Apathy and Confidence: Unraveling the Fabric of Oregon's Vote by Mail System

The pioneering state that started elections by mail faces challenges to integrity.

Oregon, where majestic forests meet the rugged coastline, and urban Portlandia culture, meets the vast resources of the mighty Columbia river, a unique experiment in democracy unfolds with each election cycle. Two things remain perpetually true about Oregon: it is a state unafraid to pursue unique ideas, and the people of Oregon value the tension of individualism and binding together as a community. Oregon's vote by mail system, the first of its kind in the nation, delivers convenience and accessibility, allowing citizens to cast their ballots from the comfort of their own homes. Now  24 years later, as many in generation Z have never experienced a polling place vote, the question of is it still a good idea for Oregon stands before us. What was once a bold experiment built to try and increase voter-turnout by making voting easier, now  carries a subtle undercurrent of apathy, sowing seeds of doubt and distrust that threaten to erode the very foundation of this innovative electoral process.

At first glance, one might assume that a vote by mail system would inherently foster greater civic engagement, and by all accounts voter turnout did increase following the implementation of vote by mail. After all, the elimination of physical barriers to voting should theoretically make it easier for individuals to participate in the democratic process. However, the reality is far more nuanced. While Oregon boasts consistently high voter turnout compared to national averages, it would be remiss to overlook the pervasive sense of apathy that lurks just beneath the surface.

Apathy, in the context of Oregon's vote by mail system, stems not from logistical hurdles or systemic barriers, but rather from a deeper sense of disillusionment and disenchantment with the political process. Whether vote by mail is a driver of apathy or precisely what role it plays in Oregon’s political culture are complex questions that we cannot definitely answer here. What we can do is think seriously about the matter and ask realistic questions that are ignored too often. In a state where one's ballot arrives in the mail like clockwork, the act of voting can become routine, devoid of the passion and fervor that should accompany such a sacred civic duty. When voting becomes nothing more than a mundane task to be checked off a to-do list, the very essence of  governance by and for the people is called into question.

Moreover, the specter of claims of a rigged election looms large in the collective consciousness of a sizable segment of Oregon's voters. In an era of widespread misinformation and political polarization, accusations of electoral fraud have become disturbingly commonplace. This makes it difficult for people to trust when they should, and to also take potential and real cases of fraud seriously. Furthermore, the evidence to support such claims is often sourced by examples from other states that use different systems that often even lack the paper ballots that are the cornerstone of Oregon’s election process. The mere existence of such claims serves to sow seeds of doubt and mistrust in the minds of voters, prompting some to question the efficacy and integrity of the vote by mail system itself.

For many Oregonians, the choice to participate in elections is fraught with uncertainty and ambivalence. In a state where the outcome of elections is often perceived as a foregone conclusion due to its deep blue political leanings, some may question the value of their vote, believing that their individual voice will be drowned out in a sea of partisan politics. This sense of futility can lead to a dangerous cycle of disengagement, further perpetuating the apathy that plagues Oregon's electoral landscape.

Yet, amidst the pervasive apathy and skepticism, there remains a reality that outside of the most fervent vote by mail skeptics, most Oregonians are not only confident, but strongly in favor of the paper ballots they can complete at home amongst family and political allies. Even when asking local people who are politically active and have spent time as election observers in county clerks offices, they will confide how unlikely fraud is to occur at the county clerk's office. Local control is key, Oregon should remain vigilant that only the most credible and trustworthy of our civil servants work within the election departments in our county seats. 

Oregonians remain fiercely proud of their pioneering spirit and independent streak, and many are determined to reclaim the spirit of civic duty that lies at the heart of democracy. Grassroots movements and community organizations are working tirelessly to rekindle the flame of political activism, encouraging citizens to take ownership of their democracy and reject the cynicism that threatens to engulf them. Unfortunately, this movement stems from young people within progressive community organizers in the most populated areas of the state. A portion of the  political right wing are doing the opposite, sewing seeds of doubt, posting on social media claims of rigged elections, fraud, and software hacking. Even with little or no evidence, claims have even gone so far as to discredit local election clerks that undermine local political get out the vote efforts.

Voters in Oregon will decide in November 2024 whether to adopt ranked choice voting in primary and general elections potentially even for statewide offices. Local governments could adopt the practice but wouldn’t have to, and legislative races wouldn’t be included. The measure was placed on the ballot by the state Legislature — the first time this has happened in the country. One of the many flaws in this measure is there is no way to tally rank choice votes across county lines. It is not as straightforward as one precinct, or ward, providing the vote total to the other jurisdiction and adding them up. The complex ranking of candidates requires counties to surrender control of those ballots to separate jurisdiction and you can be sure if this goes statewide, that will be the Secretary of State, the highly partisan office that has suffered from serious questions of credibility and integrity in recent years. If there is one clear reason to oppose rank choice voting decentralized counting is it, but few understand that critical flaw in RCV counting. Lastly, the very elected legislators who placed this choice before Oregon voters are those whose own elections are not subject to it; they exclusively exempted state representative and senate races from ranked choice voting. What's good for thee but not for me?

