Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Why is it that early voting is not an option in MASS?

By

Why is it that early voting is not an option in Massachusetts? Is it only introduced into swing states like Florida and Ohio as the residual affects of some past attempts to steal an election? Has there ever been an attempt anytime in the history of MASS where it was considered as a ballot measure or at the State House? Would this be worthy of a ballot initiative at some point? I am not from MASS originally so my knowledge of it history is limited to about 20 years or so. I am understandably curious?

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. to change the rules for absentee voting. Such an amendment has been proposed a number of times, but I don’t believe it’s ever gotten out of the legislature.

  2. I could not quickly find anything in the MA Constitution prohibiting early voting. I found provisions empowering the General Court to authorize and regulate absentee voting, but again, nothing to limit that authority to vote early without excuse. Besides, in practice all you need is the slightest inclination that you may not be present in your community that day to vote absentee. It’s not like they come knocking on the doors of absentee voters on election day to make sure they are not home.

  3. This piece supports David’s assertion.

    Article LXIV (64), Section 3 of the state constitution provides that elections “shall be held…on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November,” which sounds prescriptive.

    Article XLV (45) of the state constitution, as amended, provides the authorization for the General Court to depart from that norm: The general court shall have power to provide by law for voting…by qualified voters of the commonwealth who, at the time of such an election, are (1) absent from the city or town of which they are inhabitants or (2) are unable by reason of physical disability to cast their votes in person at the polling places or (3) who hold religious beliefs in conflict with the act of voting on the day on which such an election is to be held.” Bold numbers in parentheses are mine.

    You’d have to amend the Constitution to give the legislature broader power to depart from Article 64’s prescription, or just amend Article 64.

  4. I could argue that an election takes place on the day that the votes are compiled and counted, which would still be Tuesday after the first Monday as indicated. Votes coming in ahead of time would not necessarily be contrary to that. A bit of a stretch, but I would be interested if the SJC has weighed in on this matter.

    • there seems to be a consensus about this in everything I’ve seen in the press.

      Personally I’m not a huge fan of early voting. It deprives the public of having an election decided by voters who have all the information, and it deprives us of a shared civic ritual. In an era of drive-thru coffee and texting over dinner, that seems important to me.

      I’ve seen no strong evidence it increases turnout in a major way and I don’t think it inherently favors either party.

    • League of Women Voters thinks it requires a constitutional amendment. David, I’ll note, has been consistent on this for over six years.

      My reading of Article XLV differs from your suggestion. I don’t think “an election” means simply the counting. The language of the article indicates the “election” is the people coming to the polling place on the designated day.

      The general court shall have power to provide by law for voting, in the choice of any officer to be elected or upon any question submitted at an election, by qualified voters of the commonwealth who, at the time of such an election, are absent from the city or town of which they are inhabitants or are unable by reason of physical disability to cast their votes in person at the polling places or who hold religious beliefs in conflict with the act of voting on the day on which such an election is to be held.

      (all emphasis mine)

Archives