Why Studying State Voting Laws Is Not Enough

2020 ◽  
pp. 31-50
Author(s):  
Michael Ritter
Keyword(s):  
Voter Turnout ◽  
Census Data ◽  
Political Interest ◽  
Omitted Variables ◽  
Early Voting ◽  
Election Administration ◽  
Disadvantaged Groups ◽  
State Adoption ◽  
Voting Decisions ◽  
Voting Laws

Early studies of the effects of voter laws on turnout often showed that early voting, absentee, and mail voting had limited impacts on voter turnout, with only same day registration consistently linked to higher turnout. Much of the previous research measured these laws in isolation (although most states have combinations of the laws), omitted measurement of election administration, did not account for possible selection bias in state adoption of the laws, focused on overall voter turnout rather than that for disadvantaged groups, and did not measure the effects of the laws on campaign mobilization strategies. Census data used in previous studies omitted variables (e.g., political interest and partisanship) known to influence voting decisions. Building on research from 2000s and 2010s, Chapter 3 emphasizes how causal inference research design and national voter files can lead to more precise estimations of the effects of convenience voting laws and election administration on voter turnout.

Measuring Accessible Elections

2020 ◽  
pp. 15-30
Author(s):  
Michael Ritter
Keyword(s):  
Voter Turnout ◽  
Performance Index ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Moderate Correlation ◽  
Early Voting ◽  
Election Administration ◽  
Registration Laws ◽  
Voting Decisions ◽  
Independent Effects ◽  
Voting Laws

Chapter 2 develops the accessible elections theoretical framework used throughout the study. To evaluate the framework, the chapter discusses data to measure state voting and registration laws, election administration performance, and individual voting decisions in recent midterm and presidential elections. Special attention is paid to the Election Performance Index (EPI) to measure how well states conduct elections; previous research has not generally measured election administration to predict voter turnout. The states have different combinations of in-person early voting, no-excuse absentee/mail voting, same day registration laws, and election administration performance. The moderate correlation between the voting laws and election administration suggests that both must be taken into account to identify their independent effects on whether people vote. Research hypotheses posit that states with more convenience voting laws and higher performing election administrations will have higher voter turnout, campaign mobilization, and lower turnout inequality.

Accessible Elections and Voter Turnout

2020 ◽  
pp. 51-68
Author(s):  
Michael Ritter
Keyword(s):  
Voter Turnout ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Early Voting ◽  
Panel Models ◽  
Election Administration ◽  
Midterm Elections ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Voting Laws

Chapter 4 evaluates the impact of convenience voting laws (in-person early voting, no-excuse absentee/mail voting, and same day registration) and election administration on individual-level voter turnout change from the 2010 to 2014 midterm elections and the 2008 to 2012 presidential elections using lagged panel models. Results show that non-voters are more likely to become voters when living in states with absentee/mail voting, in-person early voting, same day registration, and high-quality election administration, controlling for other factors. Same day registration is the most important of the three in both midterm and presidential elections, while early voting and absentee/mail voting have the largest effects in midterm elections.

Conclusion

2020 ◽  
pp. 137-143
Author(s):  
Michael Ritter
Keyword(s):  
Solid State ◽  
Voter Turnout ◽  
Voter Registration ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Early Voting ◽  
Election Administration ◽  
Election Reform ◽  
Low Educated ◽  
Racial Ethnic ◽  
Voting Laws

Chapter 8 reviews the main findings of the book and identifies areas for future research. The general findings indicate that each of the state convenience voting laws (in-person early voting, no-excuse absentee/mail voting, and same day registration) as well solid state election administration can improve voter turnout and promote greater voting equality between the socio-economic classes and among non-Hispanic whites and racial/ethnic minorities. The study demonstrates the value of an advanced causal inference design applied to a rich dataset on American adults (national voter files). It highlights the importance of measuring the effects of multiple convenience voting laws and election administration simultaneously. Future applications of the accessible voting framework can be used to understand the impacts of new election reform laws such as automatic voter registration, and to evaluate whether these factors also promote higher turnout among other historically marginalized voting groups such as the young and low-educated.

