California should require mail-in ballots to be received by the close of polls on Election Day, even though current Supreme Court rulings allow states to accept ballots postmarked by Election Day but received later. This policy change is advocated as a means to enhance public confidence in election integrity.
Arguments for a firm receipt deadline center on the idea that Election Day should signify the conclusion of voting, with results determined on that day. The practice of continuing to count ballots weeks after Election Day can lead to shifting results, prolonged disputes, and a general erosion of trust in electoral processes. When ballots arrive after polls close, the public is asked to accept outcomes that may not be final, creating an appearance of uncertainty and potential for suspicion.
Concerns have also been raised regarding the reliability of postmarks as a definitive indicator of timely mailing. Postmarks can be inconsistently applied, may not accurately reflect when the Postal Service initially received an envelope, and can be affected by mail processing variations. Ballots handled by private carriers also do not rely on traditional postmarks. This uncertainty around postmarks can lead to disputes and confusion, requiring election officials to adjudicate questions that might be avoided with a clear receipt deadline.
Some special elections in California already operate under rules requiring mail-in ballots to arrive by Election Day, suggesting precedent for such a policy. Proponents suggest adopting a model like the Deadline for Return and Receipt of All Ballots Act, developed by members of the American Legislative Exchange Council, to establish a uniform requirement for ballots to be received by the close of polls on Election Day. This approach, it is argued, would restore clarity, finality, and trust to the election process.
Maintaining extended ballot counting periods after Election Day can create incentives for delay and confusion that may extend into recounts and certification processes, potentially impacting the public perception of electoral legitimacy. Advocates assert that prompt election conclusions are essential for results to be trusted and accepted.