Increasing Voter
Participation
OPPORTUNITIES IN NEW YORK STATE
A Briefing Paper Prepared by the League of Women Voters of New York State
Education Foundation and the League of Women Voters of New York State
League of Women Voters of New York State
Increasing Voter Participation
Increasing Voter Participation
Opportunities in New York State
Introduction and Executive Summary
New York State has often been recognized as one of the most progressive states in
the country. For example, passage of the Marriage Equality Act on June 24, 2011 made
New York the sixth, largest, and arguably the most influential state to enact such
landmark legislation. However, one area in which New York has not been a leader is
election reform. While other states have been experimenting for the last three decades
with ways to increase opportunities to vote, New York’s policies and laws have remained
largely unchanged and the state’s voter turnout rates have likely suffered as a result.
Over the last three federal elections, New York had the 47th lowest voter
participation rate of the 50 states and Washington, D.C.1 This low ranking can partially
be explained by New York’s paper-based registration system, early registration deadline
and other outdated voter registration policies, including the state’s long waiting period for
changing party affiliation. Even in comparison to other inflexible states, New York has
some of the most rigid voter registration policies in the country. In addition, it is one of
only fifteen states that both do not allow any form of early in-person voting and require
an excuse for absentee ballots.2 New York also has a number of out-dated requirements
for ballot design that may contribute to voter confusion and errors.
There are many possible opportunities to increase rates of voter participation in
New York State through common sense solutions that have been implemented, to varying
degrees of success, in other states beginning in the 1980s. These fall into three general
categories:
•
Voter registration modernization. Paperless forms of voter registration have
decreased costs and increased accuracy of the voter roles in a number of other
states. Registering and voting on the same day is a proven method of
increasing voter participation.
•
Early voting. Many voters across the country now cast their votes before the
traditional “Election Day” marked by the Tuesday following the first Monday
in November. While the impact of early voting on turnout has been debated,
it has become popular for its convenience as voters chose to vote to suit their
own schedule.
•
Better ballot design, poll worker training and voter education. Improving the
often confusing design of New York’s ballots, improving and standardizing
December 2011
Page | 1
League of Women Voters of New York State
•
Increasing Voter Participation
the training of poll workers, as well as providing such basic voter education as
online ballots, could improve the voting experience of New Yorkers.
This paper and the accompanying Power Point presentation are intended as an
overview on strategies other states have used to make voting more flexible and
accessible, and some of the considerations for potentially implementing them in New
York. It does not intend to suggest that every voting innovation mentioned should be
adopted in New York. However, by putting this information together in one place, we
hope to facilitate conversations about which of these methods, individually or in
combination, might help raise levels of voter participation in our state. Some of the
reforms mentioned below may not be feasible for the demographic or geographical
makeup of New York. Others could be expanded, scaled down, or modified to meet the
specific needs of our state.
Acknowledgements
This paper was written by Sally Robinson, Issues and Advocacy Vice President,
League of Women Voters of New York State, with the help of interns Jeffrey Blauvelt
and Hanna Birkhead, whose contributions were made possible by the generous support of
the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The author also thanks Laura Bierman, Executive
Director of the League of Women Voters of New York State (LWVNYS) for her able
assistance in many ways as well as Adrienne Kivelson, Aimee Allaud, and Rachel Fauss,
for their helpful suggestions. Thanks also to Jennie Bowser of the National Council of
State Legislatures and that organization for their help with obtaining the most recent
information possible on election innovations in other states as well as the useful reports
contained in the Appendices to this paper.
The material contained in this paper is based on publicly available materials, including
several recent reports issued by the Brennan Center for Justice, a 2010 Voter Survey
conducted by LWVNYS and recent discussions of some of these proposals by the
LWVNYS with the Executive Directors of the New York State Board of Elections
(BOE).
December 2011
Page | 2
League of Women Voters of New York State
Increasing Voter Participation
Voter Registration Modernization
Getting Rid of the Paper
Not being registered to vote is the number one barrier to voting. Modernizing and
automating state voter registration at state agencies and Boards of Election would save
money, increase accuracy of the voter rolls and increase participation. New York
currently uses a paper-based system for voter registration that is cumbersome and prone
to error. You can register in person at any board of elections or at any New York State
agency-based voter registration center such as the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).
You can also download a PDF version of the registration form from the BOE, enter your
name in a database to have one sent to you, or fill out a PDF form online which can be
printed and mailed to the BOE. All of these methods require the voter to take an extra
step, such as signing the form and mailing it to the BOE, if not registering in person.
A number of states have replaced paper registration systems with automated
registration systems, or “paperless” registration systems, in which state government
agencies, primarily DMVs, collect and transfer voter registrations electronically and
automatically. Under automated registration systems, states can also allow online voter
registration by citizens. Once an eligible citizen is on a state’s voter rolls, that record is
automatically updated when new information about the citizen appears in any state
database. Eligible citizens can also correct errors on the voter rolls before and on
Election Day.
The seven states - Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Kansas, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island and Washington - that have adopted automated registration at DMVs all follow
basically the same process:3
Step 1: When a customer wishes to register to vote and affirms her eligibility, DMV
officials enter her information into the DMV database system.
Step 2: The statewide voter registration database system collects voter registration
information from the DMV system and sends it to local election officials for review.
Step 3: Local officials review the new registrations.
Step 4: When local officials accept the registrations, they are posted to the voter rolls.
These states have fully automated systems for DMVs in which the entire process is
paperless, so that all information election officials need is transmitted electronically in a
format that can be uploaded into their databases. States that require a signature for voter
registration can use a copy of the digitized signature that individuals submit for the
driver’s license or photo I.D.4 At least ten other states now have partially automated
systems in which agency officials transmit some information electronically, but have not
completely eliminated the transmittal of paper forms (such as for signatures) or local data
entry.5 During the LWVNYS meeting with the NYS BOE, it was pointed out that using
DMV information to automatically register voters would not be as useful in New York,
due to the abnormally high percentage of New York City residents who don’t have a
driver’s license.6 New York may favor a plan where voter registration information is
December 2011
Page | 3
League of Women Voters of New York State
Increasing Voter Participation
transmitted electronically not just from the DMV, but from other agencies as well, as is
currently done in Washington, Kansas and South Dakota.7
Nine states currently offer online registration, and two more, California and
Maryland, have passed legislation to do so.8 However, all these states continue to offer
paper-based registration through the mail or in-person since electronic registration is
intended to extend access not limit it.9 For security purposes, online registrants are
required to have a state issued driver’s license or I.D. which rules out some portion of the
population. Other states have also adopted statewide permanent registration, a system in
which voters stay registered and can easily update their information online without reregistering if they move anywhere within a state. By contrast, in New York, voters have
to use the state’s voter registration form to update any change of name or address, and the
form must be received 20 days before an election.
In 2010 the Brennan Center for Justice did the first in-depth study of paperless
voter registration across the United States. It found that registration innovations have
earned praise from both parties. Moreover, none of the state officials interviewed by the
Brennan Center found any reliability or security problems with paperless registration.10
The Brennan Center study found that not only did paperless registration produce fewer
errors initially, it also helped keep the voter rolls more accurate by making it easier for
voters to update their information.
More accurate voter rolls lead to less
disenfranchisement through voter roll purges and decreased use of provisional ballots on
Election Day.
In fact, in most other major democracies around the world the
government takes on the responsibility of compiling and updating voter registration lists
instead of voters having to take the initiative to register.11
The Pew Center on the States has been working with state and local election
officials, as well as technology experts, to upgrade voter registration systems using
technology. Part of their work, over several studies, highlights how modernizing voter
registration systems can save significant amounts of money. In one Arizona County,
costs were reduced to an average of 3 cents per voter for online registration versus 83
cents for paper registrations. Delaware saved $200,000 in labor costs in its Department
of Elections, and $50,000 in its DMV budget, after it introduced its paperless eSignature
system.12
The infrastructure for voter registration modernization is in place in every state,
including New York. Every state now has a statewide voter registration database pursuant
to the Help America Vote Act.13 Most other reliable government lists are also now in
computerized databases. For example, the Selective Service has for a number of years
built its registration lists largely through automated registration and data transfer from
government, agencies.
