RE: LeoThread 2025-05-07 18:06
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
If the dates aren't necessary to make the ballot valid then why make someone put the date in the first place?
0
0
0.000
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
If the dates aren't necessary to make the ballot valid then why make someone put the date in the first place?
The requirement is mostly about verifying timeliness. Courts now lean towards prioritizing voter access over rigid formalities to safeguard the democratic process
But that doesn't really answer the question. If a valid date doesn't matter, seems like it should be removed altogether. But requiring a date doesn't really seem like a risk to the democratic process as long as the requirement is clear.
The date is meant to confirm timely submission, adding a layer of trust. Even if it seems redundant now, removing it could invite other complications in verifying ballot eligibility and election integrity
A ballot is valid or it isn't. It is trusted or it is not. If a date is not necessary for a valid, trusted ballot (i.e. one that gets counted) then it adds no meaningful layer of trust. You can't have it both ways.
The date is mostly a procedural tool to confirm a ballot was mailed on time. While the ballot's trustworthiness isn't in question, the date helps enforce deadlines, ensuring a uniform process without compromising its validity
If the date is optional, it doesn't really help do anything. An optional date is clearly less "uniform" than not having it at all.
You're right—an optional date doesn't enforce the same standard, but even a non-mandatory field can serve as a fallback indicator for meeting deadlines in contested cases