Go Back to the Civil War
Do you know how far back absentee voting goes in American history? To understand the modern argument, it helps to go all the way back to the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln was running for reelection in 1864 while hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers were away from their homes fighting. Those men could not simply leave their military units, travel home, vote, and then return to the battlefield. States therefore had to confront a practical democratic question. How could citizens serving far from home still participate in an election? By the 1864 presidential election, nineteen Union states had enacted laws allowing soldiers to vote away from their home polling places. Some established voting locations in camps and military hospitals. Others allowed ballots to be sent home, and some systems used proxies. It was one of the first large-scale American experiments with absentee voting. The basic problem was straightforward: military service should not automatically cost a citizen his opportunity to vote.
The Soldiers Actually Voted
Approximately 150,000 soldiers cast votes in the field during the 1864 presidential election. About 78 percent of those recorded field votes went to Abraham Lincoln, while Lincoln received roughly 55 percent of the overall popular vote. That tells us the military vote was considerably more favorable to Lincoln than the civilian vote as a whole. Ohio provides an especially striking example. More than 50,000 Ohio soldiers cast votes in the field. Military absentee voters represented about 12 percent of all presidential ballots cast in Ohio that year. That was not some insignificant corner of the electorate. Politicians understood that soldiers could influence the election. Consequently, partisan arguments about the rules appeared almost immediately. Absentee voting may feel like a modern controversy, but arguments about who should be permitted to cast ballots from somewhere other than a neighborhood polling place are more than a century and a half old.
Even Then, States Disagreed
There was no single national absentee-voting system during the Civil War. States largely determined their own procedures. Wisconsin was among the states allowing soldiers to vote in the field, followed by states including Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New York, and others. Some states refused to adopt similar legislation. Illinois, Indiana, and New Jersey, for example, did not enact laws permitting their soldiers to vote in the field. Whenever possible, some soldiers from those states received leave to return home and vote. That meant military voters had different access depending on the laws of their home state. The issue was political because everybody understood that soldiers represented a meaningful voting bloc. Lincoln supported allowing soldiers to vote, and the soldier vote ultimately favored him strongly. America was fighting a civil war while simultaneously arguing about the rules governing absentee ballots. The controversy around voting away from home therefore began almost as soon as the practice expanded.
World War II Brought the Question Back
The same practical problem appeared again when Americans went overseas in later wars. By World War II, millions of service members were stationed far from their home communities. They were still American citizens even though they could not stand inside their local polling places on Election Day. Federal and state governments developed procedures that made military absentee voting increasingly practical. By the 1944 presidential election, roughly 3.2 million military absentee ballots were cast. Those ballots represented nearly seven percent of the electorate. Again, the reason was simple. A person should not have to return from Europe, the Pacific, or another military assignment merely to participate in an American election. Military voting demonstrated why physical presence at a neighborhood polling place could not always be the only reasonable way to cast a ballot. The principle survived long after World War II ended. Eventually, Congress created permanent federal protections for military personnel and overseas citizens.
The 1986 Law Still Matters
In 1986, Congress enacted the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, usually called UOCAVA. The law protects the ability of certain Americans away from home to register and vote absentee in federal elections. It covers members of the uniformed services serving away from their voting residence. It also covers qualifying family members and American citizens residing overseas. Later legislation strengthened those protections. The 2009 MOVE Act, for example, generally requires states to transmit properly requested absentee ballots to covered voters at least 45 days before a federal election when requests arrive by the applicable deadline. These laws recognize a continuing reality of military life. Service members may be stationed in Germany, Korea, the Middle East, aboard ships, or almost anywhere else in the world. Their physical absence from home does not erase their citizenship. Absentee voting remains an essential part of making their participation possible.
Absentee Voting Expanded Beyond the Military
Eventually Americans recognized that military service was not the only reason somebody might be unable to appear at a polling place. Illness could prevent it. Disability could prevent it. Work or travel could interfere. Older voters might face physical difficulties getting to a polling location. States gradually expanded absentee voting under their own laws. In many places voters initially had to provide an accepted excuse. Later, some states adopted no-excuse absentee voting, meaning a voter did not have to justify the decision to vote absentee. The exact rules continued to differ considerably from state to state. That variation remains an important feature of American elections today. What began largely as a wartime solution gradually became an ordinary voting option for millions of civilians.
