Author: alaskaadmin

The 2026 primaries are resurfacing controversies about mail-in ballots that were at the heart of election disputes in 2020.

California’s June 2 primary – in which candidates from every party ran together and the top two advanced to the general election – raised eyebrows because of its so-called “red mirage.” A mirage is a misleading early count that can temporarily show a candidate ahead in a race, sometimes by a significant margin.

For example, early Election Day returns showed Republican Steve Hilton leading for California governor and Republican Spencer Pratt among the top two candidates for Los Angeles mayor. However, 4 out of 5 California voters return their ballots by mail, so as additional mail ballots were counted, leads changed. Hilton narrowly held on to second place, but Pratt fell into third place and off the November ballot entirely.

Rumors swirled that a late “ballot dump” in Los Angeles had seen Pratt receiving zero votes out of 24,000. These reports were debunked by PolitiFact, but they were reminiscent of claims six years ago.

In the 2020 presidential election, when Donald Trump led early in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and other crucial states, only to have that lead evaporate under the weight of mail ballots, he claimed a rigged election. This year, those claims returned, as Trump declared on Truth Social, his social media platform, on June 8: “Not possible for Spencer Pratt to have lost the L.A. runoffs after the big lead he had. 3rd World Nation. Rigged Elections!”

I am the associate director of the Institute of American Civics, and my teaching and research focuses on American political institutions, elections and public policy. I’ve been writing about American elections since 1992, and over the past three decades, I’ve followed with interest the growth of mail voting.

The controversy over mail ballot elections has become a microcosm of our polarized politics, with one narrative assuming mass fraud lies behind every electoral mirage, and another denying that there can be legitimate concerns about mail ballot elections. Both narratives warrant scrutiny.

The national picture

Today, eight states use all mail ballot elections: California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington. In those states, registered voters are automatically sent a ballot. Voters may deliver their completed ballots in person to an early voting station or to an Election Day polling place. Most, however, simply return the ballot the same way it came, via the U.S. Postal Service.

Another 29 states require voters to submit a request for a mailed absentee ballot but do not require an excuse such as illness or absence.

Three dozen states require mailed ballots to be received by election officials on or before Election Day, while the remainder allow votes to arrive later, as long as they are postmarked by Election Day.

More than two dozen states, including California and most other mail-ballot states, either explicitly or implicitly permit a practice referred to as “ballot harvesting” or “ballot collection,” in which activists can collect ballots from voters and deliver them to election offices or official collection boxes.

The Trump narrative

Trump argues that the “red mirage” is by itself evidence of election rigging. However, there is good reason to challenge such a claim.

Pratt, the Los Angeles mayoral candidate, was running in a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans roughly 4 to 1. Pratt’s defeat does not require extraordinary explanations. To the contrary, his defeat has a very ordinary explanation – as do most mirages.

Even without mailed ballots, states where there was a systematic lag between vote counts in rural and urban areas could experience dramatically shifting results, too.

In the mail-ballot era, analysts know that different groups of voters sometimes cast their ballots in different ways. California, for example, will regularly experience a pronounced red mirage because Democrats are more likely than Republicans to return their votes by mail, while GOP voters are more likely than Democrats to vote in person.

Additionally, mail ballots are often accepted after Election Day, Democratic-affiliated advocacy groups are more experienced than Republicans in ballot harvesting, and in-person early and Election Day ballots, along with mail ballots received before Election Day, are counted first. Mail ballots received on or after Election Day are counted later.

Other states, with different party norms and election rules, experience different results. In “Divided We Stand,” a book about the 2020 elections, my co-author, John J. Pitney Jr., and I discuss blue mirages that have appeared in Texas and Ohio.

These mirages are not a new phenomenon: In 1982, Democrat Tom Bradley’s Election Day lead for governor of California was proved a mirage after Republican George Deukmejian overtook him as absentee ballots came in. Back then, Republicans were most likely to vote by mail.

The problems with mail ballots

These easily explained mirages don’t necessarily mean that mail-ballot fraud is a nonissue and that there is nothing to be concerned about.

One June 2026 analysis in The Guardian contends that California’s election system “is working as designed: to protect against fraud and assure every vote is counted.” Like Trump’s claims, however, this too requires scrutiny.

In 2005, a bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, headed by former president Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, found absentee voting to be susceptible to fraud, intimidation and vote-buying, and recommended that states prohibit third parties from handling absentee ballots as one solution.

