To the editor:
As Alena Kuzub’s Sept. 23 article “Preliminary Voting In Lynn Had Its Issues” made clear, too many Lynn voters faced frustration and confusion at the ballot box during the recent preliminary election. Deadlines around and access to voting methods, like mail-in and early in-person voting, proved blurry, rightly upsetting many voters. But this was not the fault of Lynn election officials, or the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s office. In fact, both branches likely did their best to ensure that as many of Lynn’s voters as possible could have their voices heard. Instead, this was the fault of circumstance: Election laws are continually in flux around mail-in and early-in-person voting, which continues to leave voters scratching their heads.
This is part of a broader issue that has impacted Massachusetts elections for more than a year. Ever since the state implemented expanded mail-in and early-in-person voting last year, the policies have proven incredibly popular. For example, 57 percent of Lynn voters cast ballots either by mail or early in-person for the September 2020 state primary, and 56 percent did so for the November 2020 general election. However, the state has yet to make these reforms permanent. They have enacted numerous temporary extensions, the most recent of which allowed Lynn to vote early and by mail in their municipal elections. Yet these extensions are not typically implemented until the last minute, leaving both officials and voters little time to wrap their heads around how the election will run.
Again, this is not so much the fault of the state as it is circumstance. The state is dealing with numerous, pressing issues right now, especially as the Delta variant causes a growing set of problems across Massachusetts. So, to address the situation in the short term, the state has passed these temporary extensions. But, as helpful as these temporary extensions are, they are not enough. Voters and officials deserve a permanent solution that builds off of last year’s reforms and expands access to the ballot box.
We believe the permanent solution that Lynn deserves, and that all of Massachusetts deserves, is the VOTES Act. Currently under consideration in the State Senate’s Ways and Means Committee as S.459, the VOTES Act would make permanent policies that the voters of Lynn have grown used to, like mail-in and early-in-person voting. Crucially, the VOTES Act would help prevent the types of problems that occurred in the most recent preliminary election from occurring again. For example, under the VOTES Act, voters can choose to automatically receive ballots by mail for all elections. As a result, voters need not worry about whether they will receive a mail ballot, or when they will need to apply for one. Instead, they can rest a bit easier knowing that they will receive a ballot by mail with plenty of time to vote in an upcoming election.
Yet the VOTES Act would go beyond making permanent many of the policies we have grown used to. It would also implement new reforms that would increase voter access, and consequently, voter turnout. For instance, the VOTES Act would make same-day registration (SDR) law in Massachusetts. SDR would allow individuals to register and vote or update their registration leading up to and on election day. The latter element — updating registration — is crucial, as it allows individuals who have moved recently or undergone a name change to update their registration at a polling place, then vote.
But SDR is more than a convenience; it is a reform proven to increase voter turnout, especially among populations who face increased barriers to the ballot box. Nationwide, SDR is shown to increase voter turnout by as much as 17 percent for Black and Latino voters. In a city like Lynn, which is 44 percent Latino, this perk is paramount. Additionally, SDR has proven to increase voter turnout among young voters by as much as 10 percent. Each of these populations — Black, Latino, and/or young people — are more likely to be renters, and consequently, suffer from out-of-date voter registration. In Lynn, where 55 percent of residents are renters, this issue likely presents itself all too often. Moving forward, SDR could prevent this from happening, and instead empower voters.
Lynn voters — and voters across Massachusetts — deserve more than confusion and frustration at the ballot box. Instead, they deserve increased clarity and accessibility. The VOTES Act would make this a reality, implementing reforms that the voters of Lynn have already come to appreciate, as well as new measures that would help boost voter turnout. As a result, the state must waste no time in passing the VOTES Act.
Alex Psilakis
Policy and communications manager, MassVOTE
Boston
