Connect with us

Politics

Don’t buy into conspiracy theories about provisional ballots

Published

on

Don’t buy into conspiracy theories about provisional ballots

This article is the fifth in a five-part series called “Protecting the Election.” As former President Donald Trump and many of his allies refuse to concede his defeat in the 2020 election, this BLN Daily series brings election law and policy experts to explore the many threats to certifying election results at both the state and national levels.

In a recent op-ed for MSNBC, I noted that in elections, “everything looks suspicious when you don’t know how anything works.” As Election Day draws near, that dictum will be true of more and more election practices.

With potentially razor-thin margins separating winners and losers, provisional ballots are fertile ground for legal wrangling and false claims.

Election administration is a complex mixture of laws, rules and technology — and ignorance of how elections are run can lead to misunderstanding or baseless conspiracy theories. Almost anything can become a target of suspicion and contention. In a scorched-earth strategy to undermine the legitimacy of the presidential election in case he loses, former President Donald Trump and his allies have already raised evidence-free doubts about “noncitizen voting,” military and overseas ballots and voter registration.

It’s likely that provisional ballots will soon be added to that list. After post-election ballot counting begins, with potentially razor-thin margins separating winners and losers, provisional ballots are fertile ground for legal wrangling and false claims. Like mail ballots, provisional ballots take time to count; it’s difficult to estimate how many there will be (though they will exceed 1 million, based on past election data); and they are likely to be counted last. For all of these reasons, provisional ballots invite rumors and potential confusion.

Provisional ballots are issued to voters whenever there is uncertainty, for whatever reason, about a voter’s eligibility to vote in person. Whether a provisional ballot will ultimately be accepted and counted (or rejected) depends on additional research about the voter’s eligibility, which election officials perform post-election.

Provisional ballots are required under the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002, which created this failsafe to help ensure eligible voters are not turned away from the polls if there are errors associated with their registration. Exemptions were granted to states that had enacted same-day voter registration by 1993, and currently every state except Idaho and Minnesota issues provisional ballots.

Because the 10th Amendment results in a decentralized system of election administration in the U.S., each state handles provisional ballots differently, but there are common reasons for using them.

A typical case might be when a voter goes to vote in person, provides ID credentials, and, after checking the voter rolls, the poll worker says, “There appears to be an issue with your registration.” Perhaps the voter’s name doesn’t appear in the records; or the address in the records doesn’t match the voter’s ID; but the voter insists that they’ve been voting at the polling location for years. In this case, the poll worker issues a provisional ballot.

During the post-election counting period, everyone should be patient and resist baseless ‘noise’ about provisional ballots.

Other reasons to issue a provisional ballot might include: The voter doesn’t have appropriate ID credentials; the voter applied for a mail ballot, but now they wish to vote in person (e.g., if the voter never received their mail ballot); the voter is attempting to vote at a precinct or jurisdiction different from their registration; or records indicate that the voter has already voted. Different states might have additional reasons to use provisional ballots, but these are the most common scenarios.

When a provisional ballot is issued, poll workers keep it separate from regular ballots that go into the ballot box (because research is required to determine whether the ballot can be counted or not). Typically, the voter marks a paper provisional ballot that is inserted into a secrecy envelope. Provisional ballot envelopes are typically printed with space for the voter to record their personal information, and, most importantly, an affidavit or attestation that the voter must sign indicating their eligibility to vote.

The content of a provisional ballot remains private while election officials research the voter’s eligibility. Because the resolution of provisional ballots takes time, election officials often investigate these ballots later in the counting cycle. If a voter’s eligibility is confirmed, the ballot is “unsealed” and counted; and if the ballot is rejected, it’s never opened. HAVA requires state or local election officials to give voters information about how to learn whether their provisional ballot was accepted and counted (and, if not, why not). Some states allow voters to check the status of their ballot through online portals.

During the post-election counting period, everyone should be patient and resist baseless “noise” about provisional ballots. The point to remember is that there are entirely legitimate administrative reasons that might prevent a poll worker from knowing with certainty whether someone is eligible to vote at the moment they check in at the polling place; and in those instances, instead of turning the voter away, a provisional ballot ensures a “holding zone” to prevent disenfranchisement.

Most importantly, provisional ballots are a critical test of the “one person, one vote” rule. Counting ballots is more than just counting; it’s an intensive, laborious, multistep process with rigorous protocols to protect the integrity of the vote. Election officials are trying to accept as many valid provisional ballots from as many eligible voters as possible (i.e., to prevent disenfranchisement), while also rejecting ballots from ineligible voters (i.e., to preserve integrity). Officials must follow state laws and policies and verify that all requirements have been met, and no election results are finalized until all provisional ballots have been resolved. Every valid ballot is counted — and invalid ballots are not.

This methodical process ensures a free and fair election that values both integrity and voter participation.

