Editorials: To Save Election Day, Start By Getting Rid of Election Night? | Eric Lach/The New Yorker

Election Days are as old as America, but Election Nights are a product of twentieth-century mass media. And, over decades, television news outlets have trained the American Election Night viewer to expect a certain dramatic arc. Tune in at 6 P.M. (at least on the East Coast), when everything is uncertain, and go to bed at 11 P.M., having watched uncertainty resolve into certainty, with the winners separated from the losers. It’s not so different from the Super Bowl or the Grammys. (I recommend watching NBC’s Election Night coverage from 1948 on YouTube. The televised press releases, the correspondent on the scene, the panel of analysts—it’s all very familiar.) Even before the coronavirus crisis, election experts were worrying that these media-created expectations, so good for ratings, were bad for democracy. The rise in the use of mail-in and absentee ballots was making it harder for states to tally their election results quickly, and news outlets were not adjusting to this new reality. In the 2018 midterms, for instance, California took days to finalize its results. As a consequence, the Democratic wave that allowed the Party to flip control of the House of Representatives wasn’t fully revealed on Election Night, and so, on Election Night, the story wasn’t about a Democratic wave, causing confusion and frustration on all sides. But, even when results are expected to be reported quickly, problems can occur. In February (remember February?), a bum app caused delays in reporting the results of the Iowa Democratic caucuses. The chaos that followed led supporters of both Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg—who finished practically in a tie for first place—to suspect that their candidate was the victim of malfeasance, and left lingering questions about the validity of the results.

Editorials: Voting By Mail in November—It’s Not a Matter of if, But How | Jason Abel, Evan Glassman and Daniel Podair/Bloomberg

Five states—Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, and Washington—automatically send voting ballots to all registered voters, while another 29 states and Washington, D.C., provide no excuse mail-in ballots at a voter’s request. Steptoe & Johnson LLP attorneys suggest ways to ensure election integrity with mail-in voting and say that for most states, ensuring voter access to ballot boxes just means adjusting current rules, and not starting from square one. Following the recent election in Wisconsin, which led to a number of voters contracting Covid-19, there’s been an increasingly heated debate concerning how to provide safe ballot access in November. Various vote-by-mail proposals are being offered at both the state and federal levels. However, the debate over whether to vote-by-mail misses the larger picture. Most states already provide voters with access to a “no excuse required” vote-by-mail option.

Editorials: Why We Need Postal Democracy | David Cole/The New York Review of Books

Nothing symbolizes democracy like long lines at the polls on election day. They represent a collective act of faith, as chances are virtually nil that any one of the votes we cast over our lifetime will determine the outcome of an election. They remind us that many of our fellow citizens have had to fight to stand in such lines. And because long lines are also often a sign that election officials have failed to provide sufficient voting opportunities, they illustrate the tenacity of citizens who insist on casting their ballots even when the government seems more interested in obstructing than in facilitating the franchise. Not since the civil rights era, when African-Americans in the South braved death threats to exercise their right to vote, has a voting line embodied this commitment more profoundly than on April 7 in Milwaukee. People lined up around the block, trying to maintain six-foot social-distancing intervals, to vote in what was a relatively unimportant election. At issue were only the all-but-concluded Democratic presidential primary, a single state supreme court seat, and a small number of lower state and local offices. At a time when their governor and mayor—both Democrats—had instructed them to shelter in place, these Milwaukee citizens had come out to stand in public for hours in order to exercise their constitutional right. The city, which ordinarily operates 180 polling places, opened only five, as poll workers balked at showing up. At least forty voters and poll workers may have contracted the coronavirus as a result.

Editorials: Kentucky has it right on voting in the age of Covid-19 | Joshua A. Douglas/CNN

There must be something in the water in Kentucky. At a time when partisanship still runs rampant, despite a pandemic, Kentucky’s leaders have found a way to come to a bipartisan agreement on how to administer the upcoming primary on June 23. That agreement — which expands vote-by-mail for all voters, permits in-person voting for those who need it, and allows the state to begin the process of cleaning up the voter rolls — pales in comparison to the debacle in Wisconsin, where partisan bickering and court decisions that fell along ideological lines led voters to face an unfathomable choice between their health and their fundamental right to vote. Officials in other states should copy Kentucky’s lead. Senator Mitch McConnell should look to his own backyard to see how working across the aisle can actually produce positive results for the people. Maybe if McConnell emulated his state’s leaders—and learned how to work in a bipartisan manner — he would not be so unpopular.

