VOTE AT HOME INFORMATION
MYTHS
There are many myths about the Vote at Home process (also known as Vote by Mail), and information voters sometimes hear from people who are unfamiliar with the process may not always be true.
All 50 states already permit people to vote by mailed-out ballot to some degree. In many states, this system is known as “absentee voting.” States differ by how broadly they offer mail ballots to voters and how they administer the system. Hundreds of millions of mail ballots have been cast over the last 20 years, and data shows that in 2020, due to the pandemic, voting by mailed-out ballot was the largest single way voters cast their ballots.
Research shows voting by mail produces consistent outcomes without partisan bias. Many states that could be considered politically conservative have a large number of voters who prefer to vote by mail, as do states which are considered politically liberal or as having mixed political constituencies. Some examples of conservative states offering high mail ballot access are:
- Utah moved to an all vote-by-mail system in 2019. It had previously shown success at the county level before being rolled out statewide.
- In both Montana and Arizona, over 70% of voters are automatically mailed their ballots as “permanent absentee” voters.
- In North Dakota, >40 counties vote entirely by mailed-out ballot as do 11 counties in Nebraska. In both cases, their turnout numbers are far above polling-place centric counties in their respective states. Alaska recently conducted their first statewide election using this method, which Anchorage had used successfully for a prior municipal election.
- Many states with predominantly vote-by-mail systems have elected secretaries of state and other officials who are Republicans — and big fans of this process.
The move to better access to mailed-out ballots is strong nationwide. About 1/3 of all US registered voters now live in a state or jurisdiction that either mails ballots to all registered voters automatically for every election or allows voters to opt into that model via a permanent absentee option.
All 50 states already permit people to vote by mailed-out ballot to some degree. In many states, this system is known as “absentee voting.” States differ by how broadly they offer mail ballots to voters and how they administer the system. Hundreds of millions of mail ballots have been cast over the last 20 years, and data shows that in 2020, due to the pandemic, voting by mailed-out ballot was the largest single way voters cast their ballots.
Research shows voting by mail produces consistent outcomes without partisan bias. Many states that could be considered politically conservative have a large number of voters who prefer to vote by mail, as do states which are considered politically liberal or as having mixed political constituencies. Some examples of conservative states offering high mail ballot access are:
- Utah moved to an all vote-by-mail system in 2019. It had previously shown success at the county level before being rolled out statewide.
- In both Montana and Arizona, over 70% of voters are automatically mailed their ballots as “permanent absentee” voters.
- In North Dakota, >40 counties vote entirely by mailed-out ballot as do 11 counties in Nebraska. In both cases, their turnout numbers are far above polling-place centric counties in their respective states. Alaska recently conducted their first statewide election using this method, which Anchorage had used successfully for a prior municipal election.
- Many states with predominantly vote-by-mail systems have elected secretaries of state and other officials who are Republicans — and big fans of this process.
The move to better access to mailed-out ballots is strong nationwide. About 1/3 of all US registered voters now live in a state or jurisdiction that either mails ballots to all registered voters automatically for every election or allows voters to opt into that model via a permanent absentee option.
All ballots feature the Official Election Mail logo to help postal workers and carriers identify ballots, prioritize ballots for delivery, and ensure all ballots are processed. Any voter who doesn’t receive a ballot or misplaces it, can contact their local election office for a replacement or vote in person.
In addition to returning ballots by mail, vote-by-mail systems offer multiple methods for returning ballots. These options include easily accessible, secure ballot drop boxes, and returning mail ballots to staffed vote centers or polling places.
In jurisdictions using mailed-out ballots extensively, often over 50% of ballots are returned “in-person” to either drop boxes or vote centers.
Many states offer ballot tracking tools (similar to commercial package tracking) so voters can track their ballot’s status in real time. These tools inform voters when their ballot is mailed to them, has been delivered to them, is received by the elections office, their signature has been verified where applicable, and then counted. If there is a discrepancy, missing signature, or other issue, the system can even notify the voter to help them remedy (“cure”) the problem.
