Supreme Court's ruling on mail-in ballot deadlines could have an outsized impact in rural areas

Both Republicans and Democrats have large numbers
of voters who mail their ballots. (Adobe Stock photo)

The U.S. Supreme Court plans to rule on mail-in ballot deadlines this term, which could have an outsized impact on a subset of voters, including thousands of rural voters, should the court decide that ballots arriving after Election Day must be tossed.

The case centers on a Mississippi law that allows mailed ballots to be counted even when they arrive after Election Day, but roughly "18 states and territories accept such late-arriving ballots as long as they are postmarked by Election Day," report Nick Corasaniti and Christine Zhang of The New York Times.

Should the court decide that all votes must be received by Election Day, mail-in voters from rural areas will be challenged to mail their votes early enough to be counted.

Voters in the southwestern town of Medford, Oregon, provide a good example. When a Medford voter mails a ballot from the local post office, it doesn't go to the "town clerk’s office only a few miles away," the Times reports. "Instead, it travels about 280 miles north on Interstate 5 to Portland, to get a postmark stamped, before returning to the Medford elections office to be counted."

Rural mail services are also more likely to be delayed by local weather conditions or traffic bottlenecks due to bad weather or natural disasters far from their zip codes.

States with sprawling rural areas and high electoral college numbers, such as California, Texas, Illinois, and New York, currently allow late-arriving ballots to be counted. Should the Supreme Court ax that allowance, both parties could see Election Day impacts.

No matter what the Supreme Court decides, ongoing election education can remind citizens how and when to vote. David Becker, from the Center for Election Innovation and Research, told the Times, "For people who are voting once every four years, or once every two years, they’re not familiar with all these procedures and changes."

Election workers can be the best whistleblowers about interference, but they need protection from backlash

Election workers and officials help keep American
democracy healthy. (Photo by Ernie Journeys, Unsplash)

With November elections less than a month away, "lawyers at the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit whistleblower protection organization, are preparing for a potential influx of calls from a new type of client this fall: election workers," reports Molly Bloom of Route Fifty. "Local, county and state election officials, poll workers and even contractors like voting machine operators are best positioned to identify and warn of attempts to interfere with the election process."

Over the past decade, election workers have faced increasing public scrutiny, rudeness and even threats of violence. Bloom explains, "Nearly 40% of local election officials reported experiencing threats, harassment or abuse last year, according to a Brennan Center for Justice survey. And 62% reported concerns about political leaders engaging in efforts to interfere with how election officials do their jobs."

Dana Gold, director of the Government Accountability Project’s Democracy Protection Initiative, told Bloom, "These are just public servants who we are depending on to really protect our democracy." The initiative created a guide for whistleblowers in battleground states. It aims to empower election workers with knowledge on how and when to speak up if something seems irregular.

For U.S. democracy to remain healthy, election workers need to report possible election interference without fear of retribution from the public or political officials. Bloom reports, "The laws protecting those who might blow the whistle on any interference, much like the laws governing the administration of elections, vary by state." Gold told Bloom, "There's no one law for whistleblowers. That's why it's important to get advice early.”

In 2021, when the Election Official Legal Defense Network was founded to "provide pro-bono legal help and advice for election officials, it was hailed as the first organization of its kind."

When it comes to managing election interference, 'think local.' Elections are run by neighbors, not 'overlords.'

Building community trust in election officials can
help voter confidence. (Adobe Stock photo)

Establishing community trust in election officials and reminding voters how the democratic process happens in their neck of the woods can help counties counter election deniers, conspiracy theorists and overall election intrusions, reports Chris Teale of Route Fifty. "To fight election misinformation, think local. That was the advice from state elections officials and legislators during a panel discussion at the National Conference of State Legislatures’ Legislative Summit."

Election advocates and officials can begin by consistently explaining who runs local elections. Kentucky Secretary of State Michael Adams told Teale, "It's important to focus on the locality of this because when you see conspiracy theorists, they point to these grand designs of these overlords. . . . But those people don't really run the election. It's your neighbors. It's people that you literally know. It's important to get away from the top-level view of the system and focus on the ground level.”

Chatbots and other AI tools can spread inaccurate candidate and voting information, which states are working to correct; however, local engagement might be the best way to get voters the most current voting dates and information. "It’s crucial for officials to ensure that they are 'trusted voices' in the community disseminating information, said Arkansas State Rep. Carlton Wing," Teale adds. "Showing that the election process is fair is better than telling people it is, Adams said."

Recruiting and training poll workers is another way to protect elections from interference. "Jurisdictions of all sizes need to recruit poll workers, who have left in the face of a variety of obstacles. . . . One way to help prevent any politically motivated attacks on election procedures and build public trust could be to have politicians work the polls, in states where that practice is allowed."

Election officials face a sea of stresses and threats; many have retired and left new officials to face the fray

AI and deepfake election intrusions add another layer
to election officials' work. (Adobe Stock image)

In the not-so-distant past, county election officials could expect to register voters and repair voting machines. But in more recent election years, including 2024, their jobs have become overwhelming and at times, dangerous, reports Tiffany Hsu of The New York Times. "Elections officials must multitask as defenders against disinformation. They have been flooded with inane demands for details about their employees, faced harassment campaigns targeted at their female family members, received intimidating letters laced with fentanyl and been subjected to fake threats of bombings and break-ins."

For many long-time officials, the pressure cooker environment pushed them into retirement. The gap retirees left has been filled by officials new to the process at a time when the position is exponentially more complex. Hsu explains, "In Wisconsin alone, the state association of county clerks found that 31 of its 72 members had never administered a presidential election. . . .The remaining officials, many of them overwhelmed and very tired, are once again marshaling their limited resources . . ."

