Shift from Polls to Mail Changes the Way Americans Vote
More Americans than ever are expected to vote by mail
rather than go to polling places in November.
A gradual loosening of absentee voting laws in many
states, especially in the West, and universal mail
voting in Oregon and Washington have contributed to a
significant shift in how Americans vote.
Almost 16 percent of votes cast in the 2010 general
election were absentee ballots and nearly 5 percent
more were mail ballots, according to the U.S. Election
Assistance Commission’s Election Administration and
Voting Survey. In 1972, less than 5 percent of American
voters used absentee ballots, according to census data.
When mail or absentee voters were combined with
in-person early voters, nearly 30 percent of the
Americans who voted in the 2010 general election did
not go to the polls on Election Day, according to the
federal election survey.
“By 2016, casting a ballot in a traditional polling
place will be a choice rather than a requirement,” said
Doug Chapin, a University of Minnesota researcher and
director of the Program for Excellence in Election
Administration.
“There will still be people who go to the polling place
because it’s familiar, it’s convenient, it’s
traditional. I think there will be fewer of those
places. More and more people don’t vote on Election
Day,” Chapin added.
In the partisan controversies in 37 states over recent
changes in voter eligibility, the number and location
of polling places, how elections are monitored and the
hours that polls are open, the growth of no-excuse,
absentee voting and mail voting has received little
attention.
Western states tend to have the highest levels of
absentee voting, according to the Election
Administration and Voting Survey. Those levels reached
almost 70 percent in Colorado and 60.8 percent in
Arizona, according to the survey. More than 20 percent
of people used absentee ballots in 13 states, according
to the survey.
East of the Mississippi, the mail is more likely to be
a back-up option for those who can’t get to the polls
on Election Day. That’s the case in 15 states,
including New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia,
according to the National Conference of State
Legislatures.
John Fortier, a political scientist of the Washington,
D.C.-based Bipartisan Policy Center, has called the
shift away from the polls a voting revolution that is
fundamentally transforming elections.
“It’s not something we’ve fully thought out all the
consequences of, and we certainly haven’t had one big
national debate over it,” said Fortier, author of
Absentee and Early Voting: Trends, Promises and Perils.
“Even some state debates were not as robust as they
might have been.”
Proponents say the mail offers voters time to weigh
choices and flexibility for their busy schedules, even
more so than early in-person voting. It reverses how
elections work, said Phil Keisling, former Oregon
secretary of state and director of the Center for
Public Service at Portland State University.
“The default is bringing the ballot to the voter, not
forcing the voter to go to the ballot,” Keisling said.
Putting a ballot inside an envelope and sealing it
inside another envelope for mailing still stirs
skepticism, though. Election officials, political
scientists and voters have concerns. They doubt that
mailed ballots can be secure. They question whether
forces beyond voters’ control — smudges that disqualify
ballots and breakdowns in keeping track of ballots, for
example — will disallow votes. And some want to
preserve Election Day traditions.
Changes have occurred gradually to absentee voting,
which began as a service to Union and Confederate
soldiers during the Civil War and spread to civilians
state by state.
Few paid attention when California extended absentee
voting to anyone on request in 1978. The Los Angeles
Times referred to a “little-noticed law” that
eliminated the need to list a reason to get an absentee
ballot. In the 2010 election, 40.3 percent of
Californians voted absentee, according to Election
Assistance Commission data.
Now, 27 states and Washington, D.C., offer no-excuse
absentee voting, according to the National Conference
of State Legislatures. Many states have dropped notary
and witness requirements for all absentee voters. Plus,
some have permanent absentee lists to automatically
send ballots to voters in every election, a de facto
vote-by-mail system.
Most states have opted for a mixture, offering some
combination of no-excuse absentee voting, early voting,
mail voting and Election Day voting. These categories
often blur and overlap. A voter might drop off a ballot
in person instead of mailing it, for example.
“It has to do almost entirely with voter convenience,”
said Jennifer Drage Bowser, a senior fellow at the
National Conference of State Legislatures. “The more
options there are outside the traditional polling
place, the more voters like it.”
Those options vary by region.
All Washington and Oregon elections are conducted
statewide by mail. In Washington, each county still
maintains at least one voting center. In Oregon, each
County Elections Office provides privacy booths for
those who want to vote in person or need assistance.
Oregon approved a test of vote-by-mail in 1981, and
about 40 percent of Oregon voters used absentee ballots
in the 1994 federal election. By the next year Oregon
statewide elections with candidates were by mail, and
in 1998 the state voted for all elections to be by
mail. Washington, where absentee voting was similarly
popular, tested voting by mail and used it in all but
one county until the state adopted all-mail ballots in
2011.
There’s a generation of voters who never have set foot
inside an Oregon voting booth.
Jessica Hall, 32, has 2-year-old twins and runs a home
business. She always has voted by mail; Oregon switched
shortly before her 18th birthday. She makes better
decisions, Hall said, than if she had to stand in a
long line outside a polling place. In the evening, when
her children are asleep, Hall sits quietly and reads
her ballot, then votes.
“Without vote-by-mail, I would be less likely to vote.
I don’t have time,” Hall said. “There’s no way my kids
would allow me to stand in line and do that.”
North Dakota counties can decide whether any of their
elections should be conducted by mail. Eighteen other
states allow vote-by-mail in some cases — uncontested
Arkansas primaries with no other ballot measures, for
example.
