I've written multiple tweets on the topic, and I know I've written a fuller comment, maybe in one of my journal posts. reflecting on COVID-19 and public policy.
What sparked this rant was a deliberately false narrative by a hostile female CNN interviewer with a Texas Republican where the interviewer tried to filibuster trite political soundbites over Trump's sore loser campaign and pushing-on-a-string election reforms. The Texas legislator patiently explained that he had been working on election reform over multiple election cycles, but the interviewer was dismissive to any discussion over progressive soundbites.
I'm not going to go into an extensive review of Georgia election reform which has targeted by many corporations (UAL, Delta, Coca Cola, MLB, etc.) but the "no food or drink" policy has been ludicrously mischaracterized by the media. I'm not going to paraphrase the cited NR post here, but there is no policy against election-neutral refreshments, people bringing their own, etc. But a lot of states have rules about electioneering to people in line, including any fungible benefit which could be seen as promoting a candidate or party. In the past Dem campaign personnel with identifiable clothing have done things like distribute slices of pizza to voters in line. The restrictions do not apply to areas outside the waiting line area, and these restrictions, in fact, are in place in some Dem states like NY.
And I've pointed out elsewhere where Biden was trying to make an issue of early voting hours on weekends (extendable at the county level) arguing the (weekend) hours were unfair to average joes coming off their (weekend) shifts, never mind certain voting mechanisms like drop boxes and early voting were sunsetting after the pandemic election, and the new law extends them to a certain degree.
So you have this crackpot "voter suppression" talking point that all the tweaks being made to improve election security are at the expense of minority groups, etc. Personally, I find the idea that blacks or others cannot comply with election integrity rules is intrinsically racist. The idea blacks need elitist white progressives to speak for their interests is beyond presumptuous paternalism; the idea that we need weak election integrity for blacks to exercise their voting rights is as insulting as discriminatory racial quotas are required to ensure opportunities, that blacks can't compete on their own merits.
I've tried to generalize considerations based on general security concerns, e.g., in high technology. (Familiar readers know that I hold Security+ certification, often a prerequisite for government and contractor positions.) Now consider a general tradeoff between security and convenience. It would be much more convenient for me to vote via the Internet; already I can proxy vote for my investments on the Internet; I can even deposit checks into my checking account without putting a deposit in the mail. I wouldn't have to fight traffic to the precinct, find a parking spot, wait in long lines, bring/show an ID, figure out ballot rules and nuances, etc. If I had the Internet, voting could be as easy as ordering a pizza to go on my smartphone app.
This idea would scare the shit out of every Russiaphobe or Chinaphobe progressive out there. They're not technologically savvy enough to explain why that would put the integrity of our elections at risk, but that's a step too far, even for them. And I would agree, at least currently, the infrastructure isn't ready. (One major issue is device security. I'm fairly anal-retentive about updating my software, maintaining my security software, routinely scanning my devices, etc., but a lot of people--don't.)
There are a lot of things you can do to reduce your attack surface--e.g., filter your email, filter browser URL's, use approved software update sources (guard against hijacked downloads), etc. There are analogous constructs within voting sites. One key concept is ballot custody. What if I arrive at the polling place to find out someone signed in as me and took my ballot? That would be fraud; it's not only my own right to vote has been compromised, but how do you revert the effects of that invalid vote? There are a number of checks built into the arrangement: for example, the number of voters who have signed in should equal the number of votes cast.
Now broaden the arrangement. Say, the USPS delivers your ballot. But the USPS is not under the scrutiny of election officials. Maybe you never got your ballot; could someone have intercepted it? How do election officials know whether the returned ballot was actually from you? Do you still get to vote? Did the fraudulent ballot count?
You could make relevant observations about almost any voter accommodation. Obviously the more early opportunities, the easier. Do you have enough personnel in place for adequate security. It might be easily to put drop boxes on every street corner. How are you going to monitor them and promptly collect them? Mailed ballots often require special handling. Can you handle huge quantities of last-minute ballots without cutting corners in ballot integrity?
You have to look at reforms like Georgia's from the standpoint of the idea do they reduce the attack surface of election compromises? The primary criterion is not convenience but of election integrity; yes, we don't want to unduly inconvenience voters. Your own ballot becomes irrelevant in a fixed election.
