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

ACLU ‘Thrilled’ to Kill Voter ID in Arkansas

Reacting to the Arkansas Supreme Court's ruling declaring the state's voter-identification law unconstitutional, ACLU of Arkansas Legal Director Holly Dickson said her group is "thrilled." Well, why not. They've been at it all over the country, trying to take down voter ID laws and enrich the ground that can yield a bumper crop of vote fraud. The unanimous decision on Oct. 15 upheld a lower court ruling and will affect early balloting, which began Monday, Oct. 20. Election Day is Tuesday, Nov 4. The Republican-controlled state legislature enacted the fraud-prevention law in 2013 over a veto by Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe. The justices ruled that the law requiring all voters to present government-issued photo identification, "imposes a requirement that falls outside" four qualifications outlined in the state constitution: A voter must be a U.S. citizen, an Arkansas resident, 18 years old and registered to vote. Providing proof that voters are, indeed, who they say they are, a requirement that the and more than 70 percent of the public strongly supports, is too high a hurdle, according to the ACLU. Ms. Dickson called the law "an unconstitutional barrier that has already stolen legitimate voting rights." When clerks ask to see an ID before selling beer, are they "stealing legitimate drinking rights?"

Court Smacks Down Holder in NC Voter ID Law Case

The left trumpeted a voter ID decision in Wisconsin as if it were the end of the issue. Let's see what they do with this one. A federal court on Aug. 8 smacked down the Holder Justice Department and refused to enjoin (block) North Carolina's voter ID law, curtailment of costly early voting and end of fraud-infested same day registration. This means the state's voter ID law will be in place for the midterm congressional (and Senate) elections in November. The Justice Department had actually argued that even if black voters turned out at higher rates under voter ID (which they do), because blacks have to take the bus more and their life is generally harder, then voter ID and curtailing early voting violates the Voting Rights Act. The opinion lays waste to the theories of those opposing North Carolina's election integrity laws, including the Justice Department.

Columnist: Scrapping Early Voting Means Less Time for Electoral Mischief

Ballots cast today are under scrutiny, and with 2014 mid-term elections fast approaching, we must be aware of potential abuses of our most basic right. We saw with the 2012 general election a glut of voter fraud. From Florida and Ohio to Pennsylvania and Texas, there have been reports of voting machine malfunctions, dead people on voter rolls and 99 percent of votes cast going to President Obama in some counties. This should be a concern for both parties and a non-partisan issue because no freedom-loving patriot wants the outcome of an election to be falsely skewed.

In Alabama, Vote Fraud Is No Myth

We are constantly told that voter fraud is some made-up pipe dream of racist Republicans hoping to suppress black votes and other folks who Democrats, insulting, imply are incapable of obtaining an ID. We are told that we are "racist" and that there is no such thing as voter fraud! Except there clearly is. AL.com's Mike Cason wrote this: "Less than three months before the June primary, four Alabama counties had more voters on their rolls than what the Census Bureau says is their voting age population."

Eight Reasons for Halting Early Voting

President Obama's commission on election administration recently issued a final report containing some terrible recommendations. The worst idea in the report is a call for states to expand early voting. Some states already open polls weeks in advance of Election Day. In Wyoming, polls open in September, even before the end of Major League Baseball's regular season. Mr. Obama's federal commission wants American elections to start earlier and last longer. Here's eight reasons why the early-voting fad is a bad idea. First, early voting produces less-informed voters. After they cast an early ballot, they check out of the national debate. They won't care about the televised debates, won't consider options, and won't fully participate in the political process.

MSNBC Guest: Voter ID Reforms Are ‘Anti-American’

On January 6, MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell began her Andrea Mitchell Reports segment on voting rights lamenting how in 2013 "[t]he Supreme Court effectively gutted the 1965 Voting Rights Act in June last year when the court struck down a key provision opening the door for states and localities to undo nearly a half century of voting rights gains." Appearing alongside Ms. Mitchell was Sherrilyn Ifill of the NAACP, who charged that new voting laws across the nation were "anti-American." Mitchell tipped her hand by calling such policies "voting rights restrictions" and voiced her support for the NAACP's efforts.