Expanding the Mail-In Vote

During these unprecedented times, something on many people’s minds is how voting should work in the time of COVID-19. However, this is not a new question. In the past, there has been widespread disagreement about what voting in modern America should look like — should there be automatic voter registration, more vote-by-mail, stricter voter ID laws? Time and time again, the nation’s leaders have weighed efficiency and practicality in voting against the potential for fraud. However, the popular argument that mail-in ballots lead to greater fraud and endanger fair, legitimate elections lacks proof. If we are to protect Americans’ right to vote during these hard times — their right to have a say in who leads the country as we emerge from this crisis — we must expand vote-by-mail.

Studies consistently show that voter fraud is extremely rare, so when it does occur, it is not really impactful. A study conducted on federal elections from 2000 to 2014 found that only about one in 30 million votes cast within that time frame were fraudulent. To put this into perspective, this means that in 2016, we would expect only five out of the 139 million total votes cast to be cases of voter fraud. Since 2000, there have only been 31 credible allegations of voter impersonation. In addition to this, when identified, most instances of fraud are actually honest mistakes by both voters and election officials, without any malicious intent. It is impossible to know for sure the exact number of fraudulent votes cast in any election, but abundant evidence shows that fears of voter fraud are blown out of proportion.

Further, there is no evidence that voting by mail leads to significant amounts of fraud — instead, it is an extremely small threat. Many college students already vote by mail, just like Americans who are disabled, people who work abroad, and those deployed for military service. These ballots work, require little hassle, and their legitimacy is usually not questioned. So why do we think that nearly universal voting by mail would be a threat to elections? In 2018, 26% of all ballots were cast by mail. This means one in every four voters already chose to opt out of casting physical ballots. Mail-in ballots have been the primary method of voting in five states, and are extremely accessible in 28 other states that allow their citizens to vote by that method without requiring any specific reason to do so. Colorado, which has employed vote-by-mail for years, reports no significant fraud despite having the second-highest election turnout rate in the country. 

Despite being one of its firmest opponents, even President Trump voted by mail this year amidst the outbreak of the pandemic. The Republican party he represents has generally opposed voting by mail, admitting in one breath that it will increase turnout while in the next claiming this will give Democrats an advantage. This issue is clearly a partisan one, not one concerned with the legitimacy of elections, but with controlling who gets to vote. President Trump, who has opposed vote-by-mail for similar reasons, has claimed that voting during a pandemic is not dangerous, brazenly declaring, “if you vote, you should go.” Yet, if he truly believed in this, then he, Vice President Pence, and several members of the president’s cabinet would not have voted by mail while telling the American public to risk contagion as a show of patriotism. 

If this nation were to eschew a model similar to the current vote-by-mail system in favor of increased anti-fraud measures, it would be detrimental to the fairness of elections, as voter identification laws already disproportionately disenfranchise low-income people and people of color. One of the leading arguments in favor of voter ID laws is that they are necessary to prevent fraud, which clearly is not a major concern to begin with. Instead, when enforced, these laws decrease voter turnout by 2.3%, as they prevent millions of otherwise eligible Americans from voting. This is because 11% of US citizens do not have a government-issued photo ID that would meet these laws’ standards. These laws also disproportionately disenfranchise low-income people and people of color, which is extremely problematic when considering the impact that their votes could have. Tightening already harmful and unnecessary restrictions on voting would be dangerous for the integrity of our democracy. 

If other forms of election security are still a concern, simple but effective measures can be put in place to protect the right to vote while ensuring this security. The Brennan Center for Justice has put forth a set of recommendations for this, including a requirement to confirm basic identifying information like a birthday or the last four digits of a social security number; a ballot tracking system similar to regular shipping labels so that all parties involved may follow the ballot’s progress; and post-election audits. Many states with mail-in ballots already conduct post-election audits, which review a sample of ballots for accurate tabulation and have been deemed the “best security practice” for ensuring election validity. Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has also published some recommendations to ensure accessible but safe elections. These include extending the voting period, promoting online and by-mail registration, sending ballots to registered voters, and still maintaining some physical polling places with adequate safety precautions to ensure that people who need to — like those who are disabled or lack permanent addresses — can still cast their ballots. These are all reasonable, feasible, and strong ways that we can adapt to the new circumstances without compromising election security.

In the large scheme of things, denying any number of eligible Americans their right to vote out of exaggerated precaution is a violation of the natural right to have a fair say in how one is governed, an offense incomparable to the minuscule percentage of fraudulent votes that may be cast. Since we cannot make a perfect election system, we have to choose what is more important to us: risking fraud, or creating obstacles that prevent eligible voters from casting their ballots. In his book Legitimacy: The Right to Rule in a Wanton World, Arthur Applbaum, a Harvard professor and director of the Edmond J. Safra Undergraduate Fellowship Program for ethics, claims that denying one rightful vote is a greater transgression than allowing one fraudulent vote because it involves an intentional denial of a fundamental right. This argument is even stronger given that we know that fraud rarely occurs, while millions of Americans are disenfranchised by voter ID laws, and the current health crisis means many more would understandably opt to protect their health instead of risking it by voting in person. From this perspective, the costs of not implementing accessible voting by mail simply outweigh the risks.

We cannot let a pandemic be used as an excuse to infringe on the right to vote. People cannot be forced to put the health of themselves and their loved ones at risk to exercise this right. Without widespread mail-in voting, many Americans might either opt out of voting to avoid contagion, or they would have to stand in socially-distant lines for hours, an option that is inaccessible to disabled Americans, parents, and essential workers. We know that life will not simply return to normal once we have control over the virus. If we are to take any lessons from what we have learned during these hard times for when we reach that point, the importance of accessible and nondiscriminatory voting must be one of them. If we allow a violation of the right to vote, we are putting our democracy at risk, essentially setting the precedent that the government can choose when it is convenient to enforce this right. Even if we do not implement voting by mail due to a lack of time or widespread concern about fraud, we cannot carry on with 2020 as if it were a typical election cycle. If we can move the census and taxes online — both of which are important, complex, and fraud-prone processes — we can surely apply the same framework to voting and ensure that people never have to choose between their health and participating in their democracy. 

Image by Jennifer Griffin is licensed under the Unsplash License.

Leave a Comment

Solve : *
5 + 23 =