There are 69 days until Election Day on Tuesday, Nov. 5.

But if Americans vote like they did in the last two election cycles, most of them will have already cast a ballot before the big day.

Early voting starts as soon as Sept. 6 for eligible voters, with seven battleground states sending out ballots to at least some voters the same month.

It makes the next few months less a countdown to Election Day, and more the beginning of ‘election season.’

States have long allowed at least some Americans to vote early, like members of the military or people with illnesses. 

In some states, almost every voter casts a ballot by mail.

Many states expanded eligibility in 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic made it riskier to vote in-person.

That year, the Fox News Voter Analysis found that 71% of voters cast their ballots before Election Day, with 30% voting early in-person and 41% voting by mail.

Early voting remained popular in the midterms, with 57% of voters casting a ballot before Election Day.

Elections officials stress that voting early is safe and secure. Recounts, investigations and lawsuits filed after the 2020 election did not reveal evidence of widespread fraud or corruption. 

The difference between ‘early in-person’ and ‘mail’ or ‘absentee’ voting.

There are a few ways to vote before Election Day.

The first is , where a voter casts a regular ballot in-person at a voting center before Election Day.

The second is , where the process and eligibility varies by state.

Eight states vote mostly by mail, including California, Colorado, Nevada and Utah. Registered voters receive ballots and send them back.

Most states allow any registered voter to request a mail ballot and send it back. This is also called mail voting, or sometimes absentee voting. Depending on the state, voters can return their ballot by mail, at a drop box, and/or at an office or facility that accepts mail ballots.

In 14 states, voters must have an excuse to vote by mail, ranging from illness, age, work hours or if a voter is out of their home county on Election Day.

States process and tabulate ballots at different times. Some states don’t begin counting ballots until election night, which delays the release of results.

Voting begins on Sept. 6 in North Carolina, with seven more battleground states starting that month

This list of early voting dates is for guidance only. For comprehensive and up-to-date information on voter eligibility, processes and deadlines, go to Vote.gov and your state’s elections website.

The first voters to be sent absentee ballots will be in North Carolina, which begins mailing out ballots for eligible voters on Sept. 6.

Seven more battleground states open up early voting the same month, including Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan and Nevada.

September deadlines

In-person early voting in bold.

Sept. 6

North Carolina – Absentee ballots sent to voters

Sept. 16

Pennsylvania – Mail-in ballots sent to voters

Sept. 17

Georgia – Absentee ballots sent to military & overseas

Sept. 19

Wisconsin – Absentee ballots sent

Sept. 20

Arkansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Utah, Wyoming – Absentee ballots sent to military & overseas
Minnesota, South Dakota – In-person absentee voting begins
Virginia – In-person early voting begins
Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia – Absentee ballots sent

Sept. 21

Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, Washington – Absentee ballots sent to military & overseas
Indiana, New Mexico – Absentee ballots sent
Maryland, New Jersey – Mail-in ballots sent

Sept. 23

Mississippi – In-person absentee voting begins & absentee ballots sent
Oregon, Vermont – Absentee ballots sent

Sept. 26

Illinois – In-person early voting begins 
Michigan – Absentee ballots sent
Florida, Nevada – Mail-in ballots sent
North Dakota – Absentee & mail-in ballots sent

Sept. 30

Nebraska – Mail-in ballots sent

Oct. 4

Connecticut – Absentee ballots sent

Oct. 6

Michigan – In-person early voting begins 
Maine – In-person absentee voting begins & mail ballots sent
California – In-person absentee voting begins & mail ballots sent
Montana – In-person absentee voting begins
Nebraska – In-person early voting begins 
Georgia – Absentee ballots sent
Massachusetts – Mail-in ballots sent

Oct. 8

California – Ballot drop-offs open
New Mexico, Ohio – In-person absentee voting begins
Indiana – In-person early voting begins
Wyoming – In-person absentee voting begins & absentee ballots sent

Oct. 9

Arizona – In-person early voting begins & mail ballots sent

Oct. 11

Colorado – Mail-in ballots sent
Arkansas, Alaska – Absentee ballots sent

Oct. 15

Georgia – In-person early voting begins
Utah – Mail-in ballots sent

Oct. 16

Rhode Island, Kansas, Tennessee – In-person early voting begins
Iowa – In-person absentee voting begins
Oregon, Nevada – Mail-in ballots sent

Oct. 17

North Carolina – In-person early voting begins 

Oct. 18

Washington, Louisiana – In-person early voting begins
Hawaii – Mail-in ballots sent

Oct. 19

Nevada, Massachusetts – In-person early voting begins 
Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Idaho, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas – In-person early voting begins 
Colorado – Ballot drop-offs open

Oct. 22

Hawaii, Utah – In-person early voting begins 
Missouri, Wisconsin – In-person absentee voting begins

Oct. 23

West Virginia – In-person early voting begins

Oct. 24

Maryland – In-person early voting begins

Oct. 25

Delaware – In-person early voting begins

Oct. 26

Michigan, Florida, New Jersey, New York – In-person early voting begins 

Oct. 30

Oklahoma – In-person early voting begins 

Oct. 31

Kentucky – In-person absentee voting begins

Mark Zuckerberg just had to eat several large helpings of crow.

