• Home
  • Opinion
  • Quizzes
  • Redistricting
  • Sections
  • About Us
  • Voting
  • Events
  • Civic Ed
  • Campaign Finance
  • Directory
  • Election Dissection
  • Fact Check
  • Glossary
  • Independent Voter News
  • News
  • Analysis
  • Subscriptions
  • Log in
Leveraging Our Differences
  • news & opinion
    • Big Picture
      • Civic Ed
      • Ethics
      • Leadership
      • Leveraging big ideas
      • Media
    • Business & Democracy
      • Corporate Responsibility
      • Impact Investment
      • Innovation & Incubation
      • Small Businesses
      • Stakeholder Capitalism
    • Elections
      • Campaign Finance
      • Independent Voter News
      • Redistricting
      • Voting
    • Government
      • Balance of Power
      • Budgeting
      • Congress
      • Judicial
      • Local
      • State
      • White House
    • Justice
      • Accountability
      • Anti-corruption
      • Budget equity
    • Columns
      • Beyond Right and Left
      • Civic Soul
      • Congress at a Crossroads
      • Cross-Partisan Visions
      • Democracy Pie
      • Our Freedom
  • Pop Culture
      • American Heroes
      • Ask Joe
      • Celebrity News
      • Comedy
      • Dance, Theatre & Film
      • Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging
      • Faithful & Mindful Living
      • Music, Poetry & Arts
      • Sports
      • Technology
      • Your Take
      • American Heroes
      • Ask Joe
      • Celebrity News
      • Comedy
      • Dance, Theatre & Film
      • Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging
      • Faithful & Mindful Living
      • Music, Poetry & Arts
      • Sports
      • Technology
      • Your Take
  • events
  • About
      • Mission
      • Advisory Board
      • Staff
      • Contact Us
Sign Up
  1. Home>
  2. Voting>
  3. vote by mail>

Vote-by-mail benefits neither party and is nearly fraud-free, new studies find

Our Staff
April 16, 2020
Vote by mail ballot
Bill Oxford/Getty Images

Voting by mail does not help Democrats more than Republicans and does not incubate fraud — but does generate a bit more turnout, a pair of academic studies out Thursday conclude.

The twin reports, one from Stanford and the other from the Union of Concerned Scientists, come as the debate about making elections more flexible in the face of the coronavirus has become increasingly partisan.


Although voting in person, the method used by three-quarters of Americans before this year, currently poses serious health risks to both voters and poll workers, President Trump is opposing efforts to broadly expand absentee balloting by November. He says the GOP will suffer and that a wave of widespread cheating will be the major reason.

There's no evidence of such partisan advantage in the detailed results from the past dozen elections in California, Utah and Washington. They were analyzed by the Democracy and Polarization Lab at Stanford, which chose the states because each steadily expanded voting by mail, county by county, in the last two decades so that it is now nearly universally used.

The data showed "a truly negligible effect" on partisan turnout rates when comparing the counties with and without the system, the researchers said. The effect on partisan vote share was similarly indistinguishable from zero. But the switch did boost turnout modestly across the board in each state, by 1.9 to 2.4 percentage points.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The data includes every election from 1996 to 2018, so the results could not be more current.

The effort to debunk the view that mail balloting fuels election fraud was conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists with researchers at UCLA and the University of New Mexico. "Voter fraud in U.S. elections continues to be extremely low, and people should not be forced to put their health at risk to exercise their right to vote," their report concluded.

The report was based on an exhaustive aggregation of government and nonprofit group studies about election crime going back four decades. It made extensive use of a database of cases between 1982 and this spring assembled by the Heritage Foundation, the premier conservative think tank. It has found just 207 fraudulent absentee ballot cases out of 1,277 instances of credible voter fraud — or 16 percent of the total.

The social scientists noted that in Oregon, the first of five states to institute a system where every voter is proactively sent a mail-in ballot for every primary and general election, more than 2 million votes were cast in the 2016 presidential election — and after investigating 56 cases of possible fraud, the state concluded just 10 ballots were cast in violation of state criminal law.