Edward Perez

Edward Perez is a board member at the OSET Institute, a nonpartisan nonprofit that seeks to enhance public confidence in the legitimacy of election outcomes in democracies around the world. He is the former director of product management for information integrity at Twitter, and a 16-year veteran of the voting technology industry in the U.S.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Note to Our Readers

Published

on

Note to Our Readers

Blue Light News has been the subject of debate on X this week. Some of it has been misinformed, and some of it has been flat-out false. Let’s set the record straight.

Blue Light News is a privately owned company. We have never received any government funding—no subsidies, no grants, no handouts. Not one dime, ever, in 18 years.

Millions of people around the world read our journalism on POLITICO.com, Blue Light News. EU, and in newsletters like this one. It is supported by advertising and sponsorships.

Blue Light News Pro is different. It is a professional subscription service used by companies, organizations, and, yes, some government agencies. They subscribe because it makes them better at their jobs—helping them track policy, legislation, and regulations in real-time with news, intelligence, and a suite of data products. At its core, Blue Light News Pro is about transparency and accountability: Shining a light on the work of the agencies, regulators, and policymakers throughout our vast federal government. Businesses and entities within the government find it useful as they navigate the chaotic regulatory and legislative landscape. It’s that simple.

Most Blue Light News Pro subscribers are in the private sector. They come from across the ideological spectrum and subscribe for one reason: value. And 90% renew every year because they rely on our reporting, data, and insights.

Government agencies that subscribe do so through standard public procurement processes—just like any other tool they buy to work smarter and be more efficient. This is not funding. It is a transaction—just as the government buys research, equipment, software, and industry reports. Some online voices are deliberately spreading falsehoods. Let’s be clear: Blue Light News has no financial dependence on the government and no hidden agenda. We cover politics and policy—that’s our job.

We are so proud of our journalists and so proud of the connection we have with you, our readers.

We stand by our work, our values, and our commitment to transparency, accountability, and efficiency—the same principles that drive great journalism and great business.

Now, back to work.

Goli Sheikholeslami and John Harris

Continue Reading

Politics

Dems attack Elon Musk after DOGE gains access to sensitive data

Published

on

Dems attack Elon Musk after DOGE gains access to sensitive data

lead image

Continue Reading

Politics

Democrats zero in on Musk as a way to attack Trump

Published

on

Democrats are starting to wake up and sketch out a plan to help them win back the working class: Turn the world’s richest person into their boogeyman.

They’ve set their sights on holding Elon Musk to account. Armed with new polling showing Musk’s popularity in the toilet, key Democratic leaders are going after the top Trump adviser who is dismantling the federal government. They are attempting to subpoena him and introducing legislation to block him from receiving federal contracts while he holds a “special” role leading Trump’s cost-cutting crusade.

In a sign of how toxic Democrats believe Musk is, battleground Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) called Musk an “unelected, weirdo billionaire” and said he has “been getting a lot of calls over the past few days” about him. Golden is a moderate who represents Trump country.

Even Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who represents Silicon Valley and has had a relationship with Musk for years, is distancing himself from him. Khanna posted on X on Wednesday that Musk’s “attacks on our institutions are unconstitutional.” Khanna previously likened Musk to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “dollar-a-year men,” the corporate leaders who helped the government mobilize for WWII, and said he texts with him.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) is seen during the ceremonial roll call on the second night of the Democratic National Convention at the United Center in Chicago on Aug. 20, 2024.

Democrats are also protesting him in Washington, making the calculation that the idea of an unelected billionaire wreaking chaos on the bureaucracy will be unpopular with voters. And they have some data fueling their efforts.

New internal polling, conducted on behalf of House Majority Forward, a nonprofit aligned with House Democratic leadership, found Musk is viewed negatively among 1,000 registered voters in battleground districts. Just 43 percent approve of him and 51 percent view him unfavorably. The poll, conducted by the Democratic firm Impact Research and completed between Jan. 19 to 25, also found that Musk evoked strong negative feelings. Of the 51 percent who disapproved of him, 43 percent did so strongly.

The survey isn’t a one-off, either. An Economist/YouGov poll published on Wednesday also found Musk’s approval rating underwater, 43 percent favorable to 49 percent unfavorable.

In the Democrats’ internal polling, pollsters asked respondents for their thoughts on “the creation of a government of the rich for the rich by appointing up to nine different billionaires to the administration,” and found 70 percent opposed with only 19 percent in support — a stat that suggests Democrats have landed on a message that could gain traction with swing voters.

That data and focus groups held by House Majority Forward helped bring attacks on the administration into focus: Democrats “shouldn’t chide Musk, Trump, and others for being rich,” the group wrote, but point out Musk’s conflicts of interests as head of DOGE and note that he could undermine key safety net programs to enrich himself at the expense of American taxpayers.

“Participants laud Musk’s business acumen and aren’t opposed to the ideals of DOGE,” HMF found. But “Musk’s relationship with Trump – who they view as inherently pro-big business” makes them wary that billionaire’s cuts “could include programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.”

Continue Reading

Trending