It is no secret that President Donald Trump does not like mail-in voting.

“Tremendous potential for voter fraud, and for whatever reason, doesn’t work out well for Republicans,” he said of it on Twitter in 2020.

Despite pushback from officials across the country who have maintained the practice is safe and secure — and that it maximizes the number of people who participate in elections — he has focused on mail-in ballots as a means to steal elections.

Now the president wants to eliminate the use of not only mail-in ballots but another major way votes are cast in America. In a social media post Monday, he urged elimination of voting machines.

He promised to end the use of both with an executive order. But presidential powers are fairly limited as it pertains to elections, which are primarily the purview of states.

Whether you agree with Trump’s position on elections and his proposal for major changes or not, an abrupt change poses two real problems. As with many things in politics, it comes down to two things: power and money.

First, let’s look at the power. The U.S. Constitution grants that authority to states, with some power invested in Congress, regarding regulation. Pennsylvania, in turn, invests the responsibility for the on-the-ground operation of elections in its 67 counties.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro has made it clear the Constitution can’t be changed with an executive order.

That leads us to money. Eliminating mail-in voting might not be costly, although it would effectively waste years of time and effort in instituting the process.

What is a cost are the voting machines. Pennsylvania counties spent years evaluating new systems, putting them into play between 2018 and 2020 and training officials in their use.

A small amount of federal money was made available for some of the costs. Pennsylvania borrowed $90 million through a bond issue that was then passed out via grants. However, that only covered part of the expense. The full freight fell to counties.

So if voting machines were eliminated, what would the alternative be and who would pay the bill?

One thing Trump’s proposal would be sure to eliminate would be the endless roller coaster of lawsuits regarding dated envelopes for Pennsylvania mail-in ballots. However, that seems almost guaranteed to be replaced by a new variety of court appearances.

And all of those lawsuits have their own costs. So would the personnel costs of counting ballots without the use of voting machines, and those counts would likely happen multiple times as narrow margins and challenges trigger recounts.

The state — and the counties that already heft too many unfunded mandates — would be better served by making strides in finding and fixing the problems that exist in election operations rather than gutting the system and starting from scratch — especially as the midterm elections are just months away.

Copyright ©2025— Trib Total Media, LLC (TribLIVE.com)