scholarly journals Early Voting Laws, Voter Turnout, and Partisan Vote Composition: Evidence from Ohio

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ethan Kaplan ◽  
Haishan Yuan
Keyword(s):  
Voter Turnout ◽  
Voter Registration ◽  
Early Voting ◽  
Registration Data ◽  
Percentage Points ◽  
Child Bearing ◽  
Working Age ◽  
Positive Impacts ◽  
Voting Laws

We estimate effects of early voting on voter turnout using a 2010 homogenization law from Ohio that forced some counties to expand and others to contract early voting. Using voter registration data, we compare individuals who live within the same 2 × 2 mile square block but in different counties. We find substantial positive impacts of early voting on turnout equal to 0.22 percentage points of additional turnout per additional early voting day. We also find greater impacts on women, Democrats, independents, and those of child-bearing and working age. We simulate impacts of national early day laws on recent election outcomes. (JEL D72, K16)

The Three-Legged Stool of Voter Engagement

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 41-56
Author(s):  
Adelaide K. Sandler ◽  
Mary E. Hylton ◽  
Jason Ostrander ◽  
Tanya R. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Social Work ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Voter Turnout ◽  
Political Power ◽  
Voter Registration ◽  
Elected Officials ◽  
Allocation Of Resources ◽  
Community Members ◽  
The Past ◽  
Voting Decisions

Disparities in voter turnout have increased significantly over the past four decades. Members of historically oppressed groups, those who are low-income, and or who have lower levels of education vote at significantly lower rates than white, wealthy and or more educated community members. These disparities correlate directly to political power and the eventual allocation of resources by elected officials. Therefore, eliminating these disparities through targeted voter engagement with client groups is particularly important for the profession of social work. This article describes the conceptualization of voter engagement as a three-legged stool, consisting of voter registration, regular voting, and basing voting decisions on self-interest.Without attention to all three legs, the potential for generating political power collapses, resulting in minimal influence on elected officials.

Electoral laws

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard L. Hasen
Keyword(s):  
Fake News ◽  
Election Administration ◽  
External Threats ◽  
Electoral Laws ◽  
Political Integrity ◽  
Voting Laws ◽  
Vote Counting

Chapter 2 provides an overview of the legal and political integrity issues raised in the 2016 elections. It begins by describing the now normal voting wars between the hyperpolarized parties, lawsuits aimed at shaping the rules for the registration of voters, the conduct of voting, and the counting of ballots. Restrictive voting laws have increased in number and severity in many states with Republican legislatures, and the judiciary itself often divides along partisan lines in determining controversial laws’ legality. The chapter then turns to the troubling escalation in the wars, from candidate Donald Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of fraud and election rigging to Russian (and other) meddling, the rise of “fake news,” and problems with vote-counting machinery and election administration. It concludes by considering the role that governmental and nongovernmental institutions can play in protecting American election administration from internal and external threats and restoring confidence in elections.

Accessible Elections

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Ritter ◽  
Caroline J. Tolbert
Keyword(s):  
Voter Turnout ◽  
Population Data ◽  
State Governments ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
Early Voting ◽  
Beneficial Effects ◽  
Election Reform ◽  
Individual Vote ◽  
Large Populations ◽  
Voting Methods

This book explores the wide variation across states in convenience voting methods—absentee/mail voting, in-person early voting, same day registration—and provides new empirical analysis of the beneficial effects of these policies, not only in increasing voter turnout overall, but for disadvantaged groups. By measuring both convenience methods and implementation of the laws, the book improves on previous research. It draws generalizable conclusions about how these laws affect voter turnout by using population data from the fifty state voter files. Using individual vote histories, the design helps avoid bias in non-random assignment of states in adopting the laws. Many scholars and public officials have dismissed state election reform laws as failing to significantly increase turnout or address inequality in who votes. Accessible Elections underscores how state governments can modernize their election procedures to increase voter turnout and influence campaign and party mobilization strategies. Mail voting and in-person early voting are particularly important in the wake of Covid-19 to avoid election day crowds and ensure successful and equitable elections in states with large populations; the results of this study can help state governments more rapidly update voting for the 2020 general election and beyond.

