And yet, Mr. Trump continues to claim, without evidence, that “Democrats are also trying to rig the election by sending out tens of millions of mail-in ballots” or that “they’re not sending them to Republican neighborhoods.”
Nevada and its election system, in particular, has become a target, particularly after Gov. Steve Sisolak blocked plans for the Trump campaign to hold an outdoor rally in the state. Mr. Trump has falsely claimed 14 times that Nevada officials “don’t even want verification of the signature” (they do) and seven times that Mr. Sisolak was “in charge of ballots” and therefore “can rig the election” (the Republican secretary of state supervises elections, and local officials handle the ballots).
The president’s unfounded suspicions that mail-in voting harms Republicans have been further amplified online with viral posts claiming that a “Trump Landslide Will Be Flipped By Mail-In Votes Emerging A Week After Election Day.” These claims were based on misconstruing the findings of a Democratic data and analytics firm. The firm’s chief executive had simply warned that in-person voting by Republicans would create a “mirage” of Mr. Trump leading on election night, but that results could change once “every legitimate vote is tallied.”
But there was this one time.…
With election officials running thousands of local, state and national elections, mistakes are bound to happen. These isolated incidents, however, are not evidence of widespread wrongdoing. But they can be taken out of context.
In Michigan, more than 400 ballots listed the wrong person as Mr. Trump’s running mate. The issue was fixed and alerted within two hours, and officials said the state would still accept any affected ballots that were returned. There is no evidence that the misprint was widespread or that the Democratic secretary of state had “purposely” printed the wrong name, as Mr. Trump claimed.
In another instance of error, Mecklenburg County, N.C., accidentally sent roughly 500 voters two ballots. Election officials said the mistake was unlikely to lead to double voting, as the ballots contained specific codes for each individual voter.