USPS warns mail-in ballots may not be delivered in time based on election rules in 46 states, disenfranchising voters

[bostonimproper]

From The Hill:

In letters to 40 states, the Postal Service warned that state deadlines to request, return and count ballots may clash with the realities of mail delivery at a time when USPS is already facing financial troubles, delivery delays and an expected influx of election-related mail, The Washington Post reported Friday, after obtaining the documents through a records request.

Among those states were critical electoral battlegrounds such as Florida and Michigan, according to the Post’s reporting.

Six other states and D.C. were reportedly told that the possible delays could impact smaller subsets of voters.

From NBC News:

A major Republican donor, DeJoy has introduced a number of policy changes that appear to have slowed the delivery of mail. For personnel, he banned overtime and additional trips made by carriers to deliver mail on time.

He is also decommissioning 671 of its letter sorting machines, according to an internal document obtained by NBC News. These major apparatuses, located in USPS buildings across the country, can individually sort 35,000 letters an hour. Their absence will hinder the delivery of election-related post, though postal workers warn that cuts to overtime and staffing are a greater problem.

From CNN:

The United States Postal Service has started reducing post office operating hours across several states and removing their iconic blue letter collection boxes as it faces intense pressure to deal with millions of mail-in ballots this fall, according to union officials.

Officials say that in the last week the USPS has removed letter collection boxes in at least four states: New York, Oregon, Montana and Indiana. The USPS has also begun notifying postal workers in at least three states -- West Virginia, Florida and Missouri -- that they will start to reduce their retail operating hours, according to union officials.

[Chris]

Good on the USPS for raising this issue now.

Simple solution: don't mail ballots in. Boards of election could easily have drop boxes located outside polling sites. Most states offer early voting as well.

[jennypenny]

Yeah, this just seems like such a non-problem. Why not open polling places for three days instead of one to alleviate crowding? Or have drive thru/walk thru stations set up at polling places where people can pick up ballots, then rinse/repeat for dropping off completed ballots?

I prefer the former because who is going to count all of these ballots and how long will that take? I'd think it would be easier to extend voting over several days and do it the traditional way (in states that use polling machines) instead of trying to manually count the ballots.

COVID is hard but people (of all flavors) make it much harder than it needs to be.

[Kriegsspiel]

Yeah, this just seems like such a non-problem. Why not open polling places for three days instead of one to alleviate crowding? Or have drive thru/walk thru stations set up at polling places where people can pick up ballots, then rinse/repeat for dropping off completed ballots?

I prefer the former because who is going to count all of these ballots and how long will that take? I'd think it would be easier to extend voting over several days and do it the traditional way (in states that use polling machines) instead of trying to manually count the ballots.

COVID is hard but people (of all flavors) make it much harder than it needs to be.

Agreed, especially with that last comment.

[IlliniDave]

Certainly for some people (like my 81-year-old father and other high risk individuals) accommodations should be made. But as was mentioned before, it shouldn't be too hard come up with reasonable adjustments to allow the large cohort of people who are used to and want to vote the old fashioned way to do so without creating an environment more dangerous than they are operating in every day. The residual cohort that must rely on long-distance voting should not overwhelm the ability of the USPS to function. State rules are built around a specific process and a whole scale 11th-hour overhaul is bound to be a train wreck with enormous consequences. Seems wisest to keep changes to a reasonable minimum.

I've grown a bit cynical and believe every circumstance is being presented in an exaggerated light, sometimes disingenuously, in a barely-disguised attempt to steer November's outcome. Whipping up controversy. Whipping up fear. Whipping up hatred. You must believe exactly like us or you are stupid and vile. Hopefully it will fail as a strategy and be abandoned. I suspect though that we are only in the early stages of an arms race.

[Alphaville]

why the need to whip up fear about mailing the american people a piece of paper? lol.

25% of voting already happens by mail. due to the situation we’re asking for an expansion, is all.

if some people want to go stand in line at their precinct on election day nobody is barring them from doing so. you don’t *have to* vote by mail. just provide for those who request it. we’ve been doing it since the civil war.

[IlliniDave]

Alphaville,

I didn't look to see who were the publishers above, or even read them (was already aware of the USPS controversy) but there are two low-fruit possibilities:

-Trump has been verbally opposed to adding a fairly large sum for mail-in voting expansion to any stimulus deal ($3B was the number one side wanted, iirc), so getting the public whipped up about a pending disaster adds leverage to the opposing negotiating position (I suspect DT's initial position is also just a negotiating position) as well as rallying people to the cause of his election opponents.

-Some people are leery of the election's integrity with an abrupt change in the process that might increase voter confusion, errors, and potentially provide cover for fraud. They like to cite a recent state (or local) election in Nevada where it took some weeks to get the votes tabulated. Adding to the list of potential problems changes could bring would appear to give weight to their arguments.

