www.safuturesforum.org
“Every Vote Counts”
Increasing voter participation in Yuma County
Research Document
Developed for the members of the
Southwest Arizona Futures Forum to provide
background information for the
January 19th, 2012 Plenary Session
1:30-5:30
Yuma County Main Library
The opinions expressed in the following papers are solely those of the
authors, who were asked to provide their thoughts to the Futures Forum
because of their background, experience and expertise.
1
“Every Vote Counts”
Increasing Voter Participation in Yuma County
I. Introduction
The Southwest Arizona Futures Forum (SAFF) has been inspired by the O’Connor House in
selecting the topic of voter participation for the next plenary session. Mobilizing Arizona citizens
to be informed about issues that affect their future and enabling their voices to be heard are goals
shared by both organizations.
O’Connor House is a place where civil talk leads to civic action. Its vision is to create an Arizona
where important policy decisions affecting our future are made through a process of civil
discussion, critical analysis of facts and informed participation of all citizens.1 O’Connor House
has established a long-term goal of transforming Arizona into a top 10 state in informed voter
participation in the 2016 Presidential election and to stimulate higher levels of civic participation
in each Arizona community as an important bi-product of the collaborative voter participation
activities.
In partnering with the O’Connor House, SAFF seeks to understand the phenomenon whereby
only a fraction of Yuma County residents who are registered to vote actually turnout and cast a
ballot in elections. By identifying the root causes of apparent voter apathy, strategies and
solutions can be developed and implemented to accomplish the overall goal stimulating voter
participation. As with O’Connor House, the SAFF Steering Committee believes that the Arizona
Centennial Presidential election provides a unique opportunity to mobilize organizations, cities
and towns to focus on the fundamental right to vote and the corresponding responsibility of all
citizens to make their voices heard by being informed and active voters.
II. Voting patterns in the United States
The United States voter participation rate ranks low among democratic countries. Some countries
feel so strongly about voter participation that they fine those that do not vote. In fact, voting is
the only way to ensure quality people are elected and held accountable. Good governance is only
achieved when the grass roots lets officials know what they want and expect. Citizens must turn
out in high numbers in all elections, especially primaries, in order to make certain their views are
respected.2
Voter turnout is a fundamental quality of fair elections and is generally considered to be a
necessary factor for a healthy democracy. Low turnout is usually attributed to disengagement
from the system because of perceived effectiveness of voting in changing policy decisions. As a
result, “established” democracies with free elections usually have higher turnout than other states.
1
2
O’Connor House Case for Arizona Centennial Voter Engagement Project
O’Connor House Memo to Partner Organizations
2
In all national elections, turnout in the United States has a history of rising and falling over time,
although it has never risen to levels of turnout in most of the well-established democracies in
other nations. After rising sharply from 1948 to 1960, turnout declined in nearly every election
until dropping to barely half of eligible voters in 1988. Since 1988, it has fluctuated, from a low
of 52.6% of eligible voters (and 49.1% of voting age population) in 1996 to a high of 61% of
eligible voters in 2004, the highest level since 1968.
Turnout in midterm elections is far lower, peaking at 48.7% in 1966 and falling as low as 39.0%
in 1978, 1986 and 1998, remaining below 50% in midterm elections. Even at its highest level in
1960, the percent of eligible Americans who turned out to vote never surpassed 65%. This is still
substantially lower than in almost all established democracies; turnout is 70-75% in Canada and
well over 80% in most other democracies, including 86.8% in the first round of the French
presidential election and 91.7% in the 2004 proportional representation election for
Luxembourg’s legislature.