Editorials: What Happened When Our Election-Hacking Documentary Came Out During Coronavirus | Simon Ardizzone and Sarah Teale/Talkhouse

When HBO chose March 26, 2020, as the airdate for our documentary Kill Chain: The Cyber War on America’s Elections, we obviously had no idea that we would be launching our film in the middle of a pandemic. But oddly enough, as the primary vote in Wisconsin recently showed, the challenges presented by COVID-19 have only sharpened the debate about our ability to vote using paper ballots and highlighted the deep shortcomings of our current system. How do we vote when most of our precincts are run by the elderly – the population most at risk from coronavirus? How do we vote in the primaries when we are not supposed to gather and visit public places? How do we vote when so many of the voting machines use touch screens and are therefore an infection risk? Does mailing in our ballots present the answer? Perhaps the coronavirus offers us an unprecedented opportunity to secure the vote, but there are also risks.

Editorials: How to Hold a Fair Election in November | Jonathan Bernstein/Bloomberg

There’s no question about it: Holding successful elections under current conditions is going to be difficult. The good news is that a group of experts put together by election-law maven Rick Hasen, the Ad Hoc Committee for 2020 Election Fairness and Legitimacy, has thought through many of the major issues and published solid recommendations for getting it right this November. Now we’ll see whether politicians and the media will follow through. How to work around the pandemic? What’s needed, Hasen’s group says, is an approach that allows for several methods of voting. Mail voting should be an important piece of this, and no-excuse absentee voting (meaning you don’t have to explain why you are casting your ballot that way) extended to those states that don’t have it. The overall strategy: “Having a diversity of avenues for voting — in-person, absentee, curbside, on-site at hospitals and other such facilities — enhances the stability of the system, maximizing the likelihood that elections may continue despite whatever unexpected threat emerges.” No one knows how difficult in-person voting will be by the fall, but states should prepare for the worst — and Congress should immediately provide emergency funding, with up to $2 billion needed.

Editorials: Online Voting Is Not the Answer Even in a Pandemic | Hans von Spakovsky/The Daily Signal

What is the best way to conduct elections in a time of epidemic? The simplest and most obvious answer might appear at first glance to be voting over the internet—via email, fax, blockchain, or smartphone apps. While this would certainly seem to fit with our internet-dependent lives as we socially distance, online voting is not a viable or acceptable solution and must not be on the table. No method of casting ballots over the internet is safe, secure, or trustworthy. Period. Votes can be manipulated or changed, recorded and spied on, deleted or cast fraudulently through hacking, viruses, Trojan horses, and other types of malware. The even bigger danger is that these sorts of attacks could succeed and go completely undetected, imperiling the integrity of the election process.
Computer security experts insist that online voting is far too insecure to be used for public elections.

Editorials: Let’s put the vote-by-mail ‘fraud’ myth to rest | Amber McReynolds and Charles Stewart III/The Hill

Widespread calls to conduct the 2020 elections by mail, to protect voters from COVID-19 exposure, are being met with charges that the system inevitably would lead to massive voter fraud. This is simply not true. Vote fraud in the United States is exceedingly rare, with mailed ballots and otherwise. Over the past 20 years, about 250 million votes have been cast by a mail ballot nationally. The Heritage Foundation maintains an online database of election fraud cases in the United States and reports that there have been just over 1,200 cases of vote fraud of all forms, resulting in 1,100 criminal convictions, over the past 20 years. Of these, 204 involved the fraudulent use of absentee ballots; 143 resulted in criminal convictions. Let’s put that data in perspective. One hundred forty-three cases of fraud using mailed ballots over the course of 20 years comes out to seven to eight cases per year, nationally. It also means that across the 50 states, there has been an average of three cases per state over the 20-year span. That is just one case per state every six or seven years. We are talking about an occurrence that translates to about 0.00006 percent of total votes cast.

