[EL] Voting by mail cannot ensure a secret ballot, which is the cornerstone of democracy (The Boston Globe)

Tue May 12 14:11:51 PDT 2020

Greg

Absolutely, and I saw those comments in the end of the paper. It is pretty clear there is widespread misperceptions about the secrecy of the ballot, something we’ve long noticed with respect to the frequency of voting fraud.

This MAY be related to vote by mail, or early in person, or voting machines, or it may not be. Your results don’t speak to that question—not a criticism, just an observation.

---
Paul Gronke
Professor, Reed College
Director, Early Voting Information Center
http://earlyvoting.net

General Inquiries: Laura Swann swannla at reed.edu

Media Inquiries: Kevin Myers myersk at reed.edu

> On May 12, 2020, at 1:12 PM, Gregory Huber <gregory.huber at yale.edu> wrote:
> 
> Just to build on the earlier post, we have also field experimental evidence that among registrants who have never voted, there are concerns about secrecy that can be addressed by official communication from government officials to increase turnout. This sort of communication may also be important for those who have concerns about the vote by mail process, including how anonymity is protected once a ballot is returned. -Greg
> 
> Gerber, Alan S., Gregory A. Huber, David Doherty, Conor M. Dowling, and Seth J. Hill. 2013. "Do Perceptions of Ballot Secrecy Influence Turnout? Results from a Field Experiment." American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 57 (3 July): 537-51.
> 
> Abstract: Although the secret ballot has been secured as a legal matter in the United States, formal secrecy protections are not equivalent to convincing citizens that they may vote privately and without fear of reprisal. We present survey evidence that those who have not previously voted are particularly likely to voice doubts about the secrecy of the voting process. We then report results from a field experiment where we mailed information about protections of ballot secrecy to registered voters prior to the 2010 general election. Consistent with our survey data, we find that these letters increased turnout for registered citizens without records of previous turnout, but they did not appear to influence the behavior of citizens who had previously voted. The increase in turnout of more than three percentage points (20%) for those without previous records of voting is notably larger than the effect of a standard get-out-the-vote mailing for this group. Overall, these results suggest that although the secret ballot is a long-standing institution in the United States, beliefs about this institution may not match the legal reality.
> 
> Yale University
> 
> Forst Family Professor of Political Science
> 
> Chair, Department of Political Science
> 
> Associate Director, Center for the Study of American Politics
> 
> Director, ISPS Behavioral Research Lab
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/12/2020 2:14 PM, Lonna Atkeson wrote:
>> This is a real issue.
>> 
>> I have watched a lot of voting and watched people get “assistance” in an election setting and it is not neutral.  There have been quite a number of times where I’ve been glad there's a secret ballot.
>> 
>> Gerber et al’s work shows that people who think their ballot isn’t private vote differently than similarly situated people who believe their ballot is private.  This is not a trivial issue to be rejected out of hand.
>> 
>> Here’s their abstract:
>> 
>> Do people believe the votes they cast are truly secret? Novel items added to a nationally representative survey show that 25 per cent of respondents report not believing their ballot choices are kept secret and over 70 per cent report sharing their vote choices with others. These findings suggest that standard models of candidate choice should account for the potential effects of doubts about ballot secrecy. Consistent with this view, regression analysis shows that social forces appear to have a greater effect on vote choices among people who doubt the formal secrecy of the ballot. This analysis supports the broader claim that the intended benefits of institutional rules may not be realized if people's perceptions of these rules differ from their formal characteristics.
>> 
>> Here’s information to their article:
>> 
>> https://doi.org/10.1017/S000712341200021X <https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1017%2FS000712341200021X&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.huber%40yale.edu%7Cceaffedf56484bd4f6d508d7f6a07eeb%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637249041523011122&sdata=LkSP0VJkewyAzvUti60C%2BbJXvbUhLhGZjOTL9oNjQwE%3D&reserved=0>
>> 
>> Lonna
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On May 12, 2020, at 11:54 AM, larrylevine at earthlink.net <mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>   [EXTERNAL]
>>> Whether voting by mail or marking a sample ballot to take to the polls, people have gathered around the table to discuss the candidates and issues for generations. Many of us have involved our kids in the discussion. Some have taken the kids to the polling place to watch them mark the actual ballot. This is a non-issue.
