• About Us
  • Who Are We
  • Work With Us
Sunday, January 29, 2023
No Result
View All Result
NEWSLETTER
The Globe Post
39 °f
New York
44 ° Fri
46 ° Sat
40 ° Sun
41 ° Mon
No Result
View All Result
The Globe Post
No Result
View All Result
Home Opinion

Why Voting by Mail Is Part of the Right to Vote

Jason Harrow by Jason Harrow
07/07/20
in Opinion
An election worker sorts vote-by-mail ballots for Washington state's presidential primary on March 10 in Renton, a suburb of Seattle.

In a majority of states, voters in the upcoming election will be able to vote at home for any reason. Photo: Jason Redmond/AFP

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

COVID-19 hit the US big time in mid-March, so we’ve now had about three months to assess how litigants, courts, and election officials are planning to handle upcoming elections. In most of the country, officials have stood up for voting rights, as many states have quickly made voting-by-mail easier and more available. But a few states and some right-wing outside groups have resisted that common-sense change and have insisted that most voting will be done in person, pandemic be damned.

These states – let’s call them the “Intransigents” – are now being forced to defend their refusals in court. Their defenses haven’t gotten much press, but the arguments are disturbing.

The Intransigents have defended their refusals to expand absentee voting with the bizarre argument that restrictions on voting by mail do not implicate the right to vote at all. Amazingly, a three-judge panel of federal appellate judges in New Orleans recently bought the argument. For the sake of our republic, no other court should.

Voting By Mail

Here’s the lay of the land from where we sit in 2020. We are faced with a pandemic headed into an election that is, well, pretty darn important. Fortunately, we have a safe and secure tool to be able to run elections while also complying with physical distancing requirements: absentee balloting, also known as voting by mail or voting at home.

This is not new. In fact, absentee balloting has been around in a substantial way in America at least since the Civil War, when postal voting first became both necessary and common.

By 1924, at least 45 of the 48 states permitted absentee voting, but it was still relatively uncommon in the first half of the 20th century. In 1936, one estimate was that 2 percent of all ballots were cast by absentee ballot. By 2000, that was up to 14 percent, and, in the last midterm election in 2018, over 25 percent of all voters voted by mail.

Unsurprisingly, data from this spring’s elections show that number is about to surge. In Georgia, where voting by mail was used by around 6 percent of voters in 2018, it was used by 50 percent of voters in the June primary.

For the primaries held on June 2, use of absentee ballots or vote-by-mail went from 100 percent in Idaho and Montana – which held all-mail elections – to 58 percent in South Dakota. Maryland saw an astonishing 93 percent percentage point rise in mail balloting relative to the 2016 primary: from 4 percent to 97 percent.

Increase in Absentee Balloting

The stunning acceleration has, of course, been a result of the difficulties of voting in a pandemic. But it’s important to recognize that it’s not just the pandemic that has led to this increase. Even before this year, voting by mail had gone from a useful option for a small set of people to a key part of the right to vote. This change happened through both legislation by Congress and the expansion of absentee voting in every state.

Congress has, on at least two separate occasions, recognized that absentee balloting is part of the “right to vote.” First, in 1970 amendments to the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, Congress ensured that voters away from their state or who had moved very recently could vote for president by absentee ballot.

In so doing, Congress found that “the lack of sufficient opportunities for absentee registration and absentee balloting in presidential elections … denies or abridges the inherent constitutional right of citizens to vote for their President and Vice President.” With the stroke of a pen, absentee balloting went from a choice to a requirement. It became a key part of the “right to vote.”

Later, in 1986, Congress passed the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, which again placed absentee balloting squarely within the “right to vote.” That law requires states to, upon request, provide absentee ballots to military voters and their families stationed away from their normal residence as well as to Americans living overseas who are qualified to vote in federal elections.

In a later amendment to that law, Congress noted that state officials “should be aware of the importance of the ability of each uniformed services voter to exercise the right to vote” via absentee ballot.

Right to Vote

States have followed Congress’s lead and greatly expanded access to ballots that can be voted at home rather than at a polling place.

In a majority of states, voters in the upcoming election will be able to vote at home for any reason. A few states (Oregon, Washington, and Colorado) even run elections that are essentially mail-only. In fact, according to the Brennan Center, voting at home was used by a majority of voters in nine states, and they’re a diverse bunch: the over-50 percent club includes left-leaning California and Hawaii but also two of the most Republican states in the country, Utah and Montana.

Overall, mail ballots were used by more than 1 in 4 voters in 2018. In the presidential election, it is nearly certain that at least 50 percent of votes will be cast by mail ballot – maybe even more than that.

“Try it, you might like it.”

Oregon’s Republican Secretary of State, Beverly Clarno, responds to President Trump’s claim that vote by mail is dangerous and subject to fraud. Oregon pioneered the practice in 1998. https://t.co/jZuELMAKYJ pic.twitter.com/Y8TjsKyiGK

— 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) June 28, 2020

All of this should lead to but one conclusion: of course voting by mail is part of the “right to vote.” Absentee ballots are required by federal law for certain voters; they are used by a majority of voters in nine states; most Americans will not even go to a polling place this year.