Editorials: Why can’t we just vote online? Let us count the ways. { The Washington Post

Elections in the United States have been thrown into disarray by a pandemic that makes packing into polling places a risk the country cannot afford to take. Why, some are asking, isn’t voting over the Internet the smartest option in the modern age? Let us count the ways. The greatest threat to democracy on Election Day is hacking, and cybersecurity experts have long agreed that the intelligent response is to take as much cyber out of the security equation as possible. Pen-and-paper ballots let officials count hard copies and compare them with electronic tallies after the fact. Critical infrastructure that’s disconnected from the Web keeps systems further from adversaries’ reach. Putting voting online, of course, follows the precise opposite of this advice. An Internet election presents plenty of penetration points for an enemy to attack. Election officials must figure out how to ensure the security of individuals’ personal devices (many of which are already infected by some sort of malware) as well as how to keep remote adversaries away from a server that’s necessarily connected to the Web. Then there’s the trouble of guaranteeing voters are who they say they are. This task is easier for, say, the Estonian e-government, which issues ID smart cards with advanced authentication capabilities to every citizen — but researchers say even that nation’s vaunted I-voting system is all too vulnerable.

Editorials: We can’t have another Wisconsin. States should emulate Virginia and Maryland on voting. | The Washington Post

Wisconsin officials said Tuesday that 19 people who voted in person or worked at polling places during the state’s April 7 election have tested positive for covid-19. This is not proof that these people contracted the illness while waiting in line to vote or while handing out ballot papers. At the same time, there may be people who caught the disease while voting but have not been tested. Whatever the number, it is too many: People should not have to risk their life in order to exercise their right to vote. State Republicans refused to relax rules that forced many Wisconsinites to take that risk. The Election Day chaos that resulted shows what happens when many people fear infection at the polls, a circumstance that might well persist into November. But Wisconsin Republicans appear to have learned no lesson. “The only reason they [Democrats] would want to expand voting would be to create an opportunity for potential fraud or because they want to give themselves some kind of partisan advantage,” state Rep. Robin Vos (R), Wisconsin’s State Assembly speaker, told the New York Times. “The current situation is pretty fair to everybody.”

Editorials: The ‘voter fraud’ fraud | Steve Mulroy/The Hill

Many states have moved toward voting by mail for the 2020 elections due to pandemic concerns, leaving only seven states lacking this option for all voters. Members of Congress have called for national legislation for a vote-by-mail option for federal elections this year, which would cover the remaining states. President Trump and some other Republicans have resisted, arguing that mail voting risks election fraud. There’s little empirical evidence to back up this fraud claim, but there have been enough instances of absentee ballot fraud over the years to make it worth a look. Evidence for the pro-vote-by-mail side may come from an unlikely source: A database of fraud cases maintained by a conservative think tank that raises alarms over voter fraud and is decidedly not in the pro-mail ballot camp. Its data suggests that mail ballot related fraud is actually more common in states that restrict absentee voting than in other states. The Heritage Foundation is an established conservative think tank. It has long raised the alarm about the perceived dangers of voter fraud, most notably as a justification for strict voter photo identification laws for in-person voting. But they have also spoken out against mail-in voting, suggesting, among several complaints, that it raises an unacceptable risk of fraud.

Editorials: Trump’s Attacks on the Post Office Threaten Democracy | David H. Gans and Rebecca Damante/Constitutional Accountability Center

In the weeks since the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic hit the United States, President Trump has waged war on one of our nation’s oldest institutions: the United States Postal Service (USPS). For example, earlier this month, the President threatened to veto a coronavirus relief package if it included emergency funding for USPS. And this is not the first time the President has attacked this important federal institution; he has also called the Post Office Amazon’s “Delivery Boy” and accused USPS of becoming “dumber and poorer.” Trump’s attacks come at a time when we need the Post Office most—our ability to hold elections in November and to fulfill our constitutional obligation to hold a national census depends on it. The Post Office has a long history dating back to the founding era.  It is one of a handful of institutions that is directly mentioned in the Constitution’s text.  Although our national charter left many details to be filled in, the Framers recognized that a postal system would be essential to unify the nation and encourage the spread of ideas across distant states.

Editorials: The Simplest Way to Avoid a Wisconsin-Style Fiasco on Election Day | Edward B. Foley and Steven Huefner/Politico

The fiasco surrounding Wisconsin’s April 7 primary election is still fresh: In the middle of a viral pandemic, crowded, in-person voting took place despite the governor’s stay-at-home order, while tens of thousands of voters did not receive absentee ballots in time to cast eligible votes by mail. Two election eve judicial decisions added to the confusion. Unfortunately, the November elections are at risk of looking similar. With coronavirus likely to remain a threat for months, some form of voting by mail, including in states historically unfamiliar with high rates of absentee voting, will be a public health necessity. But one issue with mail-in ballots, whether a state uses them just for absentee voters or for the entire election, is that they need to be postmarked or delivered to a polling station no later than Election Day. If local election offices can’t handle the increased demand for absentee ballots and voters don’t receive their ballots in time to cast them by Election Day, those voters are disenfranchised. And that, in turn, could lead to heated, possibly prolonged disputes about election outcomes. But there’s a fairly straightforward way Wisconsin could have avoided its mess—and the rest of the country could do so in the fall. In fact, this solution already exists, albeit in a limited context.