And some minor political flap wasn’t on the menu. 

As the Wall Street Journal first reported, the CEO of Facebook and Meta expressed regret on such weighty matters as government-induced censorship and free speech.

It’s good for Zuck to accept some degree of responsibility, but it’s kinda too late. By about three years.

The admissions came in a letter to Jim Jordan, the House Judiciary chairman, and is a major win for the Republicans. The onetime Harvard whiz kid usually digs in defensively, with vague promises of future reform.

After the pandemic hit, Zuckerberg wrote, senior Biden administration and White House officials had ‘repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain COVID-19 content, including humor and satire, and expressed a lot of frustration with our teams when we didn’t agree.’

That is an important distinction. The Biden pressure tactics didn’t always work. Facebook could, and sometimes did, say no. But much of the time, the giant social media site just caved.

And Facebook had a publicly proclaimed agenda: prodding millions of people to take Covid vaccines.

Zuckerberg said the administration pressure ‘was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it.’ His company ‘made some choices that, with the benefit of hindsight and new information, we wouldn’t make today…I feel strongly that we should not compromise our content standards due to pressure from any administration in either direction — and we’re ready to push back if something like this happens again.’

I don’t know: How confident are you that Facebook would publicly push back on some hot-button issue today?

A Biden White House spokesman, in lawyerly language that didn’t quite respond to Zuck’s accusations, said it had ‘encouraged responsible actions to protect public health and safety…Our position has been clear and consistent: we believe tech companies and other private actors should take into account the effects their actions have on the American people, while making independent choices about the information they present.’

Two years ago, a Free Press reporter who examined the ‘Twitter Files’ found that both the Trump and the Biden administrations ‘directly pressed Twitter executives to moderate the platform’s pandemic content according to their wishes.’

One document mentioned the White House chief technology officer, who ‘led the Trump administration’s calls for help from the tech companies to combat misinformation.’

The piece also said that Facebook, Google and Microsoft joined in ‘weekly’ calls with the Trump officials to talk about ‘general trends’ at the companies. Sounds euphemistic.

But Trump was also a victim. Just four hours after a 2020 campaign video was posted and drew a half million views, Facebook took it down, saying it violated the social network’s policy against Covid misinformation. 

The Trump camp had posted a clip from a Fox interview in which the president said children were ‘virtually immune’ from the coronavirus. Most medical experts disagreed at the time.

‘They’ve got much stronger immune systems than we do somehow for this,’ Trump said. ‘They don’t have a problem. They just don’t have a problem.’

A White House spokeswoman at the time called the move ‘another display of Silicon Valley’s flagrant bias against this president, where the rules are only enforced in one direction.’

Zuckerberg, for his part, also made news on the Hunter Biden laptop.

He told Jordan that Meta ‘shouldn’t have demoted’ a New York Post story about the laptop shortly before the 2020 election. 

Let me stop right there. Demoted is tech jargon for suppressing a story, blatantly burying it so that few if any users see it. This happened after Twitter, as you’ll recall, totally blocked the Post story.

Trump allies got access to the laptop from the Delaware computer shop owner, at a time when Biden was the Democratic nominee. Dozens of former intelligence officials signed a letter dismissing the laptop story as fake, and in a debate with Trump, Biden said the release of the emails had ‘all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.’

Zuckerberg writes: ‘It’s since been made clear that the reporting was not Russian disinformation, and in retrospect, we shouldn’t have demoted the story.’

Right. And it took the New York Times and Washington Post another year and a half to ‘authenticate’ the laptop’s contents.

In the 2020 election, Zuck funded nonprofits to set up Covid-era voting booths and equipment sorting mail-in ballots, which Republicans, calling it ‘Zuckerbucks,’ argued with some justification that this unfairly benefited Democratic areas. Zuckerberg now says he won’t repeat the effort this time.

Trump said in a posting last month: ‘All I can say is that if I’m elected president, we will pursue Election Fraudsters at levels never seen before, and they will be sent to prison for long periods of time. We already know who you are. DON’T DO IT! ZUCKERBUCKS, be careful!’

In his Mar-a-Lago interview with me, Trump made his distaste for Facebook quite clear, in fact using it to justify dropping his opposition to banning TikTok, saying that would only help Zuckerberg’s company.

Now some may dismiss all this as old news, given that the events date to the pandemic and the last election. But it raises fundamental questions that continue to reverberate today, when Elon Musk’s endorsement of Trump has prompted many liberals to leave or largely abandon X and join Threads, the Zuckerberg copycat site.

Politicians and special interests routinely lobby the federal government. But when they use their considerable clout to pressure tech giants – secretly, behind closed doors, shielded from the public – it is deeply troubling.

A Middle East policy expert who helped get the Iran nuclear deal signed into law is anticipating that Vice President Kamala Harris would seek a similar agreement with Tehran if she wins the White House.

‘The idea that the old nuclear deal can just be restarted, we’re past that. Iran’s progress on its nuclear program has exceeded the previous limitations… a firm, verifiable nuclear deal that corrals and runs the ability to accelerate the nuclear weapon, that has to be the goal,’ said Joel Rubin, a Democratic strategist and former Obama administration deputy assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs to the House.

