Rep. Eric Swalwell ignited a new election integrity debate after declaring during a CNN interview that Americans should be allowed to vote by phone, arguing it would “max out democracy” and expand voter convenience. The California Democrat—who just launched his 2026 gubernatorial campaign—compared phone-based voting to online banking, insisting that if financial institutions can ensure digital security, elections should be able to do the same. Swalwell framed the proposal as a way for California to leap ahead of red states like Georgia, which he claims have restricted access to the ballot.

But critics say the comparison is misleading and dangerously naive. Banks can reverse fraudulent transactions—elections cannot reverse fraudulent votes. Cybersecurity experts have repeatedly warned that phone-based voting is uniquely vulnerable to hacking, vote manipulation, foreign interference, and identity fraud. Even the most advanced encryption cannot guarantee ballot secrecy, voter authentication, or system transparency. For millions of Americans already skeptical of election integrity, introducing smartphones into the process would only deepen distrust.

Swalwell’s push also comes at a time when Democrats continue resisting voter ID laws, signature verification upgrades, and post-election audits—reforms widely supported by the public. President Donald Trump and his allies have argued that safeguarding the vote should come before expanding new voting methods, calling mail-in and electronic systems already ripe for exploitation. Many see Swalwell’s proposal not as a modernization effort, but as another attempt to loosen election guardrails for political advantage.

As Swalwell begins his gubernatorial run, his phone-voting pitch may play well among progressive activists, but it raises serious national security, transparency, and accountability concerns. Americans deserve confidence that every legal vote counts—and only legal votes count. Expanding technology without guaranteeing integrity risks undermining the very democracy Swalwell claims to “max out.” For voters who believe elections should be secure, auditable, and trustworthy, the answer remains simple: protect the ballot box before reinventing it.