Do you support expanding access to mail-in voting in federal elections?

Background

Mail-in voting has a long history in the United States, with roots stretching back to the Civil War, and it has grown dramatically in recent decades. According to Ballotpedia, eight states automatically mail ballots to all registered voters, twenty-eight states allow no-excuse absentee voting, and fourteen states still require voters to provide a specific reason to vote by mail. The U.S. Election Assistance Commission reported that 30.3 percent of voters cast their ballots by mail in the 2024 general election. The issue has intensified in 2026 as competing legislative and executive actions collide. In Congress, the Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act of 2025 would require all states to allow mail-in voting in federal elections, while the administration has pushed the SAVE America Act, which would impose new restrictions. President Trump signed an executive order in March 2026 directing the Postal Service to send mail ballots only to individuals on government-compiled citizenship lists, but election law experts and multiple federal judges have said the president lacks constitutional authority to set election rules, which the Constitution reserves to states and Congress.

Supporters of expanding mail-in voting argue it removes barriers for people who face difficulties getting to the polls, including voters with disabilities, the elderly, military personnel, and those with demanding work or caregiving schedules. Research published by the Brookings Institution in January 2026 found that mail-in voting fraud accounts for roughly 0.000043 percent of all mail ballots cast, and a peer-reviewed study by the American Statistical Association found no evidence that voting by mail increases the risk of fraud. A study by the Pew Research Center also found that Colorado saw an average 40 percent decrease in county election administration costs after adopting universal vote-by-mail. Opponents counter that mail ballots are more vulnerable to coercion, ballot harvesting, and chain-of-custody issues than in-person voting. Some critics, including the Heritage Foundation, point to documented cases of absentee ballot fraud and argue that the absence of in-person verification weakens election integrity. Several states have recently tightened mail-voting rules, with Ohio, Kansas, North Dakota, and Utah all passing laws in 2025 that no longer allow mail ballots received after Election Day to be counted.

What is at stake affects tens of millions of voters. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, 2025 marked the first time in at least five years that state legislatures enacted more restrictive voting laws than expansive ones, with both totals hovering around thirty. The Supreme Court is expected to rule on whether states may count mail ballots received after Election Day, a decision that could reshape mail-voting rules nationwide. For voters in states with strict excuse requirements or new restrictions, these policy choices determine whether casting a ballot is convenient or burdensome. For election administrators, any sudden federal mandates risk creating logistical chaos in a midterm election year. The outcome of this debate will shape how accessible federal elections are for millions of Americans, particularly those in rural areas, with disabilities, or serving in the military overseas.