Voting systems are designed to protect voters and contain safeguards to keep ballots secure.
Mail ballots and accompanying envelopes are designed with numerous security features such as personalized barcodes to ensure that only one ballot is cast per person. Ballots are printed on special, identifiable paper, and every ballot is inspected to ensure it is valid for the election being conducted.
Signature verification: Election officials validate voters’ identities to ensure that only eligible voters cast a ballot. The recommended best practice is to use signature verification, via a robust procedure that includes bipartisan teams of trained signature judges. This drastically reduces opportunities for unconscious bias or human error by volunteer poll workers.
Under this process, every return ballot envelope is signed by the voter, and each signature is validated by being compared to other official signatures already on file (such as the voter’s registration document, prior election ballot envelopes, motor vehicle transactions, etc.). Signature verifiers can be trained by handwriting experts, including many from law enforcement, in a manner similar to those used in financial institutions. Another best practice is to include a signature “curing” process, where if the signature doesn’t match and a secondary bipartisan review team cannot determine a match, the voter is contacted immediately and given multiple paths to resolve the discrepancy including potentially providing a photo ID. This “cure” period extends after Election Day to allow all votes that arrived on time to be counted.
Voter fraud anywhere is exceedingly rare, and per capita rates of fraud are often lower in states that rely heavily on mail ballots.
Attempts at voter fraud that receive public attention are examples of the system working well. These extremely rare cases are identified and corrected, and the offenders are prosecuted. Election security is paramount, and security measures are a critical part of mail ballot systems.
Stealing, attempting to steal, or even hiding another person’s mail is a federal felony offense. It may also be a state crime. For example, in Oregon, intentionally tampering with or diverting a mailed-out ballot is a felony, punishable by a $25,000 fine and up to 5 years in jail for EVERY BALLOT. Stiff penalties deter election fraud because they make the risk of election interference far greater than the potential reward.
Attempting to influence another person’s vote is a crime. While it is possible under almost any election system for family members or other individuals to unduly pressure a voter to support a certain candidate or issue, evidence suggests this is no more common under vote-by-mail systems. States deter such behavior with laws that punish bad actors if they attempt to take advantage of voters.
Noncitizens:Noncitizens are not eligible to register to vote and must attest to their eligibility at the time of registration.
Deceased voters: States and local jurisdictions with effective vote-by-mail systems have automated processes that regularly match death records to the voter registration lists to prevent ballots going to a deceased voter. Signature verification provides a second level of security.
Voters who have moved: Ballots are non-forwardable, and anyone who tampers with a ballot that is not their own is committing a crime. The signature verification process is designed to detect such cases.
States can use the USPS National Change of Address (NCOA) database and join the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), which shares address change data nationwide. States can also implement policies like automatic voter registration, which helps capture address changes from other government touchpoints like the DMV or social service agencies.
In the highly unlikely chance that a ballot is sent to the wrong person, other failsafe measures prevent that ballot from being accepted or counted.
Election officials have detailed procedures to ensure only one ballot per voter is accepted and counted. Election officials will accept only one ballot from any voter — the first valid ballot they receive. Any other ballots returned by or on behalf of the voter are rejected, and if criminal intent is suspected, the voter or other perpetrators would be prosecuted.
Voting is a right for U.S. citizens and voting by mail is just another option for people to exercise that right. All voters are qualified to vote, and there is no need to pass a test, provide an excuse, or persevere through an overly difficult voting process.
Voting by mail is good for democracy: it is voter-centric and makes voting more accessible for a larger portion of the electorate. Many studies show jurisdictions that vote predominantly by mail have higher turnout than polling-place-centric jurisdictions. Studies show people who vote at home vote farther “down the ballot,”as they have more time to research and become informed about the issues and candidates.
FAQ
Learn more about Vote at Home and the convenience and confidence it offers voters across the U.S.
