Harris preparing for upcoming Trump debate in battleground Pennsylvania

(NEW YORK) — Much of the work of election campaigning goes on beneath the radar, where campaigns fight furiously to identify and register potential supporters and ensure their participation. Identifying likely voters, as such, is a moving target — but with absentee voting now beginning, an initial look reveals some intriguing patterns.

As previously reported, Kamala Harris leads Donald Trump by a slight 4 percentage points, 50-46%, among all adults and registered voters alike, and by 6 points, 52-46%, among likely voters in the latest ABC News/Ipsos poll. While those numbers are virtually identical, closer assessment shows movement to Harris in some groups when comparing all adults with likely voters — notably, those younger than 40, younger women in particular and Black people.

This analysis, produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates, finds that support for Harris goes from 54% of all adults younger than 40 to 64% of those identified as likely voters. Trump’s support, meanwhile, drops from 42% of adults in this age group to 33% of those likely to vote.

That shift is driven largely by women: Harris’ support increases from 60% of all women younger than 40 to 73% of those in this age group who are likely to vote. Trump sees a corresponding drop in support, from 35% among all women younger than 40 to 24% of those likely to vote.

Harris has 82% support among all Black people, rising to 93% among those who are likely voters. Trump, for his part, goes from 15% support among all Black people to 7% among those who are likely to vote. Harris also gains among liberals.

Countervailing movement in Trump’s direction doesn’t reach the level of statistical significance in any group. He has, for example, 52% support among all 50- to 64-year-olds (his best age group) and 56% among likely voters in this group. He goes from 85% to 88% among conservatives and from 52% to 54% among people who don’t have a four-year college degree.

But it’s not all about who receives more support in likely voter groups; it’s also about the size of those groups. Harris, for example, leads Trump by 23 points, 60-37%, among likely voters with four-year degrees — and, as such, benefits from the fact that this group makes up 45% of likely voters, vs. 35% of the general population.

Trump pushes back with his 10 point likely voter advantage among white people: they account for 61% of all adults but 71% of likely voters. He’s also aided by a lower prevalence of adults younger than 40; they make up 36% of all adults vs. 25% of those identified as likely to vote.

All told, it’s the combination of group sizes and preferences among groups that add up to keep the race a close one. Likely voters are defined here, in part, by people saying they are certain to vote. Motivating them actually to do so is what both campaigns are all about — starting now.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Election officials in Vancouver, Washington, are encouraging voters to check the status of their absentee ballots after an arsonist lit a ballot drop box on fire on Monday morning, damaging hundreds of ballots one week before Election Day.

While incidents of bad actors targeting ballot drop boxes are rare, experts told ABC News that the infrastructure surrounding absentee voting over the last decade has allowed election officials to be prepared for such incidents, through the use of 24-hour surveillance, fire suppression systems, and advanced ballot tracking software.

“These are the types of scenarios that election officials are staying up at night thinking about and have been thinking about for years and as part of their contingency planning,” said Claire Woodall-Vogg, the former executive director of the Milwaukee Election Commission. “While it’s very rare, it’s something that your election official has definitely thought about.”

Monday’s arson attack — which destroyed hundreds of ballots in Vancouver, Washington and three in Portland, Oregon — follows other incidents last week when ballots in Florida and Arizona were damaged in transit. Phoenix officials also arrested a man for arson last week after he allegedly lit a fire inside a USPS collection mailbox, destroying five ballots, and federal prosecutors in Florida charged another man last week for allegedly disposing of hundreds of pieces of election mail, including at least one ballot.

Here’s what to know about dealing with a ballot that’s been damaged.

How can voters find out if their ballot is impacted?

Voters who suspect their ballot might be impacted should contact their local election office to confirm if their ballot has been received, according to Brian Hinkle, senior voting policy researcher at the Movement Advancement Project.

Forty-seven states offer free ballot tracking services, allowing voters to confirm if their ballots have been mailed, received and counted. In Clark County, Washington — where Vancouver is located — voters can track their ballots through the VoteWA online tool.

“If they don’t receive a message that their ballot has been accepted for counting or even received by the county office to be accepted, they’re going to know something’s wrong,” said Steve Olsen, the president of BallotTrax, a software company whose ballot tracking service covers 28% of American voters.

When possible, election officials will also attempt to contact any voter they believe may be impacted by an incident to ensure their ballots are received or to help with a replacement ballot. Because the USPS recommends that voters mail their ballot by Oct. 29 to ensure it is received in time, some voters who request replacement ballots may need to vote in person rather than attempt to vote by mail again.

“There are systems in place in every state, with every legal system, to make sure that someone’s vote wouldn’t be taken away from them by such a criminal act,” said Woodall-Vogg.

How are election officials able to track individual ballots?

According to Olsen, election officials are able to track individual ballots by using “intelligent mail barcodes” that are embedded in envelopes for absentee ballots.

“Voters can track their ballots similarly to how they would track package delivery,” said Hinkle.

The barcodes — which are printed on the envelopes sent to voters, as well as the return envelopes for the ballots themselves — allow voters to track when their absentee ballot is mailed out, sent back, and received by election officials.

The tracking technology cannot see how a ballot has been filled out.

“Basically, what we’re doing is tracking the envelopes,” said Olsen. “We have no access to the ballot.”

