Mail-in voting not total answer to suppression

In response to the editorial "Georgia primary lesson: Absentee voting is the future":

Looking at Georgia's nightmare of a primary, writing a headline like "Absentee voting is the future" is enticing. But how ready is the United States for absentee voting? One of the key features of that Georgia primary was clear voter suppression at play. Yes, the argument can be made that with absentee voting, the issue of inequitable polling places (one of the most popular methods of voter suppression) is taken out of the equation entirely. On top of that, the practice of intimidation at the polls also becomes more difficult. But it isn't all ups for the goal of mitigating voter suppression.

If voters are voting from home and don't have any in-person help from trained election judges, then online disinformation campaigns are all of a sudden that much more potent.

With more distance between the voter submitting their ballot and it being counted, the chances that voters lose their ballot (or it is intentionally removed) becomes a real possibility that has to be counted for. Seeing how blatant voter suppression was in Georgia, there is no doubt that with absentee voting, not only would there be an effort to suppress votes, but it would very likely be just as (if not more) successful than currently.

Absentee voting isn't an option we should omit, but in the context of the issues our elections are plagued with, it just doesn't seem like we are ready for it to be our future.

Idrees Mohammed

Lombard