Unsanitized: The COVID-19 Report for Aug. 11, 2020
More Evidence USPS Means to Make Voting Harder Letter encourages states to pay more to get ballots to voters
Postal workers load up trucks in McLean, Virginia. Ballot access and delivery has become a major concern for mail-in voting. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo)
First Response
There was some pushback on the claim made in reporting by the Capitol Forum that the U.S. Postal Service wants to increase the rates at which states would pay to mail ballots to voters from the 20-cent marketing mail rate to the 55-cent first class rate. The USPS put out a denial and everything, calling it a “baseless assertion… without merit, and frivolous.” But it was carefully worded, calling only the idea that the postal service would raise rates in order to restrict voting by
mail meritless, and that “if public policy makers choose to utilize the mail as part of their election system” the agency would stand ready.
A letter unearthed yesterday reveals how the USPS might be influencing that decision. This letter, sent to Kim Wyman, Secretary of State of the vote-by-mail state of Washington, addressed how “certain deadlines concerning mail-in ballots… may be incongruous with the Postal Service’s delivery standards.” Specifically, it notes that states can use either marketing mail or first-class mail to get their ballots to voters, but that first-class mail would get them there significantly faster.
“The Postal Service recommends that election officials
use First Class Mail to transmit blank ballots and allow 1 week for delivery to voters,” the letter reads. “Using Marketing Mail will result in slower delivery times and will increase the risk that voters will not receive their ballots in time to return them by mail.”
Note that a previous letter to election officials, referenced in this one, went out May 29, before Trump donor Louis DeJoy was installed as Postmaster General, and then this one, dated July 31, went out after he was in place.
There is definitely a way to read this letter as the Postal Service helpfully reminding election officials of key dates and timelines for delivery, so they can get ballots printed and out to voters in a reasonable timeframe. Indeed, the rest of the letter is specific to Washington, states that ballots are usually mailed out with enough advance time, and expresses concern mainly for voters who update their voter registration after the mailing date. States may be setting
unrealistic goals with their own systems on what can be done with mail-in voting.
But all that would divorce this letter from the context of prior reporting that the Postal Service really wants states to pay the increased rate, and that states and cities are increasingly cash-strapped. It would also divorce it from the reality that mail is slowing down and backlogs are seen everywhere. (DeJoy has denied the slowdowns, and any ulterior motive about the election.)
It’s hard to believe that this is about money. Let’s say that every single registered voter in the United States—153 million as of 2018—gets a ballot mailed to them. (They won’t,
but for the sake of argument let’s say that.) The net increase from 20 cents to 55 cents is a total of $53.55 million. That level “is not going to help the postal service appreciably,” said Rick Hasen, election law professor at UC-Irvine; it’s a tiny portion of their overall revenue.
It may create enough of an excuse, however, to have local election officials decide not to mail ballots at all, citing the increased cost. That appears to be the play here, to put states and cities in the position to create their own hurdles for voters.
Marc Elias, the
Democrats’ top election lawyer, called the letter “an early warning that USPS has abdicated its responsibility to facilitate a free and fair election.” He said that states now face a “logistical and financial crisis” in preventing mass disenfranchisement, and cited examples from previous primary elections of thousands of ballots being left uncounted.
Meanwhile, the Capitol Forum has a follow-up, revealing documents where career staff warn that raising the price of ballot delivery would violate the National Voter Registration Act or the Voting Rights Act. The documents also show that USPS top brass saw this as an opportunity to raise revenue (as noted above, this isn’t that true, so it’s probably a fig leaf for regulatory
purposes) and that the initiative was designated a “high priority” by leadership.
Raising the ballot cost would be almost impossible to do statutorily at this point, given that it would require regulatory action and need to survive a lawsuit. But the letter shows an alternative route: darkly warn that ballots won’t get to voters in time unless states pay more. And if states use that to change their systems and place burdens on voters to get a ballot, that’s just the way it goes.
We have a lot of coronavirus coverage at the Prospect. Blaise Malley on the risk to the census; Gayle Greene with an excellent feature on how education technology firms are cashing in on the crisis; Connor Goodwin on Nebraska meatpacking workers; and Bob Kuttner on the testing debacle.
College football in the fall appears doomed, and players announcing their desire to play but seeking a union in the process doesn’t seem like it’ll be attractive to administrators. (New York Times)
In particular, several players have contracted a heart condition linked to coronavirus called myocarditis. (ESPN)
I think you will see very few companies actually give back payroll taxes to workers; they’ll hold them in escrow. (Wall Street Journal)
Oh good, there’s a Russia angle to this pandemic, as they announce a vaccine with scant testing. (Associated Press)
