Arguments for and against ballot harvesting/ballot collection

Election Information
2025 election and voting dates
Voter registration
Early voting
Absentee/mail-in voting
All-mail voting
Voter ID laws
State poll opening and closing times
Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker
Select a state from the menu below to learn more about its election administration.
AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingSubmit

Most states have laws that govern who may return a voter's absentee/mail-in ballot. These laws vary by state.

As of November 2025:

• 20 states allowed anyone chosen by the voter to return a ballot on the voter's behalf, with certain exceptions.
• 16 states allowed anyone with certain relationships to the voter to return the voter's ballot.
• 4 states allowed only the voter to return the voter's ballot, with certain exceptions.
• 2 states required voters to return their ballots by mail.
• 8 states and D.C. did not specify who may return ballots.

Whether states should restrict who may return mail ballots is a subject of debate. Specifically, whether people affiliated with political campaigns and unions should be allowed to collect and return mail ballots is a subject of debate. Those who support restricting who may return mail ballots often refer to the practice of campaign and union workers returning ballots as ballot harvesting. Other terms used to reference this practice include ballot collection, community ballot collection, ballot gathering, third-party possession of another's ballot, and ballot return.

Supporters of restricting who may return absentee/mail-in ballots argue that a lack of such restrictions creates the opportunity for fraud and that the presence of such restrictions violates the secret ballot principle.

Opponents of restricting who may return absentee/mail-in ballots argue that such restrictions disenfranchise certain groups of voters and that such restrictions do not prevent fraud.

On this page, you will find:

• Arguments at a glance: A brief summary of support and opposition arguments
• Support arguments in detail: Detailed support arguments from a variety of sources
• Opposition arguments in detail: Detailed opposition arguments from a variety of sources
• Laws by state: State-by-state laws related to absentee/mail-in ballot collection and return
• Further reading: Links to resources with more information on absentee/mail-in ballot laws

Arguments at a glance

This section includes quotes briefly summarizing some of the most prevalent arguments for and against restricting who may return absentee/mail-in ballots.

Arguments for and against restricting who may return absentee/mail-in ballots

Support

Opposition

"Giving third parties who have a stake in the outcome of an election access to voters and their absentee ballots in an unsupervised setting is not wise, and is a proven threat to the integrity of the election process. The handling of absentee ballots should be restricted to voters, most immediate family members, or an individual residing in their household. " -Hans von Spakovsky, The Heritage Foundation

An Arizona law stating that only family members, caregivers, and household members may return someone's ballot "burdens communities that have traditionally relied on ballot collection, such as the elderly, differently-abled, Native American, and Latino communities, by preventing them from casting a ballot in the manner that is easiest for them." -Darrell Hill, ACLU of Arizona

Support arguments in detail

Two arguments in favor of restricting who may return absentee/mail-in ballots are that not having restrictions creates the opportunity for fraud and that having restrictions violates the secret ballot principle. This section includes quotations detailing those arguments from a variety of sources.

Not restricting who may return ballots creates opportunities for fraud

Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation argued that letting anyone besides the voter or their immediate family member handle absentee/mail-in ballots invites tampering, the discarding of ballots, and coercion, saying that there are documented cases of all of this occurring.

According to its website, the Heritage Foundation says its mission is "to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."

“	Allowing individuals other than the voter or his immediate family to handle absentee ballots is a recipe for mischief and wrongdoing. Neither voters nor election officials can verify that the secrecy of the ballot was not compromised or that the ballot submitted in the voter’s name by a third party accurately reflects the voter’s choices and was not fraudulently changed by the vote harvester. And there is no guarantee that vote harvesters won’t simply discard the ballots of voters whose political preferences for candidates of the opposition party are known. It also gives campaign and political party intermediaries the ability to influence voters while they are casting a ballot out of election officials’ sight and without any supervision by them. Thus, there is no one present to ensure that voters are not being coerced, intimidated, threatened or paid for their vote. The Heritage Foundation’s election fraud database contains cases illustrating this problem. They include the conviction in 2017 of the former mayor of Eatonville, Florida, for coercing absentee voters to cast ballots for him — ballots that won him the election. Or the former mayor of Martin, Kentucky, who (along with her husband and son) was convicted in 2014 for threatening and intimidating poor and disabled citizens into casting absentee ballots for her, including ballots that the mayor had filled out.	”
—Hans von Spakovsky, Election Law Reform Initiative Manager and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation (2019)

Arizona state Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita (R) sponsored a 2016 ballot collection bill making it illegal for anyone besides a family member, caregiver, or household member to return a voter's absentee ballot. She argued that adding ballot return restrictions would increase voters' confidence in the electoral system.

