Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

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