In the United States, ballot harvesting is a practice that has become increasingly controversial in recent years. Ballot harvesting refers to the collection and delivery of mail-in ballots by third-party individuals or groups on behalf of voters who are unable or unwilling to deliver their own ballots. While some see it as an essential tool for ensuring voter participation and increasing turnout, others view it as a form of election fraud.
The debate over ballot harvesting has intensified in the wake of the 2020 U.S. presidential election, with accusations from both sides about its role in voter suppression and vote rigging. In response, many states have introduced new regulations around ballot harvesting, seeking to address concerns about its impact on electoral integrity.
So what exactly are these regulations? And how do they differ from state to state?
In general, there are two main types of ballot harvesting regulations: those that prohibit or restrict the practice entirely, and those that allow it under certain conditions.
At present, ten states – Alabama, Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina,Texas,Utah,and West Virginia – have outright bans on ballot harvesting. These states argue that allowing third-party individuals or groups to collect ballots creates too great a risk for fraud or coercion.
Other states take a more nuanced approach. For example:
– California allows ballot collection by anyone except paid campaign workers or volunteers.
– Colorado permits designated “election judges” to collect ballots in certain circumstances.
– Florida requires voters’ signatures on any envelopes used for mail-in ballots collected by third parties.
– Georgia prohibits people who aren’t immediate family members from collecting more than two absentee ballots per election cycle.
– Hawaii limits collectors to no more than ten ballots per candidate per election district.
– Montana allows only family members and caregivers to collect absentee ballots.
– North Carolina permits anyone to return up to two other people’s absentee ballots if they fill out an authorization form provided by the county board of elections.
– Oregon, the first state to adopt widespread vote-by-mail in 2000, has allowed ballot harvesting since then. The practice is legal as long as there is no payment or coercion involved, and ballots must be returned within five days of being collected.
These are just a few examples of the varying regulations around ballot harvesting across the country. But what do experts have to say about the impact of these rules?
According to some analysts, outright bans on ballot harvesting may not be effective at preventing fraud or coercion – and may even have unintended consequences that make it harder for certain groups of people to participate in elections.
For instance, research suggests that restrictions on voting by mail disproportionately affect low-income and minority voters who may face barriers such as lack of transportation or childcare. By making it more difficult for third-party individuals or groups to collect ballots from these populations, some argue that bans on ballot harvesting could ultimately suppress voter turnout among already marginalized communities.
On the other hand, supporters of strict regulations argue that they are necessary for ensuring electoral integrity – particularly given recent concerns about foreign interference and domestic election fraud.
In particular, opponents cite cases where campaigns have paid canvassers or volunteers to collect ballots en masse – a practice known as “ballot trafficking”– which can lead to allegations of vote-buying or tampering with ballots. In Arizona’s 2018 congressional race between Martha McSally (R) and Kyrsten Sinema (D), for example, Republicans alleged that Democrats engaged in illegal ballot collection efforts; Democrats countered with claims that GOP operatives were throwing out Democratic ballots. The case was eventually settled without resolution due in part because it was unclear whether any laws had been broken.
Given this complex landscape, what should policymakers do? Some experts suggest a middle ground approach: allowing limited forms of ballot collection while implementing strong safeguards against fraud or abuse.
One potential solution is requiring those collecting absentee ballots to register with the state and undergo training on proper procedures for handling and submitting ballots. Other options include requiring collectors to sign affidavits attesting that they have not engaged in any illegal activity, or limiting the number of ballots a single individual can collect.
Ultimately, the debate over ballot harvesting regulations is likely to continue as more states adopt vote-by-mail policies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. While there may be no one-size-fits-all solution, policymakers should work towards finding ways to balance concerns about electoral integrity with efforts to increase voter participation and accessibility.
In conclusion, while ballot harvesting remains a controversial issue across the United States, it is clear that various regulations are being implemented by different states around this practice. It remains important for policymakers and election officials alike to find ways to balance concerns regarding electoral integrity with efforts aimed at increasing voter participation among populations who face barriers like lack of transportation or childcare. As more states move toward vote-by-mail policies due to the COVID-19 pandemic, finding an appropriate middle ground will become increasingly important in order ensure that every eligible voter has their voice heard on Election Day.