The Power of Vote at Home

First, let’s concede the obvious. California’s ballot counting is too slow. 

But don’t misidentify the real culprit.

Daily updates from the California Secretary of State following the June 2 primary revealed that some counties, including Los Angeles, had processed nearly 98 percent of the ballots they had received by the following Tuesday. Others, like Kern County (Bakersfield), were reporting just 70 percent. 

Indeed, late-arriving “postmarked” ballots likely will constitute less than 3 percent of California’s total votes. The exponentially bigger bottleneck: the inevitable surge of ballots received on or right before Election Day. 

So, a policy change—e.g., a Congressional mandate to require all states to adopt a “received by Election Day” standard, as recently urged by The New York Times editorial board—will have far less impact than California taking long-overdue action to ensure its 63 counties have the election administration staff, money, modern equipment, and physical space to do the job properly.

California’s tardy vote counting also gave Donald Trump another chance to rant about mail ballot fraud and election rigging. (Though when pressed for evidence, Trump walked out of a Meet the Press interview.) 

But amidst the faux outrage and well-intentioned hand-wringing is something truly remarkable that deserves far more notice—if not outright celebration—among the nation’s journalists, political analysts, and democracy advocates. 

Based on the latest data from California’s Secretary of State, when valid ballots are finally counted, nearly 9.5 million votes will have been cast. 

Given California’s 23.155 million registered voters, primary election voter turnout would be 41 percent. 

That would mean the highest voter turnout so far in the United States among the 26 states that have held primary elections through June 9, and a rate nearly double that of most other states. 

And consider this for those who might think mail ballots are some nefarious plot to thwart Republicans. Of the seven (mostly rural) California counties that will exceed 55 percent voter turnout—a level many states can’t muster in general elections—Trump won all seven of them in 2024. 

California’s “hidden in plain sight” secret to this remarkable turnout prowess?

Like seven other states and the District of Columbia, California has a “vote at home” election system—a far bigger object of MAGA ire than any “postmark by” or “no-excuse” mail ballot law. 

Voters in these jurisdictions aren’t required to schlep to an assigned polling place or apply in advance for a mail ballot. Instead, every active registered voter is automatically entitled to receive a ballot by mail before every election. Voters can then vote by mail, vote in person, or not vote at all.

However, there’s an inevitable—though happy—trade-off. Even in “Ballots Received by Election Day” states—like vote-at-home Colorado—extra time is still required to ensure every ballot is properly validated and fairly counted. 

Is the dramatically higher voter turnout of so little importance that it’s simply unacceptable to make politicians, campaign managers, and deadline-obsessed journalists wait a few extra days for semi-official results? 

Is that even a serious question?

Based on states’ official turnout numbers and/or their relevant voter registration counts and primary election vote totals, I’ve calculated that the 22 states with completed primaries that didn’t use a vote-at-home approach have averaged a paltry 24 percent voter turnout rate.

Two states couldn’t even break the 20 percent mark: Indiana (17 percent) and North Carolina (19 percent). Only two of these states topped 30 percent: South Dakota (35 percent) and Maine (36 percent). 

Then there’s Oregon—a vote-at-home state since 2000, a reform I championed as Secretary of State—which is now running in a virtual tie for the voter turnout gold medal with a projected 41 percent turnout, too.

The remaining state is Montana, in bronze medal position, with a 38 percent rate. More than 80 percent of Montana’s registered voters have signed up to automatically receive their ballots without needing to reapply constantly.

Many factors certainly affect voter turnout, especially in primary elections. How “competitive” and/or “heated” are various contests? What key demographic factors—e.g., age or race/ethnicity—might tend to boost (or lower) voter participation rates?

But if anything, such factors further underscore California’s remarkable performance and the inherent power of an “opt out” approach to connecting voters and their ballots—rather than the “opt-in” model still used in 42 U.S. States. 

California, whose marquee governor’s race was widely panned as lackluster, is also one of America’s most diverse states. 

Yet California will easily surpass Maine’s primary turnout, despite Maine having one of America’s whitest and oldest electorates, not to mention its attention-grabbing U.S. Senate contest.

Better yet, contrast California’s 41 percent turnout with the 24 percent turnout in March’s Texas primary—a state with similarly diverse demographics and that boasted hotly contested Senate races for both major parties. 

Had California matched Texas’s primary turnout, 3 million fewer voters would have cast ballots. 

However, let’s not be naïve. 

Even if California had managed to count 95 percent or more of its ballots within 24 hours, who believes it would change by one iota the hostility Trump and his allies have for mail ballots generally—and vote-at-home systems specifically?

It’s hardly surprising that mail ballot opponents—especially those bent on killing outright vote-at-home election systems—might prefer that what California did so remarkably well with its primary election stay widely ignored and unmentioned. 

That said, even Trump’s opponents seem little inclined to highlight this and other strong evidence about how vote-at-home election systems can significantly—even dramatically—boost voter turnout.

Indeed, one can’t help but wonder whether some Democratic strategists—quietly, of course—have embraced a certain “Goldilocks” theory of “optimal” turnout levels that are neither too low nor too high. 

Since Trump’s election, Democrats have enjoyed a near-perfect run of flipping seats—and/or outperforming Republicans by 10 or even 25-plus points relative to 2024—mostly in relatively low turnout vacancy or odd-year elections. 

Might they privately worry that automatically sending ballots to all active registered voters could help Republicans close this apparent “enthusiasm gap?” 

In 2024, Democrats also lost enormous ground among many young, male, and/or non-white voting blocs. Numerous polls even suggested that a higher voter turnout among lower-propensity voter groups could have led to an even worse defeat. 

But regardless of how certain partisans might feel, that’s no excuse for journalists or other democracy advocates to keep overlooking or ignoring this turnout data. Despite its dilatory vote-counting, California and other vote-at-home states are doing something remarkable. 

For those truly committed to making American democracy more inclusive and representative, it’s time to start paying far more attention—if not embracing—this vital reform. 

The post The Power of Vote at Home appeared first on Washington Monthly.