In reality, fraud in ballots sent and returned by mail – either all-mail ballot or absentee – has occurred on a large enough scale to invalidate a 2018 U.S. House election in North Carolina, a 1997 mayoral election in Miami and a 2020 municipal election in Paterson, New Jersey, among others. It’s also produced numerous absentee vote scandals in Texas.

Mail-in critics also note that none of the eight all-mail ballot states require a copy of photo identification when completing a ballot, though supporters argue that other fraud prevention measures – like signature verification and online ballot tracking – are sufficiently rigorous.

---

Read more:
Mail-in voting is safe and reliable – 5 essential reads

---

Absentee or mail-in ballot vote fraud estimates vary. A November 2025 Brookings Institution analysis of the 2016 through 2022 general elections found about four cases of mail-voting fraud out of every 10 million mail votes. The Heritage Foundation found roughly 400 cases since 2000.

There are reasons to believe this understates the problem, though. In cases of large-scale organized fraud – the kind that can challenge the integrity of the electoral system – it is typical that only candidates or political organizers are charged with a crime. In the 1997 Miami mayoral race vote fraud scandal, for example, after several hundred absentee ballots were proved fraudulent, courts invalidated them all; still, only about 57 individuals were charged. Further, it would be unrealistic to assume every instance of election fraud is detected and results in even one arrest.

Other concerns

Electoral mirages are not by themselves proof of fraud, but fraud in mail ballot elections is a valid concern – and it is not the only valid concern.

Ballot harvesting, for example, lends itself to social pressure, can impinge on the secret ballot and gives outsize influence to organized interests.

The potential for fraud and long delays in tabulation can undermine confidence in elections, especially when voters have formed expectations of efficient and competent election administration. Older voters remember close national elections – in 1960, 1976 and 2004 – when results were known the next day.

In any event, convenience from mail voting does not always translate into more voters.

In California’s all-mail ballot election in 2024, voter turnout was 62.1%; in Florida, which limits mail voting to absentee ballots that voters must request, prohibits vote harvesting and requires absentee ballots to arrive by Election Day – all of which makes it harder to vote by mail – voter turnout was 66.7%.

Colorado and Hawaii – both all-mail ballot states – were toward the top and the bottom of turnout rates in 2024: Colorado had 73.1% turnout and Hawaii 50.3%.

The next election

In my analysis, whatever the temptations of partisan tribalism, neither narrative around mail ballots can be taken at face value. One automatically ascribes fraud to results that are often predictable, even routine; the other dismisses legitimate concerns as conspiracy theories.

Mirages will continue to occur, especially in states that use all-mail ballot elections, states that allow no-excuse absentee voting and states where votes can arrive after Election Day. A better-informed public would be better prepared to understand mirages when they occur – and better able to focus on more meaningful conversations about both the pros and cons of mail ballot elections.

Andrew E. Busch does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

It’s been four years since the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade, ending the federal constitutional right to abortion.

In the immediate aftermath of the decision, national attention centered on implementation of state bans and a rapidly shifting legal landscape.

But four years later, one of the most impactful developments has been less visible: a significant, sustained and politically consequential shift in public opinion. In the wake of Dobbs, the debate over abortion rights did not simply return to the states. It fundamentally altered how many Americans think about the issue and how they vote.

In our recently published book, “Not Going Back: Public Opinion on Abortion in Post-Dobbs America,” we examined how and why these changes have occurred, and what they mean for U.S. politics. We believe the shift could have real consequences for the November 2026 midterms.

Post-Roe stability

Drawing on several nationally representative surveys conducted before and after Dobbs, we examined how Americans’ abortion attitudes, political priorities and voting behavior have changed in response to the most significant shift in abortion policy in half a century.

For nearly 50 years after Roe, public opinion on abortion was remarkably stable. In 1975, Gallup found support for legal abortion in certain circumstances at 54% and support for a ban in all circumstances at 22%. In 2021 – the year before the Dobbs decision – these figures were virtually the same: 48% and 19%, respectively.

Despite heated political rhetoric, most Americans held nuanced views. They were neither fully anti-abortion nor fully pro-abortion. Instead, they supported legal abortion in some circumstances and not in others.

That underlying stability shaped both policy and politics for decades. Republicans were able to rally a committed core of supporters around opposition to Roe, while the underlying constitutional right to access abortion remained unchanged.

As states moved quickly after the Dobbs decision to enact abortion bans and strict gestational limits, public opinion moved in the opposite direction.