Jan Leighley, a political scientist at American
University, offered culture and population density as
possible explanations for the low popularity of
absentee/mail voting in the East. Eastern and
Midwestern states tend to have more established, formal
political parties — a culture resistant to changing
voting modes, Leighley said.
In widely dispersed populations in Western states,
voters and election officials have more to gain by
using mail, Leighley said. They wouldn’t have to pay to
operate scarcely used polling places, and voters
wouldn’t have to travel as far to cast a ballot.
New Jersey has allowed mail ballots on request since
2005, but fewer people are using them than expected,
said Robert Giles, director of the New Jersey Division
of Elections.
About 5 percent of New Jersey votes were by mail in
2010, compared with about 4 percent in 2005, according
to a report from the elections division.
“Going to the polls, I think it’s ingrained in our
society,” Giles said about the slow growth of mail
voting in his state. “For some people, there’s a social
aspect. They see the same election board workers every
time they vote, and it offers a sense of community.”
Concerns about ballot security have stopped other
states from adopting more mail voting. Both sides in
the voter fraud debate acknowledge that absentee
ballots are susceptible to fraud.
Election fraud is rare, but it usually involves
absentee or mail ballots, said Paul Gronke, a Reed
College political scientist, who directs the Early
Voting Information Center in Oregon. He cites what he
calls a classic example of election fraud, a local
official stealing votes by filling out absentee
ballots. That was the case in Lincoln County, W.Va.,
where the sheriff and clerk pleaded guilty to
distributing absentee ballots to unqualified voters and
helping mark them during a 2010 Democratic primary.
Curtis Gans, director of the Center for the Study of
the American Electorate, said vote-buying and bribery
could occur more easily with mail voting and absentee
voting. At a polling place, someone who bribed voters
would have no way to verify that the bribe worked. A
person who bribes mail voters could watch as they mark
ballots or even mark ballots for them.
Gans also points to the potential to influence voters
in gatherings that some call ballot-signing parties. A
caregiver could mark a dependent’s ballot.
“All the other types of fraud are essentially hard to
do and easy to defend against,” Gans said. “This
isn’t.”
Gronke said that he hasn’t seen evidence that bribes
and coercion increase when voters use the mail. And
ballot parties can allow people to discuss and make
informed choices, he said, without pressuring their
vote.
Those who have argued for stronger election security
also say the mail could allow coercion by an abusive
spouse; Gronke said he sees little evidence of that.
Mail benefits outweigh potential fraud, supporters
said.
“If you try to literally kill everything in your body
that may kill you, you will definitely die,” Keisling
said. “If you try to wring every possibility of
mischief and fraud out of a voting system, you will
cramp it down so hard that very few people will end up
voting.”
Some see mail as a step backward from the Help America
Vote Act of 2002.
Charles Stewart, a political scientist at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the law
mandated improved voting equipment. That improved
technology made vote counts more accurate, he said,
leading to 1 million more votes being counted.
Mail ballot procedures have not been improved, Stewart
said, estimating that errors such as pencil smudges,
errant marks or breakdowns in keeping track of ballots
can mean up to 7.6 million mail votes could go
uncounted. Machines prevent voters from casting errant
ballots, he said.
“The two sides of that equation just don’t balance
out,” Stewart said. “Many more ballots are sent out
than come back.”
Mail voters could base their decisions on different
information than those who go to the polls, Gans said.
And voting before Election Day leaves open the prospect
for voters to turn in their ballots, then see a stock
market crash or terrorist attack and wish they could
change their votes, Gans said.
A longer window until voting time, however, means
people can vote more carefully and make better-informed
decisions, Keisling said.
Organizations such as Mi Familia Vota, a national
non-profit that advocates voting rights, encourages
Latinos to sign up for permanent absentee ballots so
they have more time to choose.
The mail also means campaigns can’t count on a final
push the week before an election to sway voters,
because many already will have cast ballots. Plus, the
mail makes election-night results less reliable, Chapin
said, because absentee ballots must be counted, and
there are enough of them to change the election
results.
Then there’s the question of whether the U.S. Postal
Service can handle the ballots. The Postal Service,
which is consolidating about half of its locations over
the next two years, welcomes mail voting and assures
security and timely delivery, spokesman Peter Hass
said.
It delivered 99.7 percent of mail within three days of
the service standard, according to the USPS. The
remaining mail might have been delivered late, but it
probably was not lost, Hass said, describing loss as
“minuscule.”
For an emerging generation of voters born into a
digital world, mail might seem antiquated. Paper mail
has an established presence in elections, and
electronic mail is gaining a foothold. Internet voting
might offer the ultimate in convenience, but it poses
security problems that won’t soon be resolved, computer
scientists said.
A handful of Internet pilot programs have been tried,
and 31 states let primarily those in the military and
overseas vote by fax, e-mail or an Internet portal,
according to Verified Voting, a non-profit organization
that lobbies for verifiable election systems.
The more immediate future of the mail and voting
depends largely on cost, Chapin said.
Many think it makes little sense to keep a lot of
polling places open on Election Day when more people
are voting by mail or early. States might move entirely
to the mail, as Oregon and Washington, or scale back
Election Day voting, Chapin said.
“Jurisdictions are going to balance the services they
provide to voters in the same way an investor balances
funds in a portfolio: ‘I’m willing to spend x dollars
to get y percent return,’” Chapin said. “If it costs me
a lot of money to get just a few voters in person, then
I’m going to reduce my investment there and spend money
elsewhere.”
For comments or feedback, email news@news21.com