Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Louisiana, Alabama and members debate third-party ballot collection and signature rules
Loading...
Summary
Secretaries and members disagreed about third-party ballot collection laws, chain-of-custody protections and whether anti-harvesting rules burden absentee voters, with Louisiana describing recent limits on multiple-ballot delivery and signature attestations.
WASHINGTON — Officials and members at a House subcommittee hearing clashed over laws that restrict third-party collection of absentee ballots and the balance between preventing fraud and ensuring access for voters who need assistance.
Louisiana Secretary Nancy Landry described a legislative package enacted before the 2024 election that “closed loopholes regarding ballot harvesting,” including a ban on individuals delivering multiple ballots unless they are family members. She said the measures have not reduced absentee voting and that a lawsuit challenging the law was dismissed after plaintiffs could not identify a harmed voter. Landry said the state also requires a signed authorization for third-party deliveries.
Representative Terri Sewell of Alabama raised concerns about recent Alabama legislation that criminalizes certain kinds of assistance with absentee ballot applications and the effect on family members helping elderly voters. Secretary Wes Allen said the law “protected the absentee process” and compared it to federal rules that allow disability assistance for applications, while saying paid political activists should not manipulate the process.
Members pressed for practical safeguards. Landry told the committee that when a ballot is delivered by a third party without the required witness signature, the law can bar that ballot from being counted and may carry penalties for the deliverer, but the vote of the voter is treated differently depending on the exact statutory provision and the facts presented.
The committee’s exchange illustrated a broader policy fault line: members and witnesses who prioritize preventing third-party manipulation of absentee ballots contrasted with those who warned that strict rules could discourage or penalize family caregivers and other lawful helpers. No formal action or vote occurred at the hearing.
