Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: How did mail-in voting policies differ between 2020 and 2024 elections?
Executive Summary
The available analyses show that mail-in voting was substantially higher in 2020—driven by the COVID-19 pandemic and emergency adaptations—while mail-in ballot use fell by 2024 even as early in-person voting rose, reflecting both policy changes and voter behavior shifts [1] [2]. State-level rule changes between 2020 and 2024 created a patchwork of access: some states expanded absentee options after 2020, while others tightened procedures such as drop-off locations, deadlines, and witness requirements; the net effect was uneven access and administrative adaptation rather than a single nationwide policy shift [3] [4] [5].
1. Why 2020 looked different: pandemic-driven expansion and emergency rules
In 2020, public-health concerns drove a surge in mail voting, producing over 69 million mail ballots nationally as voters and officials sought to reduce in-person contact; many states temporarily relaxed eligibility and application procedures, and some states implemented ballot drop-off options and extended deadlines to process high volumes [1] [3]. This emergency-driven approach created significant variability: jurisdictions that broadly permitted no-excuse absentee voting saw the largest mail volumes, while states with stricter absentee regimes remained limited. Observers and courts debated whether temporary accommodations were lawful or required legislative action, placing election administrators at the center of operational and legal stress [3].
2. The 2024 countertrend: mail ballots declined and early in-person rose
By 2024, federal reporting indicates mail-in ballots comprised roughly 30% of turnout, down from about 43% in 2020, while early in-person voting increased, producing overall shifts in how ballots were cast and counted [2]. This change reflects both policy and preference: some voters returned to in-person options as pandemic urgency faded, and states that rolled back temporary 2020 expansions saw fewer mail ballots. Administrative lessons from 2020—such as improved early in-person processes—also made non-mail options more attractive, contributing to the downward trend in absentee use [2].
3. State laws evolved unevenly: expansions, rollbacks, and legal fights
Between 2020 and 2024, state legislatures and courts produced a mix of expansions and restrictions on absentee/mail voting, with laws altering eligibility, ID and witness requirements, request and return deadlines, and drop-off rules; the National Conference of State Legislatures documented this fragmented evolution through at least 2022 [3]. Some states institutionalized easier access by codifying no-excuse absentee ballots, while others tightened procedures citing integrity concerns. These policy choices influenced 2024 turnout patterns and generated litigation in multiple states, underscoring that access depended heavily on local political and judicial dynamics [3] [4].
4. Practical administration changed: ballots, drop boxes, and processing
Local practices—how ballots are requested, delivered, returned, and counted—shifted after 2020. Ballotpedia’s 2024 state-by-state summaries show wide variation in deadlines, witness rules, and return methods, meaning voters faced different operational realities depending on residence; some states required witness signatures or notarization, others allowed multiple drop boxes or only one per county, and processing rules for signature verification evolved [4] [5]. These administrative details affect rejection rates and voter confidence, and they shaped the decline in mailed ballots where stricter procedural hurdles remained in place [4].
5. Texas as a case study: drop-off limits and the unequal burden
Texas’s 2020 restriction to one official drop-off site per county, upheld by the state supreme court, illustrates how a seemingly technical rule can create practical barriers for voters, particularly in large or rural counties and among elderly and disabled voters [5] [6]. That decision contrasted with more permissive policies elsewhere and highlighted how court rulings can rapidly change local access. While the 2024 landscape varied, Texas’s 2020 example shows how legal and administrative limits on ballot return options contributed to uneven mail voting experiences across states [5].
6. Constitutional powers and political debates: federal limits and partisan aims
Legal commentary emphasized that the Constitution leaves states the primary authority to set election rules, so a president cannot unilaterally end mail voting; Congress can regulate federal elections but not override state control for state offices—this framework shaped political debate in 2024 about proposals to curtail mail voting [7]. Political actors framed mail voting either as necessary access or as a vulnerability to fraud, influencing state policy choices. These partisan arguments informed legislative agendas and public rhetoric, but the legal framework constrained unilateral federal action on basic voting methods [7].
7. What the data leave open: causes, consequences, and ongoing questions
The reported fall in mail voting between 2020 and 2024 is robust in aggregate, but attributing causality requires caution: declines reflect changing voter preferences post-pandemic, state law changes, administrative practices, and political messaging. The provided analyses document shifts in volume and rule changes but do not fully disentangle how much of the drop was policy-driven versus behavioral. Continued monitoring of rejection rates, demographic impacts, and court outcomes is necessary to evaluate whether 2024’s pattern represents a temporary reversion or a longer-term realignment of voting methods [2] [3] [4].