment or substance abuse treatment in a residential setting within five years prior to the date of his application for a concealed handgun permit.
  19. An individual not otherwise ineligible pursuant to this section, who, within the three-year period immediately preceding the application for the permit, was found guilty of any criminal offense set forth in Article 1 (Section 18.2-247 et seq.) of Chapter 7 of this title or of a criminal offense of illegal possession or distribution of marijuana or any controlled substance, under the laws of any state, the District of Columbia, or the United States or its territories.
  20. An individual, not otherwise ineligible pursuant to this section, with respect to whom, within the three-year period immediately preceding the application, upon a charge of any criminal offense set forth in Article 1 (Section 18.2-247 et seq.) of Chapter 7 of this title or upon a charge of illegal possession or distribution of marijuana or any controlled substance under the laws of any state, the District of Columbia, or the United States or its territories, the trial court found that the facts of the case were sufficient for a finding of guilt and disposed of the case pursuant to Section 18.2-251 or the substantially similar law of any other state, the District of Columbia, or the United States or its territories.

Having gone through the process myself—while boasting no criminal record, of course—I’m confident Pennsylvania’s targeting of Virginia CHP holders is deliberate and not rooted in safety whatsoever.

Our concealed carry laws closely mirror that of Pennsylvania—what’s the issue? What does this do to deter criminal behavior except criminalizing law-abiding Virginia CHP holders? Instead of targeting existing law that’s easily enforceable, perhaps Mr. Shapiro could focus his sights on criminals in Pennsylvania—particularly those in Philadelphia and other crime-heavy epicenters—who actually perpetrate illegal gun crimes.

Let’s hope gun rights organizations will challenge this in the court of law.

Charlie Dent Is Calling It Quits

Pennsylvania Rep. Charlie Dent announced Thursday night that he is not seeking re-election.

The Republican congressman has represented The Keystone State’s 15th Congressional District since 2005 and is completing his seventh term in office.

Dent, currently chairman of the House Ethics Committee, is more widely known as a stalwart member of the House GOP’s moderate wing. Since the 2016 election, he has been a more vocal critic of President Trump than many of his Republican colleagues. Dent also serves a co-chair of the Tuesday Group – a caucus of moderate Republicans in the House of Representatives.

While the announcement comes as a surprise to some, Dent says he’s been mulling retirement for quite some time. The Pennsylvania Republican’s opinion of Capitol Hill soured after the 2013 government shutdown. He has since been very discouraged by what he sees as chronic dysfunction in Washington. The recent gridlock was a major factor in his decision to leave.

“I’ve always said down the street there’s been a fair amount of instability, uncertainty and dysfunction. I’ve always come to accept a certain amount of dysfunction in government,” he said Thursday. “But, I guess they’ve taken it to a new level. They’ve taken the fun out of dysfunction.”

“Accomplishing the most basic fundamental tasks of governance is becoming far too difficult,” Dent also said. “It shouldn’t be, but that’s reality.”

However, Dent added that it was never his plan to serve in Congress for an extended period of time. He actually didn’t think he’d be in office this long.

“Frankly, I never planned on serving, voters permitting, more than 5 or 6 terms in the US Congress,” Dent said. “I’m now serving my seventh term.”

Dent leaves behind a seat that Democrats think they can win. Pennsylvania’s 15th Congressional District does have a moderate streak. The district includes Pivot Counties – counties that voted for Obama, but swung to Trump last year. In fact, President Obama won the district outright in 2008 and barely lost it 2012. But Democrats should not get too excited. This district voted for Republican Donald Trump by 8 points last year (a pretty decent margin). Also, Dent carried his district by a 20-point margin last year.

Nevertheless, Democrats see the open seat as a pickup opportunity and will surely pounce as 2018 nears.

As for the GOP, Pennsylvania state Rep. Justin Simmons, a more conservative legislator, had announced a primary challenge against Dent earlier. He was, unsurprisingly, thrilled at the Thursday announcement. It’s unclear if Simmon’s challenge had any influence in Dent’s decision to retire.

Dent follows a few other GOP House members retiring next year.

Florida Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen announced in April that this would be her final term. On Wednesday, Rep. Dave Reichert, a Republican from Washington state, said he, too, would not be running for re-election. Both Ros-Lehtinen and Reichert represent districts that voted for Hillary Clinton last year – making their retirements much more of a headache for the GOP.

