Nebraska’s primary election in 2024 was the first statewide election to require poll workers to check photo IDs. (Aaron Sanderford/Nebraska Examiner)
Among a recent rash of bad ideas comes two recycled clangers for Nebraskans: Hand counting paper ballots for all state elections and adopting a winner-take-all format to determine the state’s presidential electors.
A nonprofit group has launched a petition campaign to put both bricks on the ballot in hopes of making them constitutional amendments. That’s about right. We apparently have a thing here about changing our guiding principles. We — voters or legislators — have amended the current constitution 240 times since its adoption in 1875.
That said, neither of these ideas seem worth the ink. The requirement that all elections use paper ballots and that those ballots are then counted by hand flies in the face of research on election accuracy. Plus, any revival of the winner-take-all system seemingly comes up only when the GOP loses in the Omaha-based 2nd Congressional District. Only Maine and Nebraska choose electors by district.
This space has used more than enough column inches arguing that instead of changing the rules to make it easier for the GOP to capture Nebraska’s “blue dot” in Omaha, maybe it should try to compete for votes there with better ideas.
Changing to a winner-take-all system is a calculating cousin of recent attempts to treat elections as civic duties with which we can do as we please. Midcycle redistricting — redrawing congressional districts between census counts — is trending for the GOP as Texas, Missouri and North Carolina are redrawing congressional districts at the urging of the White House in hopes of gaming the system to win in 2026. Democratic stronghold California has chosen to leave redistricting up to voters, who will decide in November whether to respond with its own plan that would in part offset Republican gains.
Much of the ruckus may end up in court as Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits redrawing districts based on race unless it is to remedy past discrimination. Plus, the Supreme Court has already heard oral arguments on the issue this session and will weigh in on Section 2 next spring.
Meanwhile, other states, including Virginia as of this writing, surely have their sharpies ready to redraw, making congressional races more about gyrating geography than good ideas.
Color me nostalgic, but I long for the days when voters chose their politicians rather than today’s redistricting nonsense that lets politicians choose their voters.
As for trying to sell Nebrasakans on the idea of hand counting ballots comes this bit of promotion from those championing the cause. “This petition simply codifies the most secure and publicly verifiable method of counting votes by prioritizing the manual counting of every ballot. We are setting a strong precedent that can be a trend setter for other states looking to restore public confidence in their election system.”
Well, perhaps. Still, I’m at a loss as to how hand counting paper ballots adds to security and transparency. Or why another state would follow suit.
What we do know — or should — is that the science clearly indicates that counting by hand not only extends the time between the polls closing and the final tabulation, it increases the likelihood of errors. While hand counting may strike some as simple, it’s hardly a model of efficiency and accuracy given the science and current available technology.
Aside from ceding efficacy and precision, exactly which Nebraskans — apart from the group trafficking the hand count and winner-take-all — are clamoring to restore public confidence in our election system? While we’re at it, maybe somebody could give us the details of any recent or former fraud that may have skewed an election outcome or sullied the state’s reputation as a place that conducts and embraces fair, free and unencumbered elections. We’ll wait.
Nor are mechanical vote tabulators some cog in a nefarious, AI-inspired rise of the electoral machines. The U.S. Election Assistance Commission requires each machine to count 10 million ballots without an error. When reviewing hand counts to the work of the machines, the commission showed that, especially when faced with large numbers of ballots, human errors can reach 25 percent.
Finally, hand counting costs more than machine tabulations. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, Shasta County in northern California estimated that if it used hand counting to tabulate its 100,000-plus votes, it would cost taxpayers $1.6 million, use 1,200 additional staff and take 18 days, not counting any redos because of errors.
Everyone wants secure, accurate and timely election results. A campaign to add a couple of new, old ideas to the Nebraska Constitution does nothing to further that goal.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
