Commentary: Voting By Mail Needs to Be More Secure (April, 2020)

by Rob Roper

Rob Roper

Given the potential COVID-19 health risks associated with standing in line at polling places there are understandably more calls for a move to voting by mail. This may turn out to be necessary, but, if we are going to change the way we vote, we also have to ensure that the new ways are just as secure as the old. Otherwise citizens cannot have faith that that the outcomes of elections are fair, accurate, and therefore, valid.

The bedrock principle that ensures public confidence in the outcomes of elections is “one person, one vote.” In a polling place, the secret ballot ensures that Warren Buffet’s vote carries exactly the same weight as his secretary’s. But, voting by mail as presently practiced cannot guarantee that the secret ballot and one person/one vote is actually taking place.

When citizens go to the polls to cast their ballots, each vote is cast under the supervision of election officials. Each voter presents his or herself and is checked off to ensure they only vote once. Not only is each voter ensured privacy for filling out his or her ballot, away from any influence or witness as to how he or she votes, but the community at large is ensured that the votes cast were made without the undue influence of other parties. This is every bit as important.

At a polling place, if election officials check off 500 voters as they pass through but find 600 ballots in the box, a red flag goes up that something is fishy. But, if those same election officials receive 600 absentee ballots in the mail, one hundred of which were fraudulently “stuffed,” the likelihood of that red flag going up is minimal. (In fact, you’d probably get a self-congratulatory press release praising the “fact” that voter participation was up twenty percent over the last cycle.)

Secrecy and singularity cannot be guaranteed with votes done through the mail. Election officials have too few and too weak tools for ensuring that the voter to whom “one vote” is being attributed is actually the “one person” who filled out the ballot. Or, if it is the correct voter, neither election officials nor the community at large has any idea whether or not inappropriate pressure was being applied by a spouse, caregiver, boss, landlord or campaign operative looking over the shoulder of the voter as he or she filled out the ballot.

We can’t know in this case, for example, that Buffet didn’t use his power and wealth to bribe his secretary to vote a certain way or threaten to fire her if she didn’t. The more we rely on absentee ballots, the more inequity we build into the system as it allows for the rich and powerful, either individuals or organizations, avenues and opportunities to buy or bully votes. The poor and elderly are the most likely to be victimized under such a system.

This is what happened in the North Carolina 9th, a U.S. congressional district with a bigger population than the entire state of Vermont, when the 2018 results were nullified by a court due to the decisive level of “vote harvesting” of absentee ballots. Vote harvesting is when campaign operatives show up on someone’s doorstep who has just received an absentee ballot (sometimes requested by that same campaign operative without the knowledge of the voter) and offers to “help”, threaten or bribe the voter fill out the form in a pre-determined way. In some cases the operative would just steal the ballot right out of the mailbox. In the NC-9 race, not only were fraudulent absentee votes for the cheating candidate turned in, legitimate votes for his opponent were collected destroyed before they every got into the hands of election officials.

If Vermont is going to rely increasingly on absentee ballots in elections, Secretary of State Jim Condos and members of the legislative Government Operations Committees need to be able to demonstrate that the kind of vote harvesting schemes that took place in North Carolina, and other districts to less dramatic effect, cannot happen here. And they need to show in detail exactly how the safeguards work in practice to ensure that they don’t. If reliable safeguards are not in place now, they need to be by the August primary and November general elections.

It’s not enough to scoff and say it’s not an issue and “our elections will be safe and secure.” It is an issue. We’ve seen it happen. The reason so few people are prosecuted for vote fraud isn’t because elections are secure, it is because the rules have been loosened to the point where it is practically impossible to detect, and, if detected, to catch and prosecute offenders. Just look at how many tax/identity fraud schemes pop up targeting senior citizens every year. Do you really think people who would steal an old lady’s social security check would draw an ethical line at stealing her vote when control over millions, billions and trillions of tax dollars are at stake?

Yes, we want everybody to be able to vote and to do so as safely and conveniently as possible. But these goals must be met in concert with maintaining the security of and confidence in the one person/one vote standard. Otherwise, we have lost, or rather throw away, the democratic bedrock of our republic.

– Rob Roper is president of the Ethan Allen Institute.

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

Dr. A. Cannara May 28, 2020 at 1:33 am

Lots of words that simply show how secure vote by mail is, as long as we stop subjugating the Constitution’s postal Service to childish political pressures, and we continue the normal oversight that caught the absurd machinations in N. Carolina.

Reply

Rob May 28, 2020 at 1:43 am

The way they caught the criminals in NC was because they have voter registration by party in that state. The number of “votes” for the Republican in certain precincts (R’s were the fraudsters) far exceeded the number of registered Republicans in the precinct. That’s what raised the red flag. Of course, we don’t have registration by party in Vermont, where pretty much all safeguards for vote fraud have been removed. In fact, the illegal actions in NC, are likely legal in Vermont. The language is, according to the deputy secretary of state, “unclear.”

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post:

About Us

The Ethan Allen Institute is Vermont’s free-market public policy research and education organization. Founded in 1993, we are one of fifty-plus similar but independent state-level, public policy organizations around the country which exchange ideas and information through the State Policy Network.
Read more...

Latest News

VT Left Wing Media Bias Unmasks Itself

July 24, 2020 By Rob Roper Dave Gram was a long time reporter for the Associated Press, is currently the host of what’s billed on WDEV as a...

Using Guns for Self Defense – 3 Recent Examples

July 24, 2020 By John McClaughry  The Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal last week published eleven news stories about citizens using a firearm to stop a crime. Here are...

FERC ruling on solar subsidies could help Vermont ratepayers

July 21, 2020 By John McClaughry Last Thursday, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission finalized its updates to the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), in what the majority...

The Moderate Left’s Stand for Free Speech

July 17, 2020 By David Flemming Harper’s Magazine, a long-running monthly magazine of literature, politics, culture, finance, and the arts, is hardly what you would call a ‘politically...

Trump’s Regulatory Bill of Rights

July 16, 2020 by John McClaughry “President Trump [last May] issued an executive order entitled  ‘Regulatory Relief to Support Economic Recovery.’ The executive order includes a regulatory bill...

Video