What are historical examples of ghost voting and outcomes of subsequent reforms?
Executive summary
Ghost voting has appeared in legislative chambers (members pressing colleagues’ buttons or rigging switches) and as “ghost voters” in elections (ballots tied to unverified or invented registrants). Reporting shows notable legislative examples in U.S. statehouses — including California and Texas — where ghost votes sometimes decided outcomes [1] [2], and an electoral example in North Carolina where a records request found 1,760 unconfirmed same-day registrations casting ballots in 2020, prompting a statutory fix in 2023 [1] [3] [4].
1. Ghost votes on the floor: informal custom, real consequences
Legislative “ghost voting” — when one lawmaker casts a vote for an absent colleague — is documented as a long-standing, often tacit custom in many state legislatures. California reporting and Consumer Watchdog traced decades of such practice in the State Assembly and warned that ghost votes have at times been decisive for reaching required vote thresholds, including a 1990 instance tied to firearms legislation where an absent member’s vote was credited in the margin count [1] [5]. Texas reporting similarly characterizes machine-button ghost votes as common despite explicit House rules forbidding the practice and threatening unspecified discipline; a 1991 episode even involved votes cast for a member who had died earlier that day, illustrating how the custom can produce bizarre and consequential outcomes [2] [6].
2. Why chambers tolerate it — and the reform push
Chambers tolerate ghost voting for practical reasons: votes often run late, members travel for official business, and leaders prioritize timely roll calls. Ethicists and legislative rulebooks nonetheless call it improper because it creates permanent records that may misrepresent an absent member’s intent and opens opportunities for mischief [6] [2]. Some legislatures have tried deterrents: fines, rule clarifications, and in foreign examples sensor tech or penalties to make “piano voting” harder (a term for multiple people voting in place of others) — the Ukrainian parliament has experimented with such disincentives, and Armenia has had reported instances of MPs voting for others [7]. Available sources do not mention comprehensive nationwide U.S. reforms that eliminated ghost voting in every state.
3. “Ghost voters” in elections: invented or unverified registrants
A different problem — “ghost voters” in elections — refers to ballots cast by nonexistent or unverified registrants or to manufactured postal ballots. Investigations have turned up such schemes abroad and at home: a BBC probe into U.K. postal-ballot fraud found entire “ghost” electorates manufactured to secure postal ballots, and in the U.S. the John Locke Foundation documented 1,760 unconfirmed same-day registrations (SDRs) that cast ballots in North Carolina’s 2020 election, a loophole that state lawmakers closed in 2023 [8] [9] [3] [4]. The Johnston/Locke reporting and subsequent legislative change illustrate a familiar pattern: exposure triggers targeted legal fixes in specific jurisdictions [3] [4].
4. Reforms and their mixed outcomes
Reforms have been selectively effective. North Carolina’s 2023 law required election boards to confirm SDRs before counting associated ballots; the change survived litigation and was implemented in 2024 with no reported major problems, per John Locke reporting [3] [4]. By contrast, legislative-rule bans on ghost voting often exist on paper but enforcement is uneven: Texas rules prohibit the practice yet reporting in 2005 and later accounts show it persisted as custom, with speaker discretion determining whether to investigate [2] [6]. International responses (e.g., tightened postal-ballot controls in Britain after fraud cases) show administrative fixes can reduce specific abuses but do not eliminate all vulnerabilities [8].
5. Competing perspectives and hidden agendas
Advocates for stricter enforcement frame reforms as integrity measures that restore public confidence; critics argue some reforms are politically motivated and can suppress participation. The Brennan Center and allied groups warn that election-integrity rhetoric can be weaponized to roll back access or to target election officials, especially post-2020, while conservative watchdogs emphasize closing technical loopholes like unverified SDRs [10] [11] [3]. The policy debates therefore mix procedural integrity aims with partisan incentives — reform proposals that tighten verification or restrict absentee options are sometimes advanced by actors who benefit electorally from reduced turnout [12] [13].
6. What history teaches policymakers
History shows three lessons: first, practices tolerated as “custom” (legislative ghost voting) accumulate risk and occasional high-impact errors [2] [5]. Second, targeted administrative fixes work when they directly address a documented mechanism — North Carolina’s SDR confirmation is a recent example [3] [4]. Third, reforms occur amid partisan conflict and may produce trade-offs between security and access; watchdogs on both sides interpret the same facts differently and push different remedies [10] [11] [13]. Available sources do not mention a single, universally accepted set of safeguards that eliminates both forms of “ghost” voting everywhere.
Limitations: this account draws solely on the supplied reporting; local episodes and additional reforms beyond these sources are not covered here.