Elections that rely heavily on electronic voting machines and in-person voting present many security challenges. Many so-called secure computer systems that we depend on have been breached, and hackers are constantly innovating to expose new vulnerabilities. This ongoing cyber arms race can be won by primarily relying on time-tested paper ballots, counted and audited in a central location, with layers of checks and balances. Vote-at-home options primarily rely on paper ballots, which enhance security and leave a clear paper trail to help ensure the sanctity of election results.
In a vote-at-home system, envelopes are barcoded to match each voter and are sent securely through the U.S. Postal Service. Ballots are not forwarded if voters have moved without updating their registration information. Voter rolls are compared to constantly updated address databases. Envelopes containing ballots are returned with signatures that must be verified against the voter registration file –- if the signature is verified, the ballot is extracted from the envelope and the ballot proceeds to the counting process ensuring a secret ballot. These protections greatly reduce the possibility of voter fraud.
Elections that rely heavily on electronic voting machines and in-person voting present many security challenges. Many so-called secure computer systems that we depend on have been breached, and hackers are constantly innovating to expose new vulnerabilities. This ongoing cyber arms race can be won by primarily relying on time-tested paper ballots, counted and audited in a central location, with layers of checks and balances. Vote-at-home options primarily rely on paper ballots, which enhance security and leave a clear paper trail to help ensure the sanctity of election results.
In a vote-at-home system, envelopes are barcoded to match each voter and are sent securely through the U.S. Postal Service. Ballots are not forwarded if voters have moved without updating their registration information. Voter rolls are compared to constantly updated address databases. Envelopes containing ballots are returned with signatures that must be verified against the voter registration file –- if the signature is verified, the ballot is extracted from the envelope and the ballot proceeds to the counting process ensuring a secret ballot. These protections greatly reduce the possibility of voter fraud.
Vote at home primarily relies on paper ballots, which leave a clear paper trail and can be counted and audited at a central location with layers of checks and balances. In contrast, Election systems that rely primarily on electronic voting machines present many security challenges. In a vote-at-home system, envelopes are barcoded to match each voter and are sent to voters securely through the U.S. Postal Service.
Ballots are not forwarded if voters have moved without updating their registration information. Voter rolls are compared to constantly updated address databases. Envelopes containing ballots are returned with signatures that must be verified against the voter registration file. After the signature is verified, the ballot is extracted from the envelope and the ballot proceeds to the counting process, ensuring secrecy. These protections greatly reduce the possibility of voter fraud or security breaches.
Despite extra layers of meticulous security, states and localities with a comprehensive vote-at-home system spend significantly less because of the reduced need for equipment and poll workers in each precinct. Colorado, which has the nation’s most comprehensive vote-at-home system, showed a savings of more than $6 per voter or 40%, according to a study by The Pew Research Center.
Vote at home is designed specifically to suit voters’ needs. In a vote-at-home system, voters don’t have to take time off work, drive to a polling place or stand in long lines. Voters can spend as long as they want to review their ballot at home and to research their options. They don’t need to feel rushed, especially when ballots are long and complex. Crucially, voters with limited mobility or who lack transportation access don’t need to figure out how to get to the polling place.
In a comprehensive vote-at-home system, voters primarily receive their ballots by mail but they can choose how to cast their vote. Voters can return their ballot by mail, take it to a secure drop-off location, or vote at a fully staffed vote center – it’s their choice. In fact, in many VAH states, more than 50% of votes are returned “in-person.” Voters who prefer the experience of casting their ballot in person can choose that option as well. Those who require in-person attention, need to replace a lost or damaged ballot, or need to update their registration, can always vote at a staffed vote center.