>>> Larry
>>> 
>>> From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>> On Behalf Of Michael McDonald
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 12 May 2020 10:32 AM
>>> To: Jurij Toplak <jurij.toplak at um.si <mailto:jurij.toplak at um.si>>
>>> Cc: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>>> Subject: Re: [EL] Voting by mail cannot ensure a secret ballot, which is the cornerstone of democracy (The Boston Globe)
>>> 
>>> FWIW, the California Supreme Court rejected a claim mail balloting should be deemed unconstitutional due to the loss of a secret ballot in Peterson v. City of San Diego (1983), finding a balance weighing in favor of increased access to lowered election administration costs.
>>> 
>>> https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/34/225.html <https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flaw.justia.com%2Fcases%2Fcalifornia%2Fsupreme-court%2F3d%2F34%2F225.html&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.huber%40yale.edu%7Cceaffedf56484bd4f6d508d7f6a07eeb%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637249041523021117&sdata=5D6aTYm6xViyQc9JWeA3p7y%2F4nXvpaVln9GH%2BJlBYqg%3D&reserved=0>
>>> 
>>> ============
>>> Dr. Michael P. McDonald
>>> Associate Professor, University of Florida
>>> 703-772-1440 (c)
>>> 352-273-2371 (w)
>>> www.electproject.org <https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.electproject.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.huber%40yale.edu%7Cceaffedf56484bd4f6d508d7f6a07eeb%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637249041523021117&sdata=f4%2BxZ0gtkvUKdDDJhrA1cePq1ZjxTAE6AuX51r0RhmA%3D&reserved=0>
>>> @ElectProject
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 7:40 AM Jurij Toplak <jurij.toplak at um.si <mailto:jurij.toplak at um.si>> wrote:
>>>> The Boston Globe published my view of voting by mail. A problem of families or employees voting together has been debated in the rest of the world for a century. In Austria-Hungary, in the early 20th century, voting in groups was a known problem.
>>>> 
>>>> Much mail voting takes place at the kitchen table, with family members filling out their ballots together. The elderly and disabled cast their votes alongside their caretakers. The more timid or needy or financially dependent family members, and those in nursing homes, will often follow the advice or expectations of those on whom they depend in order to gain sympathy or favor or to avoid conflict, intimidation, ridicule, or dislike. The US has fought for decades around the world to make sure that women, youth, elderly, and the disabled may all vote in privacy, without a husband or family head looking over their shoulder, because such a circumstance cancels the free and honest expression of a voter’s convictions.
>>>> 
>>>> https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/05/12/opinion/push-mail-in-vote-gaining-steam-scrutiny/ <https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bostonglobe.com%2F2020%2F05%2F12%2Fopinion%2Fpush-mail-in-vote-gaining-steam-scrutiny%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.huber%40yale.edu%7Cceaffedf56484bd4f6d508d7f6a07eeb%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637249041523031116&sdata=lEy57m0sXM3Ot2K0HrwjcLTPRsvoxvDI%2BrDCTJH6U1U%3D&reserved=0>
>>>> 
>>>> Jurij
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Law-election mailing list
>>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>>>> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election <https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flaw-election&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.huber%40yale.edu%7Cceaffedf56484bd4f6d508d7f6a07eeb%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637249041523031116&sdata=Mw7YAcoWQE1lcSq8ouSp15SrGSwTERAklkH%2BJvtlYYo%3D&reserved=0>_______________________________________________
>>> Law-election mailing list
>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>>> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election <https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flaw-election&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.huber%40yale.edu%7Cceaffedf56484bd4f6d508d7f6a07eeb%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637249041523031116&sdata=Mw7YAcoWQE1lcSq8ouSp15SrGSwTERAklkH%2BJvtlYYo%3D&reserved=0>
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>> https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flaw-election&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.huber%40yale.edu%7Cceaffedf56484bd4f6d508d7f6a07eeb%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637249041523061096&sdata=wX0fQ%2F0r0HZtgEUX0XwfuYGkzBelYLk9eaNdHxihznk%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flaw-election&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.huber%40yale.edu%7Cceaffedf56484bd4f6d508d7f6a07eeb%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637249041523061096&sdata=wX0fQ%2F0r0HZtgEUX0XwfuYGkzBelYLk9eaNdHxihznk%3D&reserved=0>_______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20200512/1734cf84/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20200512/1734cf84/attachment.sig>