Several states and jurisdictions that have adopted vote-at-home have said the switch has resulted in serious cost savings. In Colorado, for example, costs decreased by an average of 40% after the state implemented its vote-at-home system because of the reduction in provisional ballots, polling locations, and poll workers. Similar results have been seen in other states. Oregon officials have concluded vote-at-home has reduced costs by a third to a half, and a 2011 cost estimate in Montana concluded vote-at-home would save the state approximately $2 million an election cycle.
According to a report issued by the Center for American Progress, it was estimated that voting lines in 2012 cost Americans $544 million in lost productivity and wages. As the report notes,
“These burdens often fall disproportionately on communities of color and low-income Americans. Black voters are, on average, forced to wait in line nearly twice as long as white voters. And long wait times can play a role in dissuading would-be voters from participating in future elections.”
With vote-at-home, there’s no need to travel to a designated location or wait in long lines.