RESTORING INTEGRITY TO THE BALLOT BOX: WHY OREGON MUST RETURN TO SECURE IN-PERSON VOTING

In Oregon, where universal mail-in voting has been the norm since 1998, convenience has long been touted as a virtue. Ballots arrive automatically, voters mark them at home, and drop boxes or mailboxes complete the process. Yet this system has contributed to a troubling erosion of public confidence in elections across Oregon and the nation. As the November 2026 elections approach, with candidates like Mark Shull running for Clackamas County Commissioner and advocating a return to paper ballots hand-counted on Election Day, with reasonable exceptions, it is time to place security above convenience. The integrity of the vote is foundational to democracy; without it, no policy outcome carries full legitimacy.

Mail-in voting, while expanding access, introduces inherent vulnerabilities that in-person voting largely eliminates. Ballots travel through the postal system or sit in drop boxes, creating opportunities for loss, tampering, or interception. Chain-of-custody issues multiply when third parties collect ballots, a practice known as ballot harvesting. Past incidents in Oregon have included organized collections where ballots arrived late or raised questions about undue influence. Signature verification, the primary safeguard, relies on subjective matching and has led to errors in both directions; valid ballots rejected or questionable ones accepted.

These risks are not merely theoretical. Expanded mail-in systems in 2020 amplified national debates over election security, fueling lawsuits, audits, and persistent doubts among large segments of the electorate. In Oregon specifically, the all-mail model has produced high turnout but also ongoing concerns about verification of eligibility. Official statistics cite very low rates of proven fraud, yet the perception of vulnerability matters profoundly. When citizens question whether every ballot is legitimate, trust in the entire process declines, regardless of the actual numbers.

In-person voting with paper ballots hand-counted on Election Day offers a clearer, more transparent alternative. Voters appear in person, where identity can be verified through photo ID or other means, and eligibility confirmed at the point of voting. Marking a paper ballot creates a tangible, auditable record that cannot be altered remotely or by software glitches. Hand counting by bipartisan teams, conducted publicly with observers from all sides present, allows real-time verification. Any discrepancies become visible immediately rather than discovered weeks later through post-election audits. This method eliminates reliance on machines that, while efficient, are not immune to

programming errors, hacking concerns, or public skepticism.

Critics rightly note that hand counting takes longer and requires more personnel. However, for restoring confidence, the trade-off favors transparency over speed. Election Day itself becomes a civic event where communities witness the process firsthand. Results may not be instantaneous, but they arrive with greater assurance that every legal vote is counted accurately and only once. Clackamas County, with its population of approximately 426,000, can organize such a system through trained volunteers and election workers, just as smaller jurisdictions have done successfully for years.

Convenience is a valid consideration, but it cannot supersede security. Many Americans appreciate the ease of mailing a ballot from their kitchen table. Yet the same citizens who value quick banking apps still demand robust safeguards at financial institutions because the stakes, trust and accuracy, are too high for shortcuts. Elections determine who governs, how taxes are spent, and the direction of policy. When security is compromised, even marginally, the foundation weakens. Prioritizing convenience has contributed to a national crisis of confidence, with polls consistently showing millions doubting the fairness of recent elections. Rebuilding that trust requires visible, verifiable safeguards.

A return to in-person voting must also strengthen protections ensuring only American citizens participate. Current registration relies heavily on self-attestation of citizenship. Mail-in systems make it harder to enforce this standard rigorously. In-person voting, paired with requirements for documentary proof of citizenship where appropriate and consistent voter ID, provides a practical layer of defense. Exceptions already exist in sound policy: military personnel and overseas voters under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act deserve secure absentee options. Elderly voters, those with disabilities, or individuals physically unable to reach polls on Election Day should retain carefully administered absentee or assisted voting pathways. These carve-outs demonstrate compassion without opening the door to widespread vulnerabilities.

Mark Shull’s advocacy for paper ballots, hand-counted on Election Day, with targeted exceptions, represents a thoughtful approach grounded in election integrity. Supporting candidates who champion these reforms sends a clear message: Oregonians value accessible voting but refuse to sacrifice the security that makes every vote meaningful.

The United States has a long tradition of in-person voting that built generations of civic participation and trust. Oregon’s experiment with universal mail-in delivered convenience at a cost to perceived legitimacy.

Returning to secure, observable, paper-based, hand-counted in-person voting, with safeguards for those who truly cannot participate otherwise, offers the clearest path to reestablishing confidence in our elections. Security is not optional; it is the prerequisite for a democracy in which citizens can confidently accept outcomes, win or lose.

France has a population of over 68 million compared to Oregon’s 4.3 million. France votes in one day; done. If the French can do it, Oregonians can do it!

The time to act is now, before another cycle further diminishes faith in the process that defines self-government.