This is an important conclusion because placing voting by mail within the legal “right to vote” has an important legal consequence: states have to tread carefully and be particularly even-handed when they impose burdens and provide benefits.

Restrictions on the right to vote, after all, get close looks by courts who are supposed to ask tough questions about these laws. Are they applied equally? Do any laws make it too difficult for certain people to exercise their cherished right to vote? Do they impose disproportionate burdens on one particular race? Religion? Geographic group? Age cohort?

Given the recent legal changes and surge in mail voting, you would think that all courts would be asking these questions about restrictions on voting by mail, which clearly impact the “right to vote” (the word “vote” is right there in both phrases, after all). You would even think that states would concede this point, and attempt to meaningfully justify their restrictions as critically important to, say, safeguard elections or ensure all voters are treated equally.

But oh, dear reader: you would be very, very wrong. In some states and some courts: of course. But not in Texas. Not in Tennessee.

Right to Vote as Privilege

The Intransigents look at voting differently than the rest of us. To them, the right to vote is a privilege, like membership in a private country club with perfectly-kept tennis courts, just washed and scrubbed and waiting for those finest members of society to come by and start a game.

To these states, so long as everyone can vote somehow, somewhere, the state can make it as easy as it wants for any particular subgroup to also have the additional option to vote by mail. And if it turns out that it’s really easy to vote by mail for older, whiter, more Republican-leaning voters, but it’s harder to vote by mail for younger voters, people of color, and those who lean Democrat – oh well! Those people just aren’t invited to the vote-by-mail country club.

US President Donald Trump
US President Donald Trump. Photo: Brendan Smialowski/AFP

But don’t worry: those voters are more than welcome to use the public voting machines. They just may need to stand in line for a while. And they might risk getting COVID. And they might have to leave their job early, or forgo pay, or find childcare. But hey: they can still vote, and that’s the important thing!

Lest you think this is a cruel joke, let me now begin quoting from actual legal briefs and decisions. You may want to sit down for this part.

Intransigent Texas

Let’s start in Texas. Texas, as an Intransigent, has fiercely resisted efforts to make it easy for most people to vote by mail, with one exception: it will happily follow a state law allowing anyone 65 or older to vote by mail for any reason or no reason at all. Plaintiffs in federal court pointed out this preference for older voters is blatantly unconstitutional. After all, we have a constitutional amendment – the little-used 26th Amendment – that specifically says that the “right to vote” cannot be “denied or abridged on account of age” for any voter 18 or older.

That means Texas can’t make it harder for younger voters to vote absentee than older voters. A federal district agreed with them, but its injunction permitting broader access to absentee ballots was put on hold by a three-judge panel of conservative federal judges that bought Texas’s bizarro theory.

Here’s the upside-down reasoning. The court first looked to a 1969 Supreme Court case called McDonald. In McDonald, the plaintiffs were two Illinois men who were in jail pending trial and were denied absentee ballots, and the Supreme Court upheld that denial, even though others in Illinois, like those “physically incapacitated” for medical reasons, would have gotten absentee ballots. On the basis of this one case, the federal court reasoned that Texas could allow anyone it wants to vote absentee: every citizen is like those citizens awaiting trial, able to vote by absentee ballot only if the state deems them worthy.

In the court’s words: “The plaintiffs” – that is, younger voters – “are welcome and permitted to vote, and there is no indication that they are in fact absolutely prohibited from voting by the State.” Therefore, when it comes to absentee voting, “the right to vote is not at stake.”

In other words: older, whiter voters have the country club, vote-by-mail option if they want it. But younger voters can only use the public courts. And there’s no problem with that, because, well, the case isn’t even about the right to vote at all.

Age-Related Disparities

Sadly, this argument is proliferating among the Intransigents. A few days after the decision, the state of Tennessee told its state supreme court to reverse a lower court order requiring broad access to absentee ballots, and it put forth the same bizarre reasoning that regulations regarding absentee voting are not about the right to vote.

Its legal brief contained a truly remarkable admission about how impactful its theory is: because that state, too, permits older voters to vote by mail without any excuse but has a different standard for younger voters, Tennessee is preparing for 100 percent use of absentee voting by voters 60 and older and less than 6 percent absentee voting by voters under 60.

It is hard to find reliable statistics, but, if that holds, it may be the starkest age-related disparity in voting in the history of American elections.

The seven states that generally discourage voting by mail but waive excuse requirements for Republican–leaning old folks are Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas…all deep-red states carried by Trump in 2016… https://t.co/CLauPXNUho

— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) April 10, 2020

And the hits keep coming. Alaska recently announced that it will mail absentee ballot applications only to voters 65 and older but not younger voters. Missouri just amended its law to permit older voters to vote by mail easily, but younger voters need their absentee ballots notarized (good luck finding one of those!). It’s possible more will come as the election season wears on.

But the real tragedy is, if this reasoning gains traction, age is just a start. If the right to vote is not even at stake when it comes to regulations around voting by mail, could states provide postage to rural voters and not city voters? Could states make Native American voters living on reservations mail their ballots in before election day but go door-to-door in the suburbs to pick up completed ballots? The list of possible discrimination goes on. It’s a scary list.

