Voting by mail: The idea polls well

E-Mail

Comments (0)

Text Size:

tool goes here

Let's do a little math. Pinkie swear, no algebra.

Last month, a less than overwhelming 40,562 folks voted in an off-year election in Stanislaus County. That was about 21.4 percent of all registered voters here, but remember that not all jurisdictions and residents had any issues to vote on.

According to the county's registrar of voters, Lee Lundrigan, a typical off-year election costs $600,000 to $800,000, though an exact cost for this year's balloting still is being determined.

Taking the middle number of the range and dividing it by the 12,246 people who voted at a polling place that day, you come up with a rough figure of every vote at a precinct costing about $57.16. That's taxpayer money.

How much less would it be if it were all done by mail, like the runoff race for Modesto City Council? Lundrigan doesn't need much prompting to tick off the savings in a mail election: warehouses for storing voting machines, poll testing, stipends for poll workers who may see only a handful of voters but get paid just the same.

Put another way, in 1995 a citywide Modesto election was done by mail for $90,000, while the registrar of voters at the time, Karen Matthews, estimated such a race would've cost $160,000 for a traditional polling place election.

Cheaper, easier, less complicated (unless you're a mail carrier). Why not do it all the time?

It's an idea that gets frequent debate among state election clerks, which includes Lundrigan.

"There's an efficiency to mail polls, and some committed people are wrestling with that topic," Lundrigan said.

She pointed out that voters statewide can vote by mail as much as they want. Since 2001, state law has allowed registered voters to designate themselves as permanent absentee voters, sending in mail ballots for everything from president to dog catcher.

The county would need permission from the state or a change in state law to adopt all-mail elections, all the time.

But Lundrigan doesn't see mail elections as a panacea. Neither does the author of a study on such elections, including one in Stanislaus County.

Study author Thad Kousser, a University of California at San Diego political science professor, said some assumptions about the superiority of mail elections aren't supported by research.

For one, turnout only rises for small, local races such as a city council runoff. For a general election, Kousser said, there's a slight decrease in turnout if it's by mail.

"People are used to knowing where their polling place is," he said of general elections, which also tend to be the most visible in terms of reminders to vote from the big-money political parties. "Without the event of Election Day, nobody's reminded as much that this is the day to fill out your mail ballot."

Kousser said other measures would better boost turnout, such as easing the registration process, and boosting local political parties that can encourage voting.

"In America, there's no marching band in the street on Election Day for your party," he said.

But at least one state has tried it. Oregon voters have mailed in their ballots for all elections -- after overwhelmingly voting to do so -- since the late 1990s.

The results? Elections cost a third of what they used to, primary and local elections see larger turnout, and perhaps most importantly, people like it, according to the Oregon secretary of state's office. A 2005 report said turnout increased by 10 percent with mail elections, and turnout is consistently 10.5 percentage points above the U.S. average, according to a 2006 story in American Prospect magazine.

Spokesman Scott Moore said voting by mail gets a favorable rating of 80 percent in polls, and 30 percent say it's made them vote more.

He pointed out that in rainy Oregon, mail voting eliminates weather as a factor. And party operatives can't rally outside polling places either.

Could it work in California?

"I don't see any reason why it couldn't work anywhere," he said. "And with the absentee ballots, there's a large chunk that already are voting this way."

The experience there suggests that if the idea ever comes up for a vote here, well, sympathies to the postal service.

ADDENDUM: After last week's column on the proposed initiative that would change how California's electoral votes are disbursed, readers made two points worth mentioning:

• Many of the people pushing the initiative are connected to Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani's campaign. True, but the measure would only benefit him if he wins his party's nomination.

• The measure would run afoul of constitutional law. Mixed results here. The state constitution doesn't seem to have a barrier against such an initiative, and judges usually side with voters having their say if there's some doubt.

However, the measure may have a problem regarding the U.S. Constitution. A section regarding presidential elections stipulates that legislatures choose electors.

Would that invalidate the measure? We promised no algebra, and we'll not get into finer points of the law, either. Armchair lawyers, have at it.

Bee staff writer Ben van der Meer can be reached at bvandermeer@modbee.com or 578-2331.