Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

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

Opinion

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.

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

Voters lining up to vote.

Voters line up at the Oak Lawn Branch Library voting center on Primary Election Day in Dallas on March 3, 2026. Republicans' decision to hold a split primary from the Democrats and to eliminate countywide voting forced Dallas County voters to cast ballots at assigned neighborhood precincts, leading to confusion. Republicans have now decided to use countywide polling locations for the May 26 runoff election.

Shelby Tauber for The Texas Tribune

Dallas County GOP Will Agree To Use Countywide Voting Sites for May 26 Runoff Election

Dallas County Republicans will agree to allow voters to cast ballots at countywide voting sites for the May 26 runoff election after a switch to precinct-based voting sites caused chaos, the county party chair said Tuesday.

Dallas County Republican Chairman Allen West supported the use of precinct-based sites earlier this month, but said using precincts again for the runoff would expose the county party to “increased risk and voter confusion” because the county is planning to use countywide sites for upcoming municipal elections and early voting.

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

An analysis of Trump’s SAVE Act strategy, the voter ID debate, and how Pew data is being misused—exploring election integrity, voter suppression, and the political fight shaping U.S. democracy.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Stop Fighting Voter ID. Start Defining It.

President Trump doesn't need the SAVE America Act to pass. He only needs the debate to continue. Every minute spent arguing about voter suppression repeats the underlying premise — that noncitizen voting is a real and widespread problem — until it feels like an established fact. The question is whether Democrats will contest Republicans’ definition before the frame hardens.

Trump's claim that 88% of Americans support the bill traces to a Pew Research Center survey — a survey that found 83% support a “government-issued photo ID to vote,” not extreme vetting for proof of citizenship. That support included 95% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats, indicating genuine, broad, bipartisan support for a basic civic principle. That's worth taking seriously.

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