What do early voting and vote-by-mail controversies mean for democracy in the US?

Allowing more people to cast early votes or vote-by-mail is a good way to make voting Covid-secure

Question: What do early voting and vote-by-mail controversies mean for democracy in the US?
Position1 of 3›: More people casting early and postal votes strengthens democracy in the US
Argument1 of 2›: Allowing more people to cast early votes or vote-by-mail is a good way to make voting Covid-secure

Public health concerns over social distancing in polling stations led to new forms of voting. The expansion of early and postal votes limits the impact of the pandemic on people's ability to participate in democracy.

The argument

With in-person voting presenting a risk to Covid-19 transmission, many states opted to expand mail-in and early voting. The spread of Covid-19 led to 16 Democracy Primaries being postponed or changed to vote-by-mail with the deadline extended. It was therefore crucial for states to take steps to ensure that the presidential election could go ahead smoothly, without any voter being deterred from voting as a result of fear of infection. The option to cast an early vote in person is also an effective measure to reduce the chance of Covid-19 transmission, as spreading voting over a longer period means voters are less likely to come into close contact with each other. Voting-by-mail is Covid-secure, and in this election only five states require a legitimate reason to vote-by-mail; in all others votes-by-mail are issued automatically or are available to all registered voters who request one. As a result, it is estimated that 80 million postal votes will be cast ahead of 3rd November, more than double the number in 2016. Vote-by-mail records are being broken at the state level too, with Texas breaking the state’s record for the most ballots cast on the first day of early voting. In Florida, before in-person early voting began, 2.5 million votes had been cast by mail and in Georgia, voting-by-mail has increased by 648% from 2016. The expansion of early in-person voting and voting-by-mail has been hugely successful in enabling levels of democratic engagement that were threatened by Covid-19.

Premises

[P1]In-person voting risks spreading Covid-19, so many states expanded mail-in and early voting to let the election proceed without deterring voters. [P2] Spreading voting over a longer period and issuing mail ballots reduces close contact, making the process Covid-secure. [P3] The expansion drove record turnout — an estimated 80 million postal votes, double 2016 — enabling engagement that the pandemic threatened. [C] Therefore, allowing more people to cast early or postal votes is a good way to make voting Covid-secure, so it strengthens democracy in the US.

Counter-arguments

Whilst voting-by-mail has been successful in avoiding Covid-19 transmission risks, the popularity of early voting in person has not done this. Reports of long queues to cast early votes in person present similar (or only slightly lessened) Covid-19 transmission risks as regular voting on election day would. The long queues are also disproportionately affecting certain social groups, and so concerns of voter suppression and deterrence have been raised.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] That states acted to reduce infection risk establishes their intent rather than the result, and the premise's own standard — that no voter be deterred — is what the long early-voting queues fail. [Rejecting P2] The two measures grouped here behave differently: reports of long queues for early in-person voting describe crowding comparable to election day, so spreading the days did not by itself remove close contact. [Rejecting P3] Record postal-ballot numbers show how people voted rather than how many voted, so they do not establish that engagement was preserved, and the queues fell unevenly across social groups, raising exactly the deterrence the premise claims was avoided.