Voting During Pandemic

The Plaintiffs in the Texas case took an emergency appeal to the US Supreme Court, so there is a chance for that awful decision to be wiped off the books like a bad memory. It should be. After all, it is easy to distinguish the McDonald case. That case said the outcome would have been different if members of a suspect class other than “pretrial detainees” were discriminated against. The Supreme Court in that case mentioned wealth or race as suspect classes because the case was decided before age was specifically added when the 26th Amendment was passed in 1971, but age should surely be on the list now too. The appeals court just decided to conveniently ignore that feature of the case.

As importantly, that case was decided before Congress enshrined the right to vote by absentee ballot in several federal laws, before voting by mail became a key part of US elections, and before a global pandemic will make voting by mail the way most Americans actually cast their ballot.

And the McDonald case also said that the restrictions were valid because there could have been other ways for those inmates to vote. But it’s not at all clear that in 2020 many Americans will have a safe and secure way to vote in person, given the combination of poll-worker shortages and the justified fear people have of contracting and spreading COVID. So this case is unlike McDonald in no fewer than six ways. The Texas court just ignored all the differences.

Still, while we wait to see whether that case will be overturned, let’s end with some hopeful news.

Despite the existence of a few Intransigents who think otherwise, most government officials have recognized the new normal is voting by mail. Voting by mail, for most people in most states, is thus inseparable from the right to vote. Let’s just hope the Supreme Court gets the memo.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of The Globe Post.
ShareTweet
Jason Harrow

Jason Harrow

Chief Counsel of Equal Citizens and co-author of the recent report 'Age Discrimination in Voting at Home'

Related Posts

George Santos from the 3rd Congressional district of New York
Opinion

George Santos for Speaker!

by Stephen J. Lyons
January 16, 2023
A woman undergoing COVID test in China
Featured

Soaring Covid Cases Shine Light on China’s Healthcare Gap

by Staff Writer
January 11, 2023
Top view of the US House of Representatives
National

Chaos as US House Adjourns Without Choosing Speaker

by Staff Writer
January 4, 2023
Commuters waiting for buses in Metro Manila. Philippines
Opinion

Eight Billion and Counting…

by Stephen J. Lyons
November 29, 2022
US President Donald Trump
Opinion

Donald Trump Thanks You for Your Sacrifice

by Stephen J. Lyons
August 17, 2022
Protesters stand with placards in front of the statue of India's independence leader Mahatma Gandhi in Parliament Square, central London, after a demonstration outside the US Embassy
Featured

Considering the Patience of Gandhi for These Troubled Times

by Stephen J. Lyons
August 5, 2022
Next Post
Afghan President Ashraf Ghani during a press conference at the Presidential Palace in Kabul on July 9, 2018. Photo: Wakil Kohsar/AFP.

Afghan President to Push for Peace Talks with Taliban

COVID-19 test administered in India

Global COVID-19 Deaths Top 530,000 as Scientists Urge WHO to Modify Guidelines

Please login to join discussion

Recommended

The Doomsday Clock reads 100 seconds to midnight, a decision made by The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, during an announcement at the National Press Club in Washington, DC on January 23, 2020

‘Doomsday Clock’ Moves Closest Ever to Midnight

January 25, 2023
Police work near the scene of a mass shooting in Monterey Park, California

California Lunar New Year Mass Shooter Dead, Motive Unclear: Police

January 23, 2023
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern

Race on To Replace Ardern as New Zealand Prime Minister

January 20, 2023
Pfizer logo and vaccines

Pfizer to Sell More Drugs at Cost to Poor Nations

January 18, 2023
Rescuers inspect the wreckage at the site of a Yeti Airlines plane crash in Pokhara, Nepal

At Least 67 Killed in Nepal Plane Crash

January 16, 2023
George Santos from the 3rd Congressional district of New York

George Santos for Speaker!

January 16, 2023

Opinion

George Santos from the 3rd Congressional district of New York

George Santos for Speaker!

January 16, 2023
Commuters waiting for buses in Metro Manila. Philippines

Eight Billion and Counting…

November 29, 2022
Mahsa Amini protests

Imagining a Free Iran

October 24, 2022
Vladimir Putin

How 18th Century International Law Clarifies the Situation in Ukraine

September 29, 2022
Vladimir Putin

Falling for Putin

September 15, 2022
US President Donald Trump

Donald Trump Thanks You for Your Sacrifice

August 17, 2022
Facebook Twitter

Newsletter

Do you like our reporting?
SUBSCRIBE

About Us

The Globe Post

The Globe Post is part of Globe Post Media, a U.S. digital news organization that is publishing the world's best targeted news sites.

submit oped

© 2018 The Globe Post

No Result
View All Result
  • National
  • World
  • Business
  • Interviews
  • Lifestyle
  • Democracy at Risk
    • Media Freedom
  • Opinion
    • Editorials
    • Columns
    • Book Reviews
    • Stage
  • Submit Op-ed

© 2018 The Globe Post