Staff Writer, Misleading.com David Ravo 4:45 PM 11/7/25
“Despite viral claims, our investigation finds that ballot envelope holes—while visually suspicious—serve legitimate accessibility and ballot-handling functions, not vote exposure or manipulation.“
I’ll admit it: when I first saw the viral posts about ballot envelope holes, I felt that familiar jolt of civic anxiety. A small, perfectly positioned hole in a vote-by-mail envelope—right over the “No” bubble on a contentious proposition? It looked too precise, too convenient. The internet agreed. Millions of views, thousands of reposts, and a flood of accusations followed. “They’re rigging it,” one post read. “Your vote shows through the envelope,” another warned. The implication was clear: someone could see how you voted and discard your ballot accordingly.
But after weeks of digging, interviewing election officials, reviewing design documents, and tracing the history of these envelope features, I’ve come to a different conclusion. The hole is real. The concern is understandable. But the conspiracy? Not so much.
Let’s start with the facts. In Sacramento County, California, vote-by-mail envelopes have three small holes. Two are punched near the signature line to help low-vision voters locate where to sign. The third is positioned on the opposite side of the envelope, and yes—it can sometimes align with a filled-in voting bubble depending on how the ballot is folded and inserted.
That last part is key. There are eight different ways a voter can insert their ballot into the envelope. Only two of those configurations might result in a voting mark being visible through the hole. And even then, the mark itself is ambiguous. You might see a filled-in oval, but you won’t see the “Yes” or “No” label next to it. That’s not just a design oversight—it’s intentional. Election officials confirmed that the ballot layout was tested to ensure that no identifying vote text would be visible through the envelope’s holes.
So why the hole at all? It’s not for spying—it’s for verifying. That third hole allows election workers to confirm that a ballot is actually inside the envelope before opening it. It’s a simple, low-tech way to prevent empty envelopes from slipping through the system. And it’s not new. Sacramento County has used this envelope design for years. L.A. County uses a similar setup. Ventura County’s holes are placed below the signature line. Orange County doesn’t use holes at all.
The confusion, it turns out, stems from a perfect storm of coincidence and context. The viral posts focused on Proposition 50, a redistricting measure that had already stirred partisan tensions. The “No” bubble on that proposition happened to align with the envelope hole in some cases. A video showed a voter tapping the envelope on a table, revealing the filled-in oval. The timing was impeccable. The visuals were compelling. And the internet did what it does best—amplified suspicion.
But suspicion isn’t evidence. And when we trace this issue back, we find that similar concerns have surfaced before. In 2020, during the height of mail-in voting due to the pandemic, some voters in Pennsylvania and Michigan raised alarms about envelope transparency. In those cases, the concern was about thin paper stock—not holes. Election offices responded by adjusting materials and issuing reassurances. In 2022, a few counties in Arizona faced scrutiny over ballot envelope design, but again, the issue was about signature placement and privacy—not vote visibility.
What makes the 2025 California case unique is the convergence of design, ballot layout, and political climate. The hole was always there. The ballot layout changed. And the political stakes were high. That’s how a mundane accessibility feature became the centerpiece of a viral conspiracy.
I don’t blame people for being skeptical. In an era of deepfakes, data breaches, and algorithmic manipulation, trust is hard-earned and easily lost. But skepticism should lead to inquiry—not assumption. That’s why we did this deep dive. That’s why we talked to election officials, accessibility advocates, and design experts. And that’s why we’re publishing this editorial.
Because here’s the truth: the hole is not misleading. It’s not a secret window into your vote. It’s not a partisan tool. It’s a design feature—one that serves legitimate purposes and has been vetted by multiple counties and accessibility organizations. Could it be improved? Sure. Transparency and trust demand constant refinement. But the idea that it was placed there to expose or discard votes? That doesn’t hold up.
If anything, this episode reveals how fragile our civic infrastructure can feel. A small design choice, misunderstood and miscontextualized, can spiral into mass distrust. That’s a lesson for election officials, designers, and voters alike. We need clearer communication. We need better design literacy. And we need to remember that not every coincidence is a conspiracy.
So next time you spot a hole in your ballot envelope, take a breath. Fold your ballot with care. Sign where indicated. And know this: your vote is protected—not perforated. At Misleading.com, we’re here to investigate what looks suspicious, clarify what’s confusing, and challenge what’s misleading. But more than anything, we’re here to listen. The conversations between our readers—your questions, your skepticism, your insights—are what drive us forward. Keep talking. We’ve got your back.