“	Think about it. It’s election season and you’ve taken upon yourself to perhaps knock on someone’s door or multiple doors and collect their ballot with, I’m assuming, the intent to turn the ballot into the ballot box. … But, in the event that doesn’t happen, regardless of why it doesn’t happen, you can see it that that has (an) impact on…that person’s ballot to the election box. But, then also on the outcome. So, it’s not a practice that really has enough benefit to justify continuing to have it. ... Elections are critical and the outcome of an election is important and people have to have confidence in the outcome of an election. … The best way to...effect your government is at the election box. So, election integrity is something that we have to safeguard. It doesn’t make sense to allow a practice to exist that has the potential to increase fraud and undermine the outcome of election or that confidence in the election process.	”
—State Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita (2018)

Restricting who may return mail ballots violates the secret ballot principle

The Lawyers Democracy Fund, which says it is "a non-profit organization with a long history of advancing the role of ethics, integrity, and legal professionalism in the electoral process," argued on its website that ballot harvesting violates the secrecy of the ballot box.

“	When a voter request to receive their ballot by mail, it does not necessarily mean that the voter will choose to complete and return their ballot. But when a ballot harvester approaches a voter who has yet to complete his or her ballot, the voter may feel pressured to vote a certain way or to vote in the first place when they otherwise would prefer not to participate. ... Unlike when a voter casts his or her vote in person at a polling location in privacy, ballot harvesters are able to discuss with voters the candidates they should or should not vote for. Voters who have yet to make their decision may vote differently because of the ballot harvester’s influence. This infringes upon one of the most fundamental aspects of the American voting system – the secrecy of the ballot box.	”
—Lawyers Democracy Fund (2022)

In a 2022 article for the Cato Institute, senior fellow Walter Olson argued that ballot harvesting violates the principle of a secret ballot. According to its website, the Cato Institute says it is a think tank whose "vision is to create free, open, and civil societies founded on libertarian principles."

“	[T]he person standing there asking you to hand over your ballot may be someone you have a hard time saying no to, owing to dependence, economic or otherwise. What if it’s a union steward at your workplace, or the political boss of your community, or a patriarchal family member? What if they’re pressing you for a faster decision than you’d prefer to make? There’s a requirement that the envelope be sealed before you hand it over, but that might work mostly as an honor system. If you yield to improper pressure, who’s going to complain to the authorities, or verify a complaint? Contrast all this with the idea behind the secret ballot, the idea of leaving you free to vote your conscience or maybe not vote at all, no matter what powerful people in your life or community may expect of you. As they used to say, it’s just you alone in the voting booth.	”
—Walter Olson, senior fellow, The Cato Institute (2022)

Opposition arguments in detail

Two arguments against restricting who may return mail ballots are that such restrictions disenfranchise certain groups of voters and that the restrictions do not prevent fraud. This section includes quotations detailing those arguments from a variety of sources.

Restricting who can return mail ballots disenfranchises certain demographic groups

The Native American Rights Fund opposed a failed amendment to H.R. 1—For the People Act of 2019 proposed by U.S. Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) that would only allow family members, household members, and caregivers to return absentee/mail-in ballots on behalf of others. The Native American Rights Fund argued that Native Americans in several parts of the country face challenges returning their own mail ballots and that restrictions like Calvert proposed would disenfrachise Native Americans.

According to its website, the Native American Rights Fund says it is a nonprofit organization that "focuses on applying existing laws and treaties to guarantee that national and state governments live up to their legal obligations" to Native Americans.

