Rob Roper

Rob Roper

Vermont is on the cusp of having the least secure election system in the nation.

The bill that passed the Vermont Senate 27-3, called S.15, is now under consideration in the House. It would make permanent the temporary, COVID-emergency provisions adopted for the 2020 general election, including the policy of mailing live ballots to all voters who are active on the voter checklist, regardless of whether or not the voter requests an absentee ballot. 

Proponents argue that they are trying to create a balance between making it easy to vote and maintaining ballot security.

That’s the rhetoric, but the truth is that should S.15 become law Vermont would have no effective security mechanisms to verify the validity of an absentee ballot, and the objective is to have everyone vote absentee — though that is not required. There is no balance, nor any attempt to create any.

Proponents argue that five states — Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Utah and Hawaii — conduct elections by mail with no problems.

Maybe, but it is also true that those states employ rigorous ballot security measures for mail in votes, including mandatory voter ID provisions such as signature matching (the signature on the ballot return envelope must match one on file with election officials), or the requirement that the absentee ballot be returned with a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a social security number.

There needs to be some sort of verifiable information that allows election officials to have a high degree of confidence that the vote being counted was actually cast by the person to whom the vote is being attributed. Vermont would have no such security measures.

States that conduct voting by mail also ban large-scale ballot harvesting, the controversial practice of candidates, parties or special interest groups systematically collecting and returning absentee ballots.

In Colorado, the gold standard in mail in voting, for example, it is illegal for anyone to collect and turn in more than 10 ballots.

In Vermont, large scale ballot harvesting is legal. Though a provision in the current version of S.15 prohibits candidates and their paid staffers from engaging in ballot harvesting, it is a largely meaningless. Most Statehouse and Senate candidates don’t have paid staff. However, unions, activist organizations, political parties and lobbyists do: a provision in the House version of S.15 would limit one person to harvesting 25 ballots, which is better, but still a very high number.

The National Conference of State Legislatures keeps track of voting laws in all 50 states and notes the pros and cons regarding voter access versus ballot security for each, such as all-mail voting, voter ID requirements, ballot harvesting, early voting, “same day” registration and automatic voter registration.

If S.15 becomes law, Vermont would be the only state in the union to adopt all of the access policies — mostly in their most extreme iterations — and none of the security provisions. In other words, we would have no balance at all between access and security, and the least secure voting system in the country.

In fact, if one were designing a voting system specifically for people who wanted to cheat in an election, it would be hard to come up with a better system than Vermont’s.

We will mail live ballots to all active voters, putting between 100,000 and 200,000 unclaimed or unwanted ballots into circulation. Special interest groups would be free to systematically harvest those ballots, and with Vermont’s 45 days of early voting, would have the maximum time available to organize and execute this activity.

Automatic voter registration maximizes the number of potential unwanted/unclaimed ballots to target by registering people who are disinterested in voting. Because Vermont has no verifiable ID requirements for validating absentee ballots or identifying fraudulently cast ballots, bad actors could be extremely confident that they would not be caught committing fraud.

And, with 30 days of early processing of absentee ballots, even if fraudulent votes were flagged because the real voter showed up at the polls, there is no way to remove the bad votes from the final count. 

Election officials at the state and local levels admit, when pressed, that they have no way to verify who actually filled out an absentee ballot.

When asked how he would be able to catch someone fraudulently casting someone else’s unclaimed/unwanted ballot, Montpelier’s city clerk John Odum said, “No, we can’t necessarily stop them.”

This is unacceptable.

For citizens to have confidence that election results are accurate and fair, election officials have to have the tools to verify that the votes cast and counted are actually the votes of the people to whom the votes are being attributed, ensuring one person one vote.

If S.15 becomes law, this will not be the case. 


Rob Roper is president of the conservative Ethan Allen Institute.

(1) comment

mrooney

Leaving aside for the moment all of the details you raised since Jim Condos should answer them as he has the details, let's just look at the issue of one person gets one vote. Your proposition is the real voter cannot necessarily vote or their vote can be hijacked.

Every individual will get an absentee ballot in the mail. When they get that ballot they can choose to vote it and put it in the mail. If they mail in the ballot it will reach their town and be counted.

Since the quick mail in ballot is the fastest way for the ballot to reach the town, it will not give anyone else time to interfere.

Sure, there are all sorts of nefarious people and groups who might try to get that ballot before the voter gets it. The only way that can happen, particularly in large scale, is if the voter does not get their mail.

Another thing the voter can do is return the ballot they receive in the mail when they go vote in person. That clearly is secure.

Yes, it is possible for someone to, as you phrased it, "harvest ballots." What is a harvested ballot? It is a ballot that the voter filled out and sealed in an envelope. The harvester cannot even look at the ballot without opening the envelope instantly voiding the ballot. The harvester then has three choices. One choice is destroy the ballot because they know the voter will vote against the candidate the harvester wants to win. Another choice is to take the harvested ballot to the town. Another choice is to open the envelope and see who the voter chose. Maybe there is some way to find some envelopes that have not been used and then put the ballot in that envelope and take it to the town. There is no gain to the harvester by doing that other than knowing how the voter actually voted.

Either the voter's ballot gets submitted to the town or it gets destroyed. Harvesters do not get any large scale opportunity to affect the outcome of an election, especially if the voter checks the list and finds they have not yet voted. The voter can then vote and the harvester will gain nothing.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexual language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be proactive. Use the "Report" link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.