[EL] Challenges to implementing "universal vote by mail" and limiting in person voting by November
Douglas Johnson
djohnson at ndcresearch.com
Wed Mar 18 10:13:31 PDT 2020
Some practical confirmation of Becker's reasons for allowing universal *request
*of mail ballots, rather than universal *distribution *of mail ballots. If
voters request a mail ballot, then they can be required to surrender that
ballot to vote in person (or, for the small numbers that result, forced to
vote absentee). And paper/printed-out voter rolls can be used at the
polling places, because election officials will know who requested a ballot
in advance and can demand that ballot.
As Becker correctly notes, universal provision of mail ballots requires
electronic voter rolls (people who never requested a mail ballot rarely
know to watch their mail for that mail ballot and then remember to bring it
in to surrender at the polling place). And, as Los Angeles County was the
latest to prove ten days ago, virtually every jurisdiction that has rolled
out electronic voter rolls at polling places has massively struggled with
it. Here is a handy 2016 article covering such struggles in North Carolina
and Colorado:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/11/08/voting-polls-election-day/93201770/
The other advantage of universal *request *over universal *distribution *is
collecting up-to-date signatures on the ballot requests. There has been
some attention, but not much, or mail ballot rejection rates from voter
signatures changing so much over time that they no longer match the
signatures on file with elections officials. Online mail ballot requests
would continue to have this problem, but at least those people requesting a
mail ballot by mail (or in person) would have submitted an up-to-date
signature, reducing the rate of ballots rejected for this reason.
Such scenarios could easily lead to half or more of ballots cast being cast
with provisional ballots (and increases in the number of mail ballots cast
but not counted), creating massive voter confusion and greatly increasing
the possibility that the result of the Presidential election would not be
known for weeks after election day.
- Doug
Douglas Johnson
Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna College
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 9:38 AM David Becker <dbecker at electioninnovation.org>
wrote:
> I think there are a lot of assumptions in this message that I’d like to
> clarify:
>
>
>
> 1. I’ve been on the phone with at least 8 states in the last 72 hours.
> Both parties. There are literally no states that I know of where turf
> issues are interfering with finding a solution. They are keenly aware of
> the problem and searching for solutions. It’s all hands on deck, and
> they’re ready to do whatever they need to.
> 2. It’s not easy at all to just transmit technology or expertise here.
> It took WA and OR decades to get where they are, and they also have their
> own elections to run. It took CO almost a decade to get to where they are.
> There are procedures and technology that need to be developed, and there’s
> not a one-size-fits-all solution for all the states. The idea of just
> taking what WA does and parachuting it into TX as a package is just not
> feasible.
> 3. And that’s not even the biggest wild card, which is the voters.
> There’s a reason that WA, OR, CO eased voters into an all-mail voting
> system. Because voters need education to make sure they realize what their
> choices are, and importantly, how to fill out and return a ballot
> themselves (without any in-person guidance) to ensure that the ballot isn’t
> rejected and every race they want to vote in is counted. This is
> particularly true in a presidential general election, where a very large
> percentage of people who vote are NOT regular voters and aren’t as “high
> information” as the voters who might vote in primaries and local elections.
> 4. Which brings me to my final point. There is a cost associated with
> change, and that price is expressed in voter confusion, frustration, and
> possibly disenfranchisement. The best reforms need time to be implemented
> well and for voters to be educated. There are plenty of example of great
> reforms that were implemented badly, and actually ended up hurting voters
> and elections. The costs associated with radical change in a very short
> period of time in an election with large numbers of lower-information
> voters could be particularly high.
>
>
>
> Again, I’m coming to this as an ADVOCATE for expanding mail voting options
> for November. But I’m not in favor of doing so if it means vastly reducing
> access to in-person voting options, in properly staffed and situated
> polling locations, for those voters that prefer to vote that way.
