It’s been claimed that voting by mail leads to massive corruption and fraud. But what are the facts?
2/
U.S. citizens will vote by mail this year in record numbers. In the face of a global health emergency, election officials across the country from both parties are working heroically to ensure that voting by mail is accurate, accessible, safe & secure.
3/
There's simply no basis for the conspiracy theory that voting by mail causes fraud. None.
@CNN & @washingtonpost fact-checks show this. But many others have examined the issue and arrived at the same conclusion. Still others have provided some key context. Take a look!
"Oregon has mailed out more than 100 million ballots since 2000, with about a dozen cases of proven fraud; a 0.000012 percent rate" (@drvox for @voxdotcom):
President disbanded his own commission charged with investigating voter fraud in 2018, without producing any systemic evidence of fraud. @miwine & @tackettdc for @nytimes:
Fox News Anchor Chris Wallace: "I've done some deep dive into it, there really is no record of massive fraud or even serious fraud from mail-in voting." "It's being carried out in Republican states, it's being carried out in Democratic states."
GOP state officials warming to vote-by-mail (NE, OH, WV, IA); Iowa Republican SoS Paul Pate: sowing “doubt about the integrity of the process is as dangerous as vote fraud" (@NickRiccardi for @AP):
Mistake, not fraud: "Fraud by individual voters is almost nonexistent; mistakes in a confusing system are the real issue" (@Rutgers_Camden Professor Lorraine C. Minnite):Â
@BrennanCenter's "The Truth About Voter Fraud" found that even among the small number of reported incidents of 'fraud,' most turn out to be traceable to other causes:
GOP leaders have long urged their supporters to vote by mail. GOP governors are sounding the call for easy access to mail-in ballots (@DoyleMcManus for @latimes):
@Heritage election fraud database reports just 143 convictions involving fraudulent use of absentee ballots over the past 20 years (approx. 0.00006% of total votes cast):
Former Republican campaign strategist compares president to "the boy who cried wolf" in spreading panic and undermining faith in the electoral process, to the detriment of his own base. (@grace_panetta for @businessinsider):
Former Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Reagan, @LarryKorb: "U.S. troops routinely vote by mail. Why can't the rest of America do the same?" (@MilitaryTimes):
Justin Levitt (@_justinlevitt_): "Each act of voter fraud in connection with a federal election risks 5 years in prison....a single extra vote is simply not worth the price." (@BrennanCenter@nyulaw):
Oh, and I (@EllenLWeintraub) have also spoken on the topic: "Democrats have studied this, Republicans have studied this, and no one can find any evidence of rampant voter fraud either historically or particularly in the 2016 elections."
Many Americans will be voting by mail this year. In the 2016 general election, 139 million people voted overall; even more could do so this year.
52/
With that many voters, could a few instances of illegal voting activity crop up?
Perhaps.
But there is no basis to claim that it will be anything other than exceedingly rare.
53/
Facts matter. Data matters. When Prof. @_justinlevitt_ researched in-person voter fraud between 2000 and 2014, he found just 31 credible allegations – just *allegations*! – out of more than a *billion* ballots cast.
Research by U. of Wisconsin & Stanford political scientists “indicate[d] that the proportion of the population reporting voter impersonation is indistinguishable from that reporting abduction by extraterrestrials.”
The numbers are similarly tiny for voting by mail. Even the Heritage Foundation’s voter-fraud database contains only 13 instances of absentee voter fraud across the 5 states that had all-mail balloting going into this year: CO, HI, OR, UT, & WA.
Voting by mail will not make the 2020 election substantially fraudulent or massively corrupt.
There is no basis for that claim.
None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
57/
Specifically:
There is no basis for the claim that the election will be substantially fraudulent or massively corrupt due to mailbox robbery.
There is no basis for the claim that the election will be substantially fraudulent or massively corrupt due to ballot forgery.
58/
There is no basis for the claim that the election will be substantially fraudulent or massively corrupt due to illegal ballot printing.
59/
There is no basis for the claim that the election will be substantially fraudulent or massively corrupt due to fraudulently signed ballots.
60/
There is no basis for the claim that the election will be substantially fraudulent or massively corrupt due to voters being told for whom to vote.
61/
There is no basis for the claim that the election will be substantially fraudulent or massively corrupt due to a cheating free-for-all.
62/
There is no basis for the claim that the election will be substantially fraudulent or massively corrupt due to a forgery free-for-all.
