Justin Clark will never win a lawsuit as an attorney that way ("Mail-in voting would undermine election integrity," Opinion Exchange, July 13). He makes claims supported by not a shred of evidence, because there is none. On the other hand, states that have allowed and utilized mail-in voting such as Oregon, which has used it for 20 years, have raised voter participation — in Oregon, to near 80% — and that's what really drives him bonkers.
There is a Republican canard that high voter participation gives Democrats an edge in elections, and they mindlessly transfer this to mail-in voting. However, study after study proves no advantage exists with this method of voting. And voters love it. It takes far less of their time, and they allege that this gives them more time to study the candidates and issues. Who knows? But it demonstrably saves them time. It also removes last-minute problems with getting to the polls, such as illness, distractions, forgetfulness and busy schedules. Are these partisan problems? Hardly.
Finally, thanks to the Star Tribune's policy of identifying writers by their positions or domiciles, we know that the author is a paid partisan of President Donald Trump's. This is the best they can do?
Mary McLeod, St. Paul
• • •
Clark is the latest person to try to convince the public that we should be terrified of voter fraud. Like usual, the problems he lays out are either anecdotal or hypothetical and always unverified. This time he wants us to fear ballot-harvesting. The traditional response would be to point out that fraud has never been statistically significant in any modern election, and that with investment and reasonable precautions mail-in voting would prove no different. But two issues stand out as more problematic.
First, while Clark's fears of ballot-harvesting are hypothetical in nature, the more troubling issue is that his opposition to mail-in voting is pre-emptive. Despite Trump recently tweeting that voting is a "privilege," it is unmistakably a right (a fact that the president of the United States should know). The U.S. holds rights much more sacred than privileges. This manifests in one important way: Rights do not have to be earned, and thus we do not suppress rights until after it is proven that a citizen has abused the right. We should not allow pre-emptive restrictions on voting until an independent investigative body proves that the right has been abused. Even then, we should narrowly prosecute those individuals, not trample on the voting rights of all citizens by restricting their access to vote.
Second, this does not mean that, given this is an unprecedented election due to the pandemic, we should not take reasonable precautions to ensure election integrity while also keeping voting widely accessible. This is where Clark completely loses credibility. He staunchly opposes mail-in voting but offers no other options for potential voters who may have a reasonable apprehension of in-person voting. For example, how about federal funding to expand polling locations to minimize crowds? How about expanding voting to multiple days, or making Election Day a holiday, to thin out voting crowds? Without any alternative proposals, Clark's commentary oozes with undemocratic ulterior motives.
