Emergency Absentee Voting for Hospitalized Patients and Voting During COVID-19: A 50-State Study

Introduction: Voters facing illness or disability are disproportionately under-represented in terms of voter turnout. Earlier research has indicated that enfranchisement of these populations may reinforce the implementation of policies improving health outcomes and equity. Due to the confluence of the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the 2020 election, we aimed to assess emergency absentee voting processes, which allow voters hospitalized after regular absentee deadlines to still obtain an absentee ballot, and election changes due to COVID-19 in all 50 states. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study collecting 34 variables pertaining to emergency voting processes and COVID-19-related election changes, including deadlines, methods of submission for applications and ballots, and specialized services for patients. Data were obtained from, in order of priority, state boards of elections websites, poll worker manuals, application forms, and state legislation. We verified all data through direct correspondence with state boards of elections. Results: Emergency absentee voting processes are in place in 39 states, with the remaining states having universal vote-by-mail (n = 5) or extended regular absentee voting deadlines (n = 6). The emergency absentee period most commonly began within 24 hours following the normal absentee application deadline, which was often seven days before an election (n = 11). Unique aspects of emergency voting processes included patients designating an “authorized agent” to deliver their applications and ballots (n = 38), electronic ballot delivery (n = 5), and in-person teams that deliver ballots directly to patients (n = 18). Documented barriers in these processes nationwide include unavailable online information (n = 11), restrictions mandating agents to be family members (n = 7), physician affidavits or signatures (n = 9), and notary or witness signature requirements (n = 15). For the November 2020 presidential election, 12 states expanded absentee eligibility to allow COVID-19 as a reason to request an absentee ballot, and 18 states mailed absentee ballot applications or absentee ballots to all registered voters. Conclusion: While 39 states operate emergency absentee voting processes for hospitalized voters, there are considerable areas for improvement and heterogeneity in guidelines for these protocols. For future election cycles, information on emergency voting and broader election reforms due to COVID-19 may be useful for emergency providers and patients alike to improve the democratic participation of voters experiencing illness.

Military and Absentee Voting in the United States: History and Modern Practice

The advent of absentee voting for American citizens began with the desire on the part of soldiers to participate in the electoral process. It was aided by politicians who wanted the support of those soldiers. The rise of absentee voting was later extended to nonmilitary Americans living overseas or otherwise away from their home precincts. Resistance to absentee voting was strong at first, largely on philosophical grounds (i.e., the question of why someone away from home would be interested in voting, or absentee voting inviting vote fraud). It was also resisted by political parties who were convinced that those voters may vote for the opposition candidate. Gradually, in the post-World War II years, nearly all resistance faded but never disappeared. Vestigial perceptions of the voting habits of military personnel remained as late as the first years of the 21st century. Congress was convinced to pass several voting rights laws that eventually extended the right to vote to all Americans serving in the military or living overseas, although some barriers remain to be overcome.

Seeing Is Believing: An Experiment on Absentee Ballots and Voter Confidence

Since the 2000 election, researchers have taken an interest in the role of voter confidence and its importance as an assessment of public trust in electoral outcomes. Many factors may influence voter confidence including the way in which a voter casts their ballot. Previous research has found that absentee voters consistently report the lowest levels of confidence that their votes were counted correctly. This study uses an experiment to examine how voting method impacts voter confidence. Voters were randomly assigned to either an in-person or absentee voting condition. Participants assigned to the absentee condition expressed lower levels of confidence that their votes would be counted correctly than those assigned to the in-person voting condition. Voters who had to ask for assistance during the experiment also reported lower levels of confidence. This could have implications for voter confidence levels nationally as vote-by-mail continues to grow in popularity.

Contested US polls are possible due to virus

Significance Already, one territory and twelve states have delayed their primary and caucus votes that decide which candidates contest the general election, and there are worries that polling places will be sites for COVID-19 to spread. Impacts If greater use is made of postal balloting, more money will be needed to establish these voting systems, and quickly. Postal voting systems will be vulnerable to tampering, which will risk voters’ faith in the system. Both parties will litigate any voting irregularities, which would delay confirmation of results. If Republicans litigated results in the Supreme Court, the court’s conservative lean could give them an advantage. In states that allow it, there will be above-average applications for absentee voting.

Voting Procedures

Chapter 3 discusses the “access versus integrity” framing of debates about registration and balloting procedures, particularly as it has developed in the United States. It identifies several areas where the choice of voting procedures does present a trade-off between these values: the secret ballot, the rules for changing voters’ place of residence on the electoral rolls, mail and absentee voting, mobile polling places, voter identification requirements, and internet voting. But the study also identifies several areas where both inclusion and security may be enhanced: automatic voter registration, Election Day registration, online and automated voter registration, posting provisional voter rolls prior to Election Day, early (in-person) voting, and decentralized polling places. Thus the “access versus integrity” framing may limit opportunities to improve both access and integrity through policies designed to strengthen electoral integrity and bipartisan agreement.