Election Integrity: Ballot Harvesting, Voter Fraud, and the Threat to American Elections
From overturned elections and criminal convictions to thousands of improper voter registrations, documented failures raise important questions about the security and accountability of American elections.
“A false balance is an abomination to the LORD, but a just weight is his delight.” — Proverbs 11:1 (ESV)
Let me state upfront, in the clearest terms, that I do not believe we, as a nation, should endorse a broader view on non-traditional voting, namely voting by means other than on Election Day for the vast majority of Americans. I submit there should always be a common-sense exception for our military members serving abroad, foreign diplomats, and citizens physically abroad for various reasons.
Past election cycles have seen numerous verified instances of irregularities involving mail-in ballots. One thing I know and fully embrace is the doctrine of Man’s natural depravity.
Evil always finds an entry point into any human endeavor because of the Fall. What God intended for Evil is constantly flipped on its head for evil. Power corrupts, and absolute power always corrupts absolutely.
Hence, I oppose casually expanding mail-in balloting. Let's see if I can make a cogent argument for why I take this position.
The American ballot is more than a piece of paper. It represents a citizen's political voice, the legitimacy of representative government, and the peaceful transfer of political authority. When that ballot is mishandled, election laws are violated, or government systems register individuals who are not qualified to vote, the integrity of the electoral process comes into question.
For Evangelical Christians, election integrity should not be reduced to a partisan talking point. It is fundamentally a question of truth, justice, and faithful government administration.
Consider what happened in Bridgeport, Connecticut, where a judge ordered a new mayoral primary following serious absentee-ballot irregularities. Consider North Carolina, where an organized, unlawful absentee-ballot operation led to an entire congressional election being overturned. Consider Arizona, where a former mayor pleaded guilty to felony ballot abuse.
These are not imaginary scenarios invented to promote a political narrative. They are documented incidents with tangible legal consequences.
Yet these cases must also be understood accurately. They show that election safeguards can fail; they do not prove misconduct is widespread in every state or that every form of mail voting is inherently fraudulent.
The fundamental question is whether America’s election procedures provide an adequate combination of ballot security, accountability, and access for eligible citizens.
Bridgeport, Connecticut: An Election That Had to Be Repeated
The September 2023 Democratic mayoral primary in Bridgeport became a national example of the risks associated with improper absentee-ballot handling. Incumbent Mayor Joe Ganim defeated challenger John Gomes by 251 votes. But surveillance footage showing individuals depositing multiple absentee ballots into drop boxes became central to a legal challenge. Connecticut Superior Court Judge William Clark found the absentee-ballot irregularities serious enough to undermine confidence in the election and ordered a new primary.
The subsequent investigation extended beyond the civil challenge.
On February 21, 2025, Connecticut prosecutors announced criminal charges against five individuals connected to alleged absentee-ballot misconduct during the 2023 election cycle.
Those charges must be distinguished from convictions. However, the court’s decision to order another primary was a concrete judicial response to documented problems with the election.
The Bridgeport controversy raises a significant question about ballot custody: when a completed ballot moves through the hands of campaign workers or other third parties, what measures are necessary to establish that its collection and return complied with the law?
North Carolina: A Congressional Election Overturned
The 2018 election in North Carolina’s Ninth Congressional District provides one of the clearest modern examples of organized absentee-ballot misconduct. Republican candidate Mark Harris initially led Democrat Dan McCready by 905 votes. However, investigators identified a coordinated operation involving political operative Leslie McCrae Dowless that unlawfully collected and handled absentee ballots. The evidence included testimony about improperly gathering ballots and other election-law violations.
Following a four-day evidentiary hearing, the bipartisan North Carolina State Board of Elections voted unanimously, 5–0, to order a new election.
This case is significant for two reasons. First, the intervention did not depend on proving that the misconduct changed the final numerical outcome. The Board concluded that the irregularities compromised the election sufficiently to require another vote.
Second, the misconduct involved an operation associated with a Republican campaign. That fact matters because election integrity should be evaluated by law and evidence, not by which party benefits. As a Christ-follower, I am committed to calling Balls & Strikes and letting the chip fall where it may.
An honest examination of election misconduct must condemn wrongdoing regardless of political affiliation. Source: North Carolina State Board of Elections, February 25, 2019.