More retirement announcements are expected to come in the following months. Twenty-two House members, on average, retire every election cycle.

Lou Barletta: The Best Candidate To Capture Pennsylvania’s Senate Seat

After months of speculation, Rep. Lou Barletta has officially entered the race for Pennsylvania’s Senate seat. Assuming he wins the primary, he will be challenging incumbent Democrat Sen. Bob Casey.

Sen. Casey is one of many top GOP targets next year as the party looks to bolster its Senate majority. The 2018 Senate map is one of the most favorable for Republicans in over a generation as Democrats are forced to play defense in most of the seats in play – many of them in states President Donald Trump won just last year. The only other GOP candidates in this race are a few local activists, businessmen and state representatives – making Barletta the most serious Republican challenger to date.

Barletta, currently the representative of the state’s 11th Congressional District, is by far the most able candidate to oust Casey. His political background and appeal to a specific block of voters prove this.

Pennsylvania played a pivotal role in Trump’s win last year. The president won The Keystone State by less than one percentage point over Hillary Clinton. Four years prior, President Obama won the state by over five points. The partisan shift was a decent swing in Trump’s direction and it was also the first time a Republican presidential candidate has won the state since George H. W. Bush in 1988. This upset was accomplished by a few Pivot Counties within Pennsylvania – counties that voted for Obama twice, but swung in Trump’s column.

There were three Pennsylvania Pivot Counties: Erie, Luzerne and Northamptom. A large swath of Barletta’s congressional district includes Luzerne County. His overall district has shifted more Republican over the years, and the arrival of Trump has hastened the process. This is important to point out because it indicates that Barletta appeals to the same type of Trump Democrats who ultimately decide the fate of statewide candidates.

The connection between the two men go even further. Like the president, Barletta is known for his strict approach to illegal immigration.

Beginning his political career as a member of the Hazleton City Council, Barletta had always been an immigration hardliner. As mayor, he vowed in 2006 to make Hazelton “one of the toughest places in the United States” for illegal immigrants. He introduced the Illegal Immigration Relief Act, an ordinance that denied business permits to employers who hired illegals and issued fines to landlords who housed them (the law was subsequently thrown out in court). Despite taking strong positions on contentious issues – he was a popular Republican in a heavily Democratic city.

After unseating longtime Democratic Rep. Paul Kanjorski in 2010, Barletta took the immigration debate with him to Capitol Hill. He pushed legislation in Congress that would restrict federal dollars into cities that refused to work with federal authorities regarding illegal immigrants. In 2015, Barletta supported “Kate’s Law,” a bill that would jail illegal immigrants in the county who had already been deported.

Immigration, among other issues, was what led Barletta to support Trump’s insurgent presidential candidacy. He was one of the first members of Congress to endorse the real estate mogul, and he continues to be one of President Trump’s staunchest congressional allies. It comes as no surprise that Trump personally pushed Barletta to enter the Senate race.

2018 will be a midterm year. These elections tend to favor Republicans given the type of voter turnout that occurs during non-presidential elections. However, this will be the first midterm election since Obama has vacated office (the former president had a knack for energizing conservative voters). The game will be different now that Trump occupies the White House – the 45th president undoubtedly will play a huge role in this Pennsylvania campaign.

Defeating Casey will be no walk in the park. Casey has held elected office across the state since the late 1990’s – serving as auditor general and as treasurer. He is completing his second term in the Senate. His father, Bob P. Casey, had previously served as governor of the state.

Suffice it to say, the Casey name is a mainstay in Pennsylvania politics. Voters do appear to like him.

However, if there is one Republican in The Keystone State that can win this – it’s Barletta. He already appeals to the same type of Trump Democrats needed to win. He overcame a Democratic voter advantage in Hazleton to become the city’s mayor. He then thrived in a once-safe Democratic district to become a U.S. congressman.

Barletta enters the race at a time when Pennsylvania has experienced a political shift to the right. Trump and Pat Toomey (the other PA senator) overcame weak poll numbers and won against their Democratic challengers. The Pennsylvania GOP is now salivating at the chance to unseat both Casey and Gov. Tom Wolf – two Democrats who are up for re-election next year. You better believe national Republicans won’t be wasting the opportunity. They’ll be pouring money into this state.

Major forecasters don’t see much here yet. Inside Elections rates this race as leans Democratic and Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball rates this as likely Democratic. Even Cook Political Report gives it a likely Democratic. However, I’d strongly suggest keeping an eye on the election rankings.

