The Hidden Dilemmas of Vote-by-Mail

Vote-by-mail (VBM) has garnered national attention since 2020 as a system to increase voter turnout by allowing citizens to exercise their voice safely and conveniently, especially given the new wave of voter suppression efforts. What many proponents have failed to realize, however, is how VBM can, and often does, disproportionately disenfranchise those it sets out to help. VBM has been a significant innovation in the push for voting reform, but the natural experiment it has provided us with demonstrates that it too can be used to make political power plays. Instead of simply expanding mail-in voting we must ensure that VBM does not continue to silence the communities who could benefit most from it.

Though the pandemic brought VBM to the forefront of Americans’ awareness, five states already employed universal VBM policies: Colorado, Utah, Hawaii, Oregon and Washington. Three other states—California, Nevada, and Vermont—have permanently altered their election policies to provide all registered voters with mail-in ballots automatically with no application or request required—just as they did during the 2020 election. This dramatic increase in state-level policy innovation prompted voting rights advocates to push for the permanent adoption of universal VBM.

The case for VBM hinges on its ability to increase turnout specifically for groups that have been disenfranchised. Supporters argue that VBM would lessen the impact of voter suppression, such as the long lines and polling place closures that disproportionately impact  communities of color. As Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon stated, vote-by-mail is “a potent cure to the contagion of voter suppression that has swept our state governments in recent years.”

While this makes sense in theory, VBM has been deployed to maximize partisan advantage with the introduction of counter-reforms that, for instance, increase the rates of rejection for those who opt for sending in their ballots. While some studies show that voter turnout increases for both young voters and voters of color when hybrid systems are introduced, they fail to consider that the rates of ballot rejection are higher for these historically marginalized and silenced populations. In other words, the votes of communities of color continue to be suppressed even under this theoretically beneficial system.

A stunning 12% of mail-in ballots were rejected during Texas’ 2022 primary election. Nearly 25,000 voices were silenced because of a new, convoluted GOP-backed bill that required voters to include their social security number or driver’s license number on both their ballot and return envelope. These burdensome technicalities, referred to as “envelope errors,” are far too common and are often small details a voter can easily overlook. These administrative burdens increase the likelihood of ballot rejection for the populations who choose to vote by mail, including those who need to work, care for their children, or disabled populations.

In Georgia’s 2018 midterm election—which garnered national attention due to claims of voter suppression from gubernatorial candidate and voting rights advocate Stacey Abrams—a vast disparity in ballot rejection rates emerged. Researchers concluded that voters of color were two and a half times more likely to have their on-time ballots turned away than white voters.

Likewise, in Florida, a study on the rates of rejected mailed-in ballots revealed that young voters and especially young voters of color were especially vulnerable to having their ballot turned away. The study determined that those inexperienced with the VBM process were three times more likely to be rejected than regular voters.

The Brennan Center for Justice reported that North Carolina was also a hotspot for VBM voter suppression in both 2018 and 2020. The report cited a 2020 article from ProPublica’s Electionland that analyzed data from the North Carolina State Board of Elections showing that, in 2018, mail-in ballots sent by Black voters were more than twice as likely to be rejected. One woman who had her ballot rejected said in the report that there was a disappointing lack of communication from the election board; she did not know her vote was not counted until she was contacted by a reporter.

Lack of clarity on the strict technicalities required when returning a mail-in ballot contribute to the suppression of votes from first-time and regular voters alike. Instead of offering up VBM as a blanket solution to voter suppression, policy makers must acknowledge that the system is not only flawed, but part of the voter suppression effort itself, at least in some states. The advancement of legislation that preserves the American fundamental right to vote is critical to the future of our democracy.

Following the Shelby v. Holder decision of 2013, however, reformers face an uphill battle to ensure that all voices are heard. Should state leaders want to introduce administrative burdens to increase rejection rates of mail-in-ballots, they have the authority to do so. And given the current makeup of the Supreme Court, oversight of state-level restrictions will likely remain out of the purview of the federal government for the foreseeable future. Until policy can be enacted to comprehensively protect the voices of voters, it is critical that those submitting their ballots are made aware of these administrative burdens to ensure that they can successfully cast their vote. VBM as a method is not neutral or uniform. This seemingly liberating technology can be manipulated, quite paradoxically, to disproportionately disenfranchise historically suppressed groups—all in the service of furthering partisan political power.

Once considered a silver bullet for democracy, VBM is now part of the battle against voter suppression—a battle that will be waged for years to come.