In LWVNYS conversations with the two Executive Directors of the New York
State BOE, one key concern raised with automated and/or online registration is the
requirement for a signature on the registration form.14 New York’s Electronic Signatures
and Records Act allows electronic signatures to be accepted on some documents unless
December 2011
Page | 4
League of Women Voters of New York State
Increasing Voter Participation
the specific legislation for that department prohibits it. An additional concern is cost.
Currently, the New York DMV prints out a voter registration applicant’s information and
then sends it to the county BOE where staff manually enters the information into the
database. Other state agencies are required to provide paper voter registration forms and
assistance under the National Voter Registration Act. There would be some upfront costs
involved in automating the process, including updating the DMV database to contain all
the information, i.e. full names, that would be needed for voter registration. DMV has
just instituted a new website, “MyDMV” which allows people to change addresses, get
paperless reminders, etc. online; it should eventually be possible to transmit this
information to the BOE for updating registration materials if the database improvements
were made and online registrations and electronic signatures were accepted.
The
experiences of other states show that the ultimate cost savings could be significant and
the accuracy of the system improved if New York moved to paperless registration.
The BOE Directors also discussed the requirement that submission of new voter
registrations and changes to registrations be made at least 20 days before the election.
The constitutional requirement is only 10 days, but because of the current system of
mailing the forms to the counties and manually entering the data, 10 days provides too
little time. With automated or online registrations, the updates may be able to be
completed within the constitutionally required 10-day minimum period. Another issue
discussed was the printing of the rolls for Election Day; again, 10 days is not sufficient
for printing of the rolls but would be possible if the signatures were received
electronically and the rolls were available on a terminal at the polling place, as is being
piloted in two counties in NYS this year. In these trials, the voter provides his/her
signature electronically on a signature pad and it is compared to the signature available
on the terminal. In this process, the rolls are not printed on paper allowing for a shorter
time from receipt of a registration to Election Day.
Election Day registration
Election Day registration (EDR), or registering and voting on the same day, has
been consistently found to increase turnout without imposing major costs since deadlines
discourage citizens who would otherwise want to vote.15 Eight states currently have EDR
and two more currently allow voters to register and cast a vote during the early voting
period. 16 EDR is particularly useful to younger voters, first-time voters and the
geographically mobile and results in a decreased use of provisional ballots. A 2007 study
of voter fraud and EDR found that EDR did not increase the opportunity for voter fraud.17
States with EDR require identification and proof of residency on Election Day and utilize
trained election personnel to supervise EDR, safeguards that are generally not otherwise
present when EDR is not available.
The New York state constitution requires a deadline for voter registration of 10
days prior to the election, so a change to EDR in New York would require both
legislation and a constitutional amendment. Under New York’s Election Law, party
affiliation has to be changed by 25 days prior to the date of the preceding general
Election Day which means that a voter who changes party affiliation after that deadline
must sit out one entire primary cycle. In the rest of the country, 20 of 25 states that
December 2011
Page | 5
League of Women Voters of New York State
Increasing Voter Participation
require party affiliation to vote in primaries allow changes within 30 days or less of the
primary.18
Early Voting
One tool that many states have used to improve voter participation is to provide
opportunities for voters to cast their votes before Election Day in addition to completing
traditional absentee ballots. Early voting has become so widespread throughout the
United States that 30% of voters in the 2008 election cast their votes before Election Day.
Early voting reforms generally seek to make the voting process easier and more
convenient. However, academic studies have offered different opinions on the effect of
early voting on voter turnout. While one study19 found that early voting increased voter
turnout (after accounting for other variables), other studies have concluded that early
voting either has no effect, may decrease turnout, or has only a small positive effect.20
With respect to mail ballots, four of the five states where the number of mail ballots
exceeds half of all ballots cast have turnout rates above the median for all states.21 Some
skeptics have also expressed concern that stretching out the voting period dilutes the
special civic experience of one “Election Day.”22
There is agreement that early voting encourages turnout mainly in those
demographics that are already likely to go out and vote – it simply provides them with
more options for when to vote.23 Early voting can further mobilize these voters since it
allows them to avoid the travel expenses and waiting time that having to vote at a
specified polling place on the day of the election can cause. Implementing early voting
also saves time and money for polling staff on Election Day by decreasing the numbers
of voters on that day.24 Early voting also can lead to more accurate ballot counting since
staff can begin to count the ballots early and not be as rushed at the end of the process
and voters consistently express high levels of satisfaction with the system.25 Both of the
main national organizations that deal with election administration in the states, the
National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Association of Secretaries of
State, issued reports in 2001 and 2003 urging states to consider early voting reforms.
There are three ways that early voting has been implemented in other states to
varying degrees:
1. No-Excuse Absentee Voting
2. Early in-Person Voting
3. All Vote-by-Mail Voting
Critics of expanded early voting methods focus their arguments on its disparate
impact on different demographic groups, voter fraud concerns and, with respect to early
in-person voting, the cost of having election officials and equipment implement early inperson voting sites. During 2011, five states, Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Tennessee, and
West Virginia enacted laws reducing early/absentee voting opportunities. However, this
partial withdrawal from early voting can be seen as part of a recent broader trend in
which states have passed new government-issued photo ID laws for voting, new proof of
citizenship laws, and laws restricting voting registration drives. A recent report by the
December 2011
Page | 6
League of Women Voters of New York State
Increasing Voter Participation
Brennan Center estimated that these restrictions will affect millions of Americans for the
2012 elections and will fall most heavily on young, minority and low-income voters.26
Implementing early voting in New York is complicated by the fact that no-excuse
absentee voting and possibly other forms of early voting would require an amendment to
the state constitution, a cumbersome and time-consuming process. A constitutional
amendment in New York requires passage by two separately elected legislatures and then
approval by the voters.
No-Excuse Absentee Voting
No-excuse absentee voting is the most widely used type of early voting reform.
Every state in the United States, including New York, has some type of absentee voting
(or operates on an all-mail system), with twenty-seven states plus the District of
Columbia allowing specifically for no-excuse absentee voting.27 No-excuse absentee
voting allows voters to obtain an absentee ballot without explaining why they will not be
able to get to their polling place on Election Day. In some states, including New York,
absentee ballots are available but obtaining one requires an excuse; in other words, voters
must explain why they require an absentee ballot. This practice can lead to lower rates of
using the absentee ballot system because some voters may be reluctant to tell the
government about a health problem or any other type of personal issue that would keep
them from voting on-site, or may just prefer the general convenience of effectively voting
by mail through no-excuse absentee voting rather than having to show up at a voting
booth. Absentee ballot applications in New York can also be intimidating, as they require
the voter to sign an affidavit that false statements will subject the voter to penalties. In
the twenty-seven states that allowed “no-excuse” absentee voting by mail in 2008, 22%
of ballots were cast by mail. In the states that still require an excuse to vote absentee,
only 6.0% of ballots were cast by mail.28 Allowing voters to obtain absentee ballots with
no questions asked leads to higher rates of voters requesting these ballots, completing
them, and sending them in.29
California in particular has become a national model for no-excuse absentee
voting. In 2002 and 2003, during two of California’s earliest elections using this reform,
over 25% of the voting electorate cast their votes through the new absentee ballots.30 By
the 2009 elections in California, over 62% of the voters cast their votes in this manner.31
This can partially be attributed to the fact that California, aside from just allowing noexcuse absentee balloting, also allows for “permanent absentee status,” which means that
all voters can choose to send their ballots in permanently by mail, instead of having to fill
out a new absentee ballot request form for every election. Still, some of the success can
also be attributed to the simple fact that more citizens of California felt comfortable
requesting an absentee ballot in the first place, since they did not have to provide an
excuse. However, it is possible that California, along with Oregon and Washington, has
expanded early voting in part because the ballot is so long with citizen initiatives that
precinct-based voting becomes less attractive.32
December 2011
Page | 7
League of Women Voters of New York State
Increasing Voter Participation
Absentee voting greatly reduces the administrative costs on the day of an election
by creating less demand on the polling sites and staffers. Fewer lines and fewer people
using the voting machines reduce the stress on the voting facilities and associated costs.