63/
There is no basis for the claim that the election will be substantially fraudulent or massively corrupt due to a ballot theft free-for-all.
64/
Claims that voter fraud is widespread are, as shown above, “dead wrong,” “crying ‘wolf,’” “false,” “a debunked lie.”
65/
Such falsehoods are not mere words.
These falsehoods may well undermine the American people's faith in our democracy.
And the *real* fraud would be if U.S. citizens were deterred from voting and our government reflected the consent of fewer of the governed.
66/
True leaders speak truth.
Especially in an election season plagued by pandemic, economic uncertainty, and death, the American people deserve nothing less than the truth from our leaders.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🔥NEW!: @FEC GOP commissioners are so eager to grease the skids for corporate spending in US elections that they don’t seem to care where the money comes from, including, in a matter just released, money from – I kid you not – *Russian oligarchs.* This is, in a word, alarming. 🧵
@FEC The Republicans ignored an @FEC investigation that revealed that a US corporation that spent on a number of US elections was overwhelmingly owned by Russian oligarchs and had nothing but Russian funds in the bank.
@FEC Worse, when they went to explain themselves, the Republicans disregarded decades of Commission precedent, governing law, legal logic, and the interests of the United States.
Their misrepresentations demanded a direct response, and they’re getting one:
Sad to report: @FEC announced today the dismissal of a slew of important cases on key issues like dark money, soft money & coordination. Several of us had worked hard over the past few years to keep these matters alive in the face of obstructionist colleagues and bad caselaw. 🧵
@FEC These efforts involved a activating a previously unused, alternative enforcement path that Congress wrote into our governing statute.
There is still hope that the American people's interests can be vindicated, at least in these matters.
@FEC This path allows those who file complaints to sue those they allege have violated the law when @FEC fails to act. The strategy was working. Today's dismissals should not affect those existing lawsuits – the dismissals have not cured the injury that allowed those suits to proceed.
🧵 The @FEC gave @Google what it asked for last Thursday: Permission to launch a program exempting political email from Gmail's spam filters.
The legal ship has now sailed, but the policy question remains: *Should* Google flood Gmail users' in-boxes with spammy political email?
@FEC@Google I voted against allowing Google to pursue its plan, not because of the public's huge and breathtakingly hostile reaction to the program, but because I believe that, legally, what Google proposed was prohibited in-kind corporate contributions to federal political campaigns.
@FEC@Google But I think the commenters had the policy issue right. Google's unofficial motto is "Don't be evil." I'm not sure dumping spam into in-boxes counts as "evil," but it does run counter to the guiding principle to "make Google more useful for all our users."
This morning at the @FEC's open meeting, Commissioner Trey Trainor (@txelectionlaw) decided to "pass judgment" on a requestor asking the Commission about childcare rules.
He called the requestor’s need for childcare "abhorrent."
Video:
@FEC@TXElectionLaw The discussion concerned an advisory opinion request from @RepSwalwell that asked whether he could use campaign funds to pay for overnight childcare when traveling on congressional or political business.
@FEC@TXElectionLaw@RepSwalwell Verbatim: “To be real honest with you, I'm actually going to pass judgment on it. I think it's abhorrent that Congressman Swalwell would have such a young child and want to leave them in the care of someone else for a weeklong trip overseas."
Not only was the GOP @FEC commissioners' blocking of a $781.6 million complaint against Trump & his campaign contrary to law and not only did it carry the unmistakable stench of partisanship….
…it was also just the latest attempt to discredit U.S. news media as appropriate sources of information for @FEC complaints.
When Complainants or our lawyers cite news reports, the Commission evaluates the overall credibility of those news reports and, necessarily, the news organizations that produced them. Make no mistake: that is what our Republican colleagues rejected in this matter.
“Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy,” says @elonmusk, @Twitter’s likely new owner.
One of Twitter’s challenges in supporting democracy is to avoid spreading disinformation like wildfire. And content moderation isn't the only way to slow disinformation down. 🧵
@elonmusk@Twitter A wildfire requires not just a spark to start the fire but also wind to fan the flames. On Twitter, algorithms are the wind. Musk says he wants to open-source Twitter's algorithms. But algorithms' effects don't depend on whether you can find their source code on Github.
@elonmusk@Twitter It's how they're tuned. At the moment, social media companies' algorithms "exploit the basic human compulsion to react to material that outrages," as I wrote in the Georgetown Law Technology Review in 2020.