Low turnout is most pronounced in off-year elections for state legislators and local officials as
well as primaries. In many cities, for example, mayors of major cities often are elected with
single-digit turnout. Furthermore, there are enormous disparities that exist in America across
income levels in all forms of participation, particularly voting. A study on these disparities found
that 86% of people with incomes above $75,000 claim to have voted in presidential elections as
compared with only 52% of people with incomes under $15,000. As a result of the participation
disparity across demographic lines, politicians are more responsive to the opinions of highincome constituents. A study of roll call votes under the 107th and 108th Congresses reported that
legislators were three times more responsive to high-income constituents than middle-income
constituents and were the least responsive to the needs of low-income constituents.3
In a study conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau4, it was found that the likelihood of voting
differed among race groups and Hispanics in the period between 1996 and 2008. Non-Hispanic
Whites (66%) and Blacks (65%) had the highest levels of voter turnout in the 2008 election.
Voting rates for Asians and Hispanics were not statistically different from one another at about
49%. Relative to the presidential election of 2004, the voting rates for Blacks, Asians, and
Hispanics each increased by about 4%, while the voting age for non-Hispanic Whites decreased
by a single percentage point in 2008. Of the 5 million additional voters in 2008, about 2 million
were Black, 2 million were Hispanic, and 600,000 were Asian. Meanwhile, the number of nonHispanic White voters did not change statistically from 2004.
The Census Bureau report also found that age plays a significant role in voter participation.
Citizens between the ages of 18 and 24 were the only age group to show a statistically significant
increase in turnout in the 2008 election, reaching 49%, compared with 47% in 2004. Citizens
between the ages of 45 to 64 saw their voting rates decrease to 69% in 2008, down slightly from
70% in 2004. Voting rates for citizens aged 25 to 44 and 65 years or older were statistically
unchanged between 2004 and 2008.
3
4
Statistical data provided by fairvote.org
Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2008
3
Educational attainment comparisons in the Census Bureau report revealed that, compared to
2004, voting rates decreased in 2008 for individuals with some college or at least a bachelor’s
degree. The voting rate of citizens with at least a bachelor’s degree (79%) was higher than that of
citizens who had not received a high school diploma (39%), those who were high schoolgraduates
(55%)and individuals who had only some college or an associate’s degree (68%).
III. Voting Trends in Arizona
The Center for the Future of Arizona’s Gallup Arizona Poll and the National Conference on
citizenship (NCoC) collaborated to produce the 2010 Arizona Civic Health Index to track and
measure civic health in Arizona as compared to national civic health. Key findings of the 2010
report compare 2004 and 2008 presidential election data and include:
Arizonans are not as well informed as people in other states. Approximately 37%
of Arizonans in 2008-2009 said they do not follow or discuss the news regularly.
The finding is especially acute among people with less education. Of the 13 states
producing state-level reports last year, Arizonans had the lowest rate of news
consumption across all forms of media. Arizonans ranked 32nd in the nation for
discussing politics with family and friends and 36th for other kinds of political
activities, such as attending public meetings or contacting an elected official.
Arizona voter turnout declined in the 2008 Presidential election. Arizona ranked
43rd for turnout in the 2008 presidential election (59.8%) and 40th in the nation for
voter registration (68.9%), according to the 2010 Arizona Civic Health Index. These
results reflect a 4 percentage point decline in voter turnout from the 2004 election
and a 1.5 percentage point decline in voter registration. The study also showed that
although voter turnout among 18-29 year olds rose nationally in the 2008 Presidential
election, it declined in Arizona. Only 47% of younger Arizonans voted in 2008,
compared with 51% nationally. Average turnout in Arizona primary elections
appears to be around 25%.
Arizonans feel a growing disconnect with the leaders they elect to represent
them.
Levels of confidence in government are declining. The 2009 Gallup Arizona Poll
found that only 10% of Arizonans believe that elected officials represent their
interests. Ongoing Gallup studies nationally indicate the percentage is even lower
today. Restoring trust between leaders and citizens is essential to Arizona’s civic
health.
