Ballot Harvesting: Problem That Needs A Solution Or A Solution That Needs A Problem?

Here we go again, Maura is kicking the hornet’s nest on a controversial election topic. First it was Zombie Ballots, now Ballot Harvesting! Which side you’re on will greatly influence how you feel on this topic, and by side I mean, did your team win or lose? Much like Zombie Ballots, there are no reliable numbers on how many ballots are harvested in any particular election, or how many are improperly handled.

The Election Assistance Commission defines Ballot Harvesting thusly:

The act of collecting ballots, typically by a political party or nonprofit organization, for multiple voters and returning those ballots to an elections office on behalf of those voters. The legality of this practice varies by state, with some states allowing the practice, limiting who can return ballots on behalf of others or banning the practice completely.

Now that we know the official definition, we can see in the first sentence where the problems lie, “typically by a political party or nonprofit organization.” This one sentence is where we get the first issues because it shows where the abuse can enter. Now the other issue is “for multiple voters and returning those ballots to an elections office on behalf of those voters.” The two parts of this sentence create the idea that just about anyone could get a list of mail-in ballots, go forth, assist impaired voters, and return a massive bin of votes. Two things come from this; one is that the idea is fantastic as this allows impaired voters a chance to be heard. The dark side (insert spooky music) is the insinuation that the groups and political parties only return ballots that favor their cause. Knowing human nature, I am sure we can all see where this line of thinking comes in. 

Is there a problem? That depends on who you ask, but apparently seven different states felt there was and they sought to correct the issue:

• Arizona: Banned the practice in 2016 with a carve out for family members to handle each other’s ballots.
• California: Relaxed its rules just before the 2018 mid-terms and many speculate that it changed the outcome of more than one race. The Los Angeles Times editorial board rejected the speculation but did say it “does open the door to coercion and fraud.”
• Colorado: You can not collect more than ten ballots unless you are a designated elections official.
• Georgia: Limits ballot return to the elector, relative, or person living in the same household.
• Montana: A voter initiative passed in 2018 limits a collector to six ballots.
• North Carolina: Only the elector or immediate family member can return a ballot.
• Texas: Only the elector can handle their ballot (from what I have seen this is the strictest law.)

Some of these states are very Democrat and some are very Republican and a few swing between them, so it is obvious that neither side truly trusts the other on this issue. As to fraudulent collections, there is a precedent for that and, some could say, proof it happens.

From The Charlotte Observer

According to the indictment, Dowless “unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously” submitted absentee ballots and concealed that they were not sent by voters.

Now, if you combine ballot harvesting with Zombies you could have a perfect storm to sway a district, but remember I said could. However, the two issues do go together as far as public trust in our election system is concerned. Both issues are the butt of jokes and memes at every major election, and memes — much like any form of propaganda — do influence the way we look at issues.

Am I looking at a solution that needs a problem or a problem that needs a solution? Yes, but we owe it to ourselves and future generations to close every security hole we have in our election system to both further public trust and ensure fair elections.