Policy Brief  

Ensuring All Votes Count: Reducing Rejected Ballots

This brief studies trends in mail ballot rejection rates in 2020 compared to previous years and how different factors, including sets of policies and policy changes, the political environment, and voter outreach, may have contributed to these changes in an extraordinary election year. Our main findings include:

  • Mail ballot rejection rates decreased in most states in 2020 compared to 2018, and a number of states saw a consistent drop from 2016 to 2018 to 2020.
  • Certain states that adapted their voting laws to make mail voting more accessible in 2020, particularly in the South, saw especially pronounced changes in rejection rates.
  • In North Carolina, rejection rates vary from county to county. Previous studies of other states’ rejection rates found similar trends.
  • States that implemented mail ballot policies, including ballot curing, increased ease of access when returning mail ballots at boards of elections, early voting sites, drop boxes, and ballot tracking, saw lower rejection rates than those that didn’t, though we caution against assuming a causal relationship.
  • Previous academic and advocacy research suggests that voters of color, young voters, and first-time voters are disproportionately more likely to have their mail ballots rejected.

We highlight these trends and suggest further areas of study that researchers, advocates, organizers, and policymakers can explore to better understand how voters casting their ballots by mail can ensure their votes are counted.

More from this Program

Trying to Understand Political Violence in the US
Terms of Engagement

Podcast

Trying to Understand Political Violence in the US

This week on Terms of Engagement, Alex Keyssar joins Archon Fung and Stephen Richer to examine the broader issue of political violence in the U.S.

Ten ways to take down the political temperature
Graphic of two men yelling at each other.

Commentary

Ten ways to take down the political temperature

The intensification of political polarization in recent years has raised pressing concerns about the health of democratic discourse and the rise of political violence. Ash Center Senior Fellow Stephen Richer shares ten principles he believes provide a framework for fostering more constructive engagement: encouraging self-reflection, prioritizing substantive dialogue over hyperbole, and creating incentives that reward integrity and ideas rather than division.

Court Blocks Trump’s Freeze of Harvard Funds — What’s Next?
Terms of Engagement

Podcast

Court Blocks Trump’s Freeze of Harvard Funds — What’s Next?

Archon Fung and Stephen Richer are joined by Andrew Crespo, Morris Wasserstein Public Interest Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, to discuss a recent court case that found the Trump Administration’s freeze of over $2 billion in federal grants to Harvard illegal.

 

More on this Issue

Setting the 2025-26 Agenda for the Allen Lab for Democracy Renovation

Commentary

Setting the 2025-26 Agenda for the Allen Lab for Democracy Renovation

Amid rising illiberalism, Danielle Allen urges a new agenda to renew democracy by reorienting institutions, policymaking, and civil society around the intentional sharing of power.

Ten ways to take down the political temperature
Graphic of two men yelling at each other.

Commentary

Ten ways to take down the political temperature

The intensification of political polarization in recent years has raised pressing concerns about the health of democratic discourse and the rise of political violence. Ash Center Senior Fellow Stephen Richer shares ten principles he believes provide a framework for fostering more constructive engagement: encouraging self-reflection, prioritizing substantive dialogue over hyperbole, and creating incentives that reward integrity and ideas rather than division.

Terms of Engagement – Election Administration Fight Forms
Terms of Engagement

Podcast

Terms of Engagement – Election Administration Fight Forms

Archon Fung and Stephen Richer discuss President Trump’s assertions about mail-in voting and what they portend for future elections and voter participation.