Author
The process of allowing a third-party to collect absentee ballots from voters is known as ballot harvesting, sometimes called ballot collecting. Neither term is an official legal term as laws tend to describe the practice that ballot harvesting or collecting is shorthand for. In some states, it is completely legal—states like California allow anyone to turn in a ballot for a voter with the voter's consent, while other states have no specified laws around ballot harvesting. In other states, a witness must sign off to prevent ballot tampering, or the only third-party allowed to collect ballots is a legal guardian of the voter.
Illegal ballot harvesting resulted in the resignation of an elected US House Representative and a special election after a fraud conviction in North Carolina in 2018.
Many ballot collecting policies changed during the COVID-19 pandemic, causing some confusion and an inundation of voter fraud claims from former President Donald Trump and other Republicans.
Here are some perspectives on how ballot harvesting and restrictions on the practice affect election outcomes.
Are we missing a stance or perspective? Email us!
See a related AllStances exploring whether voter fraud or voter suppression is a bigger issue.
Ballot Harvesting Fraud Doesn’t Exist: There is no proof that ballot harvesting fraud happens, and attempts to restrict it are attempts to suppress absentee voting.
Ballot Harvesting Should Be Allowed: Allowing ballot harvesting makes voting more accessible for those who cannot easily leave their homes or go to polling places.
Ballot Harvesting Should Generally Be Restricted: Reasonable restrictions on ballot harvesting can prevent potential voter fraud and maintain the integrity of elections.
Ballot Harvesting Should be Banned: Banning ballot harvesting can help to prevent voter fraud and protect the integrity of elections.
Stance 1: Ballot Harvesting Fraud Doesn’t Exist
CORE ARGUMENT: There is no proof that ballot harvesting fraud happens, and attempts to restrict it are attempts to suppress absentee voting.
More arguments for this stance:
- “Logistically, voters with ballots in hand are usually not clustered enough to make it practical to do ‘ballot harvesting’ the way Republicans talk about it”
- Ballot collection is legal in 32 states, and many have additional safeguards to prevent fraud.
- There is no proof of widespread voter fraud and allegations of widespread voter fraud serve to suppress the votes of minority communities
- “Anytime you throw the word ‘felony [regarding absentee ballot collection], in my mind, that speaks to voter intimidation.”
- “Researchers have long said voter fraud, in general, is rare nationwide. They also say the concept of voter impersonation is almost nonexistent.”
Stance 2: Ballot Harvesting Should Be Allowed
CORE ARGUMENT: Allowing ballot harvesting makes voting more accessible for those who cannot easily leave their homes or go to polling places.
More arguments for this stance:
- Ballot harvesting can help elderly, disabled, or rural-dwelling citizens who have difficulty getting to the polls.
- “Voters need multiple secure options to make voting by mail easier… whether it’s prepaid postage, places to drop off absentee ballots or being able to give your ballot to a trusted friend to drop it off.”
- Ballot harvesting can increase voter turnout by making it more convenient for people to vote.
- Ballot harvesting can be a useful tool for communities that are marginalized or have historically low voter turnout, such as native American communities.
- Over half of states allow ballot collecting and groups from both parties run ballot collecting campaigns.
- In states where ballot collecting is legal, there have been no significant instances of fraud related to the practice.
- Ballot harvesting is a practical solution to the problem of mail-in ballot delivery delays.
Stance 3: Ballot Harvesting Should Generally Be Restricted
CORE ARGUMENT: Reasonable restrictions on ballot harvesting can prevent potential voter fraud and maintain the integrity of elections.
More arguments for this stance:
- Ballot harvesting can potentially be exploited by individuals or groups who wish to manipulate the outcome of an election.
- By not restricting ballot harvesting, voters could hand their ballots to anyone, including paid political campaign workers.
- “There have been isolated cases of fraud associated with ballot harvesting, including in a North Carolina congressional race in 2018.”
- Restricting ballot harvesting can help ensure that each voter's ballot is secure and counted accurately by narrowing the chain of custody.
- Ballot harvesting can potentially lead to coercion or intimidation tactics by those collecting ballots.
- Restrictions on ballot harvesting can help maintain public trust in the electoral process.
- Without proper oversight, ballot harvesting can potentially lead to mishandling or loss of ballots.
- In 2018, House Speaker Ryan said ballot harvesting in California may be to blame for the irregular voting results. While he accepted the results and did not think they were nefarious he said, “The way the absentee-ballot program used to work, and the way it works now, it seems pretty loosey goose,” Ryan said. “When you have candidates who win the absentee ballot vote and then lose three weeks later because of provisionals, that’s really bizarre. I just think that’s a very, very strange outcome.”
Stance 4: Ballot Harvesting Should be Banned
CORE ARGUMENT: Banning ballot harvesting can help to prevent voter fraud and protect the integrity of elections.
More arguments for this stance:
- Ballot harvesting can be exploited by individuals or organizations looking to manipulate election outcomes.
- Ballot harvesting can lead to undue influence or coercion of voters, particularly among vulnerable populations.
- Ballot harvesting can increase the risk of ballots being lost, damaged, or tampered with before they are counted.
- Ballot harvesting can undermine public trust in the electoral process, as it can create opportunities for accusations of fraud or misconduct.
- Ballot harvesting creates a chain of custody for each ballot that can be too hard to follow.
- Banning ballot harvesting can help to ensure that every vote is cast freely and independently, without outside influence or interference.
- Banning ballot harvesting can help to ensure that every eligible voter has an equal opportunity to participate in the democratic process.
- Banning ballot harvesting can help to simplify the voting process and reduce the potential for confusion or mistakes.
- Only restricting ballot harvesting allows for gray area, for example ballot harvesting is not allowed in Pennsylvania, but there are not clear laws around ballot dropboxes, leaving other loopholes that could be used for fraud.
The Author:
Clare Ashcraft, Bridging & Bias Specialist, Center bias
Reviewers and Contributors:
John Gable, CEO, Lean Right bias
Joseph Ratliff, AllSides Daily News Editor, Lean Left bias
Malayna J. Bizier, News Assistant, Right bias