Vote at home builds on the time-tested absentee voting process and adds more options and extra layers of checks and balances to ensure the integrity of elections and the validity of each ballot. These measures include (1) Risk-limiting audits, which allow election officials to double-check the vote count. Vote at home’s centralized ballot collection facilitates these audits, and (2) tracking services that follow individual ballots as they are processed through the mail system, both outbound to voters and as the ballots are returned. In a vote-at-home system, every ballot cast goes through a signature verification process. Election officials compare the voter’s signature on the return envelope with the signature on the voter’s registration card.
Vote at home has significant acceptance in red, blue, and purple states, with strong advocates from both sides of the aisle. Nearly half of the United States has provisions allowing certain elections to be conducted entirely by mail and several states allow it for all elections. About 1/3 of all US registered voters live in states or jurisdictions where they either automatically receive a ballot for every election, or have the option to do so via a “permanent absentee” policy.” In 2020, over 45% of Americans voting cast ballots that were mailed to them. Even without the pandemic, that number would have approached 33%. Since 2000, one-quarter of a Billion mailed-out ballots have been cast nationally without significant issues.
BENEFITS
Explore the benefits of Vote at Home election systems.
When voters are automatically mailed their ballots several weeks before the election — enabling them to vote from the safety and convenience of their home — and are provided multiple ways to easily return their ballot, voter participation increases significantly. During the 2020 election, 46% of all voters received and voted their ballots this way, and turnout was the highest it has been in over 120 years. A recent study of mail-ballot use and voter participation found that turnout increased an average of 5.6% during the 2020 presidential election in states that mailed a ballot to every registered voter. The effects of mail-ballot delivery were even greater in jurisdictions with historically low mail-ballot usage, boosting turnout by as much as 8%.
That same study found vote-at-home policies “…do not have partisan effects, and in many models they tilt the results in a more Republican direction.” And research conducted by Stanford University’s Institute for Economic Policy Research in 2020 found that voting by mail favors neither Democrats nor Republicans.
Vote at home has also been embraced by voters of color. Deliver My Vote Education Fund, a nonpartisan nonprofit, found that mail-ballot usage among Black voters in 2020 skyrocketed. In Michigan, for instance, absentee voting among Black voters increased by nearly 47%. Similarly in Pennsylvania, use of mail ballots among Black voters rose to 42%, while mail-ballot use among Asian American and Pacific Islander voters increased nearly 56%. Similar trends were found for Latino voters.
When voters are automatically mailed their ballots several weeks before the election — enabling them to vote from the safety and convenience of their home — and are provided multiple ways to easily return their ballot, voter participation increases significantly. During the 2020 election, 46% of all voters received and voted their ballots this way, and turnout was the highest it has been in over 120 years. A recent study of mail-ballot use and voter participation found that turnout increased an average of 5.6% during the 2020 presidential election in states that mailed a ballot to every registered voter. The effects of mail-ballot delivery were even greater in jurisdictions with historically low mail-ballot usage, boosting turnout by as much as 8%.
That same study found vote-at-home policies “…do not have partisan effects, and in many models they tilt the results in a more Republican direction.” And research conducted by Stanford University’s Institute for Economic Policy Research in 2020 found that voting by mail favors neither Democrats nor Republicans.
Vote at home has also been embraced by voters of color. Deliver My Vote Education Fund, a nonpartisan nonprofit, found that mail-ballot usage among Black voters in 2020 skyrocketed. In Michigan, for instance, absentee voting among Black voters increased by nearly 47%. Similarly in Pennsylvania, use of mail ballots among Black voters rose to 42%, while mail-ballot use among Asian American and Pacific Islander voters increased nearly 56%. Similar trends were found for Latino voters.
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.
An earlier study conducted by The Pew Charitable Trusts examined expenditures in the 2010 election through surveying county clerks about election administration and operating costs. Researchers compared counties that conducted elections by mail and counties that used a hybrid of voting options, including polling places, early voting, and absentee voting. The study found that all-mail balloting would have lowered the 2010 average cost per voter by almost 19 percent, from $6.70 to $5.65. One reason for the cost savings may be a reduction in labor costs. Alan Wallis, the study’s lead author, explained that the single biggest cost of operating polling places is hiring and training temporary poll workers. Election clerks also frequently pay permanent employees overtime on Election Day. In contrast, voting-by-mail ballots arrive over a several-week period, and clerks can use their permanent, trained staff to manage the ballot processing.