Once the conventions wrap up, there are two months for people who need them to get a mail ballot and return it. Agree, it doesn't seem all that hard, although as always people that want to vote by mail need to be a little proactive.

[jacob]

For American citizens who are worried about whether they personally can get to vote, you can go to https://www.vote.org/ (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote.org with links to various news coverage to verify) and spend 5 minutes checking whether your voter registration is still valid/existing, register to vote if it's not, and request a mail-in/absentee ballot to be sent to you if you want. They service all 50 states. This should take care of all COVID concerns, if any, with plenty of time to spare before the election (79 days from now).

IOW, you can basically solve this problem for yourself right now and be done in 5 minutes if you know how to. And now you do.

You can also share this link with others. I think this is about the most effective difference it's possible to make for most individuals who are concerned about how the technical procedures of election will be handled. The rest is kinda locked-in already unless you're on the local election board or whoever handles these things setting up tables, booths, and boxes.

I find it highly unlikely that arguing about this issue is going to change anyone's mind in terms of who they vote for. IOW, it's hard to imagine how suffrage and election processes would become a special interest issue or in any way tip the scales for anyone's vote, but perhaps I'm mistaken about this.

[CS]

Good on the USPS for raising this issue now.

Simple solution: don't mail ballots in. Boards of election could easily have drop boxes located outside polling sites. Most states offer early voting as well.

Some states are prohibiting adding more drop boxes. Heard that on the news but now can't remember where.

I think the argument against is that many states are proactively sending out ballots or ballot applications. This goes against the whole voter suppression strategy. If voting becomes the default, things will change.

I've been doing mail in balloting since living in CA. It is phenomenal. Why going to a polling place when you don't have to. It is easier on everyone. I've seen an organized room full of ballots.

It also has the added security of paper ballots that can be recounted. It is vastly superior to the electronic only systems, especially the ones that have already been proven to be hackable (by little kids no less) and evidence of prior breeching exists.

[IlliniDave]

I find it highly unlikely that arguing about this issue is going to change anyone's mind in terms of who they vote for. IOW, it's hard to imagine how suffrage and election processes would become a special interest issue or in any way tip the scales for anyone's vote, but perhaps I'm mistaken about this.

I would say you are correct, especially if you mean discussing it here. In the wider world of the US, my guess is these things will be argued about doggedly and ever-louder. But I suspect you could hold the election tomorrow or Nov 3 and get nearly identical results, unless a candidate withdraws or something.

[CS]

Now that I think about it, the paper trail might be the part most worrisome to a few. Hard for foreign countries to do anything about that unless they can start an electrical fire remotely.

Hmm, that might be a good plot for a thriller. Brb...

[jennypenny]

Now that I think about it, the paper trail might be the part most worrisome to a few.

It's the worrisome part for me, but only because -- overall -- I trust machines to tally votes more than I trust people. I picture 2000's 'chad' moment on steroids, with overworked people trying to get tallies right, and old school political shenanigans in overdrive. Think of all the local court challenges that could happen when we're talking about 50 states instead of just Florida.

I'm kinda surprised that the people* who want Trump out ASAP aren't pushing for the most expedient form of voting possible.


*not directed at you specifically CS

[Alphaville]

the “hanging chads” were observable though, and disputable, whereas hacking a diebold machine could occur absolutely unnoticed.

known unknowns are at least better than unknown unknowns, yes?

[CS]

@jp
I think they run the ballots through machines for the initial count and then file them on shelves. So it's not completely by hand. They have quite a while to get them settled, at least in CA when they accept ballots a long time before election day. Not sure about where I am not since I've not been in one of those election offices. The local polls are in schools and the county court house. Had to go there for the democratic primary due to time constraints.

If the alternative was jail*, wouldn't you push for court challenges in 50 states? It's going to be a shit show no matter what happens.

* this is another reason for not having jail time. It would normalize a bad precedent (no matter how deserved) and cause more conflict when there are bigger social problems that need attention.

@alphaville
Yes

[Chris]

Why going to a polling place when you don't have to. It is easier on everyone. I've seen an organized room full of ballots.

It also has the added security of paper ballots that can be recounted. It is vastly superior to the electronic only systems

Agree that paper ballots are better. Here in NY, we have paper ballots scanned by machines. In addition to allowing recounts, this also adds uniformity between voting methods, since the ballots sent out for mail-in voters are physically identical to the ones used on Election Day.

There is still a benefit to voting at a polling place though: you know if your vote gets counted. After you mark the ballot, you slide it in the machine and watch it be counted. If there is an error on the ballot (overvoting, ambiguous mark, etc.), you have the ability to fix it. This is not the case with mail-in votes, where a BoE worker scans your ballot. If there's a problem, it's a "hanging chad" situation.

My fear for the election is that a lot of new voters-by-mail will not have their votes counted, particularly voters who are not accustomed to using paper ballots.