Chuck Wieland’s recent letter, “An Ounce of Prevention,” contains plenty of political insults: “Trump the Whiner,” “Art of the Squeal,” and a “voter suppression bill.” That language may entertain readers who already agree with him, but sarcasm is not evidence.
The serious questions are these: Should citizenship be verified when someone registers to vote? Should voters provide identification? Are mail-in ballots adequately protected against fraud?
These are separate issues. Noncitizen voting concerns eligibility. Mail-ballot fraud concerns identity misuse, improper collection, coercion or fraudulent submission. Neither should be dismissed merely because documented cases are uncommon.
Only citizens may vote in federal elections. Yet the federal registration form generally relies on applicants checking a citizenship box and signing an affirmation. Supporters of the SAVE America Act ask a fair question: Why should citizenship — the fundamental qualification for voting — be assumed when it can be verified?
Evidence does not show that millions of non-citizens voted or that such votes changed the 2020 presidential result. But “rare” does not mean “nonexistent.” Michigan identified 15 apparent non-citizens who cast ballots in 2024 and referred 13 cases for possible prosecution. A North Carolina audit after 2016 found 41 legally present non-citizens who had voted. The numbers are small, but documented.
Mail-ballot fraud is also real and documented.
In Iowa, a federal jury convicted Kim Phuong Taylor on 52 election-related charges for fraudulently generating absentee votes during her husband’s 2020 campaigns. In Atlantic City, a political organizer admitted procuring, casting and submitting fraudulent mail ballots in 2022 and received a two-year federal sentence. In Bridgeport, Connecticut, a judge ordered a new 2023 Democratic mayoral primary after evidence showed serious absentee-ballot irregularities. The candidates were separated by only 251 votes.
These cases do not prove that mail ballots changed the 2020 presidential election. They prove something more limited but still important: Mail-ballot fraud is not imaginary and can threaten a close election.
Wieland cites voting-machine defamation settlements. Those settlements matter, but they do not decide whether citizenship should be verified or mail voting needs safeguards. One dispute about machines does not settle every election-security question.
Mail voting creates opportunities for ballots to be requested under another identity, intercepted, collected improperly, influenced or mishandled outside official custody. That does not make every mailed ballot fraudulent. It means every ballot deserves protection. A responsible system should verify citizenship and identity, restrict unauthorized collection, document the chain of custody, prevent duplicate voting and preserve paper ballots for audits.
Opponents reasonably ask how document requirements would affect elderly, naturalized, disabled or low-income citizens. A fair law should provide identification without charge, help citizens obtain documents, allow reasonable alternatives, protect eligible voters from mistaken removal and offer provisional ballots while questions are resolved.
Election security and voter access do not have to be enemies. Eligible citizens should be helped to vote, while ineligible votes and fraudulent ballots should be stopped.
The answer is not “Trust Trump.” It is not “Trust California.” It is not even “Trust Chuck or Rick.”
Verify citizenship. Verify identity. Protect mail ballots. Audit the count. Then show the public the evidence.
That is an ounce of prevention worthy of a constitutional republic.