Editorials: Wisconsin Voters Faced an Impossible Choice. It Shouldn’t Happen Again. | The New York Times

It was as gratifying as it was unexpected to watch Wisconsin’s Republican lawmakers — who have repeatedly ignored if not erased the political voices of their own constituents — take a drubbing at the hands of the voters themselves. The state’s Republican leadership insisted on holding an election in the middle of a pandemic and a statewide stay-at-home order, knowing that the dilemma it posed would hit minorities and other Democratic-leaning voters hardest. Yet Republicans still lost in the state’s marquee race. When the ballots were counted and the official results were reported on Monday, Jill Karofsky, the Democratic candidate for a seat on the state’s Supreme Court, had comfortably beaten her Trump-endorsed opponent, the incumbent, Justice Daniel Kelly. Defying the pleas of voters, poll workers, public-health officials, the Democratic governor and Democratic lawmakers, Republican legislators forced Wisconsinites to make a choice between protecting their health and casting their ballot.

Editorials: Why the Supreme Court made Wisconsin vote during the coronavirus crisis | Austin Sarat/The Conversation

When Wisconsin voters had to brave the coronavirus pandemic to vote in their state’s April 7 election, it was the latest phase of a nearly 60-year legal and political fight over who can vote in the U.S. Wearing masks and gloves, Wisconsin residents who voted in person were met by election officials in similar attire. That was new. But it wasn’t new that voters found hundreds of polling places closed and therefore had to wait in line for hours. A U.S. Supreme Court decision just the day before had ordered Wisconsin to hold its in-person election without delay, not allowing extra time for voters to cast their ballots by mail. Critics called the decision one of “raw partisanship,” “an ominous harbinger for what the Court might allow in November in the general election” – and even a “death threat” aimed at voters. As someone who has long studied the complex intersections of law and politics, I saw the ruling as the latest episode in the fight over the franchise and one of a series of decisions under Chief Justice John Roberts that have rejected efforts to protect or extend voting rights.

Editorials: Trump Wants 50 Wisconsins on Election Day | Jamelle Bouie/The New York Times

The voting debacle in Wisconsin on Tuesday was further evidence of an incontrovertible reality in American politics: The Republican Party does not believe in free and fair elections, where free means equal access to the ballot and fair means equitable rules and neutral procedures. Here’s what happened. Last week, once it was clear that coronavirus would make in-person voting unsafe, Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, convened a session of the Wisconsin Legislature to find a solution. The Republican majority leader gaveled the chamber in and just as quickly gaveled it out. There would be no session and thus no solution. Republicans wanted to hold the election as is, endangering the lives of voters who went to the polls in the midst of a pandemic. When, on Monday, Evers issued an executive order to push the election to June and give officials time to implement universal vote-by-mail, it was immediately overturned by the conservative majority of the state Supreme Court.

Editorials: On the Wisconsin Primary, the Supreme Court Failed Us | Linda Greenhouse/The New York Times

The Supreme Court just met its first test of the coronavirus era. It failed, spectacularly. I was hoping not to have to write those sentences. All day Monday, I kept refreshing my computer’s link to the court’s website. I was anxious to see how the justices would respond to the urgent request from the Republican National Committee and Wisconsin’s Republican-controlled Legislature to stop the state from counting absentee ballots postmarked not by Tuesday’s election but during the following few days. A federal district judge, noting that Wisconsin’s election apparatus was overwhelmed by the “avalanche of absentee ballots” sought by voters afraid to show up at crowded polling places, had ordered the extra time last Thursday, with the full support of the state’s election officials. Was I the only one left in suspense on Monday, holding out hope that the five Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices would put partisanship aside and let the District Court order stand? In early evening, the answer landed with a thud. No, they would not.

