Election Day has not yet arrived, but millions of Americans already have cast their ballots.
Six days before Election Day, more than 29 million people had voted, nearly twice as many as at the same time four years ago, according to the United States Elections Project.
Some estimate two-thirds or more of votes will be cast before Election Day in the key battleground states of Florida, North Carolina, Colorado and Nevada.
Early voting is clearly popular, but it’s unfair and unconstitutional, contends Conservative Review senior editor Daniel Horowitz.
“Irrespective of one’s view of either candidate, this dynamic is fundamentally unfair,” Horowitz wrote in a recent column. “It’s akin to having the jury begin casting its vote while the evidence in the case is still being presented and before closing arguments.”
Damaging information about Hillary Clinton has continued to leak out in the past few days and weeks. The FBI reopened its investigation into her email scandal. Two sources with “intimate knowledge” of the investigations into the emails and the Clinton Foundation told Fox News an indictment is “likely” in the Clinton Foundation influence peddling scandal. Those same sources said there was a “99 percent” probability the private email server Clinton used for official business as secretary of state was hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies.
WND reported 20 scandalous Clinton developments that happened over a 24-hour period this week.
These are the types of revelations that could turn the tide of a campaign. However, Horowitz, author of “Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges From Transforming America,” fears it may already be too late for Donald Trump to stage a come-from-behind victory, because millions of Americans voted for Clinton before the latest revelations broke.
“The notion that, over the course of a volatile campaign, different people would vote at different times is absurd because there are so many events that could alter the public perception about a candidate,” Horowitz reasoned. “It makes sense that everyone should observe the same campaign for the same duration and render their verdict based on a uniform set of information only available once the entire campaign is completed.”
He pointed out Minnesota went so far as to begin early voting on Sept. 23, before the first presidential debate between Trump and Clinton.
“This is especially damaging for congressional races, where challengers to incumbents are often lacking name recognition at this stage,” Horowitz wrote. “Yet many people who would otherwise have an open mind voting for a known quantity will reflexively vote for the incumbent at this early stage.”
Not only does early voting tilt the playing field, but it is unlawful, according to Horowitz. Article II of the Constitution gives Congress the power to set a day for electing the president, and it mandates that day “shall be the same throughout the United States.”
In 1845, Congress designated the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as Election Day for the presidency. In subsequent years Congress enacted laws stating that elections to the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate should be held on the same day.
“While many delegates to various state conventions objected to any federal control of elections, it was very clear that the Constitution had indeed vested Congress with the power to create a single election day,” Horowitz asserted. “Ever since the Presidential Election Day Act set that date as ‘the Tuesday after the first Monday in November,’ it’s hard to see how a state holding multiple election days for in-person voting – without any excuse – is not a violation of this law, at least in spirit.”
Early voting can influence the momentum of an election, according to Horowitz.
It’s true that official results of the early voting are not announced before Election Day, but data on turnout by party and demographics always leaks out and is widely reported. So news outlets such as ABC can publish information about the demographic and political party breakdowns so far in early voting, and Americans who have not yet voted can use the information to know whether their vote will make a difference.
The whole system benefits Democrats, according to Horowitz, because they almost always take the lead in early voting.
“It’s no coincidence that the electoral map substantially shifted in favor of Democrats beginning in 2008 when early voting first became a significant factor,” Horowitz noted. “As has been the case over the past decade, preliminary estimates of early voting turnout show a significant advantage for Democrats. Reporter Jon Ralston predicts that based on early voting, Hillary has a near-insurmountable lead in the critical state of Nevada.”
Early voting also invites corruption and fraud by making it easier for one person to vote multiple times. The Daily Signal reported recently on eight cases of voter fraud that have happened before Election Day.
While Horowitz concedes that Democrats will never agree to reduce early voting in general elections, he hopes both parties will at least agree to scrap early voting during primaries. Early voting benefits incumbents in primary races because challengers typically gain the most momentum near the end of the campaign, when media coverage is most intense.
Unfortunately, that is the very reason Horowitz believes the leadership of both parties will strive to keep early voting.
“The trend for early voting is only getting worse,” Horowitz warned. “Democrats are seeking to expand the days, hours and locations of early voting at every turn. In the states where they are out of power, the courts have enacted their early voting agenda for them. With modern communication and transportation, it is easier than ever to register to vote and cast a ballot or request and send back an absentee ballot if one is unable to vote in person on Election Day.
“If a single election day was good enough for our first two centuries when it was harder to travel or communicate, it should certainly work for us today.”
