So Much for the Argument that Voting Restrictions Make Elections Safer

For years, proponents of voting restrictions such as making you show an ID to vote or eliminating your right to vote by mail argued we needed those restrictions “to prevent voter fraud.” Even though voter fraud is already illegal to begin with, and even though widespread voter fraud has never occurred, their argument at least provided a basis for reasonable minds to disagree.¹

Lately, however, the voter fraud patrol hasn’t even bothered making these election integrity arguments when filing lawsuits that overwhelm election workers and make it harder for you to vote. The newest example is in Pennsylvania, where Republican officials sued to upend voting-by-mail by trying to require voters to return their ballots to local precincts rather than to county election offices.

The problem is “precincts” don’t exist until Election Day when polling places open, which means they can’t receive ballots in the mail. Plus, Pennsylvanians have been returning their ballots to county offices under the existing rules for decades without any issues.

If successful, this case would result in voter confusion and election worker fatigue as everyone sorts out what to do—with no upside for the safety or security of elections. The lawsuit’s only legal argument is a technicality based on the wording of the state’s constitution.²

Of all the things someone could invest in to win an election—TV ads, door-to-door canvassing, campaign rallies—these elected officials funded a lawsuit that could overwhelm election workers and disenfranchise voters—all over a technicality.

Want to make sure they don’t get away with it? Share this newsletter with a friend or family member to spread the word, and visit our Resources page to take action and help defend democracy.

Know someone in Pennsylvania? Make sure they get all the latest rules about voting by mail at vote.org.

1. I use “widespread voter fraud” as shorthand for “organized voter fraud on a scale large enough to change the result of an election.” This has never happened because (1) it’s really hard to do without getting caught and (2) it’s a crime in every state—usually a felony. If it did happen, the people who committed the fraud would be tried, and the “losing” candidate would have options such as petitioning for a new election. In short, elections are plenty safe without excessive restrictions that do more to disenfranchise voters than to prevent fraud.

2. For another recent attack on democracy based on nothing more than a legal technicality, check out my March 2nd post, “Want a Free and Fair Election in November? Pay Attention Now,” about ongoing litigation in Arizona.