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

Long queues outside early voting stations should not happen and are a form of voter suppression

Question: What do early voting and vote-by-mail controversies mean for democracy in the US?
Position‹2 of 3›: The realities of early and postal votes show the US democratic system is at breaking point
Argument‹4 of 4: Long queues outside early voting stations should not happen and are a form of voter suppression

Long queues outside early voting stations are evidence of a failure of planning, which disproportionately affects groups that have had to battle for their right to vote. Staff shortages and sparse early voting centres mean that for many, early voting is much harder than it should be.

The argument

Organisers have known for months that this election will be held during a global pandemic, and they ought to have made early voting more accessible. Long lines have formed outside early polling stations around the country, and whilst some suggest this due to increased voter enthusiasm, issues of staff shortages, limited numbers of polling stations and technical problems are also significant contributors. In some places voters have had to queue for up to 11 hours - this cannot be put down to voter enthusiasm alone. Long lines also disproportionately affect particular groups - an MIT survey found that in the 2016 election black voters on average had to queue for six minutes longer than their white counterparts. Long queues also disproportionately impact working class Americans, who cannot always get time off work to vote and queue, and Native Americans, who may live hundreds of miles away from their nearest polling station. Fewer open polling stations also disproportionately affect those living in urban areas. In Ohio, for example, one rural county has approximately 97 times more early voting stations per voter than a more densely populated urban county. Combined, the national picture is one where early voting is more challenging, particularly for those in densely populated or very rural areas. Voter groups at risk of voter suppression in the past are at even greater risk in this election.

Premises

[P1]Organisers knew for months the election would be held during a pandemic yet failed to make early voting accessible—staff shortages, too few polling stations and technical problems left voters queuing up to 11 hours, which enthusiasm alone cannot explain. [P2] These long lines disproportionately burden Black voters, working-class Americans, Native Americans and urban residents (one rural Ohio county had ~97 times more stations per voter than an urban one), putting groups historically at risk of suppression at even greater risk. [C] Therefore long queues outside early voting stations are a form of voter suppression, showing the US democratic system is at breaking point.

Counter-arguments

All Americans are having to make sacrifices during the pandemic, which affects everyone. Steps have been taken to try to ensure that all Americans can cast their vote safely and without putting staff at risk. Voter queues are unavoidable in a pandemic, but they are not a result of targeted voter suppression.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Poor planning and suppression are different things, and the premise moves between them. Staff shortages, too few polling places and equipment failures are consistent with chronic underfunding, an unprecedented surge in early voting, and a pandemic that removed many older poll workers at once; having had months to prepare establishes negligence, not intent. Ruling out enthusiasm as the sole explanation also does not rule it out as a contributing one, in an election that set early-voting records. [Rejecting P2] The disparity is real and serious, but the premise treats an outcome as proof of design. Stations-per-voter ratios differ between rural and urban counties in ordinary elections too, since allocation is set locally from population, past turnout and available premises, and low-population counties come out favourably almost by arithmetic. To support suppression the argument needs the decisions themselves — which places were closed, how resources were allocated, and by whom — rather than the ratio they produced. [Rejecting C] "Breaking point" outruns the premises. The same election produced the highest turnout in more than a century, most of it cast early or by post, which is evidence that the system absorbed the strain even where it did so unequally. The queues support a strong conclusion about underinvestment and unequal administration — one the argument could have reached without the claim it did not establish.