From Your Site Articles
  • Myth-busting the top 10 objections to 'vote at home' systems - The ... ›
  • Vote-by-mail group issues guidance for states - The Fulcrum ›
  • Conservative anti-Trumpers launch vote-by-mail ad campaign - The Fulcrum ›
  • Jimmy Carter, in reversal, embraces vote by mail - The Fulcrum ›
  • Eight myths that could destroy the election - The Fulcrum ›
  • GOP sues to stop Calif. from mailing ballots to all voters - The Fulcrum ›
  • VoteSafe launches to push multiple voting options - The Fulcrum ›
  • Bogus claims cloud real obstacles to expanded mail voting - The Fulcrum ›
  • How to get by mental hangups related to voting by mail - The Fulcrum ›
  • Trump’s latest baseless claim about mail voting sows doubts that could help him - The Fulcrum ›
  • GOP support for mail voting is growing, despite Trump - The Fulcrum ›
  • Republican Rep. Steve Watkins charged with election fraud - The Fulcrum ›
  • No extension for mail ballots in battleground Michigan - The Fulcrum ›
  • Fact checking Trump's vote-by mail claims - The Fulcrum ›
  • Fact checking claims that ballots can go to wrong address - The Fulcrum ›
  • Worker shortage has MD officials seeking to cut voting sites - The Fulcrum ›
  • N.J., Ky expand mail voting access, Ind. does not - The Fulcrum ›
  • USPS gets more blame than it deserves for ballot woes - The Fulcrum ›
  • Nebraska will send mail-in-vote applications to everyone - The Fulcrum ›
  • 16 states can get a head start on counting mailed-in ballots - The Fulcrum ›
  • Election experts press media for election night transparency - The Fulcrum ›
  • An all-by-mail election is unwise — and unnecessary - The Fulcrum ›
  • Jimmy Carter, in reversal, embraces vote by mail - The Fulcrum ›
  • Webinar rewind: How to make voting healthier and easier - The Fulcrum ›
  • Public solidly supports voting by mail in November - The Fulcrum ›
  • North Carolina, Arkansas, Georgia consider election changes - The Fulcrum ›
  • Trump's allies push small instances of suspected vote fraud - The Fulcrum ›
  • Fact-checking Trump's debate claims about voter fraud - The Fulcrum ›
  • Vote-by-mail deadlines to know - The Fulcrum ›
  • Justice Dept. investigations may disrupt election - The Fulcrum ›
  • Vote Smarter 2020: Difference in voting by mail and voting absentee - The Fulcrum ›
  • Report: Restricting vote by mail won't combat fraud - The Fulcrum ›
  • Vote at Home Institute sees state and federal opportunities - The Fulcrum ›
  • But who gets the harshest punishment for voter fraud? - The Fulcrum ›
  • What’s the deadline to vote by mail in your state? - The Fulcrum ›
Related Articles Around the Web
  • Why vote-by-mail may not save our elections from the virus' disruption ›
  • All-Mail Elections (aka Vote-By-Mail) ›
vote by mail

Want to write
for The Fulcrum?

If you have something to say about ways to protect or repair our American democracy, we want to hear from you.

Submit
Get some Leverage Sign up for The Fulcrum Newsletter
Follow
Contributors

Reform in 2023: Leadership worth celebrating

Layla Zaidane

Two technology balancing acts

Dave Anderson

Reform in 2023: It’s time for the civil rights community to embrace independent voters

Jeremy Gruber

Congress’ fix to presidential votes lights the way for broader election reform

Kevin Johnson

Democrats and Republicans want the status quo, but we need to move Forward

Christine Todd Whitman

Reform in 2023: Building a beacon of hope in Boston

Henry Santana
Jerren Chang
latest News

Your Take: Religious beliefs

Our Staff
03 February

Remembering the four chaplains eighty years later

Rabbi Charles Savenor
03 February

Podcast: Anti-racism: The pro-human approach

Our Staff
03 February

Ron DeSantis and the rise of political racism

Lawrence Goldstone
02 February

Curriculum regulations and book bans: Modern day anti-literacy laws?

Katherine Kapustka
02 February

Podcast: 2024 Senate: Democrats have a lot of defending to do

Our Staff
02 February
Videos

Video: The dignity index

Our Staff

Video: The Supreme Court and originalism

Our Staff

Video: How the baby boom changed American politics

Our Staff

Video: What the speakership election tells us about the 118th Congress webinar

Our Staff

Video: We need more bipartisan commitment to democracy: Pennsylvania governor

Our Staff

Video: Meet the citizen activists championing primary reform

Our Staff
Podcasts

Podcast: Anti-racism: The pro-human approach

Our Staff
03 February

Podcast: 2024 Senate: Democrats have a lot of defending to do

Our Staff
02 February

Podcast: Collage: The promise of Black History Month

Our Staff
01 February

Podcast: Separating news from noise

Our Staff
30 January
Recommended
Your Take: Religious beliefs

Your Take: Religious beliefs

Your Take
Remembering the four chaplains eighty years later

Remembering the four chaplains eighty years later

Civic Ed
Podcast: Anti-racism: The pro-human approach

Podcast: Anti-racism: The pro-human approach

Podcasts
Video: The dignity index

Video: The dignity index

Ron DeSantis and the rise of political racism

Ron DeSantis and the rise of political racism

Big Picture
Curriculum regulations and book bans: Modern day anti-literacy laws?

Curriculum regulations and book bans: Modern day anti-literacy laws?

Big Picture