A nonprofit, nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization, the National Vote at Home Institute is dedicated to ensuring the security of our elections and putting voters' needs first.
WHAT WE BELIEVE
Vote at home is a growing trend across red, blue and purple states because it is a time-tested and proven way to bolster the security of elections, improve voter engagement, and reduce election-related costs.
Amber McReynolds is a national leader in effective and innovative elections administration. The former director of elections for Denver, Amber is recognized across the country as a leading expert on election legislation and policy. Amber oversaw elections in Denver for 13 years. Under Amber's leadership, Denver became a national leader in election management and innovation. During Amber's tenure, Denver Elections earned awards from the Election Center, the National Association of Counties, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission and others for its innovative practices that increased the security, convenience and efficiency of elections.
Amber is an advisory board member of the MIT Election and Data Science Lab. She also currently serves on the Circle of Advisers for the Democracy Fund's Election Validation Project and previously served on The Council of State Government’s Overseas Voting Initiative. Amber holds a Masters of Science degree in Comparative Politics from the London School of Economics and a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Communications from the University of Illinois.
- Gerry Langeler, Director of Communications and Research Gerry serves as the director of communications and research for the National Vote at Home Institute. For more than 25 years, Gerry served as the managing director for OVP Venture Partners, a venture capital firm, and in that role he served on over 20 for-profit boards. Prior to that, he was co-founder of Mentor Graphics, one of the most successful software firms founded in the 1980's. An author of two books, Gerry is responsible for ensuring that Vote at Home serves as a comprehensive resource about the benefits of a vote-at-home system.
- Dylan Anderson, Chief Financial Officer Dylan serves as CFO for Vote at Home. As an executive with 25+ years in the field, Dylan has led multiple strategic functional areas of fast-growing organizations. He has been CFO of Urban Airship, Max-Viz, Chirpify, and Strands. Having worked in both public and private startup settings, Dylan has been a part of multiple IPO's and has helped drive over $127M in funding rounds of all stages. Dylan is a proud husband and father of 13-year old triplet girls and wants them to grow up in a proud democracy where all can vote simply and free.
- Michael Pfeifer, Chief Legal Counsel and Strategic Advisor Michael serves as chief counsel and strategic advisor to Vote at Home. As a public policy and political law attorney based in Washington, D.C., he brings experience in the election, government affairs, and coalition-building fields.
- Allie Conklin, Executive Coordinator Allie Conklin (she/her) serves as Executive Coordinator for the National Vote at Home Institute. Allie adds a fresh and ever-evolving millennial perspective to the Vote at Home team. Her professional experience stems from an early background in customer service across a wide array of industries, ultimately leading her to executive planning and advocacy. As a Colorado resident, Allie has seen the tremendous positive impact of voting at home locally and fiercely believes voting should be simple, and secure for all citizens.
- Jocelyn Benson, Michigan Secretary of State
- Kim Wyman, Washington Secretary of State
- Lori Augino, Elections Director, State of Washington
- Michelle Bishop, Voting Rights Specialist, National Disability Rights Network
- Nick Chedli-Carter, Managing Director, 2020 Vision Ventures
- Dana Chisnell, Co-Executive Director, Center for Civic Design
- Amy Cohen, Executive Director, National Association of State Elections Directors
- Brian Corley, Supervisor of Elections, Pasco County, FL
- Josh Douglas, Professor, University of Kentucky College of Law
- Tiana Epps-Johnson, Founder & Executive Director, Center for Technology and Civic Life
- Eric Fey, Director of Elections, St. Louis County, MO
- Bob Giles, Director, New Jersey Division of Elections
- Paul Gronke, Professor of Political Science, Reed College
- Leslie Hoffman, County Recorder, Yavapai County, AZ
- Neal Kelley, Registrar of Voters, Orange County, CA
- Jake Matilsky, Director, Center for Secure and Modern Elections
- Brad Moorhouse, Operations Manager, K&H Printing
- Jennifer Morrell, Consultant, Democracy Fund
- Elena Nuñez, Director of State Operations, Common Cause
- Spencer Overton, President, Joint Center for Political & Economic Studies
- Dan Pabon, Vice President, Sewald Hanfling Public Affairs
- Tammy Patrick, Senior Advisor, Democracy Fund
- Manny Rouvelas, Partner, K&L Gates
- Josh Silver, Founder & Director, Represent Us
- Charles Stewart III, Professor of Political Science, MIT
- Jen Tolentino, Director of Policy and Civic Tech, Rock the Vote
- Phil Keisling, Board Chair Phil Keisling has had a long career of public service, including serving as Oregon's secretary of state from 1991-99 and in the Oregon House of Representatives from 1989-91. He oversaw Oregon's first-in-the-nation move to full vote at home ballot delivery. Phil is currently the director of the Center for Public Service at the Hatfield School of Government at Portland State University.
- Steve Silberstein, Board Member Stephen M. Silberstein founded (in 1978), and served as the first President of, Innovative Interfaces Inc., the world's leading supplier of computer software for the automation of college and city libraries. Steve now devotes his time to philanthropic and civic matters. He serves on the board of the Marin County Employees' Retirement Association and National Popular Vote. Steve is a graduate of the University of California Berkeley with a B.A. in economics and a Master's degree in library science. He has also earned a Master's degree in econometrics from the University of Stockholm in Sweden.
- Brian Renfroe, Board Member Brian Renfroe was appointed NALC executive vice president by NALC President Fredric Rolando in December 2016. Renfroe had been elected NALC director of city delivery in 2014 by acclamation during the union’s 69th Biennial Convention in Philadelphia.
