9

Donald Trump has been fulminating about Twitter fact-checking this claim:

There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent. Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even illegally printed out & fraudulently signed. The Governor of California is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone.....

As far as I can tell his objection to being fact-checked is that the mainstream media sources are all his opponents and can't be trusted. Media supporters of Trump seem to agree with him. Tucker Carlson (quoted in the Washington Examiner) argues, for example, that:

I don’t care what Twitter tells you. That’s true. It’s obvious. And by the way, it’s been documented. … It’s not a theoretical risk. Actual voter fraud has happened despite what they tell you all over the country.

There are several claims in the tweet. But the main one is that mail-in ballots will be substantially fraudulent. As far as i can tell nobody doubts that it has happened, as have other forms of voting fraud (or potential fraud with very hackable electronic voting systems which doesn't seem to be a cause of worry for Trump). Carlson supports the Trump narrative by quoting some actual examples (but, since they were all examples where it was detected and led to prosecution, it isn't clear that this explains how the existing ways of preventing it are flawed).

So the claim here is not whether mail-in voting fraud exists but whether it is substantial. Is it?

PS I'm not an american. I only know the rules around mail voting in the UK, which are pretty strict around identity verification. It would be useful if answers provided useful background about US systems, how much they are used, how long they have been used, what the rules are to prevent fraud and how much actual fraud has been detected.

matt_black
  • 56,186
  • 16
  • 175
  • 373
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/109201/discussion-on-question-by-matt-black-is-voting-by-mail-subject-to-substantial-fr). – Jamiec Jun 11 '20 at 15:34
  • 1
    Seems *ballot invalidation* is a major issue. [More Than 550,000 Primary Absentee Ballots Rejected In 2020, Far Outpacing 2016](https://www.npr.org/2020/08/22/904693468/more-than-550-000-primary-absentee-ballots-rejected-in-2020-far-outpacing-2016). Might be opportunity for dirty tricks to get ballots invalidated/revalidated. –  Aug 22 '20 at 17:10

2 Answers2

16

The root issue at play is the drive by several states to begin "All-Mail Voting". Instead of visiting polling places to vote, registered voters would be mailed ballots to be sent back.

From the article on All-Mail Voting on Ballotpedia

Five states – Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, and Washington – conduct what are commonly referred to as all-mail elections. In these states, voting is conducted primarily, although not necessarily exclusively, by mail.

Additionally, 17 other states have adopted temporary measures due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Heritage Foundation, an American conservative think tank, maintains a list of criminal cases it considers voter fraud[note 1]. While this may not be from a non-partisan or unbiased source (Heritage describes itself as conservative, Media Bias Fact Check rates them as Right Wing), this information is being relied upon by the White House, as evidenced by This Report from The Heritage Foundation being hosted and referenced on WhiteHouse.gov.

For more information on this particular PDF please see the the question Are there “1,071 Proven Cases of Voter Fraud”?

Examining the Heritage database hosted at https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud and examining the five states that have All-Mail Voting under all categories for this section. The cases which involved fraudulently casting mail-in ballots for other voters are as follows. [note 2]

Colorado - 4 cases [note 3]

  • Toni Lee Newbill in 2013 and 2016, voting using her deceased father's name in the 2013 state elections and the 2016 RNC primary
  • Winston Keys in 2005, voting using his deceased mother's name in the 2005 state elections
  • Sarilu Sosa-Sanchez in 2013, voting using her deceased mother's name in the 2013 state elections
  • Steve Curtis in 2016, voting using his ex-wife's name in the 2016 presidential elections

Hawaii - 0 cases

Oregon - 2 cases

  • Terri Louise Kobialka in 2000, for mailing in a ballot for a former tenant during the 2000 elections
  • Marjory Gale in 2016, for submitting her daughter's ballot during the 2016 election

Utah - 0 cases

Wyoming - 2 cases

  • Gary and Leila Blake in 2001, for voting in a county election after moving away from said county

In total, from the 5 states listed above, we have 8 cases with a combined 9 fraudulent votes spanning from 2000 to 2016.

[note 1]: The Heritage foundation, by their own admission, claims that their database is not exhaustive or comprehensive. However, as Heritage is an organization that is against mail-in voting and for voter ID laws, they are most likely to have the most comprehensive database available, as any cases they add to their database strengthen their argument.