>
>
>
> David J. Becker | Executive Director and Founder
>
> Center for Election Innovation & Research
>
> 1120 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 1040, Washington, DC 20036
>
> (202) 550-3470 (mobile) | dbecker at electioninnovation.org
>
> www.electioninnovation.org | @beckerdavidj
>
>
>
> *From:* larrylevine at earthlink.net <larrylevine at earthlink.net>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 18, 2020 12:24 PM
> *To:* David Becker <dbecker at electioninnovation.org>; 'Marty Lederman' <
> Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu>; 'Rick Hasen' <rhasen at law.uci.edu>;
> 'Election Law Listserv' <law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject:* RE: [EL] Challenges to implementing "universal vote by mail"
> and limiting in person voting by November
>
>
>
> Yes, there are challenges to implementing all or greater mail-in balloting
> for the November election. But if state and local officials would put aside
> their rivalries and desire to protect their own turf, it can be done. There
> are states – Washington, Oregon, California – that have the technology and
> experience to do this. If other state and local election officials would be
> willing to adopt what already is available and in use, the challenge could
> be met. As for longer times to count and process ballots, that seems a
> small price to pay for conducting the election in a way that would protect
> the public. And, yes, there would be a need for large-scale public
> information programs to acquaint voters with the reasons for this change
> and how they can participate. We do it for the census. We probably could do
> it for an election.
>
> Larry Levine
>
>
>
> *From:* Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> *On
> Behalf Of *David Becker
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 18 March 2020 4:55 AM
> *To:* Marty Lederman <Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu>; Rick Hasen <
> rhasen at law.uci.edu>; Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Challenges to implementing "universal vote by mail"
> and limiting in person voting by November
>
>
>
> My op-ed in today’s Washington Post may answer some of Marty’s questions.
>
>
>
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/18/mail-in-ballots-avoid-coronavirus-yes-heres-how-minimize-chaos-unfairness/
>
>
>
> In short, we definitely need to expand the availability of vote by mail
> nationwide, eliminating restrictions where they exist (~14 states) and more
> widely encouraging and promoting vote by mail. But there are a lot of
> moving parts to moving to “only mail” elections, and states where it’s
> working have taken years/decades to get there. If we limit in-person voting
> options too aggressively, we could disenfranchise many (disproportionately
> affecting minority voters) and add unnecessarily to the chaos.
>
>
>
> David J. Becker | Executive Director and Founder
>
> Center for Election Innovation & Research
>
> 1120 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 1040, Washington, DC 20036
>
> (202) 550-3470 (mobile) | dbecker at electioninnovation.org
>
> www.electioninnovation.org | @beckerdavidj
>
>
>
> *From:* Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> *On
> Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 18, 2020 7:47 AM
> *To:* Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>; Election Law Listserv <
> law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject:* [EL] Anyone have a link to the Klobuchar/Wyden bill? [National
> Voting-by-Mail, etc.]
>
>
>
> They announced the Natural Disaster and Emergency Ballot Act last Friday
> <https://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/3/with-unprecedented-disruptions-expected-from-coronavirus-klobuchar-and-wyden-introduce-bill-to-ensure-americans-are-still-able-to-vote>,
> but I haven't been able to find any bill language anywhere, and
> Congress.com doesn't show it as having yet been introduced.
>
>
>
> Does the summary description sound promising? Sufficient?
>
>
>
> If anyone finds the language, please send along, thanks.
>
>
>
> FWIW, I'm inclined to think that Congress should simply require states to
> adopt the Oregon method before November, to wit:
>
>
>
> County clerks mail official ballots to all registered voters between Oct.
> 14-20. Voters can mail the ballots back or deposit them at a central
> location (a "polling" place) at any time between when they receive them and
> election day (but they must be *received *by election day). And if a
> ballot mailed to a voter is destroyed, spoiled, lost, or never received,
> the voter may request and easily obtain a replacement ballot.
>
>
>
> Several of you who support widespread VbM and who know much more about
> such things than I do have cautioned me offline that it'd be
> difficult/hazardous to impose such a requirement nationwide for this year's
> general election (even if it's an ideal solution for future elections). I
> remain puzzled about why all states couldn't implement it if they began
> doing so now--why it's not an easier lift than a bunch of other emergency
> initiatives that are occurring as we speak--but I'm duly chastened by the
> skepticism of those of you who are more in-the-know.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Marty Lederman
>
> Georgetown University Law Center
>
> 600 New Jersey Avenue, NW
>
> Washington, DC 20001
>
> 202-662-9937
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
--
- Doug
Douglas Johnson
National Demographics Corporation
djohnson at NDCresearch.com
phone 310-200-2058
fax 818-254-1221
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20200318/7029d972/attachment.html>
View list directory