Under current New York law, there are built-in minimum staffing costs because four poll
workers are currently mandated for each election district, but with changes in the law
some election districts could be consolidated and assistance provided by other and fewer
clerks to reduce costs. The longer period during which to record voters’ ballots provides
for a more accurate count and increased security due to the substantial paper trail. Finally,
the increased simplicity of the voting process for those voters who use absentee ballots
and the reduced wait times on election day for those voters still choosing to vote on
Election Day may further increase overall voter satisfaction.
Ever since absentee balloting first became an option in the early 20th century, the
risks of fraud and coercion with this method have been debated. In particular, some
critics think that a large expansion of absentee voting would threaten the security of the
ballot.33 Though there is a solid paper trail left behind from this kind of voting and no
chance of machine malfunction, this method is seen as being less secure because a voter’s
identity is not verified in the same ways as in-person voting.34 There is no way of
knowing whether a voter actually filled out a ballot by him or herself, or whether
someone (e.g., a caretaker) filled it out for them, had the voter sign the form, and sent it
in.
Early in-Person Voting
Another method that some states have implemented in order to raise their voting
participation is early in-person (EIP) voting. Currently, thirty-two states plus the District
of Columbia have implemented some type of early in-person voting program.35 In
addition to traditional polling places, the majority of these states have set up polling sites
that are in locations such as supermarkets and shopping malls. These locations are more
heavily trafficked and convenient to voters than traditional polling places. In the 2008
election, 17 states allowed for both mail ballots and EIP voting, and out of those states,
11 states had a higher number of people vote EIP than by a mail ballot.36 When states
choose to adopt EIP voting, it becomes a popular way for voters to cast their ballots.
EIP voting helps increase voter satisfaction in large part because it is more
convenient and decreases wait times on Election Day. In Texas during one of their first
elections that allowed EIP voting, more people voted early than on the day of the
election.37 Before the 2004 Presidential Election, election officials in the state of Nevada
set up eight ‘permanent’ early voting sites (and many other non-permanent early voting
sites) throughout the state at malls, supermarkets, libraries and community center and
other similar places. During that election, over 270,000 voters chose to cast their votes at
one of these sites. Forty thousand of those voters voted at the early voting center set up in
the Galleria at Sunset, a mall that has become “a wildly popular place to vote” and shop
alike in Nevada.38
December 2011
Page | 8
League of Women Voters of New York State
Increasing Voter Participation
Early voting comes with a variety of concerns with respect to providing fair and
equal voting opportunities and meeting new demands on elections systems. Early voting
centers must be established in appropriate locations, which can be difficult to find and
establish. Each early voting location must draw enough voter traffic to compensate for
the additional costs of having election officials and voting equipment at the sites full-time
for several weeks. Enough trained people must be available to staff polling places that
are open for longer periods of time. EIP voting also does not address accessibility,
economic or demographic barriers that may keep a voter from reaching a polling site and
does not appear to necessarily draw new voters into the system. Not surprisingly, some
studies show that the types of voters who are more likely to use these early voting places
are essentially identical demographically to those who will usually vote on the day of the
election. Thus, EIP may not significantly change the demographics of the electorate
compared to traditional election-day voting methods.39 However, EIP voting could be
helpful in reducing barriers to ballot access in the “mobile population,” i.e., college
students or residents of urban areas who might not know where their polling place is or
are not registered with the proper polling place. Ideally any system of EIP voting would
equally advantage all income, demographic and ethnic groups, and not reduce voting
opportunities for “less mobile” seniors and urban residents.
All Vote-By-Mail Voting
A third early voting approach is to shift an entire state or county to an all vote-bymail (VBM) system. All VBM entirely eliminates polling sites with in-person voting
machines and instead mandates that all voters submit their ballots by mail. VBM voting
is convenient, fast, and doesn’t require personal transportation to a far away polling site.
Oregon is the only state to have entirely shifted to all VBM voting. The state’s decision
to go entirely VBM was made after twenty years of slow change in that direction,
beginning with absentee ballots and progressing until more voters were sending in their
ballots than going to their polling places.40 Now, every voter in Oregon casts his or her
ballot through the mail. Washington State has had a similarly gradual shift towards all
VBM voting. In 1967, any precinct in Washington with fewer than 100 registered voters
was designated as a mail ballot precinct. By 2005, the state allowed any county the
option to conduct all elections by mail. As of today, all but one of Washington’s 39
counties have elected to shift to all VBM voting.
All VBM systems allow for a complete paper trail and enable random ballot
auditing. Since there are no polling sites in this type of election, the administrative costs
associated with staff and voting machines, including their upkeep, are very low. All
VBM also eliminates the need to hire poll-workers and give them adequate training.
Oregon officials have estimated that they have saved 17% on overall election costs by
switching to an all VBM system.41
However, despite these positive outcomes of all-VBM voting, the VBM switch in
the state of California demonstrates that this type of system, if implemented improperly,
can actually have the negative effect of lowering voter participation rates. Unlike Oregon
and Washington, which put VBM voting into practice gradually and with the support of
December 2011
Page | 9
League of Women Voters of New York State
Increasing Voter Participation
local officials, some districts in California abruptly mandated that voters had to use an all
VBM system without adequate voter education and local support, and saw their voter
participation rates drop by over 13%.42 One commentator also attributed the different
impact of all VBM by noting that Oregon is a state that did not have “the challenges
posed by population demographics, high density, or language diversity” that California
did. 43 The California experience shows that the switch to an all VBM system must be
made carefully.44
As with no-excuse absentee balloting, shifting to an all VBM system in New York
State would require a constitutional amendment. All VBM systems have the same
security and fraud concerns as other vote by mail systems. Finally, although an all VBM
system may increase voter participation by those voters who are already registered to
vote, mail-ballot elections do not appear to increase registration according to a report
made by the City of San Diego Office of the City Clerk.45 Still, as one commentator
observed, “mail-ballot elections do appear to retain voters by removing obstacles such as
illness, traffic or busyness, which might reduce one’s likelihood of voting on a given
election day.”46
Better Ballot Design, Voter Education and Poll Worker Training
Fixing the Ballot
Another avenue to improve New York’s low rate of voter participation is to create
a better ballot design since the design of a ballot can have a significant impact on the
outcome of any given election. A poorly designed ballot can contribute to errors in
voting, when citizens mistakenly cast their ballot for a candidate for whom they did not
mean to vote, and in tallying the final votes, when the officials tallying the votes have
trouble reading the ballot and record the wrong vote. Furthermore, poorly designed
ballots and the confusion associated with them can lead to a distrust of the voting system
by the electorate, in turn leading to lower rates of voter participation.47
The most famous example of poor ballot design impacting an election is probably
the 2000 presidential election in Florida, in which a flawed “butterfly ballot” in Palm
Beach County may have been a source of errors in voting that affected the outcome of a
Presidential election. Since then, a new government agency, the United States Election
Assistance Commission, has been formed and has recommended many changes that
could be made to ballots. In the Commission’s 2007 report, “Effective Designs for the
Administration of Federal Elections,” it recommends, among other things: changing the
ballot designs for elections, posting public samples of ballots on or before Election Day,
publicly posting instructions for all voters, and only using one language at a time on any
particular ballot wherever possible (while recognizing that two languages may be
necessary in certain cases).48 The Commission’s goal was to create a ballot that is easily
understood by voters (including those with vision and literacy issues), supports ease of
use and confidence in the electoral process, and is easily translated and is sensitive to
cultural differences in language and expression.49
December 2011
Page | 10
League of Women Voters of New York State
Increasing Voter Participation
The recommendations made by the Commission were only suggestions, however,
and New York’s ballots have remained largely unchanged and do not address these
recommendations. The current design of the ballot in New York, particularly in New
York City, creates many troublesome areas where voters can (and do) easily make
mistakes, leading to a high number of votes being either lost or miscast during a given
election cycle.50 Voters may:
- Fill in the wrong bubble
- Misunderstand which races allow voting for more than one candidate
- Overlook the write-in area altogether
Furthermore, in the case of New York City ballots, instructions for filling out the ballot
appear in the upper right hand corner, taking up a considerable amount of space on the
ballots. New York City also includes multiple languages on the ballot instead of separate
ballots for each of the four federally-mandated languages, despite the Commission’s
recommendation having a maximum of two languages on any given ballot.51 In order to
fit all of the necessary information, the writing on the ballots is very small. With each
added language, the entire ballot becomes that much more difficult for the average voter
to fill out correctly, without confusion and aggravation.
