Voter Participation
As Chair of the House State Government Committee, one of my my top priorities is raising voter turnout. I believe that our democracy functions best when we have as many people as possible participating.
Voting by Mail
Click here for a simple explanation of how voting by mail works in Oregon.
Background Information
Rep. Josephs chaired a public hearing of the House State Government Committee on Wednesday, June 4 in Room G-50 of the Irvis Office Building in Harrisburg on the subject of voting by mail.
The purpose of the hearing was for the committee to learn more about the vote-by-mail system, which has increased voter turnout significantly in Oregon. Oregon is the only state with 100 percent mail balloting, and voter turnout there has exceeded 70 percent. Voters approved the change in 1998 and voting by mail began with the 2000 election.
Testimony
State Government Committee - Public Hearing
Voting by Mail
June 4, 2008
- Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury - Read his testimony
- Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth Pedro A. Cortés - Read his testimony
Beaver County Times Editorial
Mail it in: Proposal to make it easier to cast absentee ballots is worth pursuing
Monday, June 9, 2008
Imagine being able to vote from the comfort of your home.
Voters in Oregon already can do that, and the House State Government Committee is looking into Pennsylvania residents being able to do the same.
The Associated Press reported Chairwoman Babette Josephs, D-Philadelphia, said she hopes to amend the state constitution to allow Pennsylvanians to vote by absentee ballot without having to state an acceptable reason.
Josephs doesn't want to stop there. She said it could be the first step toward moving Pennsylvania to an all-mail voting system.
At a committee hearing last week, an Oregon official described how switching to an all-mail voting system has saved money and increased voter participation.
On the other side, the news service reported that critics say an all-mail system would eliminate the civic traditions that involve polling places. (What? Like running the gauntlet of political hangers-on who try to hand you stuff as you walk into the polling place?
Pennsylvania Secretary of State Pedro Cortes, whose department oversees voting issues, isn't enthusiastic about voting by mail. Although he said the Rendell administration supports the use of no-excuse absentee ballots, he pointed out to the committee that an election reform committee he headed in 2005 did not recommend a vote-by-mail system.
Given the reluctance of lawmakers and residents to accept any kind of change — if ever there was a better-the-devil-you-know state, it's Pennsylvania — Josephs' hopes of implementing an all-mail voting system are slim to none. (In fact, Pennsylvania government is so averse to change that an all-male voting system would probably have a better chance of making it through the General Assembly.)
That should not detract from the proposal to allow voting by absentee ballot without having to state an acceptable reason. That effort is worth pursuing.
Vote-by-mail option could win me over
By LARRY A. HICKS The York Dispatch
Monday, June 9, 2008
There's probably not a snowball's chance in July that Pennsylvania will become a vote-by-mail state anytime soon.
And to be honest, there was a time when that would have been perfectly OK with me.
Slowly, but surely, however, I'm softening my position.
To be honest, though, I still have a few reservations about it.
For one thing, I do worry about voter fraud. There are a lot of control issues once ballots are passed back and forth in the mail. It does make me nervous.
Plus, mail does sometimes get lost, believe it or not. The U.S. Postal Service is far from infallible.
But most of my objections are founded on the notion that tradition is important. That especially applies to voting. There is something symbolic about it. Voting is the very essence of the democratic process. I like to think citizens who take seriously their responsibility to vote will have no reluctance to make whatever sacrifices are necessary to cast a ballot twice a year.
How hard can it be? People aren't being asked to donate a kidney, for goodness sakes.
Voting is a big deal. Everyone should do it. No excuses. And if you can't find 10 or 15 minutes inside a 13-hour window of opportunity to vote, you're not making much of an effort. In fact, you're a slacker of the highest order.
So stay home if you want, and give me something to complain about.
I've always felt that way. I still feel that way. That's not ever going to change.
Over the years, though, I've come to accept (while kicking and screaming) that many people can't be bothered doing something important if it requires that they go out of their way even a little bit. Too much trouble. I don't like it, but that's the way it is.
The world is made up of a wide range of people -- 25 percent who will almost always try do the right thing no matter what, 25 percent who will rarely do the right thing no matter what, 25 percent who might do the right thing if they've been given enough incentive and 25 percent who might do the right thing if you make it easy enough.
It's the 50 percent of voters between the two extremes that we're trying to motivate.
The goal is to change a typical election day turnout of 25 to 30 percent of eligible voters to 70 percent or more.
Yeah, I know -- it's a pipe dream.
But apparently possible.
State Rep. Babette Josephs, D-Philadelphia, wants to amend the state constitution to permit Pennsylvanians to vote by absentee ballot without having to provide an excuse or a reason.
And she uses Oregon, a national leader in the all-mail-voting effort for more than 10 years, as the example: Voter turnout has increased significantly in Oregon since 1998, she said. "Oregon is the only state with 100 percent mail balloting, and voter turnout there has exceeded 70 percent."
So it could work. And, against my better judgment, I'm thinking it's worth a try.
Last week, state Rep. Josephs, chairwoman of the House State Government Committee, introduced all-mail voting for discussion among committee members.
It could increase voter turnout, she thinks. It also could save taxpayer dollars by making the voting process less costly.
And if not all-mail voting, perhaps we could consider in this age of improved computer technology, the possibility of all-computer voting from home.
One or the other. Or both.
Like I said, it's unlikely this could happen in this state anytime soon.
But maybe it should.
Columns by Larry A. Hicks, Dispatch columnist, run Mon days, Wednesdays and Fridays. E-mail: patch.com.
Hear what Rep. Josephs has said in the past about mail-in voting.