At the heart of American political discourse lies the contentious issue of mail-in voting. It has emerged as a significant point of contention, dividing voters along party lines. Millions cast their ballots via mail every election cycle, yet patterns of fraud repeatedly surface, raising alarms. Evidence indicates that mail-in voting, especially absentee ballots, may be more susceptible to manipulation than voting in person.
A stark example is the scandal from North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District in 2018, where a Republican operative was caught executing an absentee ballot scheme. This aggressive maneuver led state officials to discard election results and call for a redo—the first time this had happened in decades due to election fraud linked to mail ballots.
Another alarming incident unfolded in Paterson, New Jersey, where a councilman and a councilman-elect faced charges for orchestrating widespread mail ballot fraud. Investigators rejected one out of every five mail-in ballots due to misconduct. Such instances are not isolated. They serve as reminders of the vulnerabilities inherent in mail voting systems, which can jeopardize electoral integrity.
The Gateway Pundit has been instrumental in exposing cases of voter fraud in strategic states like Michigan. Its investigations consistently reveal that mail-in voting is often the primary avenue for election misconduct. In a particularly noteworthy investigation during the 2020 presidential election, extensive surveillance footage captured individuals in Detroit fraudulently depositing multiple mail-in ballots… sometimes several dozen at once. Michigan law restricts ballot delivery to voters and their families or election officials, yet the video evidence exposed flagrant violations.
The structural vulnerabilities of mail voting are a critical factor. Elections conducted in person take place under direct scrutiny, mitigating the risk of outside influence. Conversely, mail-in ballots are filled out and returned without the same oversight. This absence of control permits ballots to be intercepted and coerced by those with nefarious motives. The only safeguard in place, signature verification, is often inconsistently applied, allowing for errors and confusion.
Data from the Public Interest Legal Foundation indicates a staggering number of mail ballots went missing in the 2016 and 2018 federal elections—over 28 million. Those lost ballots are a glaring weakness absent in traditional voting. Even when fraud doesn’t rear its head, mail-in ballots have a higher likelihood of rejection compared to in-person votes. The 2020 presidential election saw approximately one percent of mail ballots rejected, translating to hundreds of thousands of disenfranchised voters. In some areas, rejection rates soared to as high as four percent, mainly due to signature mismatches or ballots arriving late.
The historical context around absentee voting underscores these challenges. For much of American history, absentee ballots were limited to specific cases, such as military personnel or those facing medical difficulties. The significant shift to universal mail-in voting remains a recent development. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, only five states primarily conducted elections by mail, but that number skyrocketed as fear of the virus swept the nation. In 2020, more than 65 million Americans opted to cast ballots through the mail, exposing wrinkles in the system that many states were unprepared to address.
Experts have repeatedly issued warnings about the risks associated with mail-in voting. A pivotal conclusion from the 2005 Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform stated that absentee ballots represent “the largest source of potential voter fraud.” This assessment transcended party politics, aimed at bolstering election integrity. Academics and election scholars have echoed these sentiments, noting that while impersonation at polling places is uncommon, systematic fraud tied to mail ballots has been documented repeatedly over recent decades.
While the convenience of mail-in voting appeals to many, its history is dotted with significant instances of fraud. Its reliance on a less regulated process introduces the possibility of manipulation and compromise. As lawmakers grapple with decisions on mail-in voting’s future, the available data make clear that this method carries significant risks that have not yet been effectively mitigated. The question of whether to enhance or limit mail-in voting will hinge on these realities and the continued examination of its impact on American elections.
"*" indicates required fields
