FINAL REPORT OF THE 

2004 ELECTION DAY SURVEY 

Submitted to the 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Kimball W. Brace, Principal Investigator 

Dr. Michael P. McDonald, Consultant 

EAC Survey Analysis Support (EAC 0524) 

September 27, 2005 
CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PART 1: INTRODUCTION

Survey Design and Development.................................................................................... 2 

Development Timeline ............................................................................................... 2 

Survey Questions....................................................................................................... 2 

Applicability................................................................................................................ 4 

Survey Response............................................................................................................ 4 

Election Jurisdictions ................................................................................................. 4 

Coverage ................................................................................................................... 5 

Data Tabulation.......................................................................................................... 8 

Data Measurement.......................................................................................................... 9 

Table Format ............................................................................................................. 9 

Cross Tabulations.................................................................................................... 10 

Type of Voting Equipment...............................................................................................10 

Changed Voting Equipment since 2000..........................................................................11 

Statewide Voter Registration Database ..........................................................................11 

Election Day Registration................................................................................................11 

Provisional Ballot Acceptance.........................................................................................12 

No Excuse Absentee Balloting........................................................................................13 

Early Voting.....................................................................................................................13 

Section 203 Language Minority Requirements ...............................................................13 

Section 5 Preclearance of Voting Procedures ................................................................14 

Regions ...........................................................................................................................14 

Urban to Rural.................................................................................................................14 

Size of Jurisdiction (VAP)................................................................................................15 

Race and Ethnicity ..........................................................................................................15 

Median Income................................................................................................................15

High School Education....................................................................................................16 

Battleground States.........................................................................................................16 

Presidential Margin of Victory .........................................................................................16 

Red versus Blue Jurisdictions .........................................................................................17 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report

Executive Summary, Page 2 September 27, 2005 

PART 2: ELECTION DAY SURVEY RESULTS 

Chapter 1: Population Estimates 

Applicability and Coverage .................................................................................... 1–2 

Population Estimates ............................................................................................. 1–2 

Analysis of Estimates............................................................................................. 1–7 

Chapter 2: Voter Registration 

Applicability and Coverage .................................................................................... 2–1 

Historical Context................................................................................................... 2–3 

Survey Results....................................................................................................... 2–6 

Analysis of Survey Results .................................................................................. 2–12 

Chapter 3: Ballots Counted 

Applicability and Coverage .................................................................................... 3–1 

Historical Context................................................................................................... 3–2 

Survey Results....................................................................................................... 3–4 

Analysis of Survey Results .................................................................................. 3–10 

Chapter 4: Turnout Source 

Applicability and Coverage .................................................................................... 4–2 

Historical Context................................................................................................... 4–3 

Survey Results....................................................................................................... 4–3 

Analysis of Survey Results .................................................................................. 4–10 

Chapter 5: Absentee Ballots 

Applicability and Coverage .................................................................................... 5–1 

Historical Context................................................................................................... 5–1 

Survey Results....................................................................................................... 5–3 

Analysis of Survey Results .................................................................................... 5–9 

Chapter 6: Provisional Ballots 

Applicability and Coverage .................................................................................... 6–2 

Historical Context................................................................................................... 6–2 

Survey Results....................................................................................................... 6–3 

Analysis of Survey Results .................................................................................... 6–8 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report

Executive Summary, Page 3 September 27, 2005 

Chapter 7: Drop-Off 

Applicability and Coverage .................................................................................... 7–1 

Historical Context................................................................................................... 7–2 

Survey Results....................................................................................................... 7–4 

Analysis of Survey Results .................................................................................... 7–9 

Chapter 8: Overvotes and Undervotes 

Applicability and Coverage .................................................................................... 8–1 

Historical Context................................................................................................... 8–2 

Survey Results....................................................................................................... 8–2 

Analysis of Survey Results .................................................................................. 8–18 