Jazmin Wingert

Despite ongoing struggles that range from budget cuts to poll worker shortages, "elections officials are doing what they can this year to shore up voter trust, setting up fact-checking websites (like in Pennsylvania) and posting refutations on social media (like a Mythbuster Mondays series in North Carolina)," the Times reports. "Jazmin Wingert, the Republican county clerk for Stephenson County in Illinois, took an elections certification course with lessons on combating false narratives and meets nearly monthly with other county clerks to share security resources."

Managing AI and deepfakes is also on election officials' to-do lists. "The technology could also supercharge harassment campaigns," Hsu adds. "Last week, a bipartisan group of secretaries of state wrote to the tech billionaire Elon Musk to urge him to fix his A.I.-powered search assistant, Grok chatbot, saying it provided inaccurate information about ballot deadlines and then failed to correct the mistake for 10 days."

Rural Journalism Collective hosts election-year reporting webinar: Thursday, June 20, 2 p.m., E.T.

The Rural Journalism Collective is hosting a free webinar with tips on how journalists can tell more accurate stories about rural voters. The webinar will be held on Thursday, June 20, at 2 p.m., E.T. You can register here.

Session panelists include Dee Davis, president of the Center for Rural Strategies; Pauly Denetclaw, political correspondent for ICT; and Cathy Darling Allen, registrar of voters and Shasta County clerk in rural California.

As Americans head into the final months before November elections, rural journalists can help their communities fine-tune their political voices while supporting poll workers and election officials throughout the election cycle.

The discussion will touch on voter polling conducted by the Center for Rural Strategies, Native and Indigenous voters, and how journalists can use their reporting to lead their communities through the democratic process.

The U.S. has 100,000 fewer polling locations, which can change who votes and who wins elections.

Lack of oversight and pandemic changes have reduced
on-site voting options. (Photo by Ernie Journeys, Unsplash)

A lack of places for Americans to cast their votes adds a new wrinkle to an already challenging U.S. election year. "During the 2022 midterms, voters cast their ballots at just under 95,000 polling places across the country — half the number of locations available four years prior," reports Chris Teale of Route 50. The downward trend began after the Supreme Court's 2013 ruling against the Voting Rights Act. "In particular, justices struck down Section 5 of the 1965 law, which required certain state and local governments to obtain federal pre-clearance before making any changes to their voting laws or practices."

Once some states were no longer required to obtain permission, local offices were able to close polling places, change voting hours and create other restrictions without oversight. Teale writes, "Fewer places to cast a ballot can be a barrier to voting for many people, especially low-income individuals who may lack transportation or time off to vote." The voting rights program at the nonprofit Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights "identified 868 polling places that were closed in jurisdictions that previously were subject to Section 5."

The 2013 ruling isn't the only reason polling places closed. The pandemic fundamentally changed American voting habits. "Amid stay-at-home orders, states were forced to rethink their voting procedures," Teale reports. "Some embraced vote-by-mail and absentee options that remain in place today. As a result, some states have less of a need for physical polling places and have consolidated them."

Regardless of why there are fewer voting locations, the lack of them can profoundly change who will vote. A 2020 study by Enrico Catoni in the American Economic Journal: Applied Economics "found that an increase of one mile in the distance someone must travel to a polling location reduces turnout from majority-minority districts by 19%, compared to a 5% reduction for majority-white districts," Teale adds. "What’s more, fewer polling places can mean longer lines at those still open, which can discourage people from voting."

Female election officials are often targets of physical and verbal threats, but there are tools to protect them

A polling station worker in Falls Church, Va.
(Reuters photo via Brookings)

As the U.S. heads into the final months of election preparation, officials are dealing with challenges that go beyond counting votes --  physical and verbal threats, especially against women. "The threat of violence against election officials is pervasive. Women make up 80% of election workers in the United States, and they face unique, gendered harassment," report Zoe Wynn, Hannah Fried, and Norman Eisen of Brookings.

With more partisan politics, election site hostility has become more common. "Legal tools are available to make things better. The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 lays out confidentiality provisions aiming to protect the personal information of survivors of domestic violence," Brookings reports. "If codified into state law, similar provisions based on those in VAWA could help protect female election officials in advance of the expected surge of election denialism in the 2024 election."

The harassment of female election officials has been well-documented, alongside the loss of seasoned election officials who have quit or retired. "An investigation by Reuters in 2021 found that threats to election officials were typically generated by men and directed at a predominantly female workforce. Reuters found that dozens of these threatening messages used sexual or misogynistic language," Wynn, Fried and Eisen write. "The Brennan Center for Justice found that one in five election officials are 'very' or 'somewhat unlikely' to continue serving through 2024. The election officials surveyed specifically cite attacks on the system and stress as their primary reasons for leaving."

The VAWA gives states a framework to begin protections, but a "one-size-fits-all" structure is not the answer. "The VAWA provides a useful legislative starting point for a tailored, female-specific anti-harassment law. The bill's aims include reducing violence against women, securing offender accountability, and ensuring victim safety," Brookings reports. "Eleven states have passed comprehensive laws to protect election officials. . . . Threats to female election require a tailored approach that accounts for the gendered nature of the issue."

"A critical portion of the law is its confidentiality provisions. Confidentiality provisions are measures to protect the personal information of survivors of domestic violence and can provide opportunities for disciplinary action if personal information is disseminated," Wynn, Fried, and Eisen explain. "Lawmakers identified these measures as an effective means of preventing abusers from tracking their victims and causing them further harm."

Brookings reports, "Women who serve in election posts should be awarded similar protections commensurate with the nature of the threat to their safety. The functioning of our elections, and therefore our democracy, depends upon it."