By the Coral Gables Gazette editorial board

Mail-only elections leave little margin for error. Unlike traditional Election Day voting, where mistakes can often be corrected in real time, a mail ballot either arrives properly completed and on time — or it does not count at all. That reality gives Coral Gables’ newly approved voter education campaign both urgency and consequence.

The City Commission’s unanimous vote to fund and launch a voter education effort ahead of next spring’s mail-only referendum reflects an important civic responsibility. Educating voters on how to participate — deadlines, signatures, addresses, and delivery rules — is not advocacy. It is the minimum requirement for a functioning election conducted entirely by mail.

The distinction matters. Throughout the Dec. 9 discussion, city officials drew a clear line between explaining how to vote and influencing how residents vote. That boundary protects public trust and aligns with legal constraints on the use of city resources. It also reflects a deeper truth about modern elections: process clarity now determines whether participation even reaches the counting stage.

Mail voting shifts responsibility from polling places to kitchen tables. Voters must complete ballots correctly, meet deadlines without reminders from poll workers, and navigate delivery logistics that allow no local drop-off option. As the city clerk explained, some errors — missing names, addresses, or zip codes — cannot be cured after submission. A ballot with those defects disappears from the tally, regardless of intent.

That reality makes voter education essential, even if it does not guarantee engagement. As the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. Cities cannot compel participation. They can, however, ensure that residents who choose to vote understand exactly how to do so successfully.

Recent history underscores the challenge. In Coral Gables’ last biennial election this past April, fewer than 30 percent of registered voters cast ballots — despite more than $1 million spent collectively by candidates and significant spending by political committees. That outcome reflects broader civic patterns, not a lack of campaign messaging. It also illustrates why voter education should be evaluated on a different standard than turnout.

The purpose of this effort should be precision.

Mail-only elections demand repetition, clarity, and restraint. Deadlines must be unmistakable. Instructions must be simple. Communication must be multilingual and sustained. Voters must understand that mailing a ballot on the final day is not the same as meeting a postmark deadline, and that waiting carries risk. None of this tells voters what to think. It tells them how the system works.

The city’s plan — including instructional videos, mailers, a centralized website and coordination with the county elections supervisor — reflects an understanding of that obligation. It also acknowledges a structural reality: once a referendum appears on a ballot, the city’s role shifts from policymaker to administrator of democratic access.

Mail-only elections can work. Florida’s vote-by-mail system has functioned effectively at scale. But success depends on preparation (and the postal service). Errors compound quietly. Confusion does not announce itself. By the time results are certified, it is too late to fix what voters did not know.

Voter education will not solve every civic challenge. It will not guarantee turnout. It will not resolve debate. What it can do — and must do — is ensure that every resident who chooses to participate has a fair chance to be counted.

That is not politics. That is process. And in a mail-only election, process is the election.