by
The right to vote is among our most cherished liberties, but equally important is the public’s confidence that every lawful vote — and only lawful votes — determines the outcome
The right to vote is among our most cherished liberties, but equally important is the public’s confidence that every lawful vote — and only lawful votes — determines the outcome. Election integrity is not simply about preventing fraud; it is about preserving trust. An election that half the country believes was unfairly manipulated is an election that erodes trust in the republic and confidence in the system, regardless of who wins.
Such elections have become standard practice in California — not by accident, but by intent. The state has embraced a philosophy that treats virtually every security measure as an obstacle to the apparent goal of maintaining one-party control. Each voter integrity safeguard, once considered common sense, has been systematically dismantled. Practices critics have long warned create opportunities for abuse have not merely been tolerated — they have been written into state law.
Supporters insist these reforms are aimed innocently at expanding voter participation. But their effect has been to unnecessarily increase the opportunities for misconduct and make it more difficult for the public to verify that the elections were conducted honestly.
Perhaps no change illustrates this philosophy better than universal vote-by-mail. Every active registered voter automatically receives a ballot through the mail whether requested or not. Mailing millions of ballots inevitably means some are sent to outdated addresses, former residences, or individuals who have moved. The larger the distribution, the greater the opportunity for ballots to fall outside the intended recipient’s control. Election officials argue they accurately maintain voter rolls, but if that is so, why do they continue to resist a DoJ audit to verify the state’s voter database?
Once a ballot leaves the election office, another concern emerges: chain of custody. Voting at a polling place requires identification of the voter, a controlled environment, and immediate transfer of the ballot to election officials. A mail ballot can spend days traveling through mailboxes, kitchen tables, automobiles, apartment lobbies, or campaign offices before eventually reaching election authorities. Every additional handoff introduces another opportunity for error or abuse.
California compounds these concerns by broadly permitting ballot collection by third parties, commonly known as ballot harvesting. Campaign workers, political organizations, unions, advocacy groups, and volunteers may collect completed ballots from voters and deliver them to election officials.
Supporters defend the practice, saying this helps elderly, disabled, and rural voters. Critics ask a different question: why insert partisan intermediaries into a process that should remain as direct as possible? Whenever political operatives are permitted to collect hundreds or even thousands of ballots, the public loses visibility into what occurred between the voter and the ballot box. Verification becomes nearly impossible.
California has also dramatically expanded the use of unattended ballot drop boxes. While many drop boxes are monitored or secured, they nevertheless eliminate the direct interaction between voter and election official that once characterized the voting process. The more anonymous the chain of custody becomes, the more difficult it becomes to reassure skeptical citizens that every ballot remained secure from beginning to end.
Another controversial policy is California’s refusal to require photo identification before voting. Everyday Americans present identification to board airplanes, cash checks, purchase age-restricted products, enter many government buildings, or even rent a hotel room. Yet when selecting the nation’s leaders, California generally requires no comparable proof of identity.