Oregon Went Much Further
Oregon eventually took the concept beyond traditional absentee voting. The state experimented with voting by mail for certain elections beginning in the 1980s. In 1998, Oregon voters approved Ballot Measure 60, requiring its regular primary and general elections to be conducted by mail. Approximately 69 percent of voters supported the measure. Beginning in 2000, Oregon became the first state to conduct a presidential election entirely through its vote-by-mail system. The state later required all elections to be conducted by mail. Active registered voters receive ballots rather than having to request an absentee ballot individually for each election. They can return those ballots through the mail or authorized ballot-deposit locations. Oregon therefore provides an important distinction in terminology. Traditional absentee voting and a statewide vote-by-mail election are related but are not necessarily identical systems. Different states have adopted different combinations of those approaches.
What Oregon’s Fraud Numbers Show
Any discussion of mail voting should also distinguish documented fraud from allegations of fraud. Oregon’s Secretary of State reports that approximately 61 million ballots were cast in the state’s vote-by-mail system between 2000 and 2019. During that period, the state reports 38 criminal convictions for voter fraud. That works out to approximately six ten-thousandths of one percent of ballots cast. Those numbers do not mean election fraud is literally impossible. Election officials still use signature verification, ballot tracking, bipartisan processing procedures, and other safeguards. Nor does one state’s experience automatically prove that every voting system everywhere operates identically. But Oregon’s long experience provides a substantial real-world record for evaluating claims about voting by mail. Arguments about election policy are stronger when they begin with documented evidence rather than assumptions.
Then Came the 2020 Election
The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically increased Americans’ use of mail voting. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately 43 percent of voters cast ballots by mail in 2020, compared with about 21 percent in 2016. Another 26 percent voted in person before Election Day. Altogether, nearly seven out of ten voters used some method other than voting at a polling place on Election Day. States had different rules about requesting, receiving, verifying, processing, and counting those ballots. Those differences sometimes contributed to public confusion about when results would become available. Mail ballots also became much more politically polarized during that election cycle. President Donald Trump repeatedly criticized widespread mail voting and questioned its reliability. At the same time, Trump himself used Florida’s legal vote-by-mail system during the March and August 2020 primary elections. That was not unlawful or contradictory as a matter of eligibility, because Florida law permitted him to vote that way. It did, however, become part of the broader political debate over distinctions Trump drew between Florida absentee voting and other forms of widespread mail voting.
What Happened After the 2020 Election
Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election with 306 electoral votes to Donald Trump’s 232. Trump and allies challenged the result and alleged extensive fraud, including allegations involving mail ballots. Recounts, audits, investigations, and litigation followed in multiple battleground states. Trump’s own attorney general, William Barr, said in December 2020 that the Justice Department had not found fraud on a scale capable of changing the election’s outcome. Federal and state election-security officials also issued a November 2020 statement describing that election as the most secure in American history at that time. Numerous lawsuits challenging election results failed to produce evidence sufficient to overturn Biden’s victory. None of this means that individual instances of election fraud never occur. They do. The relevant distinction is between isolated unlawful votes or irregularities and fraud occurring on a scale sufficient to change a presidential result. The latter was not established in the 2020 election.
One Correction About 2016
It is also important to distinguish the popular vote from the Electoral College when discussing Trump’s earlier election. Donald Trump did not lose the 2016 presidential election. He won the Electoral College and therefore became president. Hillary Clinton received more votes nationwide in the popular vote. The American presidential election, however, is determined through the Electoral College rather than simply by which candidate receives the most votes nationally. Mixing those two facts together can make a valid historical point sound inaccurate. Trump lost the national popular vote in 2016 while winning the presidency. In 2020, he lost both the national popular vote and the Electoral College. Those are two different electoral outcomes. Precision matters especially when discussing disputed elections. If the purpose is to challenge misinformation, our own language has to be just as careful.
The Debate Did Not End in 2020
Mail voting remained politically contested after the 2020 election. Trump continued to criticize broad mail-voting systems while distinguishing some forms of absentee voting that he considered legitimate. He has also continued personally using mail voting when eligible under Florida law, including in elections after returning to the presidency. In March 2026, Reuters reported that he had cast a Florida special-election ballot by mail while continuing to criticize widespread mail voting. The White House has defended that distinction by arguing that approved absentee procedures for eligible voters differ from broad systems that send ballots more widely. Critics respond that the practical distinction is often overstated because absentee ballots themselves are ballots transmitted outside a traditional polling place. This disagreement has become part of a larger argument about election administration. It includes questions about eligibility verification, ballot distribution, postal handling, deadlines, and state authority. Those are legal and administrative questions as well as partisan ones. Understanding them requires separating what a policy actually does from the political language surrounding it.
