That shift will hit moderate- and low-budget political campaigns especially hard — campaigns that often wait until the last minute to send their final, and in many cases only, mailings to voters. Perhaps more concerning, the postmarking change could harm voters who mail in their ballots, in some cases effectively disenfranchising them.
At first glance, the changes may not seem like a big deal. In practice, their impact on voter education and potentially on voting itself could be substantial. It is no longer clear when mail dropped off at a local post office will actually be processed at a regional facility. That delay could add one, two or even more days to delivery. The effect on direct-mail campaigns is obvious. But the greater concern involves mail-in ballots, where postmark deadlines are precise and unforgiving.
The Postal Service has been unusually defensive about the postmarking change. On Jan. 2, it released a statement, titled “Postmarking Myths and Facts,” arguing that the December update is consistent with practices in place since the agency moved away from hand-canceling decades ago. Those of us who have worked in electoral campaigns know that is not entirely true. Yes, from time to time one heard rumors of a postal worker deliberately slowing a batch of campaign mail. But far more often, the reality was the opposite: Postal staff worked hard to make sure campaign pieces went out on time and ballots got postmarked the day they were received.
I remember my own campaigning days, when mail was processed at neighborhood post offices, and how much effort staff and carriers put into processing and delivering our flyers and brochures on schedule. I spoke with supervisors and carriers who I know took their civic duty seriously, immediately postmarking mail-in ballot envelopes and prioritizing campaign materials because they saw themselves as an essential part of the democratic process. I’m not saying that dedication no longer exists. But making such a significant change in late December, when most Americans are distracted by Christmas and other holidays, understandably raises suspicions.
Some will say that redefining postmarks from collection dates to processing dates is not something to get too worked up about. But this change does not exist in isolation. Added to other developments at the state level that affect ballot access and election integrity — making mail-in voting more difficult, decreeing it unlawful to offer a beverage to a voter standing in line on a hot day, reducing the number of ballot drop boxes or moving them inside government buildings that close at 5 p.m. — it begins to feel like part of a broader pattern to make voting harder, not easier.
One useful detail in the USPS fact sheet is suggested workarounds for those worried about whether their mail-in ballot will be accepted on time: At a postal location they can request manual cancellation or purchase a Certificate of Mailing; USPS also noted that date receipts are provided for registered and certified mail. Of course, once you move into registered or certified mail, you are talking about additional costs — costs many voters and campaigns can ill afford.
Short of paying extra for proof, voters and candidates will have to adjust. Campaigns may need to send final mailings a week earlier. Voters, including military personnel serving overseas, may have to mail their ballots several days sooner than before. All of us will have to take greater responsibility to make sure our votes are counted and our voices are heard.
Changing when postmarks are processed and dated is not a minor administrative tweak. It has real-world consequences. In the worst case, it could lead to the disenfranchisement of millions of voters — whether inadvertently or by design.
Governing's opinion columns reflect the views of their authors and not necessarily those of Governing's editors or management.
Related Articles