‘The best way to do that is a nuclear agreement that’s firm and verified… Any realistic president would go for that. And that’s Kamala Harris, she’s a realistic president-to-be.’

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, was signed in 2015 by Iran, members of the United Nations National Security Council, and the European Union. 

Republicans and some moderate Democrats opposed the agreement, arguing it was too weak to successfully restrain the Islamic regime’s nuclear aspirations. Iran hawks in the U.S. also argued the lifting of sanctions on Iran would only serve to embolden its anti-Western leaders.

President Trump pulled out of the agreement in 2018.

But former President Barack Obama’s allies have maintained it was a necessary compromise to limit the threat from Iran’s nuclear capabilities and a sure way to bring Tehran to the negotiating table.

‘There has to be a way to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions. If they were to get a nuclear weapon, that would be a threat to the region and to the world, including, of course, the United States. But it is not going to be an easy way forward,’ Rubin said. 

Harris said during her short-lived 2020 presidential campaign that she would rejoin the Iran deal if elected president. 

While It’s unclear whether she’s retained that stance in her 2024 campaign platform, it could expose her to GOP-led accusations of emboldening Iran at a time when the country is already growing more aggressive toward the U.S. and its allies.

Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, suggested on Tuesday that Tehran could rejoin talks on a nuclear agreement, according to The Associated Press. Khamenei said there was ‘no harm’ in interacting with an ‘enemy’ in ‘certain situations.’

A State Department spokesperson told RadioFreeEurope, however, that rejoining the agreement ‘is not on the table right now.’

Fox News Digital reached out to the Harris campaign for comment.

A current top campaign adviser for VP Kamala Harris was deeply involved in pushing Facebook to suppress ‘misinformation’ in an effort to control the political narrative on COVID and other issues.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted in a letter on Monday while expressing regret that his company, Facebook, was pressured by the Biden-Harris administration to censor Americans, particularly regarding COVID-19 content, bringing to the forefront actions taken by Harris’ deputy campaign manager Rob Flaherty as part of that pressure campaign.

Flaherty, who previously served as the White House director of digital strategy, helped lead the campaign to target alleged ‘misinformation’ relating to the COVID-19 virus and its vaccinations, FOX Business previously reported.

Flaherty emailed Google team members in April 2021 to ‘connect […] about the work you’re doing to combat vaccine hesitancy, but also crack down on vaccine misinformation,’ according to the documents. 

Flaherty continued asking for trends surrounding vaccine misinformation on the website, while offering government assistance in the form of COVID experts at the White House to partner in product work with YouTube. 

Google, in an internal email, noted that after a subsequent meeting with Flaherty, the White House staffer ‘particularly dug in on our decision making for borderline content’ – which is content that doesn’t cross Community Guidelines but rather brushes up against it, according to YouTube. 

A week later, Google acknowledged that it sent the White House the total amount of videos removed for COVID vaccine misinformation, while discussing the government’s desire for even more data.

‘Really [Flaherty’s] interested in what we’re seeing that is NOT coming down,’ read an internal Google email between employees, seemingly referring to videos that had not yet been removed. 

According to internal company communications viewed by FOX Business and reported on in 2023, Flaherty asked Facebook if they could provide government agencies with special access to tools to target users in 2021. 

‘Since it’s a global pandemic, can we give agencies access to targeting parameters that they normally wouldn’t be able to?’ Flaherty asked.

The idea came up in a conversation about how to convince people worried about side effects around the COVID vaccine to take it.

On an April 5 call, a Facebook employee mentioned how if someone was worried about nosebleeds as a side effect of the vaccine, in an ideal world, they would direct them to information addressing that concern. Flaherty asked the Facebook team, ‘Are you able to provide resources?’ 

Another Facebook employee replied that doing something like showing them a targeted resource addressing their concern might trigger people. The Facebook employee said they ‘have to be careful in how we approach.’ 

Flaherty asked, ‘If people are having the conversation, is the presumption that we let people have it. Direct them to CDC. What then?’ 

A Facebook employee replied, ‘We all know people that have had the experience that think that FB is listening to them.’ 

The Facebook employee told Flaherty that something like an immediate generated message about nosebleeds might give users ‘the Big Brother feel’ but suggested they show the content on a delay to avoid setting off alarm bells among users. 

‘We should pay attention to those conversations, make sure that people see information, even if it’s not right then,’ the Facebook employee said. 

Flaherty was involved in a tense exchange with GOP Rep. Jim Jordan, of Ohio, during a hearing on Capitol Hill earlier this year when Flaherty claimed that Elon Musk did not face ‘any adverse government actions’ in response to changing the outlet’s censorship policies.

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House and the Harris-Walz campaign for comment but did not receive a response.

‘Ultimately, it was our decision whether or not to take content down, and we own our decisions, including COVID-19-related changes we made to our enforcement in the wake of this pressure,’ Zuckerberg wrote in his letter to the House Judiciary Committee this week. ‘I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it.

Fox News Digital’s Hillary Vaughn and Chase Williams contributed to this report