Early Voting

Not so long ago, Americans assembled on one designated day — Election Day — to choose our national leaders.

For those unable to cast votes on Election Day, early voting and absentee ballots are available options. In-person early voting has the advantage of the individual citizen at a polling place after check-in by election officials.

Today, however, early voting periods have been stretched to absurd lengths, with some states beginning their voting for the November election more than a month or more in advance. There is no empirical evidence that early voting increases turnout, but it does have serious downsides, including:

    • Producing less-informed voters. After casting an early ballot, a voter checks out of the national debate regardless of what happens. They won’t care about the televised debates, won’t consider options, and won’t fully participate in the political process. Many voters have occasionally complained to election officials and representatives of a desire to recast their vote because they have changed their mind. In most, if not all states, this is impossible to do with early voting.
    • Increasing election administration and campaign costs. Elections that drag on for weeks require the logistical costs of administering an election, including more poll workers and salaries associated with the voting process.
    • Facilitating double voting and vote fraud. Counties that utilize early voting need to have the necessary technology to ensure simultaneous verification and record of vote history. Early voting allows voters to vote anywhere in the county, not simply in their precinct. The jurisdictions must have the necessary voting equipment, statewide registration system, and electronic poll book system to prevent individuals from voting more than once in the state or county during the early voting period. It is also more difficult for political parties to secure sufficient poll watchers to monitor polling places for an extended early voting period.

ACRU Commentary

A Court Smacks Down Obama’s Justice Department

By J. Christian Adams & Hans A. von Spakovsky -- August 31, 2015 The recently concluded federal trial over North Carolina's election rules proved one thing beyond a reasonable doubt: The Obama administration and its partisan, big-money, racial-interest-group allies will stop at nothing to win elections. And using the courts to change election rules is a key part of their strategy. That was clearly evident in the federal courtroom in Winston-Salem. The plaintiffs, including the Justice Department, challenged a number of election reforms implemented in 2013 that were designed to reduce the cost and complexity of running elections and make it harder to commit voter fraud. The administration pushed a novel legal argument. In its telling, if a change in election rules might statistically affect blacks more than whites, it constitutes illegal discrimination. For example, if 98 percent of whites have a voter ID but only 97.5 percent of blacks have one, then requiring voters to present ID violates federal law. Never mind the fact that getting an ID is free, easy, and open to everyone without regard to race. And never mind if a policy change is in line with the rules of many other states, or if it's explicitly sanctioned by federal law. The mere act of changing the law in the wrong direction is discriminatory. In other words, the Obama administration would turn the Voting Rights Act into a one-way ratchet to help Democrats. The court refused to go along. None of the reforms had an obvious racial angle. For example, North Carolina required voters to vote in the precinct where they actually live. This commonsense reform -- returning to the law the state had prior to 2003 -- prevents chaos on Election Day, from overcrowded polling places to precincts' running out of ballots because election officials can't predict how many voters will show up. Thirty-one states do not allow voting outside of your precinct. The Justice Department claims that North Carolina broke the law when it returned to this policy.

Another ACLU Attack on Election Reforms

By Robert Knight Although people in the nation's smallest state can obtain photo voter IDs with ease, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) says that requiring an ID in order to vote is a hardship. The group's Rhode Island chapter has demanded an end to the photo voter ID law that a solidly Democratic legislature enacted in 2011. It's the latest attack by the ACLU and other leftist groups against state election reforms that are specifically designed to prevent vote fraud. Over the past few years, courts have struck down laws in Arkansas, Missouri, Pennsylvania and Texas, while upholding them in Georgia, Tennessee, Ohio and Wisconsin. In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Indiana's photo voter ID law, which has been a model for other states. North Carolina's voter ID law, which also curbs early voting and ends out of precinct voting and same-day registration, went to trial in late July in a federal court.

Election Reform in North Carolina and the Myth of Voter Suppression

By Hans von Spakovsky In 2013, North Carolina passed omnibus electoral reform legislation that, among other provisions, eliminated same-day registration, required that qualified persons who desire to vote in an election must register to vote no later than 25 days before Election Day, reduced the number of early voting days from 17 to 10, and created a voter ID requirement. Although opponents of this bill predicted that such reforms would disenfranchise minority voters and significantly suppress voter turnout, turnout actually increased. African-American voter turnout increased by almost 30 percent and Caucasian voter turnout increased by approximately 15 percent. Clearly, these changes did not suppress voter turnout.

Vote — Or Else: The Siren Call of Universal Suffrage

It's not enough to propose liberal ideas. Eventually, you must use force against your fellow citizens if they don't embrace them. Coercion is at the heart of the liberal enterprise. Hence, President Obama has unveiled his latest plan to fundamentally transform the United States -- mandatory voting. It comes on the heels of his unconstitutional order granting legal status to 5 million illegal immigrants. Coincidence? Ironically, it also landed the very same day that Hillary Clinton floated the idea that summer camps should be created for adults because we have a "fun deficit." Perhaps they will get together and create Camp Chicago, where "fun" activities include voting early and often. To bolster his case, Mr. Obama noted at the town hall in Cleveland on Wednesday that, "Other countries have mandatory voting." Most other countries have voter ID laws too, but I guess that doesn't fit the narrative. "It would be transformative if everybody voted -- that would counteract money more than anything," Mr. Obama said. This is the man who shunned matching funds as hundreds of millions of dollars poured into his campaign, some of it anonymously from outside of the country.

How to Fraud-Proof Elections

By Edwin Meese III and Ken Blackwell Once upon a time, Americans got together on Election Day, went to the polls, and chose our leaders. Voting on the same day helped bind us together as self-governing citizens in a free republic. It even felt like a national holiday -- Independence Day without the fireworks. Except for those traveling or who are infirm and who can use absentee ballots, Election Day puts everyone in the same boat. As a civic exercise in equality, it is unparalleled. It has the added advantage of making vote fraud more difficult, since there is a very short window in which to commit it. But over the past few decades, election laws have been relaxed in the name of convenience, with "reforms" such as early voting, same-day registration, Sunday and evening voting hours, no-excuse absentee voting and allowing out-of-precinct ballots. All of these increase the possibility of vote fraud. At the same time, despite a clear mandate in the National Voter Registration Act (also known as the Motor Voter Law) to keep accurate registrations, the system has grown lax; election authorities have left millions on the voter rolls who should not be there.

Here Comes the 2014 Voter Fraud

In the past few months, a former police chief in Pennsylvania pleaded guilty to voter fraud in a town-council election. That fraud had flipped the outcome of a primary election. Former Connecticut legislator Christina Ayala has been indicted on 19 charges of voter fraud, including voting in districts where she didn't reside. (She hasn't entered a plea.) A Mississippi grand jury indicted seven individuals for voter fraud in the 2013 Hattiesburg mayoral contest, which featured voting by ineligible felons and impersonation fraud. A woman in Polk County, Tenn., was indicted on a charge of vote-buying--a practice that the local district attorney said had too long "been accepted as part of life" there. Now come the midterm elections on Nov. 4. What is the likelihood that your vote won't count? That your vote will, in effect, be canceled or stolen as a consequence of mistakes by election officials or fraudulent votes cast by campaign workers or ineligible voters like felons and noncitizens?

News