Recently, the controversy – which largely falls along party lines – is about “letting someone other than a family member collect your vote,” said Justin Levitt, a Loyola Law School professor who specializes in voting rights legislation.
Just this week, the Trump campaign and Republican National Committee pleaded guilty to allowing, among other things, the practice of collecting ballot boxes in New Jersey.
The risk of fraud or error could increase if voters could use third-party contacts to cast their ballots at polling stations in New Jersey, Republicans claim.
“Ballot responders are usually politically motivated third parties – campaigners, union members, political activists, paid staff, or volunteers. They go door to door and offer to collect and deliver votes for voters,” Republicans wrote. in a lawsuit, using the pejorative term “harvest” for what is typically called ballot collection.
A spokesman for the Trump campaign on Wednesday did not respond to a request for comment on how the president’s vote and his political position work together.
In Florida, where Trumps vote, there are some boundaries for voting collections.
Progressive groups had gone to court earlier this year to issue ballots so that each person could cast a vote on behalf of a voter to electoral authorities. But Republicans wanted to keep that limited, arguing that a ballot box collector who could attract many votes meant they were interested in influential votes.
Levitt, who studies election cases across the country, notes that court battles over polling can mean a lot to some voters, especially if they are in the countryside, on Native American reservations, or if no English at all. first spoken language. “You can welcome the assistance … That does not mean you have to trust someone who comes to the door,” he said.
That, he pointed out, is the same type of judgment that President made for himself in Florida. “He is aware of the risk,” and trusted Garcia to handle his vote, Levitt said.
.
