By Matt Underwood It seems there’s a rather interesting turn of events unfolding, where a prominent conservative organization, Turning Point USA, and its political arm, Turning Point Action, are reportedly engaging in a practice that their leaders have spent years vehemently criticizing and attempting to outlaw: “ballot harvesting.” This practice involves collecting and delivering absentee ballots from voters directly to election officials, a method often employed by Democratic campaigns, particularly in Latino communities. The irony here is quite striking, as it appears the very tactics they’ve decried as a pathway to election fraud are now being utilized by their own operatives.
The focus of this particular operation is the April 7th Salt River Project (SRP) board election. Reports indicate that Turning Point USA’s political arm is actively running a door-to-door ballot collection effort. This involves volunteers going directly to homeowners within the SRP’s service area to gather completed ballots. Some social media posts from individuals associated with this effort have been shared, boasting about the number of ballots collected. One post proudly stated, “Team Salt River brought in 30 ballots today,” accompanied by photos of volunteers holding envelopes that appear to contain completed ballots. Another shared, “8 voters. 8 ballots. All people I personally registered last month.” Even Tyler Bowyer, the COO of Turning Point Action, has reportedly bragged about these operations, referring to them as “super chaser” events.
This engagement in ballot collection stands in stark contrast to the public pronouncements and activism of Turning Point USA and its leaders, including the late Charlie Kirk. For years, figures within the organization have actively campaigned against ballot collection, framing it as a nefarious scheme used to manipulate election outcomes. They have frequently amplified claims, often without substantial evidence, that this practice is a vector for cheating or stealing elections. A notable example of this was their promotion of the film “2000 Mules,” which purported to prove widespread fraud through ballot collection, despite the film’s claims being thoroughly debunked, even by its own creator. Kirk himself was featured in this film and promoted its dubious allegations to his substantial audience.
The legal landscape around ballot collection is also worth noting. In Arizona, where this SRP election is taking place, third parties collecting ballots from voters and delivering them to election officials has been illegal since 2016. This legal backdrop makes Turning Point USA’s alleged actions all the more significant. The very principle they’ve pushed – that such practices should be prosecuted – is now being applied to their own operations.
This situation brings to the forefront a broader discussion about hypocrisy in politics. The observation is made that for some political actors, hypocrisy isn’t an oversight but a deliberate strategy, a tool to assert dominance and signal that rules are not meant to apply equally. It’s suggested that the ability to enjoy privileges or engage in activities that are denied to others is a core aspect of this mindset, effectively making hypocrisy a virtue rather than a flaw. When these same individuals or organizations are caught employing the very tactics they condemn, it raises questions about their sincerity and the underlying motivations behind their public stances.
Furthermore, the historical context of ballot collection and accusations of election manipulation in the United States is complex. There have been instances, including in North Carolina, where Republican operatives have faced charges or indictments related to ballot harvesting. This suggests that the practice, and the controversy surrounding it, is not confined to one side of the political spectrum, though the current situation with Turning Point USA highlights a particularly pointed instance of ideological reversal. The underlying concern, for many, is not just the act itself but the perceived deliberate inconsistency in applying principles based on political expediency. The idea that “every allegation is a confession” appears to resonate, suggesting that accusations leveled against others might, in fact, be a projection of their own intended or actual behaviors.
Ultimately, this situation with Turning Point USA and their involvement in ballot collection presents a compelling case study in political strategy and ideological consistency. It raises significant questions about the rhetoric used to demonize certain practices and the willingness to engage in those same practices when it suits their political objectives. The stark contrast between their long-standing public condemnation of “ballot harvesting” and their current reported involvement in such an operation is difficult to overlook and invites scrutiny into the motivations and sincerity of their political activism.