Arizona: Ballot Collection Results in a Criminal Conviction
The controversy surrounding absentee-ballot collection isn't limited to election challenges or allegations.
In Arizona, former San Luis mayor Guillermina Fuentes pleaded guilty in June 2022 to felony ballot abuse arising from the August 2020 primary election. On October 13, 2022, the judge sentenced her to 30 days in jail and two years of supervised probation.
Arizona generally restricts who may collect another person’s early ballot to specified individuals, including family members, household members, and caregivers.
The Fuentes case shows that violating ballot-collection laws can result in criminal liability.
At the same time, it illustrates the importance of distinguishing unauthorized ballot collection from ballot alteration or fraudulent voting. A conviction for unlawfully collecting another person’s ballot does not, without additional evidence, establish that the ballot was changed or that the voter did not authorize the choices marked on it. Source: Arizona Attorney General, Election Case Dispositions.
Ballot Harvesting: Understanding the Disagreement
The term ballot harvesting commonly refers to the collection and return of completed absentee ballots by someone other than the voter. The more neutral term is third-party ballot collection.
The distinction matters because different states have adopted different rules.
Some permit relatives or caregivers to return ballots for voters. Others permit designated individuals to do so under additional restrictions. Still others impose tighter limits on third-party collection.
Supporters of broader collection rules argue that these arrangements help elderly voters, people with disabilities, people without reliable transportation, and citizens who otherwise have difficulty returning their ballots.
Critics question whether broad collection authority creates opportunities for improper pressure, interference, or mishandling after a ballot leaves the voter’s possession.
The incidents in Bridgeport, North Carolina, and Arizona establish that unlawful activity in this area is possible and has occurred. The broader policy dispute concerns how much authority third parties should have and what safeguards are sufficient.
A serious examination must also recognize that absentee-ballot systems may include signature verification, tracking, identification of authorized collectors, sealed return envelopes, and criminal penalties for misconduct.
New Jersey: Thousands Registered Despite Declaring Non-citizenship
While the preceding cases involve ballot collection and handling, the registration process represents another distinct dimension of election integrity.
On July 21, 2026, New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill disclosed that a software error in the state’s Motor Vehicle Commission improperly registered about 6,600 individuals who indicated they were not U.S. citizens.
The error occurred during former Governor Phil Murphy's administration, between June 2023 and June 2024.
The governor’s preliminary analysis initially reported that fewer than 400 newly registered individuals had voted. An August 19 update placed the figure at about 340 registered solely because of the software error, while identifying a separate group of about 220 voters whose earlier records required further eligibility review.
The state reported removing roughly 5,100 erroneous registrations and placing approximately 1,450 others in rejected status pending additional review.
The administration attributed the underlying problem to a serious software failure and initiated corrective measures.
The important distinction is that the individuals involved had indicated they were not citizens; the registration system nevertheless enrolled them. That does not prove that those individuals deliberately attempted to register unlawfully. But the administrative failure is unmistakable.
Pennsylvania: Another Warning About Registration Accuracy
Pennsylvania encountered related concerns years earlier.
State officials discovered problems involving noncitizens who were offered voter-registration opportunities during driver’s-license transactions. By 2018, state records had identified more than 11,000 instances in which an individual had obtained a driver’s license as a noncitizen and was also registered to vote. Nearly 2,000 of those individuals registered after becoming naturalized citizens.
The distinction is crucial: obtaining a driver’s license as a noncitizen does not mean a person remains a noncitizen when they later register to vote. Nevertheless, the Pennsylvania experience raised questions about voter-registration system design, eligibility checks, and the accuracy of government records.
These cases show why registration verification must be examined separately from the procedure used to cast a ballot. Source: The Washington Post, October 13, 2018, reporting on Pennsylvania’s motor-voter system.
The Founders and the Legitimacy of Elections
American constitutional government has always depended upon a legitimate relationship between the electorate and its representatives.
In Federalist No. 52, James Madison explained that representation requires elected officials to remain dependent on the people. He saw frequent elections as essential to maintaining that relationship.
Madison was addressing the structure of representative government rather than modern ballot-collection procedures. Nevertheless, the underlying constitutional concern remains relevant: the legitimacy of elected officials depends upon a functioning electoral system.