What Changed in March 2026
On March 31, 2026, President Trump signed Executive Order 14399 concerning citizenship verification and federal elections. Among other provisions, the order directed the Postal Service to develop new procedures for mail-in and absentee ballots. It called for official election-mail markings and unique barcodes on ballot envelopes. It also contemplated state-specific lists identifying voters participating in mail or absentee voting. Under the order’s framework, USPS would not transmit certain mail ballots unless the voter appeared on the appropriate participation list. The administration says these measures are intended to strengthen election integrity, verify eligibility, and create more secure and auditable procedures. Opponents argue the president and Postal Service lack authority to impose those requirements on state-administered elections. They also argue that implementation errors could interfere with ballots belonging to eligible voters. Those competing arguments are now being litigated rather than simply debated politically. The ultimate legal question concerns how presidential and federal postal authority interact with congressional legislation and the constitutional role of states in administering elections.
The Courts Became Involved
States and other challengers filed lawsuits against major portions of the executive order. Federal courts blocked significant provisions, concluding in part that the executive branch could not unilaterally restructure state election procedures in the manner proposed. The administration challenged those rulings. The Supreme Court intervened procedurally in August 2026 but did not finally resolve the underlying legality of the entire mail-ballot framework. Litigation continued after the Postal Service moved forward with its rulemaking. On September 4, a federal judge again blocked the new USPS requirements from taking effect. The administration subsequently returned to the Supreme Court seeking emergency relief before the November 3, 2026 midterm election. As of September 7, that dispute remains active. States have already begun preparing and, in some places, distributing mail ballots, increasing the practical importance of a quick resolution. The courts must therefore address both legal authority and the consequences of changing election procedures close to Election Day.
The Constitution Divides Election Authority
The constitutional argument deserves more attention than slogans from either side. States traditionally administer American elections, including registration procedures, polling operations, and many rules governing absentee ballots. The Constitution also gives Congress authority to regulate the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections, subject to constitutional limits. Congress has used that power in laws including UOCAVA, the National Voter Registration Act, and other federal election statutes. Presidents are responsible for executing federal law, but they do not possess unlimited authority to write election rules independently of Congress and the states. The Trump administration argues that existing federal laws and presidential authority support the 2026 measures. Challengers argue that the executive order goes beyond those authorities and intrudes on powers assigned to states and Congress. Federal judges have agreed with significant portions of the challengers’ position, although litigation continues. The Supreme Court’s ultimate treatment of the dispute could further define those boundaries. That is why the 2026 controversy is about more than whether somebody personally likes voting by mail. It is also a constitutional dispute over who possesses the authority to make election rules.
The Soldier in 1864 Still Matters
I keep coming back to that Union soldier in 1864 because his situation reveals the practical question underneath all of this history. He was away from home because his country had sent him somewhere else to serve. If voting required his physical presence in his hometown, he might effectively lose his opportunity to participate. So states developed another method. World War II presented the same problem on an even larger scale. Later generations expanded absentee voting to civilians who could not conveniently reach polling places. Some states eventually decided voters should not have to provide an excuse at all. Others went farther and adopted broad vote-by-mail systems. Each step brought legitimate questions about access, administration, security, verification, and government authority. Those questions deserve careful examination. But they did not suddenly appear in 2020.
History Makes the Debate More Complicated
The history does not prove that every modern mail-voting proposal is automatically wise. Neither does it prove that every proposed restriction is automatically illegitimate. Election systems can and should be evaluated for security, accessibility, reliability, cost, and compliance with constitutional law. States have adopted different answers to those questions for generations. What history does show is that absentee voting has very deep American roots. Americans were arguing about soldier ballots while Abraham Lincoln was still president. Military personnel relied heavily on absentee voting during World War II. Congress later created permanent federal protections for military and overseas voters. Civilian absentee voting expanded throughout the twentieth century. By 2020, tens of millions of Americans were voting by mail.
Summary
Large-scale absentee voting in the United States reaches back to the Civil War, when states changed their laws so Union soldiers could participate in the 1864 election from the field. Military absentee voting expanded in later wars, civilian access broadened over time, and states eventually developed everything from excuse-based absentee voting to universal vote-by-mail systems.
Conclusion
The current argument over mail ballots is real, and the legal questions surrounding the Trump administration’s 2026 rules remain unsettled as of September 7, 2026. But the basic idea of Americans casting ballots away from their home polling places is not a recent invention—it has been part of American election history for generations.