(This posting is a guest posting from Chelsea Brossard, research associate at the Early Voting Information Center.)
Two proposed bills in the North Carolina legislature. Senate Bill 428 seeks to shorten the early voting period from two weeks to one week, and House Bill 451 aims to outlaw voting on Sundays.
Our analysis demonstrates the impact these changes would have on the electorate. We examined early voting data from 2008, 2010, and 2012. Our results show that 55.61% of the electorate voted early in 2008, compared with 33.67% of the electorate in 2010 and 58.98% of the electorate in 2012. Of those that voted early in 2008, 54.96% voted in first week of early voting, including the second to last Sunday. In 2010, 38.61% of the early voting electorate voted during this period, and 54.42% of early voters voted during this period in 2012.
|Year||% of electorate that voted early||% early voters affected by proposed changes (as a percentage of early voters)||% early voters affected by proposed changes (as a percentage of the total electorate)|
These numbers show that a significant portion of the electorate would be negatively affected by the proposed changes, and would be forced to find other times to vote should these bills pass.
Even though 2010 shows a smaller portion of the electorate voting early, early voting has increased over the last decade. Information from the North Carolina Board of Elections web page shows that 13.04% of the electorate voted early in 2000, compared to 58.98% of the electorate in 2012.
More disturbing, there are racial differences in the use of these methods to curb opportunities for early voting. Despite surprising racial disparities in 2010 we have not yet fully investigated, 2008 and 2012 both showed African American voters significantly more likely to vote early than whites. 2010, a lower profile election with less stimulus, showed a more traditional pattern of whites being more likely to vote early. This shows that the proposed changes would result in racial disparities in presidential election years and would affect a large portion of the electorate. What’s more, even more voters vote in the last Sunday before the election, but North Carolina already does not open the polls on this day.
 Senate Bill 428 also proposes an elimination of same-day voter registration. For our purposes, we will not discuss the effects this would have on the electorate.
I tried to be nice the first time to True the Vote, but as Fairvote pointed out to me on Twitter, their revised report (linked here: http://www.truethevote.org/news/true-the-vote-report-proves-widespread-claims-of-voter-suppression-false) only makes things worse.
All the evidence on turnout (debunked first by me then more devastatingly by FairVote on the Election Law listerv) have been removed, yet the claims of turnout effects remain on pg. 4 of their report:
Pg 4: “Further, voter turnout rates should have demonstrated drops in participation.In both cases, our research proves otherwise.”
Necessary correction: The research as been removed and the previous research has been shown to be inaccurate.
This comment about lines in Florida may have been in the first draft of the report, but is also inaccurate. This is from pg. 5 of the report:
Pg. 5: “the combination of roll purges, early voting changes and photo ID requirements did not manifest any clear negative impacts in 2012. While some voters complained of long lines, especially during early voting, the average wait time was 50 minutes for Floridians.”
Necessary correction: The average wait time in Florida was the longest nationwide by far. It was nearly four times the national average of 14 minutes, and 50% higher than the next state on the list (Maryland, at 28.8 minutes).
Data are reported here http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/02/05/us/politics/how-long-it-took-groups-to-vote.html.
If this is evidence of no “negative impact,” I’d hate to see what a negative impact looks like!
What makes this frustrating for an academic is that the impact of voter ID requirements on turnout and on wait time remains an open question, at least as far as I read the scholarship thus far. The discussion isn’t helped along by badly misleading and poorly documented reports.
True the Vote provides a nice report with information on voter ID laws and the politics surrounding these laws. They do a service by aggregating the number of voter suppression reports by states and county.
That’s the good news. The bad news is that their conclusions about the relationship between voter ID and turnout are wrong, or more generously, unsupported by the evidence.
The report compares turnout in states in 2008 and 2012 and attributes EVERY CHANGE to the existence (or not) of a voter ID law.
Nothing else is considered, including those things that every observer knows are the primary drivers of voter turnout: the battleground status of the state, the competitiveness of other campaigns in the state, and overall campaign spending and election activity.
Compare two of the states they highlight: Colorado, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, and Ohio. In every state, total campaign spending was substantially higher. In every state save one (Nevada) the ratio of campaign spending was much closer, in some cases dramatically so.
Campaign spending in 2012: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2012/campaign-tracker/ and in 2008: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/map/ad.spending/
I don’t know what the impact of voter ID laws were on turnout, but I am confident that the True the Vote report doesn’t shed much light on the question.
