Vote by Mail: The Only Sensible Solution

Oregon has a reputation for seeking unique solutions to universal problems. This was especially true during the golden age of Oregon politics—the 1970s—when mostly Republican politicians laid the foundation for Oregon’s incredible quality of life. More on those initiatives in another post.

In some ways, the golden age is over. We do continue to lead the nation in a number of areas, including urban livability and public transit, but Oregonians have succumbed to legislative and ballot initiatives that have relaxed our land use system (which aims to prevent sprawl), constrained funding of education and other priorities, and limited progress in other ways. I hold out hope that some of this might change with the newly-elected Democratic leadership in the state House, added to existing Democratic control of the Senate and Governor’s office. But I’m not holding my breath.

The good news is that in recent years Oregon has definitely led the nation in one area—improving the integrity and process of voting. For several years now, Oregon has had no polling stations. Instead, everyone receives a ballot by mail and must return it by election day—either by mail or by hand-delivery to designated collection points. This has proven to be the most problem-free method, with very high voter turnout, smooth and accurate counts, and virtually no complaints of fraud. As our Secretary of State, Bill Bradbury, wrote in a 2005 New York Times op-ed piece,

“Oregon's vote-by-mail system has proved reliable and popular. Critics said that vote-by-mail is prone to fraud. But signature verification of every voter before a ballot is counted is an effective safeguard against fraud.”

In fact, the verification of signatures in a central location eliminates variability between precincts—a problem in many states, where poll workers in minority precincts are sometimes accused of vote suppression. Even if states were to impose picture-ID requirements (which would suppress the vote of people without driver’s licenses), the prevalence of fake IDs would make this method of verification no better than Oregon’s.

Bradbury writes, “Curtis Gans of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate contended that vote-by-mail would suppress voter participation. But record numbers of Oregonians registered to vote, and almost 87 percent of them cast ballots” [in the 2004 presidential election].

An increasing number of Americans are taking advantage of early voting where it is allowed in any form. Americans’ lives are so busy these days (not a good thing, but it’s reality) that a requirement to vote in person on a certain day actually dampens turnout.

Bradbury continues, “Critics argued that vote-by-mail eliminates the communal experience of voting on Election Day. . . . With two weeks to conduct public education and get-out-the-vote efforts, Oregonians were surrounded by civic engagement reminders. Oregonians have also started a new communal experience: voting at home, showing their children the ballot and talking to them about how important it is to vote.”

The ballot is mailed in two envelopes—an inner envelope with no identification of the voter, and an outer envelope, printed with the voter’s name and address, on which a signature is required. At the central elections office for each county, the signatures are verified by poll workers, and political parties and other groups are allowed to send observers. The inner envelopes are then separated from the outer ones. Much of this work happens before Election Day, and workers make every effort to contact a voter whose ballot or signature do not meet requirements, so that they can correct those problems when possible.

On Election Day, all the unidentified inner envelopes are opened, and the ballots are counted by optical scan machines. The paper ballots are available for recounts when necessary, a process that is clearly spelled out in state law.

For those who still are suspicious of fraud, the vote-by-mail system actually keeps voter rolls more up to date than other systems:

“Mailed ballots are not forwarded by the post office, and the constant updating of voter rolls provided by returned ballots allows Oregon to have accurate and updated voter rolls without the risk of partisan purges.”

Add that to a 30 percent savings in the cost of running the election, and you have a cleaner, more accurate, more participatory system that costs less money. And Oregon does not see the (mostly Republican) shenanigans that we have seen in Florida, Ohio and other states. If other states could just rise to Oregon’s level in this area, the nation would be better off.