The locked down election of 2020 provided a great proof of concept in regards to methods intended to make voting more accessible and convenient.

Early voting and mail-in voting are valuable tools, particularly during a period of crisis such as we experienced last election, and we’re glad those measures were codified into law going forward to ease the burden on citizens to be able to vote in a way that works for their individual lives — democracy is the better for it.

However, with all new improvements, there is always room for some fine tuning going forward.

For example, we would argue that a 20-day window for early voting is excessive.

For one, it is an unnecessary financial burden to force cities and towns to staff polling workers at a central location for nearly a month, where a few people here and there might trickle in during those first couple weeks before the majority of people utilize the services closer to an election. In Warwick, for example, early voting costs the city around $420 a day to staff four polling workers. Multiply that by 20 and you’ve got a $8,400 hit that doesn’t necessarily need to happen.

Second, there is the potential that such a large period of voting ahead of an actual election could be an unfair benefit to incumbents, considering challengers could theoretically sway voters after they have already cast a vote for the incumbent, perhaps thinking prematurely that their mind was made up. An incumbent could have a catastrophic gaffe at a late point in the campaign, but since many of their voters who might have changed their mind had already voted, it would soften the blow. It’s a hypothetical theory, admittedly, but seems possible nonetheless.

We see no reason why the window for early voting couldn’t be cut in half, to 10 days, which would still provide ample time for those unable to vote on Election Day and preserve the benefits we have found as a result of allowing for early voting, without the unnecessary costs and potential for unfair advantages.