Immunizing our elections

In the days, weeks and months ahead, we can expect all sorts of dramatic disruptions as a result of the coronavirus. But one that Americans absolutely must begin planning for now is the threat the virus poses to our democratic process in a year in which voters will choose a president, a third of the U.S. Senate and the entire House of Representatives.

Several states have already postponed presidential primaries. Candidates are rethinking what it even means to campaign at a moment in time when voters can’t come out to rallies, debates must be held virtually, and all discussion of issues from foreign policy to climate change to homelessness are subordinated to the one great concern on everyone’s mind. Even this summer’s political conventions might have to be canceled or drastically scaled back.

But there is one political event that will and must go on as scheduled: the Nov. 3 general election. While prognostications about the pandemic are risky, it isn’t too early for Congress and state election officials to begin planning for an election that might have to be conducted under plague conditions.

The goal must be to ensure that fear of contracting or transmitting COVID-19 won’t cause voting to plummet. Even if, as we all hope, self-isolation and social distancing are no longer necessary in November, lingering concerns about contamination could easily depress turnout at polling places.

That’s why Congress and state election officials should think now about creative ways to allow voters to exercise the franchise, including a dramatic expansion of voting by mail, a convenience that is beginning to seem like a necessity.

Richard L. Hasen, an election-law expert at UC Irvine, proposed that Congress require the states to allow no-excuse absentee voting and underwrite that effort with federal funds. The Brennan Center for Justice has proposed a raft of measures that it says would cost $2 billion. They include not only a universal vote-by-mail option but expanded early voting, more online voter registration and efforts to make in-person voting — which it says must remain for voters who lack reliable postal service — hygienic.

Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) have proposed a bill that would encourage some of these steps.

A relatively sudden expansion of mail-in voting would be a difficult adjustment in many states, as would be the expeditious introduction of procedures to make in-person voting safe. And a massive shift to voting by mail would require vigilance about fraud.

But all these complications fade in significance in comparison to the possibility that COVID-19 could lay waste not only to the lives and health of individuals but also to the political process.

For such a plan to take shape, there must be bipartisan support in Congress. But over the years, Republicans have resisted efforts to make voting easier, fearful that it will increase turnout by Democratic voters.

The Senate took a modest step toward helping state election officials cope with coronavirus in its stimulus bill, which includes $400 million in assistance and which is expected to pass both houses in the coming days. But that’s not enough money.

Republicans also need to abandon the hackneyed argument that leadership by Congress in this area is a usurpation of the states’ power to regulate elections.

It’s in the interest of both parties that this health emergency doesn’t lead to a steep decline in voting on election day. Maximizing participation is important not only because voters have a right to cast their ballots without fear of becoming ill, but also because an election in which massive numbers of voters don’t take part can undermine the perceived legitimacy of the outcome.

If the two parties in Congress can come together, however belatedly, on legislation to deal with the threat to the economy posed by the virus, they should be able to collaborate on measures to counter the disease’s potential damage to democracy.