Finally, The Federal Election Commission book “Innovations in Election Administration 11: All-Mail-Ballot Elections” discusses the advantages of mail balloting for election administrators well: No pollworkers includes: no recruitment; no notices to be sent; no classes to conduct; no distribu-tion and retrieval of election day supplies; no last-minute cancellations from workers who had agreed to serve; no paychecks to cut and mail; no W-2’s to send; no pre-dawn election-day hours to line up replacement workers. No polling places includes no polling place leases, tele-phones, utilities; no searching for or preparation of accessible locations; no frantic phone calls about locked doors; no preparation, set-up, tear-down, or emergency repairs of voting ma-chines or devices; no confusion about where people must go to vote.
Voting at home is a time-tested, secure method of voting. In fact, a recent study from Towson University found that expanding mail voting is safe and “reduces the likelihood of adversarial interference.” These voting systems have numerous safeguards in place to protect voters and keep ballots secure, such as:
Mailing ballots to voters: In a vote-at-home system paper ballots are mailed to voters weeks ahead of the election. That means election officials have a verifiable paper trail to track ballots. Automatically mailing a ballot to every eligible registered voter also enables election officials to receive actionable information to keep voter rolls up-to-date, like updating a voters’ mailing address.
Mail ballot/envelope design: Mail ballots and accompanying envelopes are designed with numerous security features such as personalized barcodes to ensure that only one ballot is cast per person. Ballots are printed on special, identifiable paper, and every ballot is inspected to ensure it is valid for the election being conducted.
Signature verification: Election officials validate voters’ identities in order to ensure that only eligible voters cast a ballot. The recommended best practice is to use signature verification, via a robust procedure that includes bipartisan teams of trained signature judges. This drastically reduces opportunities for unconscious bias or human error by volunteer poll workers.
Under this process, every return ballot envelope is signed by the voter, and each signature is validated by being compared to other official signatures already on file (such as the voter’s registration document, prior election ballot envelopes, motor vehicle transactions, etc.). Signature verifiers can be trained by handwriting experts in a manner similar to those used in financial institutions, including many from law enforcement. Another best practice is to include a signature “curing” process, where if the signature doesn’t match and a secondary bipartisan review team cannot determine a match, the voter is contacted immediately and given multiple paths to resolve the discrepancy. This “cure” period extends after Election Day to allow all votes that arrived on time to be counted.
As policymakers, election officials, journalists, and the general public evaluate the need to move to a higher level of mailed-out ballot voting in light of the pandemic, voting rights advocates have expressed the need to ensure enfranchisement for the country’s most vulnerable voting populations in this rapidly changing environment. We at National Vote at Home Institute (NVAHI) agree. We are acutely aware of the concerns raised around the equitability of vote-at-home systems and are committed to addressing them and to implementing vote-at-home systems that increase voter access for all communities.
That said, we believe that there are measures that can address many of these concerns — chief among them the preservation of in-person voting options for those who need them — that must be included in any well-designed vote at home system. It is crucial that any mailed-out ballot voting system includes these elements to address the real issues — both partisan and procedural — that can make an otherwise good system not perform properly for these underserved communities. These communities are varied and encounter different barriers to access under the current system: non-White voters, voters with certain physical disabilities, voters that are lower-income, that experience housing instability, young voters, voters without regular mail delivery like Native tribes, and more. Enfranchising each of these groups is integral to the success of any vote at home ecosystem.
The following report outlines the most current research on the inclusion of these populations in existing VAH systems, as well as the elements in those systems that must be maintained in any new implementation models in order to increase that inclusion. As more states adopt these measures, we will continue to evaluate their impact on voters to close access gaps as much as possible.