Hat tip to Rick Hasen for this story, Rep. Candice Miller, chair of Government Operations, who says the Federal government has no role in fixing problems with our voting system: http://www.dailytribune.com/article/20130226/NEWS01/130229602/miller-blasts-obama-s-plan-for-election-standards
Nice piece by Scott Adler and John Wilkerson, showing how the “reversion point” (sequestration) may be the preferred outcome for both congressional parties at this point.
Jeff Mapes, the dean of political reporters in Oregon (Jeff–“dean” in this context refers to your influence not your age!), has an interesting column on how ending Saturday mail delivery could impact Oregon’s vote by mail system.
Director of State Election Steve Trout rightly notes that Oregonians are not supposed to try to mail their ballots on Saturday anyway–the state urges voters to put them into the mail no later than Friday.
The problem arises not only among those voters who don’t realize this, but among others who don’t realize the last time for pickup at mailboxes and for those voters who live in rural counties and who don’t have easy access to drop boxes at libraries, other locations, and the county elections office.
But the problem could not just turn on urban/rural. Compare, for example, the number of drop boxes in Multnomah County, which provides more than two dozen drop boxes distributed throughout the county for their 367,992 voters ( a Google Map of drop box locations in Multnomah County) to the two locations provided by Clackamas County for their 190785 voters (perhaps Clackamas County provided more outdoor drop boxes for the 2012 election, but I can’t find any reference to this on their website).
I have been fielding a lot of inquiries about early voting after the 2012 election, and one of my pieces of advice is to make sure, as much as feasible, that all voters have equal access to the polling place, whether that be the early in-person satellite location or election day polling place. I realize that Oregonians can just mail their ballot in, but data from the past has shown that as many as 25% of the voters choose to drop off their ballots. The kind of discrepancy shown above is a point of concern.
Oregon will need to think long and hard about this one, and the legislature may need to pony up resources allowing Steve and Secretary Brown to install many more drop boxes around the state and may need to mandate some number of drop boxes based on population size and geography.
This report came across my news feed, courtesy of Channel 13 news in Orlando. I have looked but cannot find the referenced report at the Division of Elections.
One point of interest in the report is the longstanding concern of many political scientists with the way turnout is reported in this country. When 64,000 voters choose not to vote the top of the ticket in battleground state during a highly contested presidential contest, it’s pretty obvious that turnout should include all voters who showed up and cast (or attempted to cast) a ballot.
“Top of the ticket” totals are inaccurate.
I hope that that the report includes a breakdown by mode of balloting. There is reference in the report to higher undervote and overvote rates among absentee voters, something Charles Stewart and I found in a 2010 report. More coming soon!
Congratulations to Zach Markovits, Charles Stewart, and the Pew team that has been working on the Election Performance Index for a number of years. It’s been a long road, and there will inevitably be complaints from states who think they are ranked unfairly, and from advocates who think the rankings are insufficiently detailed or use the wrong measures.
From my perch inside this machine, it has been educational–and frustrating–to discover how difficult it still remains to collect comparable, consistent, and relatively complete measures of election performance for 50 states and the District of Columbia. Many of the rankings are driven upwards and downwards not by performance but by simple reporting. That will remain the case until states feel some pressure to collect and report a relatively complete set of indicators after each election. (This kind of pressure is one of the rationales behind the index first proposed by Heather Gerken.)
If anyone wants a sense of how much forward progress has been made in a few short years, compare this report to the first exploratory effort, the Data for Democracy report that I assembled along with Dan Seligson in late 2008. It is encouraging to see how much progress has been made between the two presidential election cycles.
Another source for sample ballots (albeit not as attractively presented as Slate) is the ACE Electoral Knowledge Network. The cool thing about the ACE archive is that it contains materials from the past 20 years and from many countries.
Andrew Reynolds at UNC has a nice selection of ballot papers (the Mongolian one on the right is from his site).
And to close, an example of the “monster” paper ballot in Florida 2012 that caused voters to wait in six hour lines. Turn the color intensity down on your monitor!
I think it relies a bit too heavily on commentary from Brennan Center reports to describe election law changes (scroll over Tennessee for instance), and in the area of early voting, there are definitely some missing entries. It’s still a really nice pilot that could be built on by other scholars.