Letter: Why I support in-person voting

Peter Bracchi argues Washington's voter eligibility system relies more on trust than verified proof of citizenship. — Peter Bracchi argues Washington’s voter eligibility system relies more on trust than verified proof of citizenship. Photo courtesy AI generated image courtesy Peter Bracchi

🎧 In-Person Voting: Trust vs. Proof in Washington Elections

Peter Bracchi believes the strongest election system is one where the proof happens before the ballot is issued — not after the ballot is already in the system

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are those of the author alone and may not reflect the editorial position of ClarkCountyToday.com

I support in-person voting because elections should not only be secure — they should be visibly secure to the public.

Peter Bracchi

Washington state tells voters its mail-in system has safeguards. Ballots are tracked. Signatures are checked. Only one ballot per voter is supposed to be counted. Those are important protections. But for many citizens, including me, that is not enough to restore full confidence in the system.

The problem is not just whether election officials believe the system works. The problem is whether the public can clearly see that only eligible citizens are voting, that every ballot has a secure chain of custody, and that Election Day means Election Day.

Washington’s own system shows why this concern is legitimate. An Enhanced Driver License requires proof of U.S. citizenship and is accepted for air travel. A standard Washington driver license does not prove citizenship or legal status, and after May 7, 2025, it is not accepted for domestic air travel under REAL ID rules. Yet many voter registrations still depend heavily on a signed oath declaring that the person is a U.S. citizen.

That signed oath matters legally. But a signed oath is not the same thing as showing documentary proof of citizenship. When the foundation of voter eligibility depends on a declaration instead of a verified document, citizens are justified in asking whether the system is built more on trust than proof.

That is the heart of the issue.

Mail-in voting adds another layer of concern. A ballot mailed to every active voter leaves the controlled environment of a polling place. It goes to a mailbox, a kitchen table, an apartment complex, a group home, a temporary address, or any number of places outside direct election supervision. The voter may be perfectly honest, but the public is still being asked to trust a long process that happens out of sight.

In-person voting is different. The voter appears in person. Identification and eligibility can be verified at the front end. The ballot is issued under direct supervision. The voter marks the ballot privately and places it directly into a secure ballot box or tabulation process. The chain of custody is shorter, clearer, and easier for ordinary citizens to understand.

This is not about making voting impossible. It is about making voting trustworthy.

There should still be reasonable accommodations for the military, the disabled, the elderly, and people with serious medical or travel limitations. But that should be the exception, not the default for everyone. A secure election system should be designed around the strongest process first, with exceptions carefully controlled and documented.

Supporters of universal mail voting often argue that it increases turnout and convenience. That may be true. But convenience should never outrank confidence. A democracy does not survive simply because many ballots are collected. It survives because citizens believe the ballots were lawfully cast, securely handled, and accurately counted.

Late-arriving ballots are another problem. Even if a ballot is postmarked by Election Day, counting ballots for days afterward creates public suspicion. People see results changing after Election Night and naturally question what is happening. Election officials may have explanations, but a system that regularly requires explanations is already losing public trust.

The standard should be simple: prove citizenship, vote in person, verify identity, secure the ballot immediately, and finish the election on Election Day except for narrow, clearly justified exceptions.

That is not voter suppression. That is election integrity.

Citizens should not be treated as unreasonable for wanting a voting system that is harder to question. If government can require stronger identification to board an airplane, enter federal facilities, obtain certain benefits, or prove identity in daily life, then asking for a highly secure voting process should not be controversial.

The right to vote belongs to citizens. Protecting that right means protecting it from dilution, confusion, weak controls, and public doubt.

I support in-person voting because the vote is too important to be handled by a system that depends so heavily on signatures, mailboxes, postmarks, back-end reviews, and public trust after the fact.

The strongest election system is one where the proof happens before the ballot is issued — not after the ballot is already in the system.

Peter Bracchi
Vancouver