[note 2]: I am not including cases where someone voted in multiple states, even if one was a mail-in vote, as this is not due to having All-Mail voting but instead due to voter registration issues, and is outside the scope of this question and this answer.

[note 3]: Brittany Curtis in 2012 is also listed under "Fraudulent Use Of Absentee Ballots" but appears to be related to a petition, and may be mis-categorized

DenisS
  • 22,355
  • 8
  • 95
  • 95
  • 2
    To make this a great answer it needs to provide the context for the examples given (good idea to use a skeptical source BTW). Since some anti postal voting commentators have portrayed the postal voting as new and unproven, a little history of its use in the US would help. Also some idea of how many postal votes are used in typical US elections would put the examples in perpsective and help answer the question of *significance.* – matt_black Jun 03 '20 at 20:56
  • Good point @matt_black and I referenced it in comments above and didn't bring it up. I'll try to add in voting history for the five states mentioned in this answer and update it. – DenisS Jun 03 '20 at 23:01
  • Looking through the Heritage Foundation data was very interesting. Given that they are a (self-described) right-wing website, I wasn't expecting so many of their records of voter fraud to be perpetrated by right-wing supporters. – Onyz Jun 04 '20 at 16:22
  • I would also add the general context of how common postal voting is and how long it has existed, not just in the states you mentioned. Some commentators have portrayed it as a radical new idea or a purely modern innovation of which the US has little experience. – matt_black Jun 04 '20 at 16:22
  • @matt_black Some states have extensive mail voting, some barely cover absentee. That sounds like a different claim for a different question. –  Aug 22 '20 at 14:40
  • @fredsbend If postal voting has been widely used in US elections (even if only in some states) without notable problems, then that is a vital piece of context to address claims that postal voting is a major source of voting fraud. It is context, not a different qestion. – matt_black Aug 26 '20 at 09:16
  • @matt_black If you mean that these states can be examples this answer can use, yes, I suppose, but that's not what your comment implied to me. I think that would require comparing the issues these states have had with mail in, which sends like a lot of work for what's like a small step above anecdote. –  Aug 26 '20 at 14:27
  • You've listed Wyoming (and cases for it) above, but Washington is the 5th mail-in voting state. – GalacticCowboy Sep 02 '20 at 11:43
  • @GalacticCowboy holy shit wow I screwed that up. Will adjust, thanks for catching it! – DenisS Sep 02 '20 at 14:32
  • @Onyz, the majority of all cases of voter fraud (not just mail in ballots) in the last decade or so have been on behalf of Republican candidates or candidates in Republican primaries. If you wanted to try and convince people there's a lot of voter fraud, you need to list the fraud carried out on the right, because there's not enough carried out in favour of Democrats to have any significance. – Keith Morrison Sep 10 '20 at 20:28
-9

In New Jersey, a recent local election was done entirely by mail. 19% of the votes had to be disqualified due to signatures not matching or the chain of possession being disrupted. Four people have been charged with voter fraud.

In addition to the roughly 800 ballots that were discounted due to allegations of fraud from the US Postal Service, another 2,300 ballots were not counted, according to the Paterson Press. In total, 19% of all the ballots cast were disqualified.

Keith Furlong, a spokesman for Passaic County government, said that the additional 2,300 ballots were not counted due to the county’s practice of comparing signatures on the ballots with those that were on file for the voters, which he said was “part of the normal process,” according to the Paterson Press report.

Now, sure, 3000 votes won't flip the popular vote in the presidential election. But it could easily flip the electoral college result in a close election. And it could flip it either way; fraudsters could send in thousands of fraudulent ballots, or a few corrupt election officials could throw away thousands of legitimate ballots. They would even be able to hide behind claims that the ballots discarded were illegitimate.

We even have a self-admitted voter fraud expert explaining how it's done and has been done for decades.

Some states do have successful mail-in voting systems that are not rife with fraud. But in a close election, every state, even every county matters, and it is likely that not every state will be able to implement a fraud-proof 100% mail-in voting system before November. The risk of mail-in voter fraud seems real.

