mail-in ballots

Arizona Proposition 309 puts more stringent voter ID and mail-in requirements on ballot

Election Law Society · November 7, 2022 ·

By Sarah Bradley

Proposition 309, the “Arizonans for Voter ID Act,” is on the ballot this November. Proposition 309 includes provisionsthat would affect the state’s voter identification laws and add additional requirements to mail-in voting affidavits. Proponents have stated that it will increase election security, while opponents have expressed worry about its effect on voter participation.

Arizona has allowed no-excuse mail-in voting since 1991, and—until recently—it has had significant bipartisan support. In 2007, the state legislature created the Permanent Early Voting List, which automatically sends a mail-in ballot for every election to every voter who opted in. 75% of Arizona voters are currently on the list. Early voting by mail is the most popular way to vote in Arizona, regularly used by more than 80% of Arizona voters. However, in the aftermath of the 2020 election, there has been a significant push to restrict, or even eliminate, mail-in voting in the state.

Proposition 309 adds additional requirements to the affidavit that mail-in voters must submit with their ballots. The affidavit would require the voter to provide an “early voter identification” number, their date of birth, and their signature. The early voter ID number can be (a) the voter’s driver’s license or nonoperating license ID number, (b) the last four digits of the voter’s social security number, or (c) the voter’s ID number from the statewide voter registration database. Current law only requires the individual to sign the affidavit. Election officials are currently required to confirm the signature and contact the voter regarding any inconsistencies. Proposition 309 would further require confirmation of the early voter ID number and date of birth.

Supporters of Proposition 309’s mail-in voting measures state that the current signature-only requirement is a critical vulnerability in the state’s mail-in voting system, and that the new addition creates parity between in-person and mail-in voters. They argue that the current system is overly permissive, allowing ballot harvesting and trafficking.

Detractors of the mail-in voting measures criticize them as being an invasion of privacy that would eliminate votes and drastically increase the time needed to verify ballots. They point out that the early voter ID number requirement prevents the ability to vote anonymously by linking the individual to their ballot, and that providing personal information increases opportunities for identity theft. Critics also highlight the likelihood that a high number of ballots would be discarded when returned without a completed affidavit, comparing Proposition 309 to a similar Texas law that caused about 13% of ballots—nearly 23,000 votes—to be thrown out in the state’s primary election earlier this year.

The Arizona Advisor Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has previously criticized the state’s current in-person voter ID requirements for being unnecessarily restrictive, but Proposition 309 would tighten the laws even further. The current law requires voters to present either a photo ID that includes their name and address, or a combination of two alternate forms of identification without photos, such as utility or credit card bills. Proposition 309 would require all in-person voters to present a photo ID in the form of an Arizona driver’s license or nonoperating identification license, a tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification issued by a tribal government, or a US government-issued ID—removing the provision that currently allows voters to present any state or local government-issued photo ID, such as municipal or student IDs, that include the voter’s name, photo, and address. The name and address of the voter on the ID must match the name and address in the voting precinct register. If the address on the photo ID does not match, or if the ID is a US military ID card or a valid passport without an address, the voter must also present an additional document containing the name and address of the voter.

Supporters of the additional photo ID restrictions argue that photo identification is already required in daily life, calling it a commonsense measure that would increase voter confidence. They have also pointed to the provision in the bill that allows a fee waiver for individuals obtaining a nonoperating license to meet photo ID requirements as proof that the requirement will not be overly burdensome.

Critics have stated that the ID requirements in place are already satisfactory, and that Proposition 309’s photo ID requirement only limits access to marginalized communities. Strict voter ID laws have been shown to impede millions of eligible voters nationally from accessing the polls, with a disproportionate impact on minorities, senior citizens, people with disabilities, low-income voters, and students.

Supporters include all Arizona Republican lawmakers, Heritage Action (an affiliate of the Heritage Foundation), the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, and the Republican Liberty Caucus of Arizona.

The Arizona County Recorders have opposed Proposition 309, calling it a solution in search of a problem. Other opponents include the Arizona Education Association, the League of Women Voters of Arizona, and the Alliance of Arizona Nonprofits, which represents more than 1,100 nonprofit organizations.

Prop 309 Sample Ballot (source: Arizona Secretary of State website)

Rhode Island’s Response to Voting Restrictions and January 6 Riots

Election Law Society · October 21, 2022 ·

By Susanna Clark

The Rhode Island legislature recently passed the “Let Rhode Island Vote Act,” which was signed into law by the Governor on June 8, 2022. The law contains several measures intended to make voting easier for Rhode Islanders. This comes at a time when several other states like Georgia, Iowa, and Florida have enacted measures to make it more difficult to vote. The lieutenant governor cited COVID-19 and the January 6 riots as reasons for the new law. One of these measures removes the requirement that mail-in ballots be filled out either before a notary public or before two witnesses. Another established a virtual portal that allows voters to apply for the mail-in ballot online, rather than having to fill out their application in person or mail in the form. Furthermore, the statute removes the requirement that voters provide a justification for obtaining a mail-in ballot. The Act further eases restrictions regarding emergency mail-in ballot applications. Moreover, a new telephone hotline provides information on voter registration, the voting process, and polling locations.

