California’s election quirks and ballot harvesting have created clear doubts about ballot integrity, sparking sharp criticism from conservatives who say the practices invite fraud, delay results, and weaken public confidence.

Los Angeles’ recent mayoral runoff, where Spencer Pratt failed to advance, put a spotlight on how California runs elections today. Many conservatives see the problem as structural: a system that leans heavily on mail ballots and outside collection that can be manipulated. Those mechanics change how campaigns are run and how results are perceived on election night and in the weeks that follow.

Ballot harvesting, the practice of third parties collecting absentee or mail-in ballots and delivering them for voters, is at the center of the debate. Critics point to disturbing reports: harvesters allegedly bribing homeless people for ballots, large paper dumps left in drop boxes, and ballots returned with smiley faces instead of proper signatures. Those anecdotes keep fueling calls for tightening rules and restoring trust in the process.

Scott Jennings went on CNN and did not mince words about the practice. He said ballot harvesting should be “punted into the sun,” expressing the blunt frustration many conservatives feel about a system that seems engineered to sow doubt. He’s correct.

“The system’s crazy,” Jennings said. “If you wanted to design a system to make people question the results every year, to make people wonder if there was any funny business going on, you would design it precisely as they have designed it in California.”

“But, as he pointed out, it’s legal today. I don’t think the ballot harvesting ought to be legal, I think vote by mail is inherently less secure than voting in person, counting all these ballots for weeks and weeks,” Jennings continued, “it does lead to a lot of questions. But do I think it’s fraudulent on its face that a Republican didn’t get more than 25 percent of the vote in a mayor’s race in LA? No, that’s not inherently fraudulent.”

https://x.com/ScottJenningsKY/status/2064169533309378919

Jennings also put the political landscape in plain terms, blaming long-term choices made by California voters and elites. “California routinely picks the literal worst people in the world to run the state and the cities. They have done that in this case, that does not seem to be a shocking outcome,” Jennings added. That line lands hard with conservatives who see a pattern of governance failures and electoral systems that reward turnout strategies over secure, transparent counting.

Time and mechanics matter. Jennings criticized the slow counting that stretches results out and the scattershot way ballots are processed, arguing that delays compound suspicion. He called out mass mail ballots sent unsolicited and the practice of relying on third parties to transport completed ballots as sources of risk. For many on the right, quicker, in-person counting and stricter chain-of-custody rules are common-sense answers.

Editor’s Note: The Democrats are doing everything in their power to undermine the integrity of our elections. Conservatives argue that preserving free and fair elections starts with common-sense reforms: banning paid or third-party ballot collection, tightening signature verification, and shortening the window for when ballots can be returned and tallied. Those measures are sold as ways to restore confidence without suppressing lawful voting.

The debate over how to balance access and security will not fade. California’s recent mess has turned abstract arguments into real anger, and voices like Jennings’ are pushing for decisive change. If the goal is to make election results credible and unquestionable, reforming the mechanics that enable ballot harvesting has to be part of the conversation.