4
*Facts from the 2010 Midterm election:
o
31.1% of Arizona’s eligible citizens were not registered in 2010
o
40.2% did not vote
o
53% of 18-29 year olds did not vote
According to NCoC, Arizona’s voter turnout for Presidential elections since 1980 has been below
the national average for all election years except 2004, when Arizona matched the national
average of 63.8% for the 2012 Centennial election, the O’Connor House goal is to surpass the
national average for both voter registration and voter turnout by:
o
Increasing voter turnout from 59.8% (2008 Presidential) to a minimum 68.4%
voter turnout in # 10 ranked Colorado
o
Increasing voter registration from 68.9% (2008) to a minimum 76%, voter
registration in # 10 ranked New Hampshire
o
Doubling the average primary election voter turnout.
State rankings are highly volatile and the margins of difference between high-performing states
and low performing states are not insurmountable. Even small changes in citizen participation
can trigger large results.5
IV. Yuma County Voting Patterns
Based on 2010 Census data (including decennial Census, American Community Survey, and
Special Tabulation of Citizen Voting Age Population data), Yuma County currently has
approximately 195,751 residents. Of those residents, 103,445 are recognized under the category
of Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP).The CVAP identified by the 2010 Census was
103,445. 73.6% of the Voting Age Population are citizens; 37% of the CVAP are Hispanic; and,
57% of the CVAP are Non-Hispanic White. 75,203 (73%) of the CVAP are registered to vote in
Yuma County. The current age breakdown of registered voters in Yuma County as of November,
5
O’Connor House Project Goals Summary
5
2011 shows that of the 83,561 total registrants 12% are between the ages of 18 and 24; 35% are
25 to 44 years of age; 32% are 45 to 65 years of age; and 21% are 66 and over.
Though voting patterns within Yuma County fluctuate based on the type of election (higher
turnout of registered voters for general elections), recent patterns have shown a marked decline.
In the 2006 general election, 24,764 (52%) of the 47,521 registered voters turned out; in 2008,
40,491 (66%) of the 60,041 registered voters turned out; and, in 2010, 34,315 (47%) of the 72,
886 registered voters turned out. So, in spite of the fact that voter registration has increased by
nearly 35% (25,365 more registered voters) since the 2006 general election, the voter turnout
increased by less than 28% (9,951 additional votes cast) in that same time frame.
The progression and impact of early ballots in Yuma County has also been remarkable during the
last decade. Each general election since 2000 has seen an increase in the use of early ballot
voting, but in 2010, there was, for the first time in a general election, more early ballots cast in
Yuma County than precinct ballots cast. While the effect early ballot voting has on election
results is currently being analyzed and debated, it certainly appears that voters have expressed a
preference toward using early ballot voting, if for nothing else than convenience.
Some election officials believe that early ballot voting should be required for certain types of
elections. In fact, the Arizona Association of Counties will be promoting a legislative bill during
the 2012 session which would require that any Presidential Preference Election be held via an allmail election.
V. The Motivation Factor
Current barriers to voting, such as registration and the untimely scheduling of elections during the
workweek, may have a significant impact on voter turnout. Removing those barriers has the
potential to not only increase turnout, but also to narrow the gap in voting disparities amongst
demographic lines; however, turnout decline cannot be blamed on any one electoral rule or
circumstance because voter motivation is by far the biggest factor involving participation. Rules
like voter registration laws, early voting and polling place accessibility that affect voter access
matter, but the exact same election administration rules in the same electorate can result in 60%
turnout in one election and 2% in another depending on what is on the ballot and whether the
election has essentially already been decided.6
Indeed, barriers are typically most limiting in our highest turnout elections, with long lines
making it take longer to vote. When addressing motivation, however, there are a range of factors,
such as voter perceptions of the importance of the choice, how close the election is and how much
different potential outcomes will affect their lives – with perception sometimes not matching
reality due to voter education. Some institution changes will increase the motivation to vote by
6
www.fairvote.org/voter-turnout
6
making a vote matter more and by giving voters more choices, thereby increasing turnout
substantially.7
The U.S. Census Bureau’s Nationwide Population Survey for November 2010 of those
respondents who said they “did not vote” shows the percent distribution for the reasons given as:
11.3% illness or disability; 9.2% out of town; 8% said they forgot; 16.4% said they were not
interested; 26.6% were too busy or had a conflicting schedule; 2.4% had transportation problems;
8.5% did not like the candidates or issues; 3.3% had registration challenges; less than one percent
said bad weather kept them from voting; 2.1% said their polling site was not convenient; and
12.1% said they had other reasons, refused, or didn’t know why.