Bloomberg News assessed Rhode Island’s election system. Bloomberg found that while Rhode Island’s election system scored well in terms of ballot security, it could still make improvements in the voting category. While the article does indicate that the Act includes online registration, no-excuse early or mail-in voting, and online ballot tracking, it is important to note that the Act does not include some considerable items that other states have implemented to further ease restrictions. These measures include election-day registration, automatic registration (at an agency other than the DMV), a permanent mail-voter list, and voting supercenters (that allow anyone to vote regardless of their precinct). These measures have become more significant in the wake of accusations of election security violations and fraud, propagated mainly by Trump-supporting Republicans.

The former president of the United States infamously claimed that widespread voter fraud ran rampant during the 2020 election. He specifically targeted mail-in voting, which was highly utilized in 2020, likely due to COVID-19. These issues have been highly politicized, especially because of the January 6 riots, which was an attempt by Trump supporters to prevent Congress from confirming the outcome of the 2020 election. This appears to be a notable reason why the legislature passed this bill—to ensure that people who want to vote by mail are able to do so. Bloomberg also measuredhow Rhode Island responded to the 2020 election in other ways. Rhode Island followed its normal auditing and re-count procedures, it did not modify its criminal penalties for election officials, and it did not join a lawsuit attempting to induce the Supreme Court to overturn the election. Furthermore, all of its representatives in Congress voted to certify the election results.

The Rhode Island legislature and governor likely felt it was necessary to take a stronger stance against the allegations of fraud through this Act’s implementation. The decision whether to expand or restrict voting falls almost strictly along party lines. Rhode Island has a Democratic majority in its legislature and a Democratic governor, and the states that passed laws restricting voting have been majority Republican. Voting laws have always been somewhat partisan, but it seems the parties have become even more divided on the ways elections ought to be conducted. It remains to be seen whether the Let Rhode Island Vote Act will increase voter turnout in the midterm elections this November.

Big Changes to Indiana Election Law: Curing Ballots & Private Funds

Election Law Society · October 18, 2021 ·

By all accounts and in unique ways, the 2020 election in Indiana was unprecedented. Like other states, Indiana faced impressive challenges and unexpected changes as a result of the ongoing pandemic, from the first postponement of a previously scheduled primary in Indiana’s two-hundred year history to staggering increases in absentee voting. Indiana legislators relied on both the lessons and the disputes of 2020 to make big changes to Indiana election law.

In 2021, Indiana State Senator Greg Walker introduced Senate Bill 398 and, following approval from the state legislature, Governor Holcomb signed the bill into law in April of this year. This post will focus on two interesting changes to Indiana election law brought about by this bill: new procedures for notifying and curing absentee ballots rejected due to signature mismatching, and private grants to fund local elections.

Don’t Get Caught Naked: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules That Mail-In Ballots Without A Secrecy Envelope (“Naked Ballots”) Won’t Be Counted

vebrankovic · November 18, 2020 ·

By Jessica Washington

Ever heard of a naked ballot? It’s when a completed mail-in ballot is put into the paid postage envelope without first being put into a “secrecy envelope.” And the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has recently ruled that naked ballots are to be thrown out regardless of the validity of the ballot.

There is a provision in the Pennsylvania Election Code that requires mail-in ballots to first be put into a secrecy envelope and then that secrecy envelope containing the ballot will be put into a regular mailing envelope which has identifying information for the voter to fill out. It’s not uncommon for a voter—especially a voter voting by mail for the first time—to forget to put their ballot inside the secrecy envelope before putting it into the mailing envelope. But this common mistake could potentially disenfranchise 100,000 eligible voters whose ballot is correct save the secrecy envelope issue.

What’s in a Name?: Pennsylvania Requires Signatures For Mail-In Ballots To Be Counted And Decides Not To Throw Out Ballots For Signature Verification Issues

vebrankovic · November 16, 2020 ·

By Jessica Washington

Pennsylvania requires a signature for all mail-in ballots. The voter’s signature must match the voter’s permanent registration card. If the signature matches, the voter’s ballot is counted. If the signature does not match, the voter’s ballot is discarded.

Prior to this year, signatures for mail-in ballots have been an issue. They are poised to become an even greater problem as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic taking the world by storm. As a result of the pandemic, many people have begun to work from home, had their groceries delivered to their door, and have limited their need to go out in accordance with health guidelines. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, more people than ever are expected to vote through mail-in ballots. This increases the chance that more ballots than ever will be discounted as a result of rejected signatures.