It’s long been said that politicians should never let a serious crisis go to waste and should use those opportunities to implement policies that would have otherwise remained shelved.
Exploiting panic caused by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus—commonly known as the novel coronavirus—is no exception.
Ballot harvesting is a practice in which a voter completes an absentee ballot and a third-party, usually a person affiliated with a campaign or political party, picks that ballot up and delivers it—usually along with many others—to be tallied. This practice is illegal in most of the country, but is lawful in a handful of states. Congressional Democrats want this to be legal nationally.
Most harvesters are operatives of a political party, which means they’re not neutral actors in the election process. They, by definition, have a “side,” and they want their side to win.
Allowing biased, political partisans to collect ballots is a system that relies on mere trust and the patently absurd notion that a political representative will act in good faith when delivering ballots for their opponents, while they are largely unsupervised with no real accountability over the chain-of-custody of the ballots they’re collecting.
To state this more simply: Ballot harvesting can turn political operatives into the actual vote counters.
The other two provisions touted by congressional Democrats were just as large a threat to a secure election: no voter ID for absentee ballots and no witness signatures.
America currently has millions more names on its voter rolls than it does citizens eligible to vote. This vulnerability can be (and often is) exploited by casting invalid absentee ballots. Not confirming the identity of the person casting a vote makes it much easier to game the system.
Additionally, not requiring a witness signature means removing a check put in place to help authenticate the validity of mail-in ballots. Further eroding voter ID requirements and removing the need for witness certification of absentee ballots invites an even larger amount of fraud.
The election provisions congressional Democrats have recently proposed represent a step in the wrong direction for the United States.
But, capitalizing on this health and economic crisis isn’t only left to politicians inside the Washington Beltway. Elections officials throughout the country are considering switching to all mail-in ballots or electronic voting systems for the 2020 election.
These proposed changes come in response to social distancing guidelines and quarantines that state and local governments have enacted in response to the outbreak of the CCP virus.
“Over the course of the past several weeks, elections officials throughout Arizona have worked under extraordinary conditions to put on a fair, free and safe Presidential Preference Election amid a public health emergency,” she wrote. “That said, it would be unreasonable to ask these officials to once again overcome these circumstances, should they still exist or are exacerbated, for the August and November elections.”
Hobbs stated that it could be months before the risk of infection subsides and said that the state needs to prepare now and “allow elections officials to adapt to the circumstances on the ground to best protect voters’ health while also preserving the ability to exercise their right to vote.”
She said the “County Boards of Supervisors should have the authority to conduct an all-mail election, at least for the 2020 Primary and General Elections.”
There is evidence that an ample amount of election fraud is facilitated by loopholes provided by mail-in and absentee ballots.
Some examples:
The decades worth of information we have demonstrates that mail-in and absentee voting doesn’t protect the integrity of our elections as Pelosi suggests. More “anomalies” surface during elections as we move further away from identifying and authenticating each individual voter.
Some jurisdictions now offer the ability for voters to track their ballots online, but this isn’t a feature available nationally or in counties that have had the most egregious issues with suspected election fraud.
Americans’ concerns about the security of a 100 percent VBM election process aren’t misplaced when considering the myriad vulnerabilities created by that process.
As listed above, we have examples showing just how easily VBM and absentee ballot policies can be weaponized, often with no consequences for the officials who exploit the system.
Elections are only as good as the confidence we can place in their results.