“	The Amendment would effectively deny the good-faith assistance on which thousands of Alaska Native and American Indian voters rely to participate in voting and the political process. Native voters, especially tribal elders, often lack reliable transportation and reside in geographically remote areas in which they rely upon friends and neighbors to pick up and return their mail. Widespread use of non-traditional mailing addresses often requires drives to post offices that take several hours to get their voting materials and ballots. With the increasing usage of mail-in and absentee voting, the Calvert Amendment would effectively disenfranchise tens of thousands of Native voters who rely on the very forms of assistance the Calvert Amendment would prohibit. Several examples illustrate the reliance of Native voters on community members to collect their ballots as a necessary part of their ability to exercise their fundamental right to vote. In Montana, Election Day voting for voters on the Flathead Indian Reservation requires a three and one-half hour roundtrip drive from Dixon to the Sanders County courthouse. On the Duckwater reservation in Nye County, Nevada, the nearest in-person early voting and Election Day voting location is at least a five hour roundtrip drive because of the road conditions and mountainous regions. Mailing locations are not as accessible for Natives on tribal lands as they are to non-Natives off tribal lands. Home mail-service does not exist throughout Indian Country. On parts of the Spirit Lake Nation in North Dakota, the Navajo Nation in Arizona, Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin (to name a few reservations) homes are unmarked and do not receive regular mail service. Reservation homes that are unmarked are entirely reliant on P.O. boxes to conduct their business affairs. Even where mailboxes, post office boxes, and postal services exist, they are often great distances away from where Native voters live. The Intertribal Council of Arizona has testified that rural post offices are often 20 miles or more away from tribal communities. Roads within reservation communities can be difficult to navigate and dirt or gravel roads may be impassible during bad weather, especially during the winter election season of November.	”
—Native American Rights Fund (2019)

In 2020, David Bergstein, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee argued that ballot collection is important for elderly and disabled voters.

“	For voters who are elderly or disabled or in certain communities that don’t have easy access to polling locations, this is a very important way for them to continue to be able to exercise their constitutional right to participate in democracy.	”
—David Bergstein, Democratic National Committee spokesman (2020)

Restricting who can return mail ballots would not prevent fraud

In an interview with Fox News, Charles Stewart III, a political science professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, suggested that laws restricting who can return mail ballots would not prevent fraud and that the solution should be to make it easier for people to return their own ballots.

“	"I haven’t done a study of this, but my initial reaction is that ballot harvesting laws probably have a small effect on voting fraud," Stewart said. "North Carolina, of course, outlaws it, and we can see what happened. More seriously perhaps, anti-ballot harvesting laws are probably unenforceable [because] ... a ballot harvester can return the ballots by mail, or to a drop box (depending on state law/practice), so can escape direct detection." Stewart went on to suggest that streamlining the mail-in balloting process might be the best way to combat election fraud. "Returning absentee ballots is not easy" in North Carolina, Stewart said, noting that some voters have difficulty finding the necessary witnesses or obtaining postage. "As a consequence, if you have an absentee ballot and someone comes along and says, 'Here, let me take care of that for you….' That’s where we start getting into trouble." A "better approach," Stewart told Fox News, "is an effective signature-match system that starts with high-quality signature-match training and adequate opportunity to 'cure' a ballot where the signature doesn’t match." States should follow North Carolina's lead in publishing real-time datasets to "allow campaigns, investigators, journalists, and the public to mine patterns," he added.	”
—Charles Stewart III, political science professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2018)

In 2020, a political scientist at the University of Florida named Michael McDonald argued that ballot harvesting in order to commit election fraud is impractical.

“	Logistically, voters with ballots in hand are usually not clustered enough to make it practical to do ‘ballot harvesting’ the way Republicans talk about it. While there are always isolated incidents of any type of fraudulent activity in human endeavors, I have never seen a wide-scale attempt to ‘harvest’ ballots against voters’ candidate preferences in a statewide or national election.	”
—Michael McDonald, political science professor, University of Florida (2020)

Laws by state

See also: Mail ballot collection and return laws by state

The following map provides a summary of who is permitted to collect and return absentee/mail-in ballots by state as of October 2023. Click here to see additional details for each state.

Further reading

• Mail ballot collection and return laws by state—Ballotpedia's page providing information on ballot return laws by state

• Absentee/mail-in voting—Ballotpedia's overview page on absentee and mail voting laws by state

• Returning Absentee Ballots—National Conference of State Legislatures' overview of ballot return laws by state

Footnotes

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

---

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Frank Festa • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond
External Relations: Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

---

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams. Managing Editor of Events • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Victoria Edwards • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Jimmy McAllister • Brandon McCauley • Ellie Mikus • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox