Democracy at risk when ballots cast early

While we might all agree that the ability to cast our ballot the week before Election Day has been a convenience, our nation’s founding fathers would not be pleased with what advance voting —- in place in 34 states and involving well over half of the population —- has become. Especially in states like Georgia, which permits voting more than a full month before Election Day; or Ohio, which permits registration and same day voting, couldn’t it more aptly be called “uncontrolled voting?” In Georgia, early voting began in September —- six weeks before the general election. According to the Associated Press, about half of the voters were expected to cast ballots before Nov. 4. in the closely contested states of Colorado and Nevada.

Proponents claim that advance voting will help increase turnout. In Georgia, there is no doubt that voter participation was up this year, but anecdotal and empirical evidence have shown that advance voting itself didn’t create more voters, it simply permitted more of the folks who were already going to vote to vote long before Election Day.

Without much of a benefit, this convenience has come with a cost. As more states cave in to earlier and earlier voting and more people take advantage of it, candidates have retooled strategies. Direct mail must now hit targeted households far sooner. Internet e-mails, “robo phone” calls and expensive media ad buys have to be stretched out to influence the early birds.

What a radical change from just a decade ago, when most Americans faithfully trooped to some 200,000 polling places on primary or general election day. Only those with a valid excuse —- ranging from illnesses and disabilities to a business trip —- voted absentee. Experts like Curtis Gans of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate warn that absentee ballots have long been the biggest source of attempts to manipulate results, so early voting only increase chances for voter fraud. In fact, one group, ACORN, is accused in 11 states of massive registration fraud. In Ohio, where there is same-day registration and voting, a federal judge has had to order the secretary of state to verify voter identification. This potential fraud is the single most dangerous consequence of early voting. But there are other compelling reasons why early voting five and six weeks before the election undermines the integrity of our already strained electoral system.

> Early voters don’t have the same information about the candidates as do those who vote on Nov. 4. They aren’t able to evaluate last-minute issues, events or character revelations. It is akin to part of a jury being allowed to vote early and then told to go home before all the facts and evidence are heard.

> July 4th and Election Day have been the two major times of the year that brought the nation together for a common civic activity. No more. In fact, Oregon actually took the extreme step of conducting elections entirely by mail.

> Early voting often helps incumbents. It obviously takes more money and more organization to deal with a longer voting period, so the better-funded incumbent will usually enjoy the political edge.

The late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes argued the “best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” Free speech, of course, is essential to finding truth as Americans prepare to elect everyone from local candidates to the president. Now, with “unchecked voting,” we are confronted with the choice between getting campaign messages out to as many in the “marketplace” as possible before voting ends, or damaging democracy by having people vote long before they fully evaluate all the positions of candidates.

> Stefan Passantino is a political law attorney with the Atlanta firm of McKenna, Long and Aldridge.

This column is solicited to provide another viewpoint to an AJC editorial published today.