Simplifying New York’s ballots and increasing the clarity of the voting system
overall would make for more accurate elections. As the Brennan Center for Justice
reports, “poor ballot design and instructions have caused the loss of tens and sometimes
hundreds of thousands of votes in nearly every election year…All too often, the loss of
votes and rate of errors resulting from [mistakes filling out the ballot] are greater than the
margin of victory between the two leading candidates.”52 In addition, ballot
simplification, by creating a simpler, less frustrating voting process, would improve voter
satisfaction and trust in the electoral process.
The problems raised by New York’s ballot design were highlighted in a statewide
survey conducted by the LWVNYS in November 2010, on voters’ experiences with the
new voting machines. Almost 20% of the approximately 1100 responses from 47
counties, including the 5 counties in New York City, indicated problems completing the
paper ballot part of the voting process. Even survey respondents who did not have
significant problems in filling out their ballot made comments that indicated the need for
improvements to the ballot design, including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Need for better delineation between offices
Difficulty in filling out the ballot where the office required voting for more than
one candidate.
Print was too small; contrasting fonts and shades of black/grey should be used;
size of oval or square should be larger (difficult for persons with arthritis, etc.)
There should be one type of marking pen for the ballot (some counties used one
type for the front of ballot and another for the reverse side).
Some types of markers bled through the ballot, compromising privacy.
Voters were not told about magnifying lenses (where they were available). Voters
who were aware of the aids found them beneficial.
December 2011
Page | 11
League of Women Voters of New York State
•
•
Increasing Voter Participation
Usability of marking areas on the ballot (squares vs. ovals and marking with an
“X” vs. filling in the oval).
Write-in space is not large enough
Simplifying the design of the ballots need not be a lengthy or costly process. In
2008, based on the new ballot guidelines from the Election Assistance Commission, the
American Institute for Graphic Arts (AIGA) started a project called “Design for
Democracy.”53 Through using their knowledge of graphic arts and the ballot design
guidelines, the AIGA came up with several easy changes to make to ballots. Among other
things, they recommended:
1. Clarifying page numbers on the ballot and plainly showing when there is
another page to turn to;
2. Using clear and simple instructional language, based on a fourth-grade reading
level, for example: “Vote for 1” as opposed to “Vote for not more than
one”;
3. Adding accurate and meaningful images to the ballot (instead of confusing and
unnecessary party logos);
4. Using a clear page design with starkly delineated columns that facilitate topdown and left-to-right reading, and creating a clear hierarchy of
information through the use of differentiated headings, sub-headings, etc.;
and
5. Including summary versions of referenda (simple language)
The New York Times interactive online article “How Design Can Save Democracy”
provides a thorough overview of some of the issues with older ballots in direct
comparison to the AIGA’s new recommendations.54
Voter Education and Poll Worker Training
In addition to fixing the design of the ballot, reformers emphasize increasing voter
education as well as better poll worker training to enable poll workers to provide more
effective assistance to voters on Election Day. One argument for increasing voter
education is that doing so may decrease the demographic disparities associated with
voting in general. Elections should not be decided on the basis of whose supporters are
better able to navigate the ballot. Providing voters with better education about the ballots
and how to complete them effectively would likely result in a higher number of elderly,
minority, disabled or less educated voters (who might otherwise have trouble filling out
their ballots) understanding the nuts and bolts of the voting process before Election Day
and voting more accurately.
Robert Richie, director of FairVote, an organization that researches electoral
reforms and aims to increase voter turnout, argues that publishing a voter guide and
sending it to all households of registered voters or putting it online in an interactive
format could increase voter knowledge of the electoral system, the candidates, and how
voting works, therefore making voters more confident in the process and eventually
December 2011
Page | 12
League of Women Voters of New York State
Increasing Voter Participation
causing an increase in rates of voter participation.55 These guides can inform citizens on
everything from the mechanics of the election process to knowledge about the candidates
or any ballot initiatives. Studies show that this method is especially effective in
jurisdictions having a large number of complicated ballot measures.56 Many other
countries and some states have published these voter guides to great effect, and it has
become a trademark service provided by chapters of the League of Women Voters all
over the country. New York City’s Campaign Finance Board, which administers a public
financing program for New York City races, is required to publish a voter guide for city
elections that is mailed to each registered household. In 2011 LWVNYS launched
VOTE411.org, an online guide for election-related information.
Similarly, another method of simplifying the voting process on Election Day is to
publish a sample ballot prior to the date of the election, whether online, in a newspaper,
or through one of the voter guides mentioned above. A sample ballot that voters have
reviewed at home can save time and confusion for voters at the polls on Election Day.57
These ballots could even be brought to the polls by the voters, therefore ensuring that
they make their intended choice even under possibly stressful circumstances, with
appropriate safeguards against attempted use as actual ballots. The Brennan Center for
Justice supports publishing early ballots for the general public, since it gives voters time
to become acquainted with potential problems on the ballot well before they cast their
vote, leading to more accurate votes.58 Based on information received from the BOE,
ballots should be available to voters from county boards in advance of elections, but not
all counties currently have websites on which to post them. A November 2010 survey by
Citizens Union of the City of New York showed the sample ballot practices in the county
boards.59
Voter education can also help to simply remind voters of what day Election Day
falls upon. Campaigns such as the “November 2” campaign of the 2004 election or the
“Rock the Vote” campaigns of recent elections can move non-voters to action simply by
making sure that they are aware of the election and its date.60 Through campaigns such as
these, voters can take a step away from the constant barrage of red vs. blue rhetoric and
simply be reminded of the importance of getting to the polls and voting.
Finally, voter education is seen by many as a possible way to increase the number
of minority voters registering to vote. As was mentioned in the previous section, many of
the methods that have been implemented in order to increase voter participation may in
fact increase participation for those voters already registered to vote while not
significantly changing participation in those demographics with lower numbers of
registered voters. Better voter education could serve the dual purpose of encouraging
people of all demographics to register to vote, as well as encouraging those already
registered to go out and exercise their right to vote.
Better poll worker training can also be part of the effort to assist voter education
on Election Day and improve elections. In the LWVNYS 2010 voter survey, many of the
respondents felt that they did not receive adequate instructions on how to complete the
ballot or the voting process; additional training of poll workers could facilitate the
December 2011
Page | 13
League of Women Voters of New York State
Increasing Voter Participation
process for voters. Survey respondents also raised the need for better-trained elections
personnel, citing age or lack of experience as negative factors in the overall voting
process.
Poll worker training and staffing is a key part of the election cycle that may cost
money but clearly facilitates voter participation in the election. Although it may seem
obvious that poll worker training is an important part of the electoral process, some
states, including Virginia and Pennsylvania, do not have laws that require that poll
workers be trained.61 Inadequate poll worker training can and has led directly to
problems with elections. Even in some states where poll worker training is mandated, the
training is often insufficient to actually inform the workers of what their options are in
case of an emergency. For example, in Denver during the 2006 elections, the Internetbased poll book that the poll workers had been using to check in the voters failed. There
was an alternative solution to this poll book, but the poll workers had not been trained on
it.62 New York has a dedicated account of time-limited money appropriated through the
Help America Vote Act for poll worker training by the county boards of election.