This race is about to get a lot more competitive in the coming weeks.

Pollsters Look For Why They Went Wrong in 2016



A group of pollsters has conducted a postmortem of 2016 election polling to try to determine why so many of the nation’s pollsters and political analysts, including those of us at The Resurgent, got it wrong. The resulting study, released by the American Association for Public Opinion Research, “found that the biggest culprit was state-level polling underestimating the level of Trump’s support, most importantly in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin,” observes Business Insider in a classic understatement.

No kidding.

National polls showed Hillary Clinton with an average lead of about three-points, which was very close to the actual popular vote result which Clinton won by two points. The polls were less accurate at the state level, where they showed a tight race, but still pointed to a Clinton victory.

The three perennially blue states in the upper Midwest flipped to Trump and enabled his path to 270 electoral votes. The fundamental question is why pollsters underestimated Trump’s support in these states. On that issue, the analysis found three main factors that likely caused polls to be off in those states.

A major factor was that a large segment of voters waited until the last week before the election to make their decision. In Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, those late-deciding voters broke decisively for Donald Trump. In Wisconsin, they chose Trump by a 30-point margin. The margin for Trump among these voters was 17 points in Pennsylvania and Florida.

A second major factor was that many polls included too many college graduates in their samples and their assumptions about the electorate. “Voters with higher education levels were more likely to support Clinton,” the report said. “Furthermore, recent studies are clear that people with more formal education are significantly more likely to participate in surveys than those with less education.”

The third factor was that many Trump voters did not admit to preferring Trump in pre-election polling. There had been speculation about reluctance of Trump supporters to admit their preference to pollsters, the so-called “Shy Trump effect,” but the report notes that this effect could also be attributed to late-deciding voters.

Two additional factors were also considered to be less compelling reasons for the polling problems. The report notes that in 2016, turnout grew more in Republican counties than in Democrat counties when compared to 2012. This could have caused an overcounting of Democrat demographics while underestimating Republican support. The report also notes that Donald Trump’s name appeared above Hillary Clinton’s on the actual ballot while polls tended to randomize the order of the candidates. The report considers these effects to be insignificant.

Regarding the pre-election forecasts that Clinton was a shoo-in, the report notes that polling and forecasting are two different things. “Pollsters and astute poll reporters are often careful to describe their findings as a snapshot in time, measuring public opinion when they are fielded,” the report notes. “Forecasting models do something different – they attempt to predict a future event. As the 2016 election proved, that can be a fraught exercise, and the net benefit to the country is unclear.”

Polls are already history when they are published. The measure public opinion on the dates that they are conducted, they do not predict future events. Polling results and trends can be used by forecasters to make predictions, but, if public opinion is changing rapidly, as it did in 2016 with FBI Director Comey’s eleventh hour letter to Congress, then polling is less effective as a forecasting tool.

The analysis also found that there is no consistent partisan bias in recent US polling. While polling underestimated support for Trump last year, the reverse has been true in other recent elections. “Whether the polls tend to miss in the Republican direction or the Democratic direction is tantamount to a coin flip,” said the report.

In 2012, late-breaking support for Barack Obama in the wake of Hurricane Sandy and the Obama bromance with Chris Christie derailed what many thought would be a win for Mitt Romney. In 2004, early exit polling showed that John Kerry would defeat incumbent George W. Bush. When all the votes were counted, Bush won a convincing victory.

Looking back at the 2016 polls, which are still available on Real Clear Politics, the signs were there. Pennsylvania showed a 1.9-point lead for Clinton, which was well within the margin of error of most polls. The latest poll before the election gave Trump a one-point lead. In Michigan, the average showed Clinton up by 3.4 points, still within the margin of error, while the last poll showed Trump with a two-point lead. Wisconsin polling was farther off, showing a 6.5-point lead for Clinton. Trump did not lead in any Wisconsin polls, but won all three states by less than one point on Election Day.

The bottom line for political observers is that polling is not an exact science. This is particularly true in a country that is as closely divided as the United States is today. While polls are useful to give a snapshot of public opinion, they can’t be expected to accurately predict an election winner in a tight race where poll results are within the margin of error.

In retrospect, the fact that polls were as tight as they were going into the final week before the election should have been a red flag for Clinton supporters. For an opponent who was as unpopular as Donald Trump to be within the margin of error of the Democrat candidate in what was almost universally assumed to be a coronation more than an election indicated serious problems with the Clinton campaign.