Editorials: Trump is wrong about the dangers of absentee ballots | Richard L. Hasen/The Washington Post

President Trump has recently come out against expanding voting by mail, despite the fact that he regularly votes by mail himself. He tweeted that it has “Tremendous potential for voter fraud and, for whatever reason, doesn’t work out well for Republicans.” Given that expanded mail-in voting is going to be an inevitable piece of the November election because of the coronavirus pandemic, it is important that Americans understand what risks come from voting by mail and what can be done about those risks before November, so that voters can have confidence that the election can be fairly conducted, in part, through mail-in balloting. To begin with, election fraud has been rare in this country for decades. Impersonation fraud, where one person shows up at the polling place claiming to be a voter who died or moved, is practically nonexistent, yet it has formed the excuse for some Republican-led states to pass strict voter-identification laws that many Democrats believe are motivated by a desire to deter their likely voters.

Editorials: We run elections in Arizona. An all-mail option for 2020 wouldn’t ruin the process | Virginia Ross and Lisa Marra/Arizona Republic

On April 2, an opinion piece by Rep. Shawnna Bolick (“All-mail voting would only compromise the integrity of elections”) included inaccurate and often misleading information about ballot-by-mail elections. As election professionals, we are committed to ensuring that the rest of the elections in 2020 are accurate, secure and safe for voters, anticipating the COVID-19 pandemic could continue requirements around social distancing for the remainder of the year. On behalf of the Arizona Recorders Association and the Election Officials of Arizona, we believe it is crucial that the Legislature extend our ability to hold ballot-by-mail elections for state and federal elections, a practice already authorized for jurisdictional elections. It is the best way to ensure Arizona voters are safe during this pandemic and have the certainty of the continuity of our democracy. We are requesting this change only for 2020, during this unprecedented pandemic.

Editorials: How Republicans are using the coronavirus to suppress votes | Richard L. Hasen/Los Angeles Times

Even in a pandemic, some Republicans are looking to suppress the vote for partisan political advantage. But the biggest power plays may come in November, and they could threaten our democracy. With most of the country under a stay-at-home order, in-peson voting right now is perilous. We don’t know what the situation will be like in November, but vote-by-mail is one way to help ensure that millions of Americans will be able to vote safely. Yet, across the country, some Republican legislators and leaders are opposing efforts to make voting safe and widespread. In Wisconsin, Republican legislators have refused to postpone Tuesday’s scheduled primary despite the serious health risk posed by in-person voting. Some have suggested Wisconsin Republicans are happy to have depressed turnout to help a Republican-backed state Supreme Court candidate win election. On Friday, Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, called the Legislature into special session on Saturday to consider an election delay and shift to a mostly vote-by-mail election. But the Republicans immediately rejected any change to the election. In Georgia, Republican state House Speaker David Ralston has opposed sending absentee ballots to every Georgia voter for the upcoming primary, claiming that such a change “will be extremely devastating to Republicans and conservatives in Georgia. Every registered voter is going to get one of these. … This will certainly drive up turnout.”

Editorials: Governor Evers is right. With coronavirus raging in Wisconsin, it is no time to have an in-person election. | Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Gov. Tony Evers called the bluff of Republican leaders in the Legislature in a move more akin to poker than the governor’s favored game of euchre — and he made the right move to protect the health of Wisconsin voters and poll workers. Evers wants to convert Tuesday’s Wisconsin primary election to vote-by-mail and extend balloting until May 19. That would keep the election on track and keep people safe during a public health emergency. But so far Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, don’t seem to care if the lives of Wisconsin voters are at risk. On Saturday afternoon, the chambers they lead gaveled in the special session called by Evers to change the election and quickly adjourned until Monday without acting. Voting by mail — and not in person — is the only responsible way to conduct an election as the coronavirus tears across Wisconsin. Evers insists  his emergency powers do not give him the ability to make such changes himself. Evers should test those powers if the Legislature continues to do nothing on Monday.

Editorials: The Dangers of Moving All of Democracy Online | Marion Fourcade and Henry Farrell/WIRED

Governments around the world are struggling to deal with the public health and economic challenges of coronavirus. While many have pointed to how authoritarian regimes exacerbated the pandemic, we’ve so far paid dangerously little attention to coronavirus’s challenge to democracy. In a democracy, citizens need to be able to vote, politicians to deliberate, and people to move about, meet, and act collectively. Democratic politics is a mixture of mass involvement and endless meetings. All this is hard when people can be infected with a potentially deadly virus if someone simply coughs nearby. The obvious answer might seem to be to move democracy to the internet, but some parts of democracy translate badly to an online world, while others are already being undermined by emergency powers (for example, Hungary’s parliament just passed a law that allows the prime minister to rule by decree) and by the rise of digital surveillance. If people have to vote in person, they might catch coronavirus from queuing, pressing buttons, or handing ballots to election officials. No wonder 14 US presidential primaries have been postponed so far. But not postponing elections in the midst of the crisis has been just as controversial, since the resulting vote is likely to see a dramatic reduction in turnout (as did France’s first round municipal elections, and as is feared in the Polish presidential election this May).