Gender Gaps in Electoral Turnout: Surveys versus Administrative Censuses

2021 ◽  
pp. 147892992110195
Author(s):  
Paulo Cox ◽  
Mauricio Morales Quiroga
Keyword(s):  
Survey Data ◽  
Gender Gap ◽  
Voter Turnout ◽  
Census Data ◽  
Electoral Participation ◽  
Gender Gaps ◽  
Electoral Turnout ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Official Data ◽  
Rule Out

Gender gaps in voter turnout are usually studied using opinion surveys rather than official census data. This is because administrative censuses usually do not disaggregate turnout according to voters’ sex. Without this official information, much of the research on gender gaps in electoral turnout relies on survey respondents’ self-reported behavior, either before or after an election. The decision to use survey data implies facing several potential drawbacks. Among them are the turnout overstatement bias and the attrition or nonresponse bias, both affecting the estimation of factors explaining turnout and any related statistical analysis. Furthermore, these biases may be correlated with covariates such as gender: men, more than women, may systematically overstate their electoral participation. We analyze turnout gender gaps in Chile, comparing national surveys with official administrative data, which in Chile are publicly available. Crucially, the latter includes the official record of sex, age, and the electoral behavior—whether the individual voted or not—for about 14 million registered individuals. Based on a series of statistical models, we find that analysis based on survey data is likely to rule out gender gaps in electoral participation. Carrying out the same exercises, but with official data, leads to the opposite conclusion, namely, that there is a sizable gender gap favoring women.

The Legal Context of Turnout

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan E. Leighley ◽  
Jonathan Nagler
Keyword(s):  
Voter Turnout ◽  
State Level ◽  
Electoral Rules ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Election Administration ◽  
Legal Context ◽  
Electoral Impact ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Cost Of Voting

This chapter considers the electoral impact the new, wider array of voter registration and election administration laws using a new data set collected on state electoral rules between 1972 and 2008. States vary tremendously as to how easy it is to register and to vote, and previous research suggests that these laws affect who votes because they change the cost of voting. However, most of these studies rely on cross-sectional data, and usually consider the influence of one reform at a time. The chapter provides aggregate (state-level) analyses of the effects of changes in these rules on voter turnout. These analyses help us address the question of whether overall voter turnout has increased as a result of these legal changes. It finds modest effects of election day registration, of absentee voting, and of moving the closing date for registration closer to the election on overall turnout. The effect of early voting is less clear.

Polling place changes and political participation: evidence from North Carolina presidential elections, 2008–2016

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Joshua D. Clinton ◽  
Nick Eubank ◽  
Adriane Fresh ◽  
Michael E. Shepherd
Keyword(s):  
North Carolina ◽  
Political Participation ◽  
Voter Turnout ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
Search Costs ◽  
Change Over Time ◽  
Early Voting ◽  
Location Change ◽  
Over Time

Abstract How do changes in Election Day polling place locations affect voter turnout? We study the behavior of more than 2 million eligible voters across three closely-contested presidential elections (2008–2016) in the swing state of North Carolina. Leveraging within-voter variation in polling place location change over time, we demonstrate that polling place changes reduce Election Day voting on average statewide. However, this effect is almost completely offset by substitution into early voting, suggesting that voters, on average, respond to a change in their polling place by choosing to vote early. While there is heterogeneity in these effects by the distance of the polling place change and the race of the affected voter, the fully offsetting substitution into early voting still obtains. We theorize this is because voters whose polling places change location receive notification mailers, offsetting search costs and priming them to think about the election before election day, driving early voting.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document