CNN commentator Scott Jennings is sounding the alarm on universal mail-in voting after Los Angeles's mayoral primary dragged on for days, with late-arriving ballots overturning an initial lead for conservative favorite Spencer Pratt and handing the win to progressive Nithya Raman. Jennings argues that the system's built-in delays are undermining public confidence in election outcomes.
Returns from Election Day a week ago showed Pratt ahead, but as mail ballots trickled in—overwhelmingly for Raman—the race flipped. The pattern is familiar in California, where universal mail-in voting is the norm, and critics say it creates a window for suspicion. Jennings, appearing on CNN, stated flatly: “It is absurd to still be counting all the mail-in ballots days and weeks after Election Day. We should know who won, day of.”
Jennings's remarks tap into a broader conservative frustration. Many Republicans, following Donald Trump's lead, voted in person, while Democrats—particularly in deep-blue California—often mail their ballots late. In this race, undecided voters may have waited until the last minute amid a chaotic governor's contest that saw Eric Swalwell drop out and contenders like Tom Steyer, Katie Porter, and eventual finalist Xavier Becerra jockey for attention.
The core issue, Jennings argues, is not about sore losers but about structural integrity. Universal mail-in voting, practiced in only a handful of states, sends ballots to every registered voter by default. That differs from partial systems where voters must request a ballot—a reasonable option for those who need it. But mailing millions of ballots unsolicited, Jennings says, invites questions: “Who fills them out? Who turns them in? You just can’t blame people for asking these questions.”
Those questions have real consequences. A recent poll showed Texas voters evenly split on election integrity versus ballot access, reflecting a national divide. In California, the slow count has already sparked claims of irregularities, with some conservatives echoing the kind of sore-loser-ism that Jennings warns against. He urges Pratt supporters to avoid that trap, noting that Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Donald Trump all fell into it after their losses.
The issue is particularly acute in Los Angeles, where the mayoral race has become a flashpoint. As late Democratic ballots propelled Raman past Pratt, the delay fed a narrative of systemic distrust. Jennings's call to end ballot harvesting—the practice of collecting and submitting mail ballots en masse—resonates with those who see it as a loophole vulnerable to abuse.
Jennings's critique aligns with a broader push for reform. The Supreme Court is poised to curb post-election mail ballot counting, a move that could reshape California's system. Meanwhile, Vance has cast doubt on the LA primary, alleging irregularities that further erode trust.
For Jennings, the fix is straightforward: return to a system where results are known on Election Day. Without that, he warns, half the country will continue to doubt the legitimacy of outcomes—a threat to democratic stability that transcends partisan grievances.