Editorials: One Texas official has power to protect voters from coronavirus before November. She just has to use it. Now. | Houston Chronicle

Remember the last time you voted? If you’re like many Texans, you queued outside your polling place, maybe chatted with fellow voters while you waited. As you reached the end of the line, poll workers stood nearby to answer any questions and you handed over your ID. You then stepped over to use an electronic voting machine, just like hundreds of other voters before you that day and hundreds more afterward. Imagine if you had to do that now. The coronavirus outbreak has upended our way of life, and our elections are not immune. Gov. Greg Abbott has postponed the primary runoffs until July 14, hoping that the current crisis will have abated, but according to experts, even if the virus is seasonal and we can anticipate relative safety in the summer, it is expected to return in the fall — just in time for Election Day. No one should be expected to choose between protecting their health and exercising their right to vote. Abbott has resisted calls to explore other options beyond delaying the runoffs, so it falls to Secretary of State Ruth Hughs — as the chief elections officer in Texas — to take the lead, making sure we are prepared and have the needed resources.

Editorials: States need billions to ensure safe elections | Katie Hobbs and Kim Wyman/CNN

Over the weekend, New York joined Delaware and Pennsylvania as the latest states to move their primaries to June in light of the coronavirus pandemic. Meanwhile, the territory of Puerto Rico, which had already moved its primary to late April, now finds itself less than a month away from holding an election, pending another postponement. While a few weeks may seem like an eternity in the midst of a pandemic whose impact is growing by the hour, it leaves little time for state officials to implement emergency plans to administer fair, free and accurate elections in this crisis. These postponements have created concerns that the November general election could be delayed. This is not a good option. Delaying would create confusion by upending the one Election Day that Americans have collectively observed since 1845. Instead, we should invest our time over the next several months toward preparing for November and addressing the problem the coronavirus has made quite apparent: Not all states have the resources to adapt to an environment that discourages social contact. As such, they need significant funding to help them successfully and safely conduct elections. As part of a $2 trillion historic package to boost our health care system and provide financial relief to households and businesses, Congress provided a small down payment to our democracy with $400 million allocated to protecting our elections. But states need billions, not millions, to ensure secure voting.

Editorials: The November election is going to be a nightmare | Paul Waldman/The Washington Post

President Trump has a unique propensity to blurt out what others will only imply, and on “Fox & Friends,” the president offered a revealing lament about the proposals House Democrats had made for the rescue package that eventually passed. “The things they had in there were crazy,” he said. “They had things — levels of voting that, if you ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.” That may be an exaggeration, but what is clear is that the November elections could be an absolute mess, not just in how difficult it could be to vote but in determining a winner as well. The Democratic proposal Trump was referencing would have given money to states to aid in conducting this year’s elections, which have been complicated so severely by the coronavirus pandemic. In addition to the funding, it would have required that states make mail-in voting available to everyone (right now many states require you to have an excuse they consider valid to vote absentee) and in the case of a national emergency, mail ballots to every registered voter. Because of Republican objections, those requirements didn’t make it into the final bill. It did include $400 million in funding to help states prepare for November. That will help, but it’s unlikely to be enough, as states will have to scramble to print more mail ballots and pay for postage, create more dropoff locations, hire people to process ballots, create online registration systems, and inform the public of the changes. The Brennan Center estimates that shoring up the election system in the wake of the coronavirus will cost $2 billion.

Editorials: What Happens in November if One Side Doesn’t Accept the Election Results? How the coronavirus could contribute to a 2020 election meltdown. Richard L. Hasen/Slate

The November 2020 presidential election won’t be run perfectly—we have never had a perfect election conducted in this country or elsewhere—but the unique challenges posed by the coronavirus pandemic add special stress to what was already going to be a difficult election and underline the need to ensure that it is run in a way that maximizes both voter access and integrity. Even before the current crisis, I had been deeply concerned about the chances of a 2020 “election meltdown,” in which the 47 percent or more of the population on the losing side would not accept the results as legitimate. I am even more worried now because of the changes and shortcuts that will be necessary to successfully run November’s tally amid a pandemic. Here is what we need to do to minimize the chances of a November meltdown.

