Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Restricting vote by mail won't combat fraud, per conservative report

Ballot drop box

Some Republicans are seeking to eliminate the use of ballot drop boxes in future elections, among other restrictions.

George Frey/Getty Images

Restricting no-excuse absentee voting and banning drop boxes won't actually improve election integrity, despite the claims of many conservatives, according to a new study.

R Street Institute, a right-leaning public policy research organization, released a five-page report this week arguing against various state proposals aimed at restricting voting access. While the report says some proposed reforms deserve serious deliberation, others will only make it harder for people to vote.

More Americans than ever cast a ballot by mail in the 2020 election due to the Covid-19 pandemic, prompting some states to consider making no-excuse absentee voting and other ballot expansions permanent policies. However, 33 state legislatures are also considering more than 165 bills that would restrict voting access.


Before the pandemic, two-thirds of states allowed voters to cast absentee ballots for any reason and several more made temporary allowances last fall. Only five states (Texas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Indiana and Mississippi) kept the excuse requirement for voting by mail in the 2020 election.

While former President Donald Trump's baseless claims of voting fraud connected to mailed ballots during and after the election have caused many Republican lawmakers to now seek rollbacks or restrictions on voting access, those allegations have no basis in fact, according to R Street.

The report points out that absentee ballots face a "rigorous process to ensure ballots are legitimate, including ballot tracking measures and signature verification." R Street also cites an election fraud database run by the conservative Heritage Foundation, which has found a miniscule number of fraud cases over multiple election cycles.

"Moving to an excuse-only absentee system would do nothing to combat fraud, and may instead suppress voter turnout," wrote Steven Greenhut and Marc Hyden, two state policy experts at R Street who authored the report. "Many Americans prefer the convenience and flexibility provided by no-excuse absentee voting."

Ballot drop boxes, an extension of mail voting, have also been under attack. Eliminating their availability would also hinder voter convenience, especially given the mail delivery delays last fall, the report says.

"Ironically, many Republicans questioned the ability of the U.S. Postal Service to handle something as important as a ballot, yet are now proposing rules that would eliminate a reasonable alternative," Greenhut and Hyden wrote.

Expanding absentee voting is good reform and not an invitation for fraud, the report concludes. "Instead of seeking to ban tried-and-true methods of voting, lawmakers should instead look to ensure that eligible voters have the utmost opportunity to safely exercise their voting rights."

Read More

Crowd waving flags
Crowd waving flags
(Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

For the People, By the People

Democracy was once America’s proudest legacy — the last best hope on earth, a torch that lit the path for nations worldwide. Today, dysfunction grips all three branches of government: Congress abandons its duty to the people, the President exploits power for retribution, and the Supreme Court fails to enforce accountability. This betrayal of trust places our republic at risk. Americans must reclaim democracy from dysfunction and abuse of power.

The United States is both a participatory democracy — by the people, for the people — and a constitutional republic. Power lies with the people, and elected officials are entrusted to serve them. The President enforces the laws, Congress checks executive power, and the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. These checks and balances are designed to prevent abuse of power, yet Congress and the Court have abandoned their duty (U.S. Constitution).

Keep Reading Show less
The Health Care Debate & Feldstein’s Fix
black and gray stethoscope

The Health Care Debate & Feldstein’s Fix

Serving in Congress during the implementation of President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, Republicans embraced the position of “repeal and replace.” Repeal the ACA, but replace it with what? The debate is front-and-center again, though the ground has shifted some. There is more support for the ACA. Even some Republicans are looking to temporarily extend COVID-era subsidies for ACA health plans. Other Republicans want Health Savings Accounts, so more money goes to individuals instead of insurance companies. Democratic leadership seeks an approach temporarily extending the expanded premium subsidies, during which the entire approach to health care can be rethought.

The late economist Martin Feldstein had the fix: Martin Feldstein proposed a voucher system in which everyone could purchase a health insurance plan covering health care expenses exceeding 15% of their income. This could be combined with HSAs if they prove popular with the public.

Keep Reading Show less
ENDING THE VICIOUS CYCLE OF NON-GOVERNING
people holding a signage during daytime
Photo by Liam Edwards on Unsplash

ENDING THE VICIOUS CYCLE OF NON-GOVERNING

“We the People” know our government is not working. For decades, Americans have said they want leaders who work together, confront problems honestly, and make decisions that push the country forward. Yet the officials we send to Washington keep repeating the same self-defeating patterns—polarization, gridlock, shutdowns, and an almost complete inability to address the nation’s biggest challenges.

The result is a governing culture that cannot resolve problems, allowing them instead to grow, intensify, and metastasize. Issues don’t disappear when ignored—they become harder, more expensive, and more politically explosive to solve.

Keep Reading Show less
When Medical Misinformation Costs Lives: Balancing Free Speech and Public Health
person wearing gold wedding band

When Medical Misinformation Costs Lives: Balancing Free Speech and Public Health

In my corner of the world, it feels like 2020 all over again, experiencing the push and pull between losing someone I love due to medical misinformation, all while holding respect for free speech.

The tension between combating medical misinformation and protecting free speech represents one of the most challenging dilemmas of our age. On one side lies the very real danger of false health claims that can literally cost lives. On the other side, there is a fundamental democratic principle that has historically protected unpopular truths from suppression.

Keep Reading Show less