Search Results

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.

Inequality in who votes matters. People with lower incomes are significantly less likely to participate in elections, creating a class bias in the electorate. Even if overall voter participation improves, can accessible elections shrink turnout inequality between higher and lower socio-economic class citizens? Chapter 5 empirically evaluates whether the voting laws and election administration lead to an increased probability of poor individuals (proxied as those at or below the federal poverty line) voting when comparing 2010 to 2014 midterm election turnout, and 2008 to 2012 presidential election turnout. The results show that no-excuse absentee/mail voting (in midterm elections) and same day registration (in both presidential and midterm elections) increases voter turnout among the economically disadvantaged. Better election administration also leads to improved outcomes for lower socio-economic citizens.

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.

Chapter 1 introduces the argument that wide variation from state to state in convenience voting laws—in-person early voting, no-excuse absentee/mail in voting, same day registration—as well as election administration performance can be used to explain variation in individual-level voter turnout in the U.S. It re-frames the study of convenience voting methods by also accounting for the administration of elections by local and state governments (based on measures from Pew Charitable Trusts/MIT Election Data and Science Lab). It introduces an innovative dataset (national commercial voter files) and methodology (panel models using vote histories) to provide more leverage in the evaluation of the effect of the state laws on voting. The chapter closes by previewing how the study sheds light on how American states with more accessible elections increase voter turnout and improve turnout equality between historically advantaged (higher socioeconomic status, non-Hispanic white) and disadvantaged (lower socioeconomic status, racial/ethnic minority) groups.

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.

The concluding chapter reviews the findings and discusses their implications for academic research and for policymakers. It also discusses alternate ways of increasing turnout that may have fewer downstream consequences than a requirement to vote. These include: easing voter registration requirements; making it easier to vote with procedures such as early voting, online voting, and mail voting; and rewarding citizens for voting. It wraps up with reflections on the justifiability of compulsory voting in democracies.