Re: [EL] All-mail elections research & analysis?

I feel somewhat compelled to respond to some of the claims in Paul's recent remarks about Vote-by-mail.

It is simply a false statement that the Vote-by-Mail process here in Oregon was not subject to rigorous public debate about the ramifications of adopting the system.

The process of moving to Vote-by-mail in Oregon happened over a period of more than 20 years. The first legislation relating to vote-by-mail was passed in Oregon in 1981. From 1977 through 1997, the matter was debated in virtually every legislative session as the system was rolled out first on an optional basis by county, and gradually to all counties and all races before finally being passed overwhelmingly (70-30) via public initiative in 1998.

I would hazard a guess that we have not seen many policy decisions that were more rigorously or publicly debated in the last few decades than Oregon's vote-by-mail system.

The claim that the "casting and counting" of ballots is impossible to monitor under vote-by-mail systems strikes me as overblown. Vote-by-mail increases the opportunities for policing of the status of one's ballot in ways that may be unfamiliar to people living in traditional voting states.

For example, political parties and other entities in Oregon pay for "matchbacks" of votes cast and get daily reports of who has cast votes throughout the two week voting period. In 2010, the Oregon Secretary of State created an web-based interface to allow citizens to check the status of their ballot. If, for example, someone has concerns that a postal worker or their spouse or a trusted friend did not deliver their ballot, one can simply check the status of ones' ballot using the online interface provided by the Secretary of State.

Also, I am not sure what the source is of Paul's claim that 1.5% of voters said they were pressured to change their vote. The League of Women Voters cites a 1996 study in Oregon that showed that fewer than 1/10th of 1 percent of respondents "felt pressure to change their vote by anyone in their presence while filling in their ballot". http://www.lwvtexas.org/VotingProcedures/Voting%20Proc.%20F&I-%20VoteByMail%20final.pdf

Although it may be true that some local jurisdictions that have already made a significant capital investment in traditional voting systems may not realize a near-term cost savings, the state of Oregon estimates that it saves between $3 and $4 million per annum using the vote by mail system when compared to the traditional polling model.

As a voter, I tend to believe (and polling in Oregon consistently supports this), that our vote-by-mail system invites greater contemplation about the various candidates and issues on the local ballot. I can, sitting at my computer with my ballot, review in much greater detail the qualifications of various candidates and the merits of various ballot measures than is possible in traditional polling places

The opportunities for the kinds of actual (rather than hypothetical) mischief that we have seen in polling place elections -- whether they involve en masse voter intimidation or the choking off of votes by limiting the number of voting stations in certain precincts, is just not possible in vote-by-mail elections.

Finally, regarding Jason's comment on the potential barrier to voting for handicapped or indigent populations or in areas with poor mail service... In Oregon, anyone may request a replacement ballot and cast a vote on that ballot starting on the day ballots have been delivered up until the day of the election. In effect, this gives a homeless person 14 days to vote, rather than just 1 day -- certainly a much lower barrier than the traditional polling model.

Having been a registered voter in both Colorado and Oregon, I can say unequivocally, that I do not miss standing in long lines on cold Colorado days in November -- occasionally braving treacherous driving conditions -- in order to wait on line to vote.

No one system is free from criticism, but on balance, I find myself among the 80% or more Oregonians who prefer vote-by-mail to the traditional polling method.

Best regards,

Sal Peralta

From: Paul Lehto <lehto.paul@gmail.com>
To: Jason C. Miller <jcmiller@gmail.com>
Cc: Election Law <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>
Sent: Tue, December 14, 2010 6:17:40 PM
Subject: Re: [EL] All-mail elections research & analysis?

There was a thread started March 10, 2009 by Rick Hasen (initially
about secret ballot elections in the context of labor unions and
entitled "EFCA") that lasted a remarkable five days and includes lots
of observations nevertheless relevant to all-mail elections.

The "transition" to all-mail balloting has happened in a handful of
states without a robust discussion of the direct implication that it
essentially eliminates the secret ballot for a very high percentage of
voters, and leads to demonstrable levels of changed votes. (See the
study reference, infra)

In addition, even though the Postal Service is technically "public",
for purposes of the transparency nearly everyone desires with
elections, switching to all-mail voting when the counting of the votes
has in recent years been made proprietary and secret constitutes the
completion of a process of total privatization of elections from a
transparency standpoint. (No one can monitor the innumerable
households where voting will actually occur, nor monitor the countless
mail streams that contain easy to recognize ballots, making both the
casting and the counting of ballots impossible to watchdog by citizens
or even political parties).

US Postal Inspector Tony Robinson says “never send money through the
mail.” Inspector Robinson cites one case where there was only a few
complaints compared to the hundreds of cards with cash actually stolen
by a postal
employee. See video near the bottom of this link:
http://www.snopes.com/legal/postal/sendcash.asp Assuming such thefts
were fully discovered in elections, the well-known difficulties of
election contest challenges makes success questionable at best

Because ballots are more precious than cash in a greeting card, in my
view mail-in voting should be restricted to a showing of need and a
voluntary assumption of the risks therein, rather than a forced
assumption of those risks by the voters.

In addition, the best evidence available suggests all-mail voting
results in a significant degree of voter intimidation combined with
substantial changes in voting patterns by actual voters. In a 2004
study in Oregon, fully 1.5% of Oregonians reported feeling actual
pressure to change their votes in their all-mail elections, and 0.5%
of Oregonians said they "would have voted differently" but for other
persons being around the household pressuring them when they voted.
This seems to me to be a clear statement of voter
intimidation/pressure as well as the best evidence of the same, absent
actual videotape of the same within the voting household.

In 2008, Oregon had 2,143,290+ registered voters. Assuming an
optimistic 80% voter turnout, that means that approximately 8,570
voters experienced switched votes in one or more races in Oregon on a
presidential election year ballot, if 2008 was similar to the data
produced for the 2004 study. Such intimidation is of course an
election crime, so who is prepared to say that 8,570 election crimes
in a presidential year in a state like Oregon is acceptable, and that
it is consistent with a fair election when votes are actually changing
as a result?

Pau Lehto, J.D.

On 12/14/10, Jason C. Miller <jcmiller@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Colorado legislature will consider switching to an all-mail general
> election in the upcoming legislature--70% of Colorodans vote by mail now.
> Some of the attorneys involved in voting rights issues here have expressed
> concerns about the impact of this on the indigant, handicapped, and
> homeless. Some of the Native American reservations in the state also
> apparently either do not have reliable, regular mail delivery. Has anyone
> seen any research or analysis on the impact of all-mail voting on these
> communities (either in Oregon or elsewhere)?
>
> Also, is anyone aware of any research or publications concerning additional
> ballot security concerns of going to an all-mail voting (as opposed to
> allowing voting by mail in general). And what about the equal protection
> issue if a handful of counties are exempted from the all-mail requirement?
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
> --
> Jason C. Miller
> Attorney & Counselor at Law
> (517) 204-3213
> (720) 258-6073
> jcmiller@gmail.com
>

--
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI 49849
lehto.paul@gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)

_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law