Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Improving voter engagement for all Americans

Improving voter engagement for all Americans
Getty Images

Barbara Smith Warner serves as Executive Director of the National Vote at Home Institute (NVAHI).

Most discussions of voting tend to think of the US as a monolith, when in fact every state (and territory) runs its own election system. At the National Vote at Home Institute (NVAHI), we believe that robust mailed-out ballot systems are the key to voting that is fair and equitable for every American. They increase turnout across demographics, regardless of party affiliation, while maintaining security and instilling confidence in the results.


While only eight states and the District of Columbia mail a ballot to every eligible voter for every state and federal election, the rest reflect a variety of policies that make it easier or more difficult to vote at home. NVAHI recently released the first-ever scorecard to assess how “vote at home friendly” all 50 states and the District of Columbia are. Based on 15 criteria and informed by state policies and practices as of March 15, 2023, the scorecard provides a roadmap for state legislators, election officials, and citizens interested in moving their states closer to embracing full vote at home election systems.

In 2018, when NVAHI was founded, only four states exercised full vote at home election systems; just five years later, there are now eight states (California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Washington) and Washington, D.C., covering almost 20% of U.S. voters.

What makes other states more vote at home friendly? A variety of inclusive policies that make mailed-out ballots more accessible and trustworthy to voters. From allowing “permanent absentee” (or single sign-up) that allow voters to automatically receive their mailed-out ballot for at least four years of future elections, and local option laws that allow the vote at home model in specific circumstances; to ballot tracking technology where voters can follow their ballots and “notify and cure” policies that allow voters to correct mistakes or update their signatures, there’s many ways to score.

Oregon, the first state to convert to a full vote at home model and the nation’s top performer for voter turnout in the 2022 midterm election, sits in the top 10 alongside California, Washington, Nevada, Colorado, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Utah, Vermont, and Arizona—all of whom exercise the full vote at home or no-excuse election landscape. In contrast, the ten lowest-scoring states have “excuse required” laws that mandate voters to provide a narrowly defined specific reason to vote by mail, ultimately hindering voter participation.

After the 2022 midterm elections, we saw a shift in the perception of this increasingly popular voting method that has been used without criticism for centuries. We listened as influential political voices — who once associated mail voting with fraud — began to promote mailed-out ballots as a feasible alternative to in-person voting. Those whose years-long crusade to discourage the use of mailed-out ballots resulted in decreased voter participation are choosing to seize the opportunities made possible by expanding access to the ballot box. What is definitive is that while voter turnout has boosted in the vote at home states, incidences of consequential fraud are notably absent.

When tracking the primary turnout in 2022, NVAHI found that states who sent ballots to all registered voters, or those where more than 75% received mailed-out ballots as “permanent absentees,” had an average turnout rate of 35%, compared to 26% for no-excuse required for mailed-out ballots states, and just 19% for states that are excuse required.

Over the last 20 years, we estimate over 1 billion ballots have been mailed out nationwide for presidential and midterm elections, party primary races, special vacancies, and local elections. This act of automatically receiving your ballot a few weeks before the election, and voting from the comfort of the space of your choosing, has significant turnout impact but no significant partisan impact. It’s good for participation, and that’s good for democracy. We hope that the scorecard will provide both the motivation and the roadmap for every state to move toward adoption of full vote at home models, while utilizing the best practices of these systems as they go.

Read More

Why Doing Immigration the “White Way” Is Wrong

A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

Why Doing Immigration the “White Way” Is Wrong

The president is granting refugee status to white South Africans. Meanwhile, he is issuing travel bans, unsure about his duty to uphold due process, fighting birthright citizenship, and backing massive human rights breaches against people of color, including deporting citizens and people authorized to be here.

The administration’s escalating immigration enforcement—marked by “fast-track” deportations or disappearances without due process—signal a dangerous leveling-up of aggressive anti-immigration policies and authoritarian tactics. In the face of the immigration chaos that we are now in, we could—and should—turn our efforts toward making immigration policies less racist, more efficient, and more humane because America’s promise is built on freedom and democracy, not terror. As social scientists, we know that in America, thinking people can and should “just get documented” ignores the very real and large barriers embedded in our systems.

Keep ReadingShow less
Insider trading in Washington, DC

U.S. senators and representatives with access to non-public information are permitted to buy and sell individual stocks. It’s not just unethical; it sends the message that the game is rigged.

Getty Images, Greggory DiSalvo

Insider Trading: If CEOs Can’t Do It, Why Can Congress?

Ivan Boesky. Martha Stewart. Jeffrey Skilling.

Each became infamous for using privileged, non-public information to profit unfairly from the stock market. They were prosecuted. They served time. Because insider trading is a crime that threatens public trust and distorts free markets.

Keep ReadingShow less
Supreme Court Changes the Game on Federal Environmental Reviews

A pump jack seen in a southeast New Mexico oilfield.

Getty Images, Daniel A. Leifheit

Supreme Court Changes the Game on Federal Environmental Reviews

Getting federal approval for permits to build bridges, wind farms, highways and other major infrastructure projects has long been a complicated and time-consuming process. Despite growing calls from both parties for Congress and federal agencies to reform that process, there had been few significant revisions – until now.

In one fell swoop, the U.S. Supreme Court has changed a big part of the game.

Keep ReadingShow less