The surge of Trump voters in the final week may be partially due to the continuing dribbles of scandal from the hacked emails and Director Comey’s decision to reopen the investigation a week before the election, but it also indicates a more fundamental problem for the Democrats. Many of these late Trump voters undoubtedly went for Trump because Democrat messaging failed to convince them that Hillary would improve their own lives and finances.

NRA’s Great American Outdoor Show Will Pump $80 Million Back in PA Economy

This weekend, I attended the National Rifle Association’s 4th annual Great American Outdoor Show (GAOS). This year’s event took place from February 4-12, 2017. It first launched in 2014 and has seen great success since its inception.

GAOS will have an estimated $80 million impact on the surrounding Harrisburg-Hershey areas. Per NRA’s estimates, they project over 200,000 people in attendance at this year’s conference. Over 1,100 exhibitors from across the U.S., Canada, and even outside of North America were in attendance. 475 outfitters–which comprise roughly 40 percent of exhibitors–were also in attendance. Cost of attendance was free for those who renewed their NRA memberships (minimum $35) while daily admission was $6 for kids and $14 for adults.

There were many themed exhibit halls available for conference goers to traverse–including ones for Archery, Boats, Fishing, Hunting Outfitters, Outdoor Products, RVs, and the Shooting Sports. It was nearly impossible to visit all exhibitors and halls, but I managed to scout the boating, fishing, hunting, and shoot sports ones.

The eight-day long conference takes place at the Pennsylvania Farm Show Complex in Harrisburg, PA–which boasts over 650,000 square feet of convention space. (It’s about a 2 hour and 20 minute drive north of Washington, D.C.) As an avid angler and gun enthusiast, I’d been eyeing this conference since I moved to the East Coast. I’ve attended both SHOT Show in Las Vegas and last year’s NRA Annual Meetings in Louisville, KY, but this show was definitely unique. As event organizers suggest, this is the largest consumer hunting and fishing show outdoors enthusiasts can attend. Country singers Dustin Lynch, Granger Smith, and Tara Thompson headlined a country show Saturday evening, so that was also a good draw for conference attendees.

Compared to other conferences-which tend to be more technical (not a bad thing, either)-this is a great family-friendly event for all ages. What did I love about attending the most? People of all ages and backgrounds here in attendance. Why? The Great Outdoors unites everyone and brings Americans together.

The Great American Outdoor Show was perhaps the largest outdoor expo I’ve been into in terms of attendance. At times, it was nearly impossible to walk the conference center because it was so crowded! Although a minor convenience, it was a good indication of the show’s success.

Below are some social media posts from the event – courtesy of yours truly, event goers, and event organizers:


To learn more about the Great American Outdoor Show, follow them on Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook. Make sure to attend next year’s show!


Media Pushes Fake News: Jewish Family Did Not Flee Lancaster

The media has been pushing out a fake story. It goes like this: Breitbart and Fox News caused a Jewish family to flee after being falsely blamed for causing a local elementary school to cancel a Christmas play. The play was Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol.

There’s just one problem. It did not happen.

The Huffington Post ran a story on it. Slate ran a story on it. Talking Points Memo ran a story on it. Even the local Lancaster newspaper ran a story on it. In fact, in the screen shot above, you can see all the leftwing news outlets that rushed to attack Fox News over something that did not happen.

Well, the Anti-Defamation League tracked down the Jewish family that supposedly fled. They had gone on vacation.

Now, of course, the liberal outlets are taking a “false, but accurate” approach claiming the family really did get a lot of harassment, but ignore the “fleeing” part.

The reason the school canceled the play was because it consumed too much class and teacher time. And, you know, these days the schools have to focus on studying for standardized tests.

Here’s Why the Democrats Are Pushing an Expensive, Doomed to Fail, Recall

In Pennsylvania, because the Green Party missed the state deadline for a recount, they are going to selected counties for recounts.

In Wisconsin, they have to fork over $3.5 million today to make a recount happen. They are pushing in Michigan as well.

In Pennsylvania, Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton by 75,000 votes, which is around 30,000 more than Jill Stein got altogether. There is no way Jill Stein could find enough votes to get herself an electoral college vote and there is no realistic way that there would be enough votes to throw a state to Hillary Clinton.

On top of that, if any one of these states goes for Trump, he wins. So why do it?