In the final analysis, the cause and effect of apathy in Oregon's vote by mail system are inextricably linked to broader societal trends of disillusionment and distrust. However, it is not too late to reverse course. By fostering a culture of civic engagement and reinvigorating the democratic spirit that defines Oregon's identity, we can ensure that election systems in Oregon are fully understood, backed by integrity and widely trusted. We should stop referring to it as a “vote by mail” system and call it what it is, a decentralized paper balloting system. Counties that hand count random samples, keep processes transparent. Citizens should expect reasonable access to the voting data and should provide it without excessive cost or burden in order preserve confidence in our election integrity. There are also additional measures that clerks offices’ could implement to increase transparency and ensure confidence in results.  Conservatives who champion increased confidence should push for reforms with bipartisan support including returning to election day ballot receipt cut off, cleaning up of bloated voter rolls, and perhaps more rigorous auditing and statistical sampling. Let us remember that Oregon’s system enables us to have more publicly auditable information than some other states. Oregon elections were transformed with the shift from polling places to kitchen tables by the people. This happened through a direct expression of the Will of The People. The ballot measure initiative process will be required to change it back but only with popular support.  

Republicans have illusions of grandeur with dreams of returning for hand counting precinct level elections. This may be the ideal solution for rural conservative counties, but what about Multnomah county, do we want the same in Portland? Do we trust what occurred across the country just decades ago with polling place electioneering, bought and paid for votes in housing tenements, and ghost votes counted in precincts overseen by activist judges? Be careful what you wish for. Like in Chicago in the 1970’s  precincts where vote fraud was rampant, there was an abundance of politically motivated judges. Is in person precinct level voting the solution? Before we get 100% behind this idea, we best have popular support for a flawless and trustworthy replacement process. Until then incremental corrections for what is in place now is more politically possible. Let's dream big, but make incremental changes where we can now. We must also bear in mind that the goal of change needs to be fostering a reliable system of voting that encourages the widest possible engagement and participation in the political process. By aiming towards that end rather than a different partisan preference we can find a solution that aligns with Oregon’s natural spirit.

So, what can be done in this politically divided state we live in? For one, repeal the emergency bill passed during the pandemic that allowed ballots to be counted if received after 8pm on election day. House Bill 3291 cleared the state Senate on a razor-thin 16-13 margin in 2021, and allows ballots to be received after election day provided they have a “postal indicator” on or before election day. This has forced county clerks to delay closing the polls for up to 7 days following the election, and further delays certifying the results. Common sense Oregonians agree that a prevalence of secure official drop boxes, and the need for a day certain when ballots must be received by is needed. Oregonians should not conflate a lack of confidence in the US Postal Service with a lack of confidence in Oregon elections. Separate the mail system from our election process, and confidence will increase.

Voter ID is another popular issue with Americans. A 2021 Monmouth University poll suggests 4 in 5 Americans (80%) support requiring voters to show photo identification in order to cast a ballot. Just 18% oppose this. Oregon paper ballots require signature verification, tied to your photo ID that is digitized and presented during the signature verification process. This distinction critics say is not the same as presenting ID when casting a ballot, but consider how human ID checks at grocery stores, and bars fail to stop under age drinking, or cigarette sales. The expectation of in-person voting may be enchanting, but not as reliable as one might think. Remember that in person voting relies on volunteer participation, that means everyday citizens doing the checking, not highly trained fraud inspectors. It is already difficult for cities and counties to fill volunteer positions, it may not be reasonable to expect robust volunteer turnout for election day. Voter fraud in states with polling place elections have higher cases of fraud, because it is more difficult to calibrate the human hands and eyes. Banning machines is futile. Instead demand a paper backup process within the confines of an election clerks office that is subject to audit. (we already have this) 

Consider in 1972, More than 1,000 specific acts of fraud were exposed and documented from the primary election of March 21, 1972. Historically speaking, you can find cases of election fraud prosecuted across the country including Oregon when ten people in Oregon were convicted in voter fraud cases stemming from the 2016 election, remember the election that Hillary Clinton claimed was “rigged”. Those convicted included four Democrats, one Republican, one Libertarian and four people not affiliated with a political party. Most of the convictions involved people who cast a ballot in two different states. If Oregonians would simply pull the post election data of those whose votes were cast and counted in an election, and confirm each and every one was eligible, it would be easy to affirm the confidence in the election. This could be achieved through the Secretary of State’s Office with sufficient transparency and public availability of data, but requires the office to behave in a more non-partisan manner than recent history. It could also be achieved through an independent group that is under bi-partisan legislative authority. Claims of fraud could be proven or dismissed, and we could end the apathy that is eroding confidence in our paper balloting system. If fraud truly is as prevalent as some claim, find the source and put a stop toit. Anything else will cause more harm than good. Do no harm should be the guiding motto of election integrity enthusiasts. Sadly some of the loudest voices on election integrity are more enthusiastic about tearing the system down than fixing it. Republicans' self promotion of voter fraud in Oregon may be the leading cause of voter suppression by the conservative voters we need to win in 2024.

Ben Roche