BallotTrax works with election offices in 546 counties across the United States, covering 72 million voters and tracking over 240 million ballots. Created in 2009 to assist the city of Denver its elections, the company expanded tenfold in 2020 when large swaths of the country moved to mail-in voting as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Individual counties foot the bill for the BallotTrax service, which allows voters to opt-in to receive free updates about their ballot status, according to Olsen. Even if a voter does not opt in to tracking, election offices can still track ballots to identify issues.

Once a ballot makes it to a local election office and is removed from its return envelope, the ballot is no longer identifiable to a particular voter, preserving the anonymity of the vote.

“Once the ballot is pulled out of the envelope, where all of the identification marks are on it, it becomes anonymous at that point,” Olsen said.

What happens to damaged ballots?

If a ballot is damaged in transit but still recognizable, election officials can attempt to remake the ballot so that it can be fed into a voting machine. Bipartisan teams are involved in the process known as “ballot duplication.”

“The election workers will reconstruct the ballot to preserve the voters’ intent and translate it onto a clean new ballot,” Hinke said.

If a voter suspects their ballot might be damaged, they should contact their local election office to confirm if their ballot has been received or if they need to request a replacement ballot.

Are ballot drop boxes safe?

Despite the recent high-profile incidents, ballot drop boxes are still one of the most secure ways to cast a ballot, according to experts.

Most ballot drop boxes are tamper proof, bolted to the ground, under 24-hour surveillance, and include fire suppression systems. In most areas, the ballots themselves are picked up by two-person teams.

“We have a chain-of-custody system in place so that we know when we picked up the ballots and when we dropped them off, and all the ballots have barcodes on them, so that they’re secure,” said George Dreckmann, a longtime poll worker in Milwaukee. “So the drop box system is as safe as putting it in the mail, and in some cases, might even be safer.”

Drop boxes in many states have fire suppression systems that extinguish fires using powder rather than water, preventing further damage to the ballots. While the fire suppression system failed to work effectively during Monday’s arson attack in Clark County, election officials credited the fire suppression system with saving over 400 ballots in neighboring Multnomah County, Oregon.

“These boxes are very secure, and voters should be able to trust using them,” said Hinkle.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — After months of delays, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., is scheduled to hold a hearing Thursday that could determine the trajectory of former President Donald Trump’s election interference case.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan is expected to consider competing proposals for how the case should proceed following the Supreme Court’s recent ruling granting broad immunity for official acts taken by presidents.

Thursday’s hearing will mark the first time lawyers for Trump and special counsel Jack Smith set foot in Chutkan’s courtroom since last fall. Trump’s lawyers successfully delayed the case — which was originally set to go to trial in March — by appealing their claim of presidential immunity to the Supreme Court, whose ruling dramatically altered the legal landscape for the former president.

In a superseding indictment handed up last week, Smith attempted to revise his case against the former president by trimming out any allegations related to Trump’s official duties — which would be exempt from prosecution following the Supreme Court’s ruling — while keeping the same four criminal charges that Trump faced in his original indictment.

“The Defendant had no official responsibilities related to the certification proceeding, but he did have a personal interest as a candidate in being named the winner of the election,” the new indictment said.

Trump, who is not expected to appear at Thursday’s hearing in person, has directed his attorneys to plead not guilty on his behalf.

In addition to making minor changes to clarify Trump’s actions were undertaken in a private capacity, prosecutors removed the once-central allegation that Trump attempted to use the Department of Justice to support his false claims about election fraud. The indictment also removed details about Trump’s conduct while rioters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 — including refusing to call off the rioters — and some examples of advisers directly correcting Trump about his false claims of election fraud.

In a joint filing last week, prosecutors told Judge Chutkan that the revisions to the indictment ensured the Supreme Court’s protections for official acts would not apply to the new case, which distinguishes Trump’s “private electioneering activity” from “official action.”

Defense attorneys disagreed, arguing in the same filing that prosecutors wrongly included allegations that are subject to presidential immunity and that they misused a federal obstruction statute.

“We believe, and expect to demonstrate, that this case must end as a matter of law,” defense attorneys wrote.

While the Supreme Court’s decision broadly expanded the scope of presidential immunity — conferring absolute immunity for core presidential powers and a presumption of immunity for all other official acts — the court declined to fully apply its decision to the facts alleged in Trump’s indictment, and instead tasked Chutkan with conducting a “fact-specific analysis” to determine whether the former president’s conduct was official or unofficial.

Prosecutors and defense attorneys disagreed about the best way for Chutkan to proceed following the Supreme Court’s decision, with Smith urging Chutkan to address the immunity question “first and foremost” through a series of paper briefings, according to Friday’s joint filing.

Defense attorneys, in contrast, urged Chutkan to first consider whether the case should be thrown out on the grounds that Smith was illegally appointed — the same argument used by a federal judge in Florida to dismiss the former president’s classified documents case — before taking up the question of presidential immunity in a schedule that could stretch the proceedings into the new year.

Thursday’s hearing is likely to offer the first indication of how Chutkan plans to address the long-delayed case ahead of the November election and apply the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling.

Addressing reporters Wednesday on the topic of election interference, Attorney General Merrick Garland defended Smith’s decision to bring a superseding indictment two months ahead of the November election, saying that he is “quite confident” that Smith observed DOJ policies related to elections.

“I stand by the actions of the special counsel,” Garland said. “The superseding indictment is an effort to respond to the direct instructions of the Supreme Court as to how to effectuate a new indictment in an ongoing case.”

Trump, meanwhile, has continued to defend his efforts to overturn the election results.

“Whoever heard you get indicted for interfering with a presidential election where you have every right to do it?” Trump said in a Fox News interview that aired this past Sunday.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.