Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Why the push for an all-by-mail election is unwise — and unnecessary

U.S. postal worker

Elections should not be turned over to the Postal Service, writes Hans von Spakovsky.

Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Von Spakovsky runs the election law program at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank and was a member of the commission President Trump convened to investigate his allegations of fraud in the 2016 election.

The push in Congress and in many states to force an all-mail national election in November and in the remaining state primaries is both unwise and unnecessary.

It is unwise because absentee or mail-in ballots are voted outside the supervision and overview of election officials — thus destroying the secret ballot, an important hallmark of American elections for more than a century. They are susceptible to being stolen, altered and forced. They can lead to the intimidation and improper pressuring of voters in their homes. And let's not overlook the errant vulnerabilities and vagaries of being misdirected or not delivered by the postal system.

Finally, vote-harvesting in states that have legalized it — allowing candidates, campaign workers, party activists and political consultants who have a stake in the outcome to pick up absentee ballots from voters — dramatically increases the likelihood of fraud and illegal "assistance" of voters.

It is unnecessary because elections have been successfully held under much more onerous conditions, such as in Liberia in 2014 in the middle of the West African Ebola epidemic. There is no reason we cannot do the same in our neighborhood polling places, using all of the same safety protocols that are allowing all of us to go to the grocery store, pharmacies and other retail establishments.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

In 1998, after a series of cases in Florida involving absentee-ballot fraud, the Department of Law Enforcement issued a report on persistent fraud in state elections, calling absentee ballots the "tools of choice" of "those who are engaging in election fraud." That included the 1997 mayoral race in Miami, which was overturned because of what a county grand jury in 2012 called "widespread absentee ballot fraud."

If you think that is ancient history, take a look at more recent cases documented in the Heritage Foundation election fraud database, which contains a sampling of almost 1,300 proven cases of fraud from around the country. That includes the mayor of Gordon, Ala., who was removed from office last year after being convicted of absentee ballot fraud in an election he won by only 16 votes.

Another recent case: the 2018 congressional race in North Carolina. It was overturned because of illegal vote harvesting by a political consultant who was collecting absentee ballots from voters, as well as ballots that were changed, altered or — in some cases — not even delivered to election officials.

Still doubt the vulnerabilities of the absentee balloting process and the dangers it poses to secure elections? Then take a look at one Democratic mayoral primary in East Chicago, Ind. It was overturned by the Indiana Supreme Court in 2004 due to "pervasive" and "voluminous, widespread" fraud involving absentee ballots.

That included preying on first-time voters, those "less informed or lacking in knowledge of the voting process, the infirm, the poor, and those with limited skills in the English language." Ballots were filled out by campaign workers instead of voters; people were pressured to vote a particular way or were paid for their votes; and individuals who did not even live in the city or were registered at vacant lots voted illegally (but easily) using absentee ballots.

What about handing over the administration of our elections — and a very valuable commodity, your ballot — to the U.S. Postal Service? How many readers have had mail for someone else misdelivered to your address? Or had mail come in for someone who used to live at your address?

The federal Election Assistance Commission collects information from the states and files a report with Congress after every national election, including on absentee or mail-in ballots. In 2016, more mail ballots — 6.5 million — were misdirected or unaccounted for than the margin of votes separating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

"Unaccounted for" means state officials handed requested absentee ballots over to the Postal Service for delivery to voters but never heard another word about them. So election officials don't know what happened — whether the ballots were properly delivered, whether voters decided not to vote after all or whether the envelopes got lost when voters sent them back.

Thousands of absentee ballots were found in Wisconsin after its April 7 primary, including in a mail-processing facility, and were not delivered or counted.

On the other hand, 300,000 Wisconsinites cast ballots in person at polling places this spring. The state Election Commission trained its poll workers in all recommended safety protocols. And polling places were carefully set up to implement everything from social distancing in the waiting lines to using disposable pens and voting materials to careful sanitation of everything including voting locations.

The title of a recently released medical study on the successful election says it all: "No Detectable Surge in SARS-CoV-2 Transmission due to the April 7, 2020 Wisconsin Primary." And Congress in March appropriated $400 million for the states to fund any extra costs they incur in administering elections safely because of Covid-19. Similarly, South Korea held a national election in April 15 in which 29 million votes were cast, with no reported infections from the election.

Many states are already reopening their economies and other states will soon follow suit.

We need absentee ballots for those who can't make it to their polling places because they are sick or physically disabled or serving our country abroad, but they should not be the only way to vote. Even in the midst of this pandemic, we can run our elections both safely and securely.

Read More

Members of Congress in the House of Representatives

Every four years, Congress gathers to count electoral votes.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

No country still uses an electoral college − except the U.S.

Holzer is an associate professor of political science at Westminster College.

The United States is the only democracy in the world where a presidential candidate can get the most popular votes and still lose the election. Thanks to the Electoral College, that has happened five times in the country’s history. The most recent examples are from 2000, when Al Gore won the popular vote but George W. Bush won the Electoral College after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, and 2016, when Hillary Clinton got more votes nationwide than Donald Trump but lost in the Electoral College.

The Founding Fathers did not invent the idea of an electoral college. Rather, they borrowed the concept from Europe, where it had been used to pick emperors for hundreds of years.

Keep ReadingShow less
Nebraska Capitol

Nebraska's Capitol houses a unicameral legislature, unique in American politics.

Education Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

100 years ago, a Nebraska Republican fought for democracy reform

Gruber is senior vice president of Open Primaries.

With Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen’s announcement on Sept. 24 that he doesn't have enough votes to call a special session of the Legislature to change the way the state allocates electoral votes, an effort led by former President Donald Trump to pressure the Legislature officially failed.

Nebraska is one of only two states that award a single Electoral College vote to the winner in each congressional district, plus two votes to the statewide winner of the presidential popular vote. Much has been made — justifiably — of Republican state Sen. Mike McDonnell’s heroic decision to buck enormous political pressure from his party to fall in line, and choosing instead to single-handedly defeat the measure. The origins of the senator's independence, though, began in a 100-old experiment in democracy reform.

Keep ReadingShow less
Man sitting in a chair near voting stations

An election official staffs a voting location in Lansing, Mich., during the state's Aug. 6, primary.

Emily Elconin for The Washington Post via Getty Images

Closed primaries, gerrymandering eliminate competition for House seats

Meyers is executive editor of The Fulcrum.

There are 435 voting members of the House of Representatives. But few of those districts — 55, to be exact — will be decided on Election Day, according to new data from the nonprofit organization Unite America. That’s because the vast majority of races were effectively decided during the primaries.

The research data goes deep into what Unite America calls the “Primary Problem,” in which few Americans are determining winners of House elections.

Keep ReadingShow less
House chamber

Rep. Scott Perry objects to Pennsylvania's certification of its Electoral College vote during a joint session of Congress on Jan. 7, 2021.

Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

What voters need to know about the presidential election

Becvar is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and executive director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund. Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

It is quite clear that the presidential election is going to be incredibly close. In each of the seven swing states, the margin of error is less than 2 percent.

As citizens, this is not something to fear and it is critically important that we all trust the election results.

As part of our ongoing series for the Election Overtime Project, today we present a guide explaining in detail what you, as a voter, need to know about the role of state legislatures and Congress in a presidential election. The guide was prepared by the Election Reformers Network, a nonprofit organization championing impartial elections and concrete policy solutions that strengthen American democracy.

Keep ReadingShow less