George Washington’s Farewell Address warned against the corrosive influence of excessive partisan loyalty, which could place factional interests above the public good.
Abraham Lincoln likewise saw the ballot as a way to resolve political disputes through constitutional government rather than violence.
None of these historical figures provided a blueprint for contemporary absentee voting. Instead, their writings reinforce the importance of lawful, credible elections and political institutions that retain public confidence.
A Biblical Examination of Election Integrity
Scripture repeatedly condemns dishonesty and the corruption of justice.
Proverbs 20:10 declares: “Unequal weights and unequal measures are both alike an abomination to the LORD.” (ESV)
Although the passage addresses dishonest commercial measurements, the moral principle concerns integrity in judgments and transactions.
Deuteronomy 16:19 condemns the perversion of justice and the acceptance of bribes, while
Romans 13:1–7 recognizes the responsibility of governing authorities within God’s ordained order.
These passages do not prescribe a particular modern voting procedure. They establish moral standards by which public officials, political operatives, and citizens should examine their conduct.
For Evangelicals, those obligations require equal concern for unlawful ballot manipulation and the wrongful exclusion of eligible voters.
The objective must be that qualified citizens can vote freely and that their lawful ballots are counted accurately, without intimidation, coercion, tampering, or improper interference.
What Should Election Accountability Require?
The documented incidents suggest several areas where election safeguards deserve continued scrutiny.
Election administrators should maintain accurate voter rolls and promptly investigate errors. States should have transparent procedures for investigating suspicious ballot collection and clear rules identifying who may handle another person’s ballot.
Election officials also need reliable systems to document receipt, safeguard ballots, detect duplicate submissions, and resolve questions about voter eligibility. Independent investigations and appropriate judicial remedies are essential when serious irregularities occur.
At the same time, safeguards should not become arbitrary obstacles that prevent lawful participation, especially among voters who depend upon absentee procedures because of disability, illness, military service, or overseas residence.
Military personnel and American diplomats illustrate the enduring need for absentee voting, but they are not the only citizens who may have compelling reasons to vote without appearing personally at a polling place.
The appropriate balance remains a legitimate subject of legislative and public debate.
Conclusion: Election Integrity Cannot Be Selective
Bridgeport, North Carolina, and Arizona demonstrate that unlawful absentee-ballot collection and handling are real phenomena with documented legal consequences.
New Jersey and Pennsylvania illustrate a different problem: weaknesses in voter-registration systems that can undermine confidence in eligibility verification.
Together, these incidents meaningfully test election administration.
They do not establish a nationwide pattern of widespread mail-ballot fraud, nor do they settle the policy dispute over whether broad mail voting should continue. They establish that safeguards must work in practice, violations must be investigated impartially, and government officials must remain accountable when procedures fail.
For Evangelicals, fidelity to the truth means refusing to excuse misconduct when it benefits a favored political organization and refusing to exaggerate misconduct when it benefits an opposing argument.
The legitimacy of a constitutional republic depends upon more than political victory. It depends upon elections in which lawful votes are protected, wrongdoing is addressed, and the rights of eligible citizens are faithfully preserved.
“You shall not pervert justice. You shall not show partiality.” — Deuteronomy 16:19 (ESV)
Christian citizens are responsible for demanding the same integrity from every political party, every election administrator, and every person entrusted with handling another citizen’s ballot.
Support This Ministry — Continue the Conversation
If you find my content God-glorifying and Man-edifying, the best way you can bless me as I humbly seek to bless you is to be an active participant. Active participants comment on the blog post — personal notes to me, while nice and encouraging, do not help my blog post grow — and share my content with their networks on platforms such as X and Facebook.
Thank you in advance to those who support my ministry.
Make no mistake: I see what I do as ministry. It is how and why I spend considerable time and energy producing blogs and YouTube videos. I do so to finish my fourth quarter strong for the name and majesty of Jesus Christ, my Lord & Savior, period, full stop, and end of story.
I invite you to continue engaging with Thinking Critically from an Evangelical Worldview through the following platforms:
Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/272928097325689
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@kylesrv1
As always, keep your hands to the plow and seek to serve for an Audience of One.
With fear & trembling,
Ricky V Kyles Sr. DEd.Min.
Thinking Critically from an Evangelical Worldview
Comments