Stephen Richer
“California, You Have Got to Count Votes Faster.”
That was the original headline message the New York Times editorial board sent to California today.
California law currently allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day. It accordingly takes California much longer to determine winners in closely contested elections. And that damages trust in election administration: “When uncertainty lingers for days, Americans wonder why government today can often seem less competent than it once was.”
This supposition by the editorial board is affirmed by recent academic research. According to a 2024 study by Mackenzie Lockhart, Jennifer Gaudette, and others, “Longer-than-expected vote counting time induces a large, significant decrease in trust in the election.” They prove it. Empirically.
The delay in determining winners also, according to the Times, “play[s] into the hands of bad-faith political leaders, including President Trump, who lie about vote counting and fraud to sow doubt in any election outcome they do not like.”
I agree.
But it’s not the fault of California’s election administrators. It’s the fault of California’s past state legislators. They catered to voters’ tendency to procrastinate, and they disregarded other considerations—including the delay in determining winners. For presidential elections, it doesn’t matter. California was called for Kamala Harris as soon as the first batch of lopsided votes came in. But the delay very much does matter in competitive districts within California. For those districts, it can be two weeks before the winner is known. And this year, competitive districts in California could determine which party controls the House of Representatives.
Nor does California’s highly accommodating mail voting law serve any real good. As noted by the Times editorial board: “California adopted its rules with the admirable intention of maximizing voting access. But the system has failed. Its benefits are close to nil: Turnout in California has fallen farther behind the national average since the state changed its rules. And the costs of the new system are real.”
California might be the worst offender. But it’s by no means the only one.
My home state of Arizona could use legislative change in this respect. So too could Utah, Nevada, Washington, and New York. Western states predominate because of the high percentage of mail-ballot voters in those states.
Many state legislators, especially Democrats, tune out calls for this electoral reform. They dismiss it as the barking of election-deniers and Trump conspiracy theorists.
But a piece from the New York Times editorial board might catch their attention.