First, it is to delegitimize the process. The Democrats want to cast enough doubt on the election that their base, who prides itself on being smarter than the right, will spin into fake news and conspiracy theory territory to get them doubly fired up in 2018 for the congressional elections. They can then use that as a claim for mandate against Trump and as further proof that the 2016 results were fraudulent as they head to 2020.

Though electronic voting machines make it highly unlikely to ever alter an election, the Democrats can challenge individual paper ballots cast and create a narrative that Republicans shut out black people, gay people, hispanics, etc in an effort to suppress the vote. Remember, narrative is more important than truth to Democrats.

The left, in their arrogance and moral superiority, is just as likely to fall for a con as the right, but because so much of the media leans left the Democrats know no fact checker is going to call bulls–t on the claims. They will smugly reassure themselves that Russia really did hand the election to Trump and Republicans really did suppress or reject lawfully cast votes to such a degree as to hand Trump the White House.

But there is a second and very real reason the Democrats are doing this.

If Pennsylvania counties run by Democrats; Michigan with a lot of Democrats, but overseen by a Republican Secretary of State; and Wisconsin with a Democrat Secretary of State can drag out the recount process, it will prevent electors from being chosen for the Electoral College in those states.

That would force the election into the House of Representatives.

Trump would still win, but it would force every member of the GOP in the House on the record for Trump. There would be no walking away from him, walking it back, or distancing themselves. They would then own Donald Trump completely.

The Democrats have hit on a strategy that will see the mainstream media and left force Republican ownership of every bad idea, every stupid tweet, and every failure that Trump advances. They would love to start with his presidency in general. In two years, every Republican in the House will see commercials attacking them for their vote to affirm Trump’s presidency.

This is the longest of long shots for the Democrats. The odds are it will not happen. But they are grasping at straws now. They will either delegitimize the process or they will try to tie individual Republicans so tightly to Donald Trump that there is no shadow between them.

Of course, this only works if Trump is the disaster they expect him to be. This is also reason for the GOP to not delay in repealing Obama’s agenda as quickly as possible.

Looming Recounts Mean Election May Not Be Over Yet

If you thought the election was over except for the protests and the formality of the Electoral College, prepare to be disappointed. One recount has already been requested and experts are urging Hillary Clinton file for recounts in three states.

The first recount was requested by Pat McCrory, governor of North Carolina, on Tuesday according to Politico. McCrory, the Republican candidate, was trailing Democrat Roy Cooper, by more than 8,500 votes according to the Cooper campaign. McCrory’s campaign has alleged widespread voter fraud.

The first recount of this election season may not be the last. New York Magazine reports that a team of computer scientists has urged Hillary Clinton to file for recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania citing signs that vote totals could have been manipulated.

J. Alex Halderman, director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, was among the scientists who found a suspicious pattern of Clinton performing more poorly in counties with electronic voting machines than where paper ballots were used. The group said that the seven percent difference was large enough to raise the possibility that election computers could have been hacked.

So far no proof of tampering with the election has been found, but the large difference between counties with electronic voting machines and paper ballots is an anomaly that Halderman believes should be investigated. There may be other explanations for the discrepancy as well.

Donald Trump’s margins of victory in Michigan and Pennsylvania were less than one percent. Michigan has not been formally decided, but Clinton trails by 11,000 votes there. She lost Pennsylvania by 68,000 votes. Wisconsin had a margin of one percent, about 27,000 votes. Halderman’s statistical analysis, focused on Wisconsin, shows that there were enough suspicious votes to throw the outcome of these states into question. It would take a reversal of all three states to change the outcome of the Electoral College election, although faithless electors may change that total. As many as six electors have said that they will not vote for Donald Trump.

It is not clear if the suspicious pattern extends to other states as well. Also unclear is whether the North Carolina recount will examine presidential as well as gubernatorial votes.

The deadline to apply for a recount is looming in all three states. NY Magazine reports that Clinton supporters are lobbying for recounts and a forensic examination of voting machines, but the Obama Administration does not want the results challenged in order to smooth the transfer of power.

The possibility of Russian tampering with election results was raised prior to the election. The Obama Administration has blamed Russia for the hack of Democratic National Committee emails. Donald Trump has remained skeptical of the Russian connection, but Mike Pence has indicated that he believes that Russia was behind the email hack.

Whether Hillary will ask for a recount hasn’t been determined yet. The outcome of any recounts and investigation may not change the election, but it does raise the possibility that the election that everyone thought was settled might not be over yet.