Secrecy Sleeves and the “Naked Ballot”

During the 2020 general election, at least 16 states will provide absentee voters with a “secrecy sleeve” in addition to an outer envelope, voter instructions and the ballot itself. A secrecy sleeve, often called an inner envelope or “privacy sleeve,” is a paper envelope (or, in some cases, a folded piece of paper) within which voters place their absentee ballots. The secrecy sleeve enclosing the ballot is then placed inside an outer envelope, sometimes called the return envelope. That outer envelope is then signed, sealed and delivered to election officials. The intended purpose of the secrecy sleeve is to protect a voter’s privacy, since it separates the ballot itself from a voter’s identity, which is listed on the outer envelope.

Unfortunately, some voters in secrecy sleeve states place their completed ballots directly inside the outer envelope, discarding the secrecy sleeve. When this happens, election officials will receive what is called a “naked ballot”—a voter’s ballot inside one sealed envelope rather than two. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled recently that naked ballots will not be counted in the 2020 general election, which according to Philadelphia City Commissioner Lisa M. Deeley, could lead to the rejection of around 100,000 absentee votes in Pennsylvania alone.

Of the states that provide voters with a secrecy sleeve, some of them, like Pennsylvania, as well as Kentucky, New Hampshire and Ohio, will reject any naked ballots in 2020. Other states—such as Florida, Georgia and Washington—take the opposite approach, opting to count votes even if they are received without a secrecy sleeve. This post outlines the various rules and procedures of each relevant state.

Pennsylvania’s Secrecy Sleeve Requirement

On Sept. 17, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that absentee ballots returned without secrecy envelopes will be rejected and therefore not counted in the upcoming November election. In the June primary election, most counties in Pennsylvania, including Philadelphia, did not reject these ballots. According to one estimate, rejecting those ballots statewide would have amounted to approximately 11,000 fewer votes being counted for the primary, or more than 6 percent of all absentee votes.

Four days later, on Sept. 21, Philadelphia’s City Commissioner Lisa M. Deeley sent a letter to the state legislature, urging it to take immediate action in response to the court decision. Describing the secrecy envelope requirement as a “vestige of the past” that serves only to “disenfranchise well intentioned Pennsylvania voters,” Deeley noted that secrecy sleeves had lost relevance over time. Previously, secrecy sleeves protected the identifying information of voters because absentee ballots were counted in public view at individual polling locations. Today, however, absentee ballots are counted at a central location and through an “industrialized process,” Deeley explained, so their primary purpose has become obsolete.

In addition, Deeley wrote that removing the secrecy sleeve requirement would save thousands of dollars per year and speed up the counting process. Without any secrecy envelopes, for example, absentee votes could be removed from envelopes at 24,000 ballots an hour (double the current rate) and scanned at 32,000 ballots an hour. At that speed, Deeley wrote, “there is no opportunity to stop, or even slow down, and identify how an individual voted—anonymity is maintained.”

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision came less than two months before the general election, and less than a month before ballots began to be mailed to voters. Deeley estimated that if this ruling stands, and all absentee ballots arriving without sleeves are rejected, more than 100,000 ballots in Pennsylvania could be thrown out during the 2020 general election, based on estimates from previous elections and the massive increase in first-time absentee voters expected this year. Notably, the 2016 presidential election in Pennsylvania was decided by just over 44,000 votes. It is difficult to independently estimate the impact of the court decision because many counties (including Philadelphia) did not keep track of naked ballots during the primary. However, Mercer County and Lawrence County tracked naked ballots and found that 5 percent of all absentee mail ballots lacked a secrecy envelope. Unlike Philadelphia, Lawrence County did reject naked ballots during the primary, and the county’s elections director Ed Allison revealed that there were more rejected naked ballots than late ballots.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision came down to whether or not the statutory language of Pennsylvania’s secrecy envelope provision was mandatory or directory. Justice Max Baer in the majority opinion concluded that the provision was indeed mandatory, and that “[w]hatever the wisdom of the requirement, the command that the mail-in elector utilize the secrecy envelope and leave it unblemished by identifying information is neither ambiguous nor unreasonable.” The decision also ruled on a number of other voting-related matters. It allowed ballots to be counted if received up to three days after Election Day, permitted the use of ballot drop boxes and blocked the use of partisan poll watchers in out-of-county locations. After the decision, Pennsylvania Republicans asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the holding. The decision has also sparked a flurry of voter education efforts from nonprofit organizations and political campaigns to highlight the now-required secrecy envelope.

The Use of Secrecy Sleeves in Other States

Outside of Pennsylvania, at least 15 states have laws requiring election officials to provide absentee voters with secrecy sleeves, but these states vary widely on whether ballots returned without a secrecy sleeve will be counted or rejected. In most cases, the legal necessity of secrecy sleeves depends on whether other required voter authentication tools—such as the place for voter signatures—are printed on the secrecy sle

[…]

Read the original article: Secrecy Sleeves and the “Naked Ballot”