VI. Current Strategies at Work
Traditional Outreach Methods
Typically, election officials who want to involve the community might establish partnerships for
voter outreach initiatives. Businesses, civic groups, language minority groups, government
offices, and schools all have different ways of disseminating information to potential voters. The
method of outreach depends on the type of group and its capability and assets, but, because an
election official might not have access to the groups’ membership lists, he or she will often need
to defer to the groups for reaching those potential voters.
An election official may reach out to these groups to help distribute voter registration and election
information. With some partnerships, the election official simply tailors press releases about
voter registration deadlines, early voting opportunities, polling place locations, and poll worker
recruitment to specific groups. When dealing with fixed-location partners, such as businesses, an
election official might ask his or her partners to notify potential voters by posting information at
high-traffic locations and distributing flyers to customers at the checkout counter. An election
official may also ask these local partners to distribute the information via printed materials and
through website announcements and e-mail lists.
Depending on the characteristics of the jurisdiction, an election official may want to focus on
establishing partnerships that serve underrepresented demographic groups. These groups may
help bring elections office resources to otherwise neglected communities, identify gaps in
existing services, and improve the reputation of the elections office. Especially when attempting
to reach language minority voters with limited proficiency in English, an election official might
team with civic organizations that have roots in those communities to disseminate information as
widely as possible in a way that is most helpful to the population.8
7
8
Id.
U.S. Election Assistance Commission
7
Vote Centers
Previous election reforms designed to increase turnout have often made voting more convenient
for frequent voters without significantly increasing turnout among infrequent voters. A recent
innovation – Election Day vote centers – provides an alternative means of motivating electoral
participation among infrequent voters. Election Day vote centers are not-precinct based locations
for voting on Election Day. The sites are fewer in number than precinct-voting stations, centrally
located to major population centers (rather than distributed among many residential locations),
and rely on county-wide voter registration databases accessed by electronic voting machines.
Voters in voting jurisdictions (usually a county) are provided ballots appropriate to their voter
registration address. It is thought that the use of voting centers on Election Day will increase
voter turnout by reducing the cost and/or inconvenience associated with voting at traditional
precinct locations. Since 2003, voters in Larimer County, Colorado have balloted at one of 32
Vote Centers. Precinct voting in Larimer ended in 2003. To test the efficacy of Election Day
vote Centers, individual vote histories were collected on voters in Larimer and a control county
(i.e. Weld, Colorado) that used precinct voting on Election Day for the years 1992-2004.
Significant evidence was found to support the hypothesis that Election Day vote centers increase
voter turnout generally, and among infrequent voters in particular.9
On October 17, 2010, the Yuma County Board of Supervisors authorized the implementation of a
pilot project for use of Voting Centers for the February 28, 2012 Presidential Preference Election.
Based on the success of the pilot project, Yuma County staff will likely recommend extension of
the Voting Centers in Yuma County for all countywide elections that occur in 2012 and beyond.
Kids Voting USA
Kids Voting USA (KVUSA) is an organization that focuses on school-aged children in an effort
to transform the major aspects necessary for knowledgeable and engaged civic participation. The
program equips students with the habits and skills necessary for a life of civic participation.
KVUSA gives rise to a lively domestic sphere that encourages the sustained political growth of
the parent and child. This blossoming domestic sphere then feeds back into the school and
community, which truly creates a community committed to democracy. Students exposed to Kids
Voting curriculum demonstrate higher levels of news attention, cognition, discussion with parents
and friends, deliberative dispositions and civic identity. Furthermore, after the passage of a year,
participation is associated with increased social capital through higher levels of political activity
at school and higher levels volunteering in the community.10
9
Abstract of “Engaging the unengaged voter: Vote centers and voter turnout;” Robert M. Stein and Greg
Vonnahme, Rice University 2007.
10
Kids Voting USA, A Community Commitment to Democracy
8
iCivics
iCivics is a civic education video game inspired by Justice O’Connor to make learning civics fun,
exciting and interesting. Currently being used in Texas, Florida and Arizona schools, the
O’Connor House voter engagement project is collaborating with the AZ Foundation for Legal
Services and Education (including Kids Voting) and after school organizations to explore ways to
incorporate iCivics into their programs as a civic education tool for Arizona’s youth and to
stimulate conversation between children and parents.11
Election Day Parties and Social Pressure
In the 19thcentury, it was commonplace for elections to be recognized as community events.
People would gather to engage in discourse about the issues and the candidates. During that time,
upwards of 90 % of eligible American voters participated. At least, that’s what two recent
political science experiments point toward.12
One experiment shows that just holding Election Day poll parties would notably increase turnout.
But more significant results come from another experiment, in which a piece of direct mail
informed voters that their participation was a matter of public record and that their neighbors
would know whether or not they voted.
This prick of social pressure increased voting rates by eight percentage points over the baseline
rate, a finding that surprised even the professors behind it. After all, scholars and campaigns had
already studied direct mail extensively and found that it didn’t matter how colorful the mailing
was or what it said – nobody could find an effect of more than a percentage point. But, they
hadn’t studied social pressure.
For those who prefer a less intrusive approach, another set of experiments suggests that hosting
an Election Day celebration can also increase turnout – mostly because it gives people another
reason to get to the polls, tipping their cost-benefit analysis in favor of participation.
In the spring of 2005, political science students and professors organized an “Election Day Poll
Party” in a randomly chosen precinct in the quiet town of Hooksett, N.H., during its municipal
elections. The event wasn’t anything fancy – some free sandwiches, cotton candy machine and a
professional DJ playing “upbeat” music, all on the lawn of the local middle school. But it
worked, and turnout went up. Subsequent parties were organized in other areas, and a similar
increase was realized.
11
12
O’Connor House Strategies
Miller-McCune: Simple Ways to Increase Voter Turnout, 2008
9
Outreach Efforts in Yuma County
During the 2008 and 2010 elections, outreach efforts consisted of media releases and public
service announcements issued on a regular basis. The election staff and County Recorder make
formal presentations to service organizations, clubs, schools, and community events to provide
information on voter registration, early voting, voting at polling sites, and accessible voting
opportunities for voters with disabilities, Special public meetings have also been conducted to
present information on statewide ballot propositions. The County’s website provides
comprehensive information for voters and candidates.
VII.
Next Steps
The goal of SAFF in hosting this Plenary Session topic is to develop long-term strategies to
encourage further civic engagement within Yuma County. Following our discourse, we hope to
generate a document that will outline those strategies and identify the means by which to
implement them.
Targeting the appropriate partner organizations will be critical to our future success. In order to
fully take advantage of the program results, we need to reach out to the community in innovative
ways so that the message resonates and the framework we establish begins to take on a life of its
own.
Yuma County election officials will take a lead role in utilizing the results within our community.
Yuma County Elections, for example, has a strategic plan goal of increasing the percentage of
residents who agree that voting information is easy to understand and that access to voting
services is convenient by making improvements in technology and efficiencies at the polling
sites.
Your help in taking the next steps will be the real measure of our success. By collectively sharing
the conclusions and suggestions arrived at during our Plenary Session, we can all make sure that
every vote counts!
10