Ryan_L
  • 885
  • 5
  • 11
  • 4
    It might be worth discussing the difference between areas that have rapidly converted to mail-in in response to the pandemic vs states like Orgeon with well established mail-in systems. – Arcanist Lupus Jun 02 '20 at 17:11
  • @ArcanistLupus That info would be interesting to discuss, but I don't think it could change the conclusion I made. It doesn't matter if many states have long-running successful mail-in systems, because many swing states do not. The issue isn't that the entire country will have their elections stolen, it is that a handful of closely-contested districts may. Certainly some of these districts do not have strong mail-in systems and cannot hope to develop them in just 5 months. – Ryan_L Jun 02 '20 at 18:19
  • 25
    Signatures not matching doesn't necessarily indicate voter fraud. People's signatures change and people can contest the county's decision. Also, this article notes that about 1,000 ballots were rejected for not being filled out properly which is not fraud. https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/paterson-press/2020/05/29/paterson-nj-election-included-ballots-out-towners-and-dead/5287985002/ – Legion600 Jun 02 '20 at 18:21
  • @Legion600 I'm not saying it does. It's possible the fraud went the other way too, that the people checking the signatures are lying, that the signatures actually do match but they're being discarded anyways. – Ryan_L Jun 02 '20 at 18:26
  • @Ryan_L you might be right, but by leaving out any talk of how your example relates to the whole country you imply it is perfectly representative, which it is not. If it is representative of the relevant elections, that's something you should justify in your answer. – Arcanist Lupus Jun 02 '20 at 20:37
  • 3
    You seem to be including an awful lot of personal opinion. – Daniel R Hicks Jun 02 '20 at 21:02
  • @DanielRHicks Where? – Ryan_L Jun 02 '20 at 21:03
  • 1
    The last two paragraphs. – Daniel R Hicks Jun 02 '20 at 21:13
  • For a little more context from the South Jersey Times: "On May 12, the state conducted a 33 local elections with by-mail-only balloting. The were no unmitigated disasters, save for an accusation of uncounted ballots in Paterson." https://www.nj.com/opinion/2020/05/njs-hybrid-primary-election-sensible-for-these-times-editorial.html – jeffronicus Jun 02 '20 at 21:18
  • 11
    If the standard is to compare ballot signatures with signatures on record, then how does that create much opportunity for fraud? Sounds more like NJ might be overrejecting legitimate votes. Also, show us some context. Without that the answer is useless. – matt_black Jun 02 '20 at 23:14
  • 1
    @matt_black Easily. If they don't match, it could be because someone else filled out the form. Or maybe they really do match, and the authorities responsible for judging are corrupt. – Ryan_L Jun 02 '20 at 23:58
  • It seems to me it would be highly irresponsible to only have representatives from one party overseeing the election. I doubt that members of one party could simply throw out votes they disagree with without representatives from the opposing party confirming that the ballots are actually suspect. Further, I would argue that if this is being done with mail in ballots, there is nothing to stop it being done with in-person ballots if there is no oversight from both parties. – cpcodes Jun 03 '20 at 00:14
  • 11
    Downvoted for relying on a site with a very strong bias that has repeatedly published stories that are verifiably false. – David Hammen Jun 03 '20 at 10:06
  • 1
    Apparently 4 people have been charged with voter fraud and a revote ordered in the Paterson NJ instance. You could update and hopefully put these denialist comments in place. –  Aug 21 '20 at 20:29
  • This answer would be significantly improved if you simply removed the last two paragraphs - which are entirely conjecture. Or, better yet, if you could back up your claim that the votes cast could 'flip' the electoral college with some kind of evidence. – Zibbobz Aug 25 '20 at 18:22
  • 1
    I'm having trouble understanding the argument from the source article. Apparently fraud was attempted in 800 cases but these attempts successfully averted by the USPS, right? In addition, there were 2300 ballots that failed the signature verification, and these ballots were likewise discarded, right? In other words, there are mechanisms in place that prevented ~3100 potentially fraudulent ballots from entering the count. In how far does this support the claim that voting by mail is subject to substantial fraud if the article names cases in which attempts at fraud were successfully averted? – Schmuddi Sep 03 '20 at 16:30