Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Mail-in balloting surged last month. Don't let that ease your worries.

Opinion

Ohio primary voters

Eligible voters cast ballots at the Franklin County Board of Elections headquarters in Ohio. The state allowed one in-person voting location per county for the April primary.

Matthew Hatcher/Getty Images

Burden is a professor of political science and director of the Elections Research Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.


Something remarkable happened in Ohio and Wisconsin this spring. While other states with presidential primaries scheduled for last month decided to postpone or modify them, the Buckeye State and Badger State held theirs.

Their approaches differed in important ways, but together they provide urgent lessons as the entire country plans for the general election in November.

In the middle of a pandemic, more than 1.5 million Wisconsinites voted in their primary. Although more than 70 percent of voters cast absentee ballots, viral photos of voters wearing masks and waiting in long lines painted a vivid picture. Ohio took a different approach, extending voting by six weeks for a primary originally scheduled in March and eliminating all polling places aside from limited voting and drop boxes at each county board of elections. As a result, nearly everyone voted by mail.

Heavy absentee voting was the only way these elections could have taken place. The massive increase in voting by mail in both states is certain to make absentee voting a more regular part of future elections. But that does not mean that voting during the pandemic has been figured out. Even though absentee voting proved popular during the crisis, most states have a lot of work ahead if they want to be ready for a mail-centric election for president in November.

For starters, neither state managed to execute a flawless election. It appears that a significant number of voters who requested absentee ballots never received them. Other voters received their ballots, but got them too late to mail them back by the deadline.

In Wisconsin, some voters had difficulty requesting absentee ballots in the first place because such requests require a photo or copy of an acceptable ID such as a driver's license or passport. The absentee ballot envelope in Wisconsin also requires the signature of a witness, a challenging requirement for people who live alone or are intentionally isolating to avoid spread of the coronavirus.

The long lines on primary day in Wisconsin were a tragedy, but we should not cheer their absence in Ohio too quickly. The state eliminated traditional polling places and only permitted limiting voting at one location per county, much of which was done by dropping off completed ballots. This system was helpful but surely did not serve all of the people who lacked the time and resources to travel to the county seat on election day. Wiping out polling places made the election process safer but also made those problems for some voters invisible.

In contrasting ways, these states demonstrated the need to retain physical polling places. Even with a stay-at-home order in place, hundreds of thousands of Wisconsin voters went outside to vote in person. In some cities, the consolidation of polling places produced long lines. In Milwaukee the reduction of 180 polling places to just five sites produced lines that ran for blocks and took hours to navigate. No voter should ever have to suffer that experience.

We also have yet to know how many absentee ballots were actually counted. Studies from other states with moderate use of absentee voting show that younger voters and non-white voters are more likely to have their ballots go uncounted for a variety of reasons.

States with extensive mail-based voting systems gradually developed systems to make it work. Colorado and Washington work aggressively to keep voter registration lists up to date so that mailing addresses are as current as possible. Some states provide carefully placed public drop boxes because many, if not most, voters prefer to deposit their ballots in these dedicated boxes rather than rely on the Postal Service. These states have also developed forgiving processes for voters to "cure" a ballot that arrives without a signature or is not properly sealed. It took significant time and money to make this infrastructure possible.

The volume of absentee ballot requests overwhelmed some local election officials, especially in more populous communities. Imagine the volume of ballots for the November election, when turnout in many states could be twice what it was in the primary. States will need to spend significantly to make sure staffing and supplies are adequate for handling the flow of requests and returned ballots.

It is startling just how far Ohio and Wisconsin moved toward mail voting in such a short time, weeks rather than months. An unprecedented health and economic crisis can apparently do a lot to grease the gears. But it certainly does not mean that a state is ready to run an election completely by mail in November.

Read More

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less