Editorials: Amid coronavirus, give clerks support to conduct the November election | Tina Barton, Kammi Foote and Paddy McGuire/Detroit Free Press

COVID-19 comes 102 years after the Spanish Flu epidemic that coincided with 1918 midterm elections, during Woodrow Wilson’s second term as president. Technology and the political climate have changed drastically in the last century, but protective measures such as quarantines, are eerily similar to today. In 1918, our country managed to hold its November election during a pandemic, suspending quarantines to do so, but it wasn’t without great cost to the health and safety of our nation. We election officials have confidence that we can hold the November 2020 presidential election if this pandemic continues, but we are going to need to act quickly, and without partisanship, if we are going to be successful in that endeavor. Today, more than ever before, local and state election officials across this country have the capacity to provide safe and transparent elections to all voters. We are calling on Congress and States to act now to provide the funding and local autonomy needed to protect the sanctity of this November’s election.

Editorials: We know how much it will cost to safeguard voting from effects of the pandemic. Congress approved only one-fifth of that. | Wendy Weiser and Lawrence Norden/Politico

Federal lawmakers have reached a bipartisan agreement for a $2 trillion stimulus package aimed at ameliorating the public health and economic crises wreaked by the coronavirus. But in one critical respect, the deal is a colossal failure: it includes less than one-fifth of what is needed retrofit our voting systems for a nationwide pandemic in time for the November election. Unless Congress remedies this failure quickly, the coronavirus will add our democracy to its casualties. Don’t be lulled into complacency by the fact that there are seven months until November. The country needs to start making significant changes to our national election infrastructure now, or else it will be nearly impossible to hold a safe and fair election in the fall. Election officials across the country must have the funding to begin the enormous project before them. A bipartisan group of over 50 state and local election officials toldcongressional leaders this week that they face “unprecedented challenges” in carrying out their responsibility to “protect every voter and every vote.” To ensure a safe and secure election during the pandemic, these essential workers must receive significant financial assistance — immediately.

Editorials: It’s time for Connecticut to allow voting by mail | Denise Merrill/Hartford Courant

In Connecticut, we pride ourselves on ensuring that every citizen has the opportunity to make their voice heard, whether it be in town meetings, at the ballot box, or in referenda that many towns hold every year. Despite that legacy, we have fallen behind most states in one crucial area: making it easy for registered voters to actually cast their ballots. Forty-one states allow their voters to mail in a ballot without a reason, vote early in a polling place or both. Five states conduct all of their elections by mail, and California, Pennsylvania and others are moving in that direction by allowing permanent mail-in voting status. Connecticut stands with Missouri, Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, New Hampshire and Rhode Island as the only states in the country that won’t let voters vote before Election Day and won’t let them vote by mail without an excuse. And of those states, we have the ignominious distinction of having the most restrictive absentee ballot laws in the country. The argument for flexibility in voting methods isn’t that Connecticut is behind most other states, although we are, or that it would make it more convenient for voters to vote, although it would — the argument right now is that we are in a public health emergency, and our inflexibility is threatening our democracy.

Editorials: We Must Vote in November. This Is How to Ensure That We Can. | Bob Bauer, Ben Ginsberg and Nathaniel Persily/The New York Times

Voters should not have to choose between casting a ballot and risking their health. They should not have to endure confusion over the location of polling places or the availability of vote-by-mail. Yet voters might face exactly those problems in November if we do not act now to protect the election from Covid-19. To safeguard the inclusivity and legitimacy of our elections, the federal government should provide resources that states should use in a credible, bipartisan fashion. We must act now. Elections — American democracy itself — should not be among the pandemic’s victims. We’ve done something like this before. Roughly seven years ago, we led a bipartisan commission set up by President Barack Obama. There had been significant problems with the operation of the electoral process in 2012, and our task was to suggest possible solutions. Two of us (Mr. Bauer and Mr. Ginsberg) were co-chairs and the other (Mr. Persily) was the senior research director. As part of our broad charge, and in light of Hurricane Sandy, we looked at the challenges posed by natural disasters. Our recommendations on these and other election administrative issues were well received by election administrators across the country, of both parties. We also noted where more progress was urgently needed.