Counties should be encouraged to take advantage of this money that could help them
provide substantial training of the poll workers at little or no cost to the county. This
could help to ensure that all poll workers receive uniform training in New York election
law and procedures and in assisting voters.
Next Steps
Short-term
Some of the ideas discussed in this paper can be implemented fairly quickly and
easily. We anticipate that the reforms that have the greatest chance of being implemented
quickly relate to ballot design. Many of the problems with ballot design, such as
confusing layout, cramped fonts, and too many languages, can be changed easily
according to the BOE within the current legislative parameters that the ballot must meet.
An example of a change that could be made to the ballot is with respect to the number of
languages. The BOE mandates that the ballots in other languages must follow the
“English +1” rule in their layout – they must have English along with the other language
on the ballot. However, there is no mandate that every single language must be printed on
the same ballot. Having more than two languages on one ballot is a decision that was
made by the New York City BOE.63 Having all of the languages on one ballot makes
designing and printing the ballots easier, but unfortunately results in more confusing
ballots for the voters. Some other changes, with respect to party emblems and capital
letters, would require relatively straightforward legislation to change.
Better voter education and poll worker training are additional changes that could
be made within the existing legislative parameters. The importance of thorough and
comprehensive poll worker training should not be underestimated in terms of ensuring
that voters have an efficient and enjoyable voting experience. County BOEs currently
have a certain amount of money at their disposal to educate the voters, but in most
December 2011
Page | 14
League of Women Voters of New York State
Increasing Voter Participation
counties it is not being fully used.64 Outside organizations such as the League could
develop educational programs for poll workers and voters and bring them to county
boards in order to help them decide how to use their resources more effectively.
We also believe that in a world that is moving away from paper systems and
towards electronic ways of doing business, one idea that has particular promise is moving
the state to paperless registration, including the possibility of online registration.
Although there would be up-front costs involved in upgrading technology, the experience
of other states makes it clear that the electronically collecting voter registrations from the
DMV and other state agencies and providing it to county BOEs would both ultimately
save money and increase accuracy of the voter rolls.
Long-term
Enacting some of the more involved or ambitious reforms can and will take more
time, energy, and political will. Changes that require more complex legislation or an
amendment to the constitution, such as no-excuse absentee ballots, EDR, or some form of
early voting, would take much longer and have greater risk of being lost in political
battles and partisan rhetoric. We hope this process of public discussion is the first step in
a long process to help New York State move towards the forefront of election reform.
New York will require its own unique comprehensive reform effort in order to have the
most effective system for its population.
December 2011
Page | 15
League of Women Voters of New York State
Increasing Voter Participation
Endnotes
1
New York City. “2010 Mayor’s Report on Voter Access in New York.” 2010. Available at:
http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov. Sourced from George Mason University Elections Project
(Turnout defined as Votes for Highest Office divided by Voting Eligible Population).
2
National Conference of State Legislatures. “Absentee and Early Voting.” July 2011. Available at:
http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=16604. National Conference of State Legislatures; “Electronic (or Online)
Voter Registration.” October 2011. Available at: http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=18421;
National Conference of State Legislatures. “Same Day Voter Registration.” September 2011. All three
reports are attached in Appendices 1-3 below.
3
Ponoroff, Christopher. “Voter Registration In A Digital Age.” Wendy Weiser ed. The Brennan Center for
Justice, 2010, page 3. DMV registrations constitute the largest number of states using automated
registration. Seven states have fully automated their voter registration process at DMVs. Available at:
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/voter_registration_in_a_digital_age.
4
Ponoroff 4.
5
Ponoroff 5.
6
Notes from a League of Women Voters of New York State meeting with NYS BOE Directors Robert
Brehm and Todd Valentine and staff John Conklin and Tom Connolly, 30 August 2011.
7
Benjamin, Gerald, Blair Horner, John Kaehny and Lawrence Norden. “Executive Orders: Actions the
Governor can take to make New York government more open, accountable and democratic.” Reinvent
Albany. November 2010, page 60, 61. Available at: http://reinventalbany.org/initiatives/executive-orders.
8
National Conference of State Legislatures. “Online Voter Registration: Coming Soon to a State Near
You?” The Canvass States and Election Reform 21 (2011), page 2. Available at:
www.ncsl.org/documents/legismgt/.../Canvass_June_2011_No21.pdf. Legislation providing for online
registration passed in Hawaii was vetoed by the Governor on July 12, 2011.
9
supra 4.
10
Ponoroff 14.
11
Rosenberg, Jennifer S. and Margaret Chen. “Expanding Democracy: Voter Registration Around the
World.” The Brennan Center for Justice, 2009, page 9. Available at:
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/expanding_democracy_voter_registration_around_the_wor
ld.
12
Pew Center on the States, “Upgrading Democracy: Improving America’s Election Systems by
Modernizing States’ Voter Registration Systems”, November 2010, page 4.
Available at:
http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/report_detail.aspx?id=85899359596
13
NYC BOE has started to share its database with the state BOE.
14
Notes from LWVNY meeting with the NYS BOE.
15
McDonald, Michael P. "Voter Turnout in the 2010 Midterm Election," The Forum: Vol. 8: Iss. 4, Article
8. (2010), page 3, 4. Available at: http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol8/iss4/art8.
16
Weiser, Wendy R. and Lawrence Norden. “Voting Law Changes in 2012.” The Brennan Center for
Justice, 2011, page 25. Available at:
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/voting_law_changes_in_2012. The National Conference of
State Legislatures, “Same-day Voter Registration.”
17
Minnite, Lorraine. “Election Day Registration: A Study on Voter Fraud Allegations and Findings on
Voter Roll security.” Demos. 6 September 2007. Available at: http://www.demos.org/publication/electionday-registration-study-voter-fraud-allegations-and-findings-voter-roll-security.
18
New York City “2010 Mayor’s Report on Voter Access in New York.” Appendix 1.
19
Leighly, Jan E. and Jonathan Nagler. “The Effect of Non-Precinct Voting Reforms on
Turnout: 1972-2008.” ElectionOnline.org. 15 January 2009, page 13, 14.
Available at:
http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/report_detail.aspx?id=58252.
20
For a good survey of the recent literature see: Gronke, Paul, Eva Galanes-Rosenbaum and Peter A.
Miller. "From Ballot Box to Mail Box: Early Voting and Turnout." In Democracy in the States:
Experiments in Election Reform, ed. Cain, Tolbert, and Donovan. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute
Press, 2008. Available at http://www.earlyvoting.net/research.
21
McDonald 4. The states above the median are California, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington.
December 2011
Page | 1
League of Women Voters of New York State
Increasing Voter Participation
22
See for example, Brooks, David and Gail Collins. “Do You Really Want to Vote for That Candidate?”
The New York Times Opinionator, 29 September 2010.
23
Neeley, Grant W. and Lilliard E. Richardson, Jr. “Who is Early Voting? An Individual
Level Examination.” The Social Science Journal 338 (2001): 381-392, page 382..
24
Gronke, Paul, Eva Galanes-Rosenbaum, Peter A. Miller, and Daniel Toffey.
“Convenience Voting.” Annual Review of Political Science 11 (2008): 437-455, page 438.
25
Gronke, “From Ballot Box to Mail Box: Early Voting and Turnout,” 17.
26
Weiser 20.
27
Reed College. The Early Voting Information Center. Available at: http://www.earlyvoting.net. 2011.
28
Stewart, Charles III. “Losing Votes by Mail.” New York University Journal of Legislation and Public
Policy 13 (2010): 573-602, page 582.
29
Patterson, Samuel C. and Gregory A. Caldeira. “Mailing In the Vote: Correlates and
Consequences of Absentee Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 29
(1985): 766-788, page 786.
30
Berinsky, Adam J. “The Perverse Consequences of Electoral Reform in the United
States.” American Politics Research 33 (2005): 471-491, page 474.
31
Bergman, Elizabeth, Philip Yates, and Elaine Ginnold. “How Does Vote By Mail
Affect Voters? A natural experiment examining individual-level turnout.” Pew Center on
the States: Make Voting Work, 2009, page 3.
32
Gronke, From Ballot Box to Mail Box: Early Voting and Turnout,14.
33
Fortier, John C., “Absentee Voting for Convenience” The Philadelphia Inquirer, 2 November 2006.
34
Gronke, “Convenience Voting,” page 449.
35
The National Conference of State Legislatures, “Absentee and Early Voting.”
36
United States Elections Project. “Final 2008 Early Voting Statistics.” George Mason University.
Available at: http://elections.gmu.edu/Early_Voting_2008_Final.html. 2011.
37
League of Women Voters. “Helping America Vote. Thinking Outside the Ballot Box:
Innovations for the Polling Place.” October 2006, page 7.
38
LWV 6. In addition to the increased participation in early voting, election officials in Clark County have
boasted about the administrative savings they have experienced. One official estimated that without early
voting, the county would have to purchase 2,700 new voting machines to handle the added traffic on
Election Day. Clark County has saved an estimated eight million dollars already by implementing this kind
of EIP voting.
39
Berinsky 480.
40
Bergman 4.
41
Bergman 5.
42
Bergman 4.
43
Bergman 4.
44
This mandated VBM system had an especially negative effect on urban and minority voters. It is
estimated that the odds of an urban voter actually voting decreased by 50% as a result of California’s
mandatory system, and the odds of a minority voter (Asian or Hispanic) voting decreased by 30%. This
may perhaps be attributed to the fact that these urban and minority populations are more mobile, and have
less access to regular mail service.
45
Maland, Elizabeth. “Followup Report: Mail-Only Ballot Election Issues of Voter Turnout and Fraud.”
San Diego Office of the City Clerk, 27 June 2007, page 1.
46
Maland 2.
47
Norden, Lawrence, David Kimball, Whitney Quesenbery, and Margaret Chen. “Better Ballots.” The
Brennan Center for Justice, 2008, page 9. Available at:
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/better_ballots.
48
U.S. Election Assistance Commission. “Effective Designs for the Administration of
Federal Elections.” The United States Election Assistance Commission, 2007, sections 1.4, 2.3, 2.4.
49
U.S. Election Assistance Commission 2.4.
50
Norden 8.
51
Richie, Robert. “Leave No Voter Behind: Seeking 100 Percent Voter Registration and
Effective Civic Education.” Wiley Periodicals, Inc, 2007.
December 2011
Page | 2
League of Women Voters of New York State
Increasing Voter Participation
52
Norden 9.
Design for Democracy, www.AIGA.org.
54
Grefe, Richard and Jessica Friedman Hewitt. “How Design Can Save Democracy.” New York Times, 28
August 2008.
55
Richie 1.
56
Richie 6.
57
Richie 7.
58
Norden 14.
59
Citizens Union of the City of New York. “County Boards of Elections and Sample Ballots.” November
2010. Available at: http://www.citizensunion.org/site_res_view_template.aspx?id=f9735e27-7a97-46358d75-ba92d738e018.
60
Nichols, John. “Just a T-shirt Away.” The Nation, 25 October 2004, page 4.
61
Wang, Tova, Samuel Oliker-Friedland, Melissa Reiss and Kristen Oshyn. “Voting in 2008: Ten Swing
States: A Report From the Common Cause Education Fund.” Common Cause and The Century Foundation.
2008. Page 25. Available at:
http://www.commoncause.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4773613&ct=592234
3
62
Wang 26.
63
Notes from LWVNY meeting with the NYS BOE, August 30, 2011.
64
Notes from LWVNY meeting with the NYS BOE, August 30, 2011.
53
December 2011
Page | 3
APPENDIX
APPENDIX1-2
1-1
National Conference of State Legislatures
http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=18421
Electronic(or Online) Voter Registr ation
Last updated October 17, 2011
Nine states currently offer online paperless voter registration (Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Nevada,
Oregon, Utah, and Washington). In addition, California and Maryland have passed legislation facilitating online voter
registration, but they have not yet begun registering voters electronically.
Arizona led the way with this innovation, implementing their electronic voter registration program in 2003.
Washington followed with authorizing legislation in 2007 and implementation in 2008. In most cases, the states rely
on digitized signatures already on file with divisions of motor vehicles.
Ar izona Repor ts Success with Electr onic Voter Registr ation
Arizona first implemented online voter registration in 2003, and has reported success with their program.
The secretary of state reports that over 70 percent of all voter registrations are now performed online, and that the state
saw an increase of 9.5 percent in voter registrations from 2002 to 2004 with the implementation of online registration.
Arizona also reports cost savings by eliminating the data entry process for state and county employees that a paperbased system requires, as well as increased accuracy in its voter rolls. The costs associated with a paper registration
were 83 cents, while the cost of an online registration was 3 cents, according to the 2010 report by the Pew Center , on
the states viewable at http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/report_detail?id=58215
Online voter registrations require a driver's license number or the last four digits of a social security number, and the
inclusion of this data in all online registration allows for quick and accurate checks for duplicate records. For more
details on online voter registration, see the June 2011 issue of NCSL's elections newsletter, Canvass at
http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?TabId=23097
APPENDIX 1-2
States with Online Voter
Registr ation
•
•
•
•
Ar izona -- implemented in 2002; see https://servicearizona.com/webapp/evoter/selectLanguage
Califor nia -- passed in 2008 (SB 381);this law is to be implemented in 2014 or after; passed in 2011
(SB 397) permitting counties to implement online registration
Color ado -- passed in 2009 (HB 1160); see https://www.sos.state.co.us/Voter/secuRegVoterIntro.do
Indiana -- passed in 2009 (HB 1346); see
https://indianavoters.in.gov/PublicSite/OVR/Introduction.aspx?Link=Polling&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Kansas -- implemented in 2009; see https://www.kdor.org/voterregistration/Default.aspx
Louisiana -- passed in 2009 (HB 520); see http://www.sos.la.gov/tabid/68/Default.aspx
Mar yland -- passed in 2011 (HB 740); implementation date not specified in law
Nevada -- see http://nvsos.gov/index.aspx?page=703
Or egon -- passed in 2009 (HB 2386); see
https://secure.sos.state.or.us/orestar/vr/register.do?lang=eng&source=SOS
Utah -- passed in 2009 (SB 25); see
https://secure.utah.gov/voterreg/index.html;jsessionid=a142a0d90b8ba15218199019b55d
Washington -- passed in 2007 (HB 1528); see http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/olvrsite/
APPENDIX 2-1
Same-Day Voter Registration
Eight states have same-day registration (SDR), whereby any qualified resident of the state can go to
the polls on election day then register and vote. Two others allow voters to register and cast a vote
during the early voting period. In most other states, voters must register by a deadline prior to
Election Day. The deadline varies by state, with 30 days before the election being a common date.
Same-Day Registration States
Idaho
Iowa
Maine*
Minnesota
Montana
New Hampshire
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Year Enacted
1994
2007
1973
1974
2005
1996
1971
1994
*Maine’s same-day registration law, enacted in 1973, was repealed by the legislature in 2011. A people’s veto
of the 2011 law will appear on the November 8, 2011 ballot as Question 1. If voters reject the new law, sameday registration will remain the law in Maine. If they approve the new law passed in 2011, same-day
registration will be repealed.
Since 2007, North Carolina has allowed voters to register and vote on the same day at early voting
locations that are open from 19 days before the election to 3 days before the election. Ohio also
allows same-day registration during early voting, which is conducted beginning on the last Tuesday
in September through the first Monday in October. These two states do not permit same-day
registration on Election Day, however.
Advantages:
• Same day registration leads to increased voter turnout. In the six SDR states that had SDR prior
to 2006 and North Dakota (which has no voter registration), turnout is 10 percent to 17 percent
higher than the national average. Minnesota estimates that election day registrations account
for five percent to ten percent of voter turnout.
APPENDIX 2-2
•
•
Allowing people to register the same day they intend to vote is more convenient. It particularly
benefits people who have difficulty getting to an office to register because of work or
transportation conflicts and those who have recently moved.
States have more control over their voter registration rolls because they are not subject to
National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) purging restrictions.
Disadvantages:
• SDR can be costly, because it requires:
• additional poll workers,
• additional ballots,
• additional voting equipment, and
• verification certificates and investigation costs.
• SDR must be adopted along with safeguards to prevent fraud.
Same-Day Registration and Fraud
State election officials from the same-day registration states and North Dakota contend that their
registration procedures have not resulted in increased fraud. Safeguards against fraud in the SDR
states:
• Require picture identification at polls.
• Require additional identification to verify address.
• Segregate SDR ballots, and refrain from counting them until verification certificates have been
sent out and undeliverable ones are returned.
• Restrict sites at which one can register on election day.
• Implement minimum residency requirements.
• Prohibit changing party affiliation on primary day.
• State and enforce a deterrent penalty for fraud.
APPENDIX 3-1
Updated July 22, 2011
Note: Map based on information
obtained from
http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?
tabid=16604
APPENDIX 3-2
Absentee Voting and Ear ly Voting
http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16604
States offer three ways for voters to cast a ballot before Election Day:
1. Ear ly Voting: In 32 states and the District of Columbia, any qualified voter may cast a ballot in person during a designated period
prior to Election Day. No excuse or justification is required.
2. Absentee Voting: All states will mail an absentee ballot to certain voters. The voter may return the ballot by mail or in person. In 21
states, an excuse is required, while 27 states and the District of Columbia permit any qualified voter to vote absentee without offering an
excuse. Some states offer a permanent absentee ballot list: once a voter asks to be added to the list, s/he will automatically receive an
absentee ballot for all future elections.
3. Mail Voting: A ballot is automatically mailed to every eligible voter (no request or application is necessary), and the state does not
use traditional poll sites that offer in-person voting on Election Day. Two states use mail voting.
Over view
The table below details the types of pre-election day voting that is available in each state. Information on the details of each category may
be found below the table.
State
In-Per son
Ear ly Voting
No-Excuse Absentee
Absentee; Excuse
All-Mail Voting
Requir ed
X
Alabama
Alaska
Ar izona
Ar kansas
Califor nia
Color ado
Connecticut
Delawar e
D.C.
Flor ida
Geor gia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Update July 22, 2011
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(a)
(a)
(a)
X
X
X
(a)
APPENDIX 3-3
X
Kentucky
X
X
Louisiana
X
X
Maine
X
X
Mar yland
X
Massachusetts
X
Michigan
X
(a)
Minnesota
X
Mississippi
X
(a)
Missour i
X
X
(a)
Montana
X
X
(a)
Nebr aska
X
X
(a)
Nevada
X
New Hampshir e
X
(a)
New J er sey
X
X
(a)
New Mexico
X
New Yor k
X
X
Nor th Car olina
X
X
(a)
Nor th Dakota
X
X
Ohio
X
X
Oklahoma
X
Or egon
X
Pennsylvania
X
Rhode Island
X
South Car olina
X
X
South Dakota
X
X
Tennessee
X
X
Texas
X
X
Utah
X
X
Ver mont
X
Vir ginia
X
Washington
X
X
West Vir ginia
X
X
Wisconsin
X
X
Wyoming
TOTAL
32 states + DC
27 states + DC
21 states
2 states
Sour ce: National Conference of State Legislatures, July 2011
(a) Certain elections may be held entirely by mail. The circumstances under which all-mail elections are permitted vary from state to
state.
Update July 22, 2011
APPENDIX 3-4
Ear ly Voting
Two-thirds of the states--32, plus the District of Columbia--offer some sort of early voting. Early voting allows
voters to visit an election official’s office or, in some states, other satellite voting locations, and cast a vote in person
without offering an excuse for why the voter is unable to vote on election day. Satellite voting locations vary by
state, and may include other county and state offices (besides the election official’s office), grocery stores, shopping
malls, schools, libraries, and other locations.
The time period for early voting varies from state to state:
• The date on which early voting begins may be as early as 45 days before the election, or as late as the
Friday before the election. The average starting time for early voting across all 32 states is 22 days before
the election.
• Early voting typically ends just a few days before Election Day: on the Thursday before the election in
three states, the Friday before in nine states, the Saturday before in five states, and the Monday before
Election Day in 11 states.
• Early voting periods range in length from four days to 45 days; the average across all 32 states is 19 days.
• At least 12 of the 32 early voting states require that early vote centers be open on at least one Saturday or
Sunday during the early voting period. Others give county or local officials the authority to determine the
hours for early voting.
No-Excuse Absentee Voting
Absentee voting is conducted by mail-in paper ballot prior to the day of the election. While all states offer some
version of it, there is quite a lot of variation in states’ procedures for absentee voting. For instance, some states offer
"no-excuse" absentee voting, allowing any registered voter to request an absentee without requiring that the voter
state a reason for his/her desire to vote absentee. Other states permit voters to vote absentee only under a limited set
of circumstances.
The following 27 states and D.C. offer "no-excuse" absentee voting:
No-Excuse Absentee Voting
Alaska
Iowa
Arizona
Kansas
California
Maine
Colorado
Maryland
District of Columbia
Montana
Florida
Nebraska
Georgia
Nevada
Hawaii
New Jersey
Idaho
New Mexico
Illinois
Sour ce: National Conference of State Legislatures, July 2011
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
South Dakota
Utah
Vermont
Wisconsin
Wyoming
APPENDIX 3-5
Per manent Absentee Voting
Some states permit voters to join a permanent absentee voting list. Once a voter opts in, s/he will receive an absentee
ballot automatically for all future elections. The states that offer permanent absentee voting to any voter are:
• Arizona
• California
• Colorado
• District of Columbia
• Hawaii
• Montana
• New Jersey
• Utah
At least seven states offer permanent absentee status to a limited number of voters who meet certain criteria:
• Alaska - voters who reside in a remote area where distance, terrain, or other natural conditions deny the
voter reasonable access o the polling place
• Delaware - military and overseas voters, and their spouses and dependents; voters who are ill or physically
disabled; voters who are otherwise authorized by federal law to vote by absentee ballot
• Kansas - voters with a permanent disability or an illness diagnosed as permanent
• Massachusetts - permanently disabled voters
• Minnesota - voters with a permanent illness or disability
• Missouri - permanently disabled voters
• West Virginia - voters who are permanently and totally disabled and unable to vote at the polls
Mail Voting
Two states -- Oregon and Washington -- conduct all elections by mail. A ballot is automatically mailed to every
registered voter in advance of Election Day, and traditional in-person voting precincts are not available. Learn more
about Oregon's vote-by-mail program at
http://web.multco.us.elections
17 states allow certain elections to be held by mail:
• Alaska - Elections other than general, party primary or municipal
• Arizona - Special districts may conduct elections by mail
• Arkansas - Primary elections in which only one candidate has filed for the position by the filing deadline
and there are no other ballot issues to be submitted for consideration
• California - When there are 250 or fewer voters registered to vote in a precinct; and local, special or
consolidated elections that meet certain criteria
• Colorado - Elections that are not for recall and do not involve partisan candidates (except for primary
elections), and are not held in conjunction with or on the same day as primaries or Congressional vacancy
elections
• Florida - Referendum elections at the county, city, school district or special district level; and the governor
may call for a mail ballot election after issuing an executive order declaring a state of emergency or
impending emergency
APPENDIX 3-6
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Hawaii - Any federal, state, or county election held other than on the date of a regularly scheduled primary
or general election
Idaho - A precinct which contains no more than 125 registered electors at the last general election may be
designated by the board of county commissioners as a mail ballot precinct no later than April 1 in an evennumbered year
Kansas - Nonpartisan elections at which no candidate is elected, retained or recalled and which are not held
on the same date as another election
Minnesota - Elections conducted by a municipality having fewer than 400 registered voters on June 1 of an
election year and not located in a metropolitan county
Missouri - Nonpartisan issue elections at which no candidate is elected, retained or recalled and in which
all qualified voters of one political subdivision are the only voters eligible to vote
Montana - Any election other than a regularly scheduled federal, state or county election; a special federal
or state election, unless authorized by the legislature; or a regularly scheduled or special election when
another election in the political subdivision is taking place at the polls on the same day
Nebraska - Special ballot measure elections that meet certain criteria, held by a political subdivision
Nevada - Whenever there were not more than 20 voters registered in a precinct for the last preceding
general election
New Jersey - A municipality with a population of 500 or fewer persons, according to the latest federal
decennial census, may conduct all elections by mail
New Mexico - Any bond election, any election on the imposition of a mill levy or a property tax rate for a
specified purpose, or any special election at which no candidates are to be nominated for or elected to
office
North Dakota - A county may conduct any election by mail
Ear ly and Absentee Voting in YOUR State
Are you looking for information on how to vote early or by absentee ballot in an upcoming election? While NCSL
is not involved in holding elections and cannot provide information or advice on how, when or where to vote in your
state, we are pleased to provide this link to a page which will direct you to the answers you need regarding your
state's laws: http://www.canivote.org
Militar y Voter s
All states permit members of the military who are stationed overseas, their dependents, and other U.S. citizens living
abroad to vote by absentee ballot. For more information, please visit the overseas Vote Foundation at
www.overseasvotefoundation.org.
Bibliography
Alexander, Kim. “The California Voters’ Experience: What Works for Them, What Does
Not Work, and Where to Go From Here.” California Forward, 29 October 2008.
Benjamin, Gerald, Blair Horner, John Kaehny and Lawrence Norden. “Executive Orders:
Actions the Governor can take to make New York government more open,
accountable and democratic.” Reinvent Albany. November 2010.
Berinsky, Adam J. “The Perverse Consequences of Electoral Reform in the United
States.” American Politics Research 33 (2005): 471-491.
Bergman, Elizabeth, Philip Yates, and Elaine Ginnold. “How Does Vote By Mail Affect
Voters? A natural experiment examining individual-level turnout.” Pew Center on
the States: Make Voting Work, 2009.
Bloomberg, Michael. “2010 Mayor’s Report on Voter Access in New York.” 2010.
Caleo-Evangelist, Jordan. “Riddle of the Write-ins.” Times Union, 15 September 2010.
Citizens Union of the City of New York, “County Boards of Elections and Sample
Ballots.” November 2010.
Design for Democracy, www.AIGA.org.
Grefe, Richard and Jessica Friedman Hewitt. “How Design Can Save Democracy.” New
York Times, 28 August 2008.
Gronke, Paul, Eva Galanes-Rosenbaum, Peter A. Miller, and Daniel Toffey.
“Convenience Voting.” Annual Review of Political Science 11 (2008): 437-455.
Gronke, Paul, Eva Galanes-Rosenbaum and Peter A. Miller. “Early Voting and
Turnout.” PS: Political Science & Politics (2007): 639-645.
Gronke, Paul, Eva Galanes-Rosenbaum and Peter A. Miller. "From Ballot Box to Mail
Box: Early Voting and Turnout." In Democracy in the States: Experiments in
Election Reform, ed. Cain, Tolbert, and Donovan. Washington, D.C.: Brookings
Institute Press, 2008.
League of Women Voters. “Helping America Vote. Thinking Outside the Ballot Box:
Innovations for the Polling Place.” October 2006.
Leighly, Jan E. and Jonathan Nagler. “The Effect of Non-Precinct Voting Reforms on
Turnout: 1972-2008.” ElectionOnline.org. 15 January 2009.
Maland, Elizabeth. “Followup Report: Mail-Only Ballot Election Issues of Voter Turnout
and Fraud.” San Diego Office of the City Clerk, 27 June 2007.
McDonald, Michael P. 2010 “Voter Turnout in the 2010 Midterm Election.” The Forum
Vol. 8: Issue 4 Article 8.
Minnite, Lorraine. “Election Day Registration: A Study on Voter Fraud Allegations and
Findings on Voter Roll security.” Demos. 6 September 2007.
National Conference of State Legislatures, The Canvass: States and Election Reform,
“Online Voter Registration: Coming Soon to a State Near You?” Number 21/
June 2011.
Neeley, Grant W. and Lilliard E. Richardson, Jr. “Who is Early Voting? An Individual
Level Examination.” The Social Science Journal 338 (2001): 381-392.
New York Bar Association Committee on Election Law. “Instituting No-Excuse
Absentee Voting in New York.” Committee on Election Law, 2010.
New York Civil Liberties Union. “Voting Rights: 2010 General Election Voter
Information.” 2010. http://www.nyclu.org/issues/voting-rights/know-your-votingrights.
Nichols, John. “Just a T-shirt Away.” The Nation, 25 October 2004.
Norden, Lawrence, David Kimball, Whitney Quesenbery, and Margaret Chen. “Better
Ballots.” The Brennan Center for Justice, 2008.
Notes from the League of Women Voters of New York State Meeting with the New York
State Board of Elections. 30 August, 2011.
Patterson, Samuel C. and Gregory A. Caldeira. “Mailing In the Vote: Correlates and
Consequences of Absentee Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 29
(1985): 766-788.
Pew Center on the States, “Upgrading Democracy: Improving America’s Election
Systems by Modernizing States’ Voter Registration Systems,” November 2010.
Pew Center on the States, “Upgrading Voter Registration Design,” September 2011.
Ponoroff, Christopher. “Voter Registration In A Digital Age.” Wendy Weiser, ed.
Brennan Center for Justice, 2010.
Reed College. The Early Voting Information Center. www.earlyvoting.net. 2011.
Richie, Robert. “Leave No Voter Behind: Seeking 100 Percent Voter Registration and
Effective Civic Education.” Wiley Periodicals, Inc, 2007.
Rosenberg, Jennifer S. and Margaret Chen. “Expanding Democracy: Voter Registration
Around the World.” Brennan Center for Jusice, June 2009.
Sinks, James. “Oregon voter turnout third highest in U.S.: State’s turnout has remained
steady for nearly 50 years.” The Bulletin, 17 October 2006.
Stein, Robert M., Jan Leighley and Christopher Owens. “Who votes, who doesn’t, why
and, what can be done?: A Report to the Federal Commission on Electoral
Reform.”10 June 2005.
Stewart, Charles III. “Losing Votes By Mail.” Legislation and Public Policy 13 (2010):
573-602.
National Conference of State Legislatures. “Absentee and Early Voting.”
http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16604. 2011.
United States Election Assistance Commission. “Effective Designs for the
Administration of Federal Elections.” The United States Election Assistance
Commission, 2007.
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, “A Survey of Internet Voting” The United States
Election Assistance Commission, 2011, www.eac.gov.
United States Elections Project. “Final 2008 Early Voting Statistics.” George Mason
University. http://elections.gmu.edu/Early_Voting_2008_Final.html. 2011.
Wang, Tova, Samuel Oliker-Friedland, Melissa Reiss and Kristen Oshyn. “Voting in
2008: Ten Swing States: A Report From the Common Cause Education Fund.”
Common Cause and The Century Foundation. 2008.
Weiser, Wendy R. and Lawrence Norden. “Voting Law Changes in 2012.” The Brennan
Center for Justice, 2011.