Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Myth-busting the top 10 objections to 'vote at home' systems

Opinion

Myth-busting the top 10 objections to 'vote at home' systems

McReynolds is executive director of the National Vote at Home Institute, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to expanding voting by mail-out ballot.

During this year's state legislative sessions, we saw nice progress, but also a number of myths, unfounded fears and outright falsehoods about "vote at home" or "vote by mail" election systems, in which all or most voters in a state or county are sent ballots in the mail and not required to go to traditional polling places.

For starters, VAH critics often ignore the reality that all 50 states already use this voting method at some level (aka absentee ballots). And objections often get presented in a vacuum, ignoring how traditional "polling-place-centric" methods have major inherent disadvantages.

Polling-place-centric elections poorly serve millions. Think about older or disabled voters unable to get to the polls; rural voters far from a polling place; first responders whose schedules can be preempted; parents working two jobs; families with sick children; students and many others with real-life issues that prevent voting in a fixed place, within a limited window of time.

Polling-place models also suffer from execution problems that can disenfranchise large swaths of eligible voters, both innocent and not always so: missing power cords for the machines, malfunctioning machines, poll workers who forgot the keys, long lines where voters give up and go home, voters told their registration is not valid, voters without "proper" ID and polling places far removed from some communities.

But well-implemented VAH models enable all to cast their ballots on their terms and timelines, while providing more days and more ways to vote, including in-person options. And if a close election demands a recount, VAH systems have paper ballots for every vote cast.


VAH elections — in place in Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Utah, Hawaii and most of California for 2020 — better serve voters, address operational issues within the voting process and mitigate risk.

Here are the top 10 false myths about VAH and the rebuttals.

No. 1: If you mail ballots to more voters, people will ask for "replacement ballots" and vote multiple times or duplicate the ballot and vote multiple times.

Ballot envelopes are barcoded to the individual voter. Upon return, only one ballot from any voter is accepted — the first in. Others are rejected, and if criminal intent is suspected, the voter could be prosecuted. Ballots in an envelope with no barcode are rejected.

No. 2: Anyone can intercept the mail and vote someone else's ballot.

Voter validation is key and the recommended best practice is signature verification. This means every return ballot envelope is signed by the voter, and each signature is checked against official signatures already on file. Signature judges can be trained by handwriting experts, including many from law enforcement.

Voters are given multiple paths to resolve the discrepancy, even after Election Day.

Verification does away with cumbersome witnessing or notarization rules that can lead to the unscrupulous offering a "service" to do that.

Stealing a mailed-out ballot is a federal crime. And a voter who doesn't receive a ballot, or loses it, can simply contact their local election office for a replacement.

No. 3: If you mail out ballots, non-citizens will be able to vote. So will dead people.

Ballots only go to active registered voters. The question of citizenship is handled during the registration process, which occurs before a ballot can be mailed. States with effective VAH systems have automated processes to regularly match death records to the voter registration lists to prevent ballots going to a deceased voter.

No. 4: Voters move around and don't update their addresses, leaving ballots floating around that other people can use.

VAH ballots are non-forwardable. And if someone attempts to vote another person's ballot — again, a felony — they'll likely fail. (See No. 2.)

VAH states have some of the most accurate voter rolls in the country, in part because they utilize automated address updates through registration procedures or updates from the U.S. Postal Service's change of address database. And because they are part of the Electronic Registration Information Center, they share data and ensure proactive address updates. Officials automatically update registration information when voters move, then allow them to opt out — rather than forcing them to register at a new address.

No. 5: The Postal Service is unreliable. My ballot may not get to me or get back to be counted.

USPS actually is remarkably reliable. But that misses a key point. The reason we call this "vote at home" is that in well-developed systems with ample secure drop boxes and staffed vote centers, a solid majority of ballots are returned in person. Well-developed VAH systems also use ballot tracking tools (think FedEx) so voters and elections officials can see in real time where their ballot is, from in the mail through tabulation. Additionally, USPS now offers informed delivery, so voters have accountability as to where their mail is in the process.

No. 6. Other members of a household may unduly influence the vote.

While undue influence is possible (and also a crime) in almost any election system, hundreds of millions of VAH ballots cast over the last 20 years reveal it's a non-problem. Those concerned about this issue should instead work to strengthen state laws that deter and punish bad actors from taking advantage of voters, in all states.

No. 7: It is so easy to divert a ballot. People who do it face only a slap on the wrist if caught.

In Oregon, if you intentionally tamper with or divert a mailed-out ballot, it is a felony, punishable by a $25,000 fine and five years in jail for every ballot. Stiff penalties heavily skew the risk-to-reward equation of someone thinking about election interference.

No. 8: If people can't make an effort and vote in person, they don't deserve to vote.

Voting is a right. We get that right with our citizenship. We don't have to requalify for it by passing a test or paying a poll tax. Studies also show voters with a ballot in their hands vote farther "down the ballot," as they have more time to research and become informed about the issues and candidates.

No. 9: More convenient voting options, such as voting at home, is a plot from the political left.

Utah, now the fourth (and most recent) state to mail a ballot to every to every registered voter, is decidedly "red." Republicans also have the edge in Montana and Arizona, where 70 percent of voters automatically are mailed their ballots as "permanent absentee" voters. Reliably red Nebraska and North Dakota have also expanded the use of VAH options. While Oregon and Washington, the first two states where VAH took hold, are more blue than red, both have current secretaries of state who are Republican — and big fans of this system.

No. 10: States with higher use of mailed-out ballots do not see materially higher voter turnout.

This is an easy one. First, check out America Goes to the Polls 2018. It shows three variables that drive the states with the top turnout. VAH is one, because the model is voter-centric. Next, take a look at this map that shows 2018 turnout and note the correlation between mailed-out ballots and high turnout. Then, see how the counties in Utah which went to VAH systems outperformed their polling place counterparts by 5 to 7 points in 2016. Finally, here is data from the 2018 primaries showing vote at home states with over 15 percent higher turnout than polling-place-centric states.

Read More

A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stickers with the words "I Voted Today."

Virginia is on its way to be the 19th jurisdiction to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing the U.S. closer to electing presidents by the national popular vote.

Getty Images, EyeWolf

Virginia On The Path to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, voluntary state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the NPVIC to reach a total of 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all (WTA) regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.

With Virginia's adoption, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, collectively holding 222 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs forty-eight more electoral votes to become active.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less