Today, more Americans identify as pro-choice than they did before Dobbs. And, as we document in our book, more Americans are now taking absolutist positions. They support legal access to abortion in all or most cases and oppose government regulation altogether.

How Dobbs shattered the equilibrium

One of the most striking changes in the post-Dobbs era concerns who cares most about abortion. For decades, abortion was a higher priority for Republicans and those identifying as pro-life.

That dynamic has now flipped. In both 2022 and 2024, Democrats and pro-choice Americans were more likely than Republicans to say abortion was a top political issue shaping their vote. In our book, we document how in both 2022 and 2024, pro-choice Democrats were especially motivated to vote and remained highly loyal to Democratic candidates.

At the same time, the considerable minority of Republicans who support legal abortion found themselves politically cross-pressured, meaning they experienced conflicting political influences.

Drawing on multiple nationally representative data sets, our book reveals that roughly one-third of Republicans hold views on abortion that do not align with the official pro-life position embraced by their party. They either identify as pro-choice or support legal abortion in at least some cases.

It was one thing to identify as a pro-choice Republican when Roe guaranteed a constitutional right to abortion. After Dobbs, however, Republican electoral victories could directly result in abortion bans and other restrictions. That makes partisan choices far more consequential.

We found that cross-pressured Republicans had lower turnout rates and were more willing to cross party lines, reflecting the growing tension between their abortion views and their party’s position. Given the size of this group, that presents a serious challenge for GOP candidates.

Reshaping US politics

At the same time, efforts to find a middle ground on abortion have proven difficult. Republican legislators in North Carolina and Virginia, for example, have sought to position policies such as 12- or 15-week bans as a reasonable compromise.

That might have worked in 1990. But public opinion has shifted in ways that make this strategy increasingly untenable. Our research shows that most Americans, including Republicans, do not see these “moderate” policies as meaningfully different from more restrictive bans.

One reason may be that, in the wake of Dobbs, abortion restrictions have become concrete rather than abstract. Extensive media coverage of women denied care during miscarriages, severe pregnancy complications and other medical emergencies has highlighted the consequences of gestational limits. This leads many Americans to judge these policies by their practical effects rather than the specific week at which abortion is prohibited.

In addition, our original survey data reveals that many Americans have only a limited understanding of how pregnancy is dated. That makes distinctions between six-, 12- and 15-week bans less meaningful than policymakers often assume.

Another major change is the emergence of a gender gap in abortion attitudes. For decades, men and women held remarkably similar views on abortion. That is no longer the case.

Since Dobbs, women have become significantly more supportive of abortion rights than men. For example, 56% of women say abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances, compared to 41% of men.

This new gender gap reflects both women’s experiences with pregnancy and abortion and the changed policy environment following Dobbs. After the ruling, the consequences of abortion restrictions became far more immediate and tangible.

Rather than accepting these new restrictions, many women reacted against them. As abortion policy moved sharply to the right in many states, women’s attitudes moved in the opposite direction. This has resulted in substantially greater support for abortion rights.

Our survey research further finds that a better understanding of human reproduction, including how pregnancies are dated, is associated with greater support for legal access to abortion.

Taken together, these changes have reshaped American politics in ways that advantage Democrats. Abortion rights played a key role in the 2022 midterms, contributing to stronger-than-expected Democratic performance nationwide.

And it continues to shape voter motivation and turnout patterns heading into future elections.

‘Not going back’

That said, abortion is not the only issue that matters in modern U.S. politics. In the 2026 midterm elections, the economy and partisanship – especially in an era dominated by President Donald Trump – will remain central to electoral outcomes.

Abortion alone is unlikely to determine any single race. But it has altered the political landscape in ways that will matter this November and beyond.

The phrase that gives our book its title – “Not Going Back” – captures this moment. The changes we document are not temporary reactions to a single Supreme Court decision.

The stability that defined abortion politics for half a century is gone. The new normal is a political landscape in which abortion rights have become both more widely supported and more politically consequential. They are motivating Democratic voters while creating new tensions within the Republican coalition.

Perhaps most importantly, Dobbs transformed abortion from a constitutional question into an electoral one. As abortion laws became substantially more restrictive, public opinion moved toward greater support for abortion access. The 2026 elections will offer another test of how the U.S. responds when public policy and public preferences move in opposite directions.

This story was produced in collaboration with Rewire News Group, an independent nonprofit media outlet that covers reproductive health.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation