THE IMPACT OF STATE LAWS ON THE VOTER TURNOUT OF YOUNG PEOPLE IN
THE 2010 MIDTERM ELECTION IN THE UNITED STATES
By:
SIERRA RAYE YAMANAKA
____________________
A Thesis Submitted to The Honors College
In Partial Fulfillment of the Bachelors degree
With Honors in
Political Science
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
MAY 2 0 1 6
Approved by:
____________________________
Dr. Barbara Norrander
School of Government and Public Policy
Yamanaka 2
Table of Contents
Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………………… 3
Introduction ……………………………...…………………………………………………….. 4
State Laws ……………………………………………………………………………………….8
State Law Summary ……………………………………………………………...……………12
Methodology ……………………………………………………………………………………14
Results …………………………………………………………………………………………..15
Conclusion
Findings …………………………………………………………………………………23
Suggestions for Further Research …………………………………………………….25
Concluding Observations ……………………………………………………………...26
References ……………………………………………………………………...……………….27
Yamanaka 3
Abstract:
Young people, particularly those aged 18-30 tend to not be as involved or interested in
the political process as older adults. More young people are not identifying with a particular
party, and are less active than other adults in politics as a whole. Participation goes beyond
voting, though that is a key component. It would also include paying attention to news involving
government and politics and participating in some form of campaign activity. This paper seeks to
expose the contributing factors to the trend of a lack of youth participation, specifically looking
at various state laws and their implications on the registration and voting process. It will then
examine the empirical evidence of turnout and participation in the 2010 midterm election cycle
and offer solutions to increasing youth participation.
Yamanaka 4
Introduction
Young people have a history of having less engagement with the political process than
other older generations. Eighteen year olds have only had the right to vote for 44 years, since the
26th Amendment was ratified in 1971. Since then, the newly added portion of the electorate has
not fully taken advantage of their opportunity to participate in American democracy. Since 1964,
people in the 18-24 range have voted at a lower rate than older Americans (File, 2014). Research
has shown that the youngest Americans are less likely to vote than older Americans (McDonald,
2010). Michael McGrath notes that it is not only young Americans that are less likely to vote, but
also lower income voters, less educated voters and racial minority voters (McGrath, 2012).
One important distinction when discussing voter turnout is the use of the voting age
population versus the voting eligible population. The voting age population includes everyone
living in the United States that are over the age of eighteen. Most turnout figures use the voting
age population. The voting eligible population however only accounts for those who are actually
allowed to vote, removing noncitizens and felons from the numbers. Voter turnout over all
increases when looking at the voting eligible population rather than the voting age population.
Turnout among voters 18-24 has dropped from 50.9 percent in 1972 to 38.0 percent in
2012 (File, 2014). While it may appear that young people have stopped coming out to vote, that
is not the full picture. There has also been an increase in noncitizen youth in recent years.
Because the turnout figures are using the voting age population and not the voting eligible
population, this increase reflects in the turnout figures.
In the 2008 presidential election, turnout among 18-24 year olds was 20 points lower than
that of older voters, aged 65 and older (McDonald, 2010). If younger voters participated at
higher levels, the United States would have a turnout rate that more closely resembled that of
Yamanaka 5
other developed nations. It would also impact the types of issues that are discussed and acted
upon. Candidates talk about the issues their voters want to hear about. When they are talking to
an older electorate, they are not going to talk about the issues facing young people as much. With
higher youth turnout, the median age of the electorate decreases, forcing the candidates to talk
about the issues that matter to young people (McDonald, 2010).
According to Flannigan, young people are much less likely to vote than older people.
They are much more likely to view the government as irrelevant to their lives, and in turn,
candidates pay less attention to young voters than to older voters. Young people are also more
likely to be unsettled in their lives or transitioning between places and therefore they do not
make registering and voting a priority (Flannigan, 2015).
Young people are less likely to identify with a specific political party than older people.
Flannigan also notes that there are time-related sources of partisan change. One of those sources
is period effects, or specific moments in history that affect the partisanship of all voters,
regardless of age. Another is generational effects. If a voter becomes active during a particular
moment in history, their partisanship can be affected for their lifetime. Finally, life-cycle effects
impact a voter’s partisanship at a particular age (Flannigan, 2015).
Additionally, Americans are more liberal than they realize, particularly young voters.
Though Americans would generally rate themselves as being conservative, when asked about
their specific positions on a variety of issues, they held more liberal positions than they realized.
Americans have grown more liberal on several issues such as same sex marriage and the
legalization of marijuana (Zell, 2014). There has been an impressive social shift around these
issues in a very short amount of time. There is also a generational gap, particularly with same sex
marriage. According to a Pew Research poll, in 2005 the Millennial generation supported same
Yamanaka 6
sex marriage at a rate 26 points higher than the Silent generation. By 2015, that gap has grown to
34 points (Schwarz, 2015). Young people even more so underestimate their liberalism in
comparison with the general population (Zell, 2014).
An Alternative View of Party Identification and Youth Participation
In The Apartisan American, Dalton uses an alternate system for party identification,
breaking people into four categories. The first is “apolitical independents” who are not engaged
in politics and do not have a particular party affiliation. They are not sophisticated in their issue
positions and are not as likely to vote. “Ritual partisans” are the second category, and they are
more partisan without being as cognitively mobilized. These are people who rely primarily on
party loyalty to make their decisions, and may not be as informed about the actual issues. The
third category is “cognitive partisans”. These are people that are both highly partisan but also
have high cognitive mobilization. They are dedicated to their party but also can explain why they
hold the positions that they do rather than simply relying on party loyalty. They turn out to vote
at high levels, just as the ritual partisans. The final category is “apartisans”. They have high
cognitive mobilization but are still unaffiliated with a party. They are able to look at the issues
and decide not to be a part of a party based on informed decisions. They are still likely to vote, as
they are highly informed.
Young people are more likely to be apolitical independents or apartisans, often depending
on their education level. Dalton defines one’s ability to make sophisticated issue decisions as
cognitive mobility. Cognitive mobilization refers to the fact that Americans now have more
access to information and political resources to make their decisions than ever before. This
means that people do not have to rely on party cues and loyalty to make their political decisions.
Yamanaka 7
Cognitive mobilization has the potential to create voters who are highly informed and engaged
yet truly unaligned with a party.
In general, there is the notion that youth are lazy, apathetic and ignorant about the world
around them. The young people of this country are unable to answer basic questions about our
government and do not participate in elections, campaigning or any part of the governmental
process (Manning, 2014). However, there are also numerous examples of political activism being
led by young people, the biggest of which is the Occupy movement. Manning determines that the
youth are not apathetic, but rather the way that politics is being defined is too narrow.
Farthing argues that perhaps a binary system does not properly represent how today’s
youth are engaged in politics, that is, they are entirely disengaged or entirely engaged. This
notion overly generalizes about an entire generation and does not understand what young people
are actually passionate about (Farthing, 2010). The internet age has entirely changed the political
system, particularly the rise of social media. It is easier than ever to have access to political
news. Even President Obama has a Facebook page now. Yet at the same time, there are studies
that show that young people are less engaged, less knowledgeable and less informed than other
Americans about the workings of the government, the political process and particularly the
issues.
Preregistration
One of the potential solutions to low voter turnout among the youth in the United States
is preregistration. Preregistration allows 16 and 17 year olds to register to vote, meaning they
will automatically be ready to vote in the first election they are eligible for. There is a very high
correlation between being registered to vote and participating in elections. Therefore, if
Yamanaka 8
registration rates among young people increase, so too will turnout among this demographic.
People who begin voting early on in their lives are more likely to participate later in life as well.
Preregistration allows for young voters to develop the habit of civic engagement and
participation in the system early which can last their entire lives. If young people feel more
comfortable navigating the system early on, they are more likely to continue participating
(Cherry, 2012).
Preregistration has already been implemented in 12 states and has been debated in 19
other state legislatures. It has proven to be effective in increasing turnout in a variety of
categories including race, gender and party. However, it did not result in a significant advantage
for either party, and the effects were nearly the same for each. Preregistration increased turnout
by 7.6 percent among young Democrats and 7.4 percent among young Republicans (Holbein,
2015). Preregistration also instills excitement about the political process early on in a person’s
life while they are malleable in school and can be taught to be an active, participatory citizen
(Holbein, 2015).
State Laws
One of the biggest factors that discourage new voters can be the process required in order
to vote in their first election. Every state has a different set of laws regarding the registration and
voting process, which can be confusing to someone that has never navigated the system before.
Registration
The first step is registering to vote. States vary in their laws regarding registration. Some
have the option to preregister before the voter turns eighteen. Others specify that the voter must
be eighteen by Election Day to register for that election. Currently 12 states allow
Yamanaka 9
preregistration. Every state has a different requirement regarding the length of time a person has
to register before the next election. Some states have laws requiring voter registrations be
received in the County Recorder’s office as many as 30 days prior to Election Day. Other states
require that the registration be postmarked by a certain date, not necessarily received by a
specific deadline. Thirty one states and the District of Colombia have laws with a postmark
deadline for voter registration. Twenty eight states have laws that require a voter registration be
received by a specific deadline. North Dakota is the only state without voter registration.
Additionally, states have different laws regarding Election Day registration. Only 11
states allow people to register to vote on Election Day itself. If someone decides to participate in
an election within the last month of campaign and they are not registered, they would only be
allowed to participate in 11 states and Washington D.C.
Young people are known for being technologically savvy. They are able to use the
internet for just about every aspect of their lives, why shouldn’t they use it to register to vote as
well? Less than half of the states have the capability of online voter registration. Twenty three
states and the District of Colombia allow for voter registration to be done online. Even though
most states have the paper registration form available on line, it still must be filled out and
returned to the County Recorder’s office in the other 27 states.
Early and Absentee Voting
Early and absentee voting extends the amount of time a voter has to participate in an
election. No longer is Election Day limited to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in
November. Depending on the state’s laws and the calendar of a particular year, through early
voting opportunities, Election Day can be extended anywhere from early October to the
Yamanaka 10
beginning of November. Early and absentee voting caters to those who are unable or unwilling to
go to the polls on Election Day.
Thirty three states have early voting in some form. The early voting periods vary in
length from state to state, as do the days in which early voting is available. Early voting can
begin anywhere from 45 days before the election to the Friday before Election Day. Eighteen
states and the District of Columbia have early voting available on Saturday and four states allow
early voting on Sunday.
Additionally, for voters that plan to be out of town or unavailable on Election Day, every
state offers absentee voting. However, twenty states require an excuse as to why a voter needs an
absentee ballot. The remaining states do not require an excuse for a voter to request an absentee
ballot and they will be sent one for any reason. Eight states have a permanent absentee voter list
and once someone requests to be sent an absentee ballot, they will continue to receive one
automatically for each election.
Three states have all mail elections. Colorado, Oregon and Washington do not have
polling locations on Election Day and instead conduct all elections through the mail, eliminating
the need for early or absentee voting.
Primary Voting
Throughout the United States, there are four different types of primary elections – open,
closed, hybrid and top two. Open primaries allow voters to participate in whichever party’s
primary they prefer, regardless of the voter’s party affiliation. Eleven states have open primaries.
Closed primaries only allow people who are registered with a specific party to participate in that
party’s primary. Eleven states have closed primaries. Twenty four states have hybrid primary
Yamanaka 11
systems. This means that the state’s primary system falls somewhere between open and closed,
particularly with regard to voters registered as independent. Some states allow independent
voters to select the party’s primary they wish to participate in on the day of the election. For
some states, a selection of a party’s ballot is registration into that party. Some states allow each
state’s party to select who they want to participate. Finally, three states have top two primaries,
meaning the two candidates with the most votes, regardless of party, are selected to move on to
the general election. All voters receive the same ballot listing the candidates so each party does
not have its own ballot.
Yamanaka 12
State Law Summary
Alabama
E-Day
VR
No
Online
VR
No
Early
Voting
No
Alaska
No
No
Yes
Arizona
Arkansas
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
California
No
Yes
Colorado
Conneticut
Delaware
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
All
Mail
No
No
DC
Yes
Yes
Yes
Florida
No
No
Yes
Georgia
No
Yes
Yes
Hawaii
No
Yes
Yes
Idaho
Yes
No
No
Illinois
Indiana
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Iowa
Yes
No
No
Kansas
Kentucky
Lousiana
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Maine
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Maryland
Massachusetts No
No
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Yes
No
Absentee
Voting
Excuse
No
Excuse
No
Excuse
Excuse
No
Excuse
Permanent
Primary
Absentee
Preregistration Type
No
No
Open
All Mail
Excuse
Excuse
No
Excuse
No
Excuse
No
Excuse
No
Excuse
No
Excuse
No
Excuse
Excuse
No
Excuse
No
Excuse
Excuse
Excuse
No
Excuse
No
Excuse
Excuse
Excuse
No
Excuse
Excuse
No
No
Hybrid
Yes
No
No
No
Hybrid
Open
Yes
Yes
Top Two
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Hybrid
Hybrid
Closed
Yes
Yes
Closed
No
Yes
Closed
No
No
Open
Yes
Yes
Open
No
No
Hybrid
No
No
No
No
Hybrid
Hybrid
No
No
Hybrid
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Closed
Closed
Top Two
No
No
Closed
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Hybrid
Hybrid
Open
Yes
No
No
No
Open
Hybrid
Yamanaka 13
Missouri
No
Yes
No
Montana
Yes
No
No
Nebraska
No
Yes
Yes
Nevada
New
Hampshire
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
New Jersey
No
No
No
New Mexico
New York
North
Carolina
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
North Dakota
Ohio
No
No
No
Oklahoma
No
No
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South
Carolina
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
All
Mail
No
No
No
Yes
No
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Utah
No
Yes
Yes
Vermont
Virginia
No
No
No
Yes
Washington
West Virginia
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
All
Mail
Yes
Wisconsin
Yes
No
No
Wyoming
No
No
No
Excuse
No
Excuse
No
Excuse
No
Excuse
No
No
Open
Yes
No
Open
No
No
Closed
No
No
Closed
Excuse
No
Excuse
No
Excuse
Excuse
No
Excuse
No
Excuse
No
Excuse
No
Excuse
No
No
Hybrid
Yes
No
Closed
No
No
No
No
Closed
Closed
No
No
Hybrid
No
No
Open
No
No
Hybrid
No
No
Hybrid
All Mail
Excuse
Excuse
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Hybrid
Closed
Hybrid
Excuse
No
Excuse
Excuse
Excuse
No
Excuse
No
Excuse
Excuse
No
No
Hybrid
No
No
No
No
No
No
Hybrid
Hybrid
Hybrid
Yes
Yes
Hybrid
No
No
No
No
Open
Hybrid
All Mail
Excuse
No
Excuse
No
Excuse
No
No
No
No
Top Two
Hybrid
No
No
Open
No
No
Closed
Yamanaka 14
Methodology
To examine the impact of state laws on the voter turnout of young people in the 2010
midterm election, I used the data published in the Cooperative Congressional Election Study
(CCES). The CCES “seeks to study how Americans view Congress and hold their
representatives accountable during elections, how they voted and their electoral experiences, and
how their behavior and experiences vary with political geography and social context”
(Ansolabehere, 2012). This study was particularly useful because after the survey responses were
given on whether that person voted or not in 2010, their responses were verified with each state
to ensure that the person voted if they said they did.
Using the data from the CCES, it was narrowed down to the group being focused on,
young people. For the purposes of this investigation, only the data used was from those between
the ages of 18-30. Using STATA, crosstabs were run using that data and the data added by the
author on each of the laws in each state. A separate crosstab was run for each type of state law.
These included Election Day voter registration, online voter registration, early voting, absentee
voting, permanent absentee voting, all-mail elections, preregistration and primary type. With the
exception of primary type, each state was placed into a “0” or “1” category based on whether the
law was seen as making the voting process easier or more difficult in each state. For states that
allow Election Day voter registration, they were placed into the “1” category. For states that do
not allow Election Day voter registration, they were placed into the “0” category. This method
was used for each of the other state law types. The primary type law was split into four
categories based on the four different types of primaries found throughout the United States.
Yamanaka 15
Results
Table 1: The Influence of the Ability to Register to Vote on Election Day on Turnout among
People under the Age of 30 in the 2010 Midterm Election
Voter Registration is Not
Voter Registration is Available
Available on Election Day
on Election Day
Did Not Vote
61%
57%
Voted
39%
43%
Total Column Percent
100%
100%
Number of Cases = 8840
Chi squared = 3.19, p=.18
Source: 2012 Cooperative Congressional Election Study
Table 1 shows that 39 percent of the people surveyed who live in states where voter
registration is not available on Election Day voted in the 2010 midterm election. This is
compared with 43 percent of those surveyed who live in states where voter registration is
available online who voted. There is a small relationship between the ability to register to vote
online and voting in the 2010 midterm election, given the difference of 4 percentage points.
However, the confidence interval is large at p = .18, meaning there is a low degree of confidence
in the relationship between the ability to register to vote on Election Day and voting in the 2010
midterm election. This relationship is not statistically significant at this interval.
Yamanaka 16
Table 2: The Influence of the Ability to Register to Vote Online on Turnout among People under
the Age of 30 in the 2010 Midterm Election
Voter Registration is Not
Voter Registration is Available
Available Online
Online
Did Not Vote
64%
59%
Voted
37%
41%
Total Column Percent
101%
100%
Number of Cases = 8840
Chi squared = 8.77, p=.02
Source: 2012 Cooperative Congressional Election Study
Table 2 shows that 37 percent of the people surveyed who live in states where voter
registration is not available online voted in the 2010 midterm election. This is compared with 41
percent of those surveyed who live in states where voter registration is available online who
voted. There is a small relationship between the ability to register to vote online and voting in the
2010 midterm election, given the difference of 4 percentage points. The confidence interval is
small at p = .02, meaning there is a high degree of confidence in the relationship between the
ability to register to vote online and voting in the 2010 midterm election. This relationship is
statistically significant at this interval.
Yamanaka 17
Table 3: The Influence of the Ability to Vote Early on Turnout among People under the Age of
30 in the 2010 Midterm Election
Early Voting is Not
Early Voting is Available
Available
Did Not Vote
65%
57%
Voted
35%
43%
Total Column Percent
100%
100%
Number of Cases = 8840
Chi squared = 24.50, p=.00
Source: 2012 Cooperative Congressional Election Study
Table 3 shows that 35 percent of the people surveyed who live in states where early
voting is not available voted in the 2010 midterm election. This is compared with 43 percent of
those surveyed who live in states where early voting is available who voted. There is a small
relationship between the ability to vote early and voting in the 2010 midterm election, given the
difference of 8 percentage points. The confidence interval is small at p = .00, meaning there is a
high degree of confidence in the relationship between the ability to vote early and voting in the
2010 midterm election. This relationship is statistically significant at this interval.
Yamanaka 18
Table 4: The Influence of the Ability to Vote by Absentee Ballot without Excuse on Turnout
among People under the Age of 30 in the 2010 Midterm Election
State Requires Excuse to Use State Does Not Require Excuse
Absentee Ballot
to Use Absentee Ballot
Did Not Vote
67%
56%
Voted
33%
44%
Total Column Percent
100%
100%
Number of Cases = 8840
Chi squared = 52.78, p=.00
Source: 2012 Cooperative Congressional Election Study
Table 4 shows that 33 percent of the people surveyed who live in states where the state
requires an excuse to use an absentee ballot voted in the 2010 midterm election. This is
compared with 44 percent of those surveyed who live in states where the state does not require
an excuse to use an absentee ballot who voted. There is a moderate relationship between the
ability to vote using an absentee ballot without an excuse and voting in the 2010 midterm
election, given the difference of 11 percentage points. The confidence interval is small at p = .00,
meaning there is a high degree of confidence in the relationship between the ability to vote using
an absentee ballot without an excuse and voting in the 2010 midterm election. This relationship
is statistically significant at this interval.
Yamanaka 19
Table 5: The Influence of a Permanent Absentee Voter List on Turnout among People under the
Age of 30 in the 2010 Midterm Election
State Does Not Have a
State Has a Permanent
Permanent Absentee Voter
Absentee Voter List
List
Did Not Vote
63%
53%
Voted
37%
47%
Total Column Percent
100%
100%
Number of Cases = 8840
Chi squared = 29.16, p=.00
Source: 2012 Cooperative Congressional Election Study
Table 5 shows that 37 percent of the people surveyed who live in states where the state
does not have a permanent absentee voter list voted in the 2010 midterm election. This is
compared with 47 percent of those surveyed who live in states where the state has a permanent
absentee voter list who voted. There is a moderate relationship between the ability to be on a
permanent absentee voter list and voting in the 2010 midterm election, given the difference of 10
percentage points. The confidence interval is small at p = .00, meaning there is a high degree of
confidence in the relationship between the ability to be on a permanent absentee voter list and
voting in the 2010 midterm election. This relationship is statistically significant at this interval.
Yamanaka 20
Table 6: The Influence of an All-Mail Election on Turnout among People under the Age of 30 in
the 2010 Midterm Election
State Does Not Conduct
State Conducts Elections
Elections Entirely By Mail
Entirely By Mail
Did Not Vote
61%
50%
Voted
39%
50%
Total Column Percent
100%
100%
Number of Cases = 8840
Chi squared = 12.03, p=.01
Source: 2012 Cooperative Congressional Election Study
Table 6 shows that 39 percent of the people surveyed who live in states where the state
does not conduct elections entirely by mail voted in the 2010 midterm election. This is compared
with 50 percent of those surveyed who live in states where the state conducts elections entirely
by mail who voted. There is a moderate relationship between the ability to vote entirely by mail
and voting in the 2010 midterm election, given the difference of 11 percentage points. The
confidence interval is small at p = .01, meaning there is a high degree of confidence in the
relationship between the ability to vote entirely by mail and voting in the 2010 midterm election.
This relationship is statistically significant at this interval.
Yamanaka 21
Table 7: The Influence of Preregistration on Turnout among People under the Age of 30 in the
2010 Midterm Election
State Does Not Allow 16
State Allows 16 Year Olds to
Year Olds to Register to
Register to Vote
Vote
Did Not Vote
63%
53%
Voted
37%
47%
Total Column Percent
100%
100%
Number of Cases = 8840
Chi squared = 36.94, p=.00
Source: 2012 Cooperative Congressional Election Study
Table 7 shows that 37 percent of the people surveyed who live in states where the state
does not allow sixteen year olds to register to vote voted in the 2010 midterm election. This is
compared with 47 percent of those surveyed who live in states where the state allows sixteen
year olds to register to vote who voted. There is a moderate relationship between the ability to
register to vote at age sixteen and voting in the 2010 midterm election, given the difference of 10
percentage points. The confidence interval is small at p = .00, meaning there is a high degree of
confidence in the relationship between the ability to register to vote at the age of sixteen and
voting in the 2010 midterm election. This relationship is statistically significant at this interval.
Yamanaka 22
Table 8: The Influence of Primary Type on Turnout among People under the Age of 30 in the
2010 Midterm Election
Close Primary
Open Primary
Top Two
Hybrid Primary
Primary
Did Not Vote
65%
63%
47%
62%
Voted
35%
37%
53%
38%
Total Column
100%
100%
100%
100%
Percent
Number of Cases = 8840
Chi squared = 55.53, p=.00
Source: 2012 Cooperative Congressional Election Study
Table 8 shows that 35 percent of the people surveyed who live in states with a closed
primary voted in the 2010 midterm election. This is compared with 37 percent of those surveyed
who live in states that have open primaries who voted. For people that live in states with a top
two primary system, they voted at a rate of 53 percent, compared to states with a hybrid primary
system, where those voters turned out at a rate of 38 percent. There is a moderate relationship
between the top two primary type and voting in the 2010 midterm election, given the difference
of 10 percentage points. The confidence interval is small at p = .00, meaning there is a high
degree of confidence in the relationship between the top two primary type and voting in the 2010
midterm election. This relationship is statistically significant at this interval.
Yamanaka 23
Conclusion
Findings
Seven of the eight state laws investigated proved to have a significant impact on the
turnout of voters aged 18-30 in the 2010 midterm election. Young people who live in states that
allow Election Day voter registration voted at a slightly higher rate than those who live in states
that do not allow Election Day voter registration, though the result was not significant. For the
others however, each finding was significant. Young people who live in states that have online
voter registration voted at a higher rate than those who live in states where online voter
registration is not an option. Young people who live in states where early voting is available
voted at a higher rate than those who live in states where early voting is not an option. Young
people who live in states that do not require an excuse to use an absentee ballot voted at a higher
rate than those who live in states that require an excuse to use an absentee ballot. Young people
who live in states that maintain a permanent absentee voter list voted at a higher rate than those
who live in states that do not maintain a permanent absentee voter list. Young people who live
in states that vote entirely by mail voted at a higher rate than those who live in states that still
conduct elections at polling places. Young people who live in states that allow sixteen year olds
to register to vote voted at a higher rate than those who live in states that do not allow sixteen
year olds to register. Young people who live in states with a top two primary system voted at a
higher rate than those who live in states that have closed, open or hybrid primary types.
The overall conclusion that can be drawn is that the individual laws that each state passes
have a direct impact on the voter turnout among people aged 18-30. Only eight laws were
reviewed here, and though each step of the electoral process was included, there are even more
Yamanaka 24
that could have been reviewed. The time in which a new voter has to register, the method by
which they register, the age at which they can register, the method by which they cast a ballot,
each of these can serve as a deterrent to voting, especially for young people. Young people are
already less engaged, so when barriers are put up to being involved in the process, it is young
people that are impacted the most.
So what can be done about this? This study aimed to demonstrate the true implications of
laws passed by state legislatures across the United States and the ways in which they
disenfranchise young voters by making the process more difficult than it needs to be. The clear
answer is for all states to pass laws making voting a more simple process. These laws would
include the following: allow Election Day voter registration, allow online voter registration,
allow early voting, do not require an excuse to vote using an absentee ballot, maintain a
permanent absentee voter list, conduct elections entirely by mail, allow sixteen year olds to
register to vote and use a top two primary system.
Yamanaka 25
Suggestions for Further Research
Voter identification laws have been a wide source of controversy in recent years,
particularly following the Supreme Court decision on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which said
that states no longer need preclearance from the United States Department of Justice before
making changes to their state laws. This would be an interesting topic to do more research on,
particularly with data more recent than from 2010. The states have such wide and varying laws
on the identification need to register and to show at the polls. Some states do not require any
form of identification to be shown at the polls, while others require photo ID with no non-photo
ID option (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2016).
It would also be interesting to look at the various ways states conduct their voter
registration process, particularly the amount of time a voter has to register prior to Election Day.
This perhaps goes hand in hand with the laws regarding Election Day registration, but is broader.
States have laws that differ on whether a registration must be received or postmarked by a certain
deadline, and those deadlines are not consistent between states (Rock the Vote, 2016). Another
study would be to categorize the state laws in some manner to analyze how those regulations in
particular impact disenfranchisement.
Additionally, beyond passing laws, the states have an obligation to educate the electorate
on the laws and necessary steps needed to properly cast a ballot. What happens after a law is
passed? How is that new information distributed to the voters? Is it done in a fair and efficient
manner? How do the government’s efforts compare to other voter advocacy organizations, such
as the League of Women Voters or Rock the Vote?
Yamanaka 26
Concluding Observations
There is still work to be done throughout the country to ensure that all people have equal
ballot access, and this work starts in each state’s legislature. That is where the power lies to make
the laws more consistent between states and to make the process easier for all people, especially
those in the youth demographic. The question that remains is, what is prevent the legislators
from acting to make the changes to the laws that would bring down the barriers to voting rather
than putting them up? If young people want to expand voting access, this is the question they
must be asking their legislators.
Yamanaka 27
References
Absentee and Early Voting. (2015). Retrieved December 12, 2015, from
http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/absentee-and-early-voting.aspx
Cherry, C. (2012). Increasing youth participation: The case for a national voter preregistration
law. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 45(2), 481-515.
Farthing, R. (2010). The politics of youthful antipolitics: Representing the ‘issue’ of youth
participation in politics. Journal of Youth Studies, 13(2), 181-195.
File, T. (2014, April 1). Young Adult Voting: An Analysis of Presidential Elections, 1964-2012.
Retrieved November 17, 2015, from https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p20573.pdf
Flanigan, W., & Zingale, N. (2015). Political behavior of the American electorate (13th ed.).
Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Holbein, J., & Hillygus, D. (2015). Making Young Voters: The Impact of Preregistration on
Youth Turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 0(0), 1-19.
Manning, N. (2012). The relational self and the political engagements of young adults. Journal
of Sociology, 50(4), 486-500.
McDonald, M., & Thornburg, M. (2010). Registering the youth through voter preregistration.
NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, 13(551), 551-572.
McGrath, M. (2012). Election reform and voter turnout: A review of the history. National Civic
Review, 101(3), 38-43.
Voter Registration Deadlines. (2015). Retrieved December 12, 2015, from
http://www.rockthevote.com/get-informed/elections/voter-registrationdeadlines.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/
Yamanaka 28
Zell, E., & Bernstein, M. (2013). You May Think You're Right ... Young Adults Are More
Liberal Than They Realize. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(4), 326333.