- Seth Flaxman, Board Member Seth is the CEO and Co-Founder of Democracy Works, a nonprofit improving civic engagement by modernizing the voter experience. He has been recognized as a Draper Richards Kaplan entrepreneur, Ashoka Fellow, and Bluhm Helfand Social Innovation Fellow for his accomplishments as a civic technology leader and social entrepreneur.
How is voting at home more secure than traditional elections?
Today’s election systems that include in-person voting options, which rely heavily on electronic voting machines present security challenges. In contrast, vote at home primarily relies on paper ballots, which enhances security and leaves a clear paper trail to help ensure the sanctity of election results. Many so-called secure computer systems that we depend on have been breached, and hackers are constantly innovating to expose new vulnerabilities. This ongoing cyber arms race can be won by primarily relying on time-tested paper ballots, counted and audited in a central location, with layers of checks and balances. In a vote-at-home system, envelopes are barcoded to match each individual voter and are sent securely through the U.S. Postal Service. Ballots are not forwarded if voters have moved without updating their registration information. Voter rolls are compared to constantly updated address databases. Envelopes containing ballots are returned with signatures that must be verified against the voter registration file –- after and if the signature is verified, the ballot is extracted from the envelope and the ballot proceeds to the counting process ensuring the secret ballot. These protections greatly reduce the possibility of voter fraud.
How is voting at home more secure than other types of elections?
Election systems that rely primarily on electronic voting machines in each precinct present security challenges. In contrast, vote at home primarily relies on paper ballots, which leave a clear paper trail and can be counted and audited at a central location with layers of checks and balances. In a vote-at-home system, envelopes are barcoded to match each individual voter and are sent to voters securely through the U.S. Postal Service. Ballots are not forwarded if voters have moved without updating their registration information. Voter rolls are compared to constantly updated address databases. Envelopes containing ballots are returned with signatures that must be verified against the voter registration file. After the signature is verified, the ballot is extracted from the envelope and the ballot proceeds to the counting process, ensuring secrecy. These protections greatly reduce the possibility of voter fraud or security breaches.
How does vote at home save money for states and localities?
Despite extra layers of meticulous security, states and localities with a comprehensive vote-at-home systems spend significantly less because of the reduced need for equipment and poll workers in each precinct. Colorado, which has the nation’s most comprehensive vote-at-home system, showed a savings of more than $6 or 40 percent per voter, according to a study by The Pew Research Center.
Why is vote at home more convenient?
Vote at home is designed specifically around voters’ needs. In a vote-at-home system, voters don’t have to take time off work, drive to a polling place or stand in long lines. Voters can spend as long as they want reviewing their ballot at home and researching their options. They don’t need to feel rushed, especially when ballots are long and complex and their lives are increasingly packed with competing demands. Voters with limited mobility or who lack transportation access don’t need to figure out how to get to the polling place.
How do people with disabilities that prevent them from completing a paper ballot or Americans living abroad vote in a comprehensive vote-at-home system?
For those who are unable to vote via paper ballots, a comprehensive vote-at-home system can adapt current best practices used for members of the military and other Americans living overseas. These have proven to be secure and will work well in these limited circumstances.
Does vote at home require voters to return their ballot by mail?
In a comprehensive vote-at-home system, voters primarily receive their ballots by mail but they can choose how to cast their vote. Voters can return their ballot by mail, take it to a secure drop-off location, or vote at a fully staffed vote center – it’s their choice. Voters who prefer the experience of casting their ballot in person can choose that option. Those with special needs requiring in-person attention, need to replace a lost or damaged ballot, or to update their registration, can go to a staffed vote center.
What is the process to verify the validity of each cast ballot in a vote-at-home system?
Vote at home builds on the time-tested absentee voting process and adds more options and extra layers of checks and balances to ensure the integrity of elections and the validity of each ballot. These measures include: (1) Risk-limiting audits, which allow elections officials to double check the vote count. Vote at home's centralized ballot collection facilitates these audits, and (2) tracking services that follow individual ballots as they are processed through the mail system, both outbound to voters and as the ballots are returned.
In a vote-at-home system, every ballot cast goes through a signature verification process. Election officials compare the voter’s signature on the return envelope with the signature on the voter’s registration card.
What’s the difference between a comprehensive vote-at-home system and absentee ballots?
While both comprehensive vote-at-home systems and absentee voting use the U.S. Postal Service to deliver ballots, there are important differences. In comprehensive vote-at- home states, voters are automatically sent ballots by mail. Voters in these states can then choose if and how to cast their ballot (send it back by mail, take it to a secure drop-off location, or vote at a fully staffed voting center). Traditional “absentee” systems require voters to apply to receive a ballot by mail. State laws vary dramatically, which can make absentee ballots easier or harder to access and to return, depending on the state. See our state map to find out what your state offers.
How common is vote at home in the United States?
Vote at home has significant acceptance in red, blue and purple states, with strong advocates from both sides of the aisle. Nearly half of states have provisions allowing certain elections to be conducted entirely by mail and several states allow it for all elections. In 2016, 33 million Americans cast ballots that were mailed to them –- roughly a quarter of all votes that year, according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. About 22 million of those votes came via traditional absentee ballots, and another 11 million were cast by voters living in states and counties with some form of vote at home. Since 2000, one quarter of a Billion mailed-out ballots have been cast nationally without significant issues.
How can I get more information?
Contact the National Vote at Home Institute at info@VoteAtHome.org.