Chapter 9: Voting Equipment Usage 

Applicability and Coverage .................................................................................... 9–1 

Historical Context................................................................................................... 9–5 

Survey Results....................................................................................................... 9–7 

Analysis of Survey Results .................................................................................. 9–19 

Chapter 10: Voting Machines 

Applicability and Coverage .................................................................................. 10–1 

Survey Results..................................................................................................... 10–2 

Analysis of Survey Results ................................................................................ 10–18 

Chapter 11: Voting Equipment Malfunctions 

Applicability and Coverage .................................................................................. 11–2 

Survey Results..................................................................................................... 11–2 

Chapter 12: Poll Workers 

Applicability and Coverage .................................................................................. 12–1 

Historical Context................................................................................................. 12–1 

Survey Results..................................................................................................... 12–2 

Analysis of Survey Results .................................................................................. 12–8 

Chapter 13: Polling Places 

Applicability and Coverage .................................................................................. 13–1 

Historical Context................................................................................................. 13–1 

Survey Results..................................................................................................... 13–3 

Analysis of Survey Results .................................................................................. 13–9 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report

Executive Summary, Page 4 September 27, 2005 

Chapter 14: Disability 

Applicability and Coverage .................................................................................. 14–1 

Historical Context................................................................................................. 14–1 

Survey Results..................................................................................................... 14–2 

Analysis of Survey Results .................................................................................. 14–4 

PART 3: RECOMMENDATIONS ON FUTURE DATA COLLECTION 

Appendix A. Survey Instrument

Appendix B. Election Glossary 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report

Executive Summary, Page 5 September 27, 2005 

List of Figures and Supplemental Tables 

Table 2a. State Voter Registration Deadlines ........................................................ 2–4 

Table 2b. Voter Registration Statistics, 1964–2004 ............................................... 2–5 

Table 2c. State Rankings for Registration Calculations ....................................... 2–14 

Table 3a. Electoral Drop-Off Rates, 1948–2002 .................................................... 3–3 

Table 3b. Turnout Rates Sorted........................................................................... 3–11 

Table 6a. Provisional Ballot Usage, Sorted.......................................................... 6–11 

Table 9a. Voting Equipment for the November 2004 General Election.................. 9–2 

Table 9b. Voting Equipment Manufacturers, November 2004 General Election .... 9–5 

Table 9c. Voting Equipment Usage, 2004 General Election ................................ 9–19 

Table 11a. Reported Voting Equipment Malfunctions by Equipment Type .......... 11–3 

Table 11b. Reported Reasons for Electronic Voting Equipment Malfunctions ..... 11–3 

Table 11c. Reported Reasons for Optical Scan Voting Equipment Malfunctions. 11–4 

Table 13a. Number of Precincts Nationwide, 1980–2004 .................................... 13–2 

Figure 4.1 Ballots Source, 2004........................................................................... 4–11 

Figure 7.1 Drop-Off Rate, 1948–2002.................................................................... 7–3 

Figure 9.1 Voting Equipment 1980–2004, Percent of Counties ............................. 9–6 

Figure 9.2 Voting Equipment 1980–2004, Percent of Registered Voters............... 9–6 

Figure 9.3 Voting Equipment Usage, 2004: Jurisdictions..................................... 9–20 

Figure 9.4 Voting Equipment Usage, 2004: Registration ..................................... 9–20 

Figure 11.1 Jurisdictions with Equipment Malfunctions........................................ 11–2 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

For the first time in this nation’s over 230-year history, the federal government has taken an 

assessment of the election process used across the land. It has not been perfect, it contains holes and 

mistakes—errors that might even be such that conclusions point in the wrong direction, but it is a 

start. As a philosopher once said, “A mile’s journey begins with the first step.” Let the journey 

begin. 

This is a report by Election Data Services, Inc. of the Election Day Survey for November 2, 2004, 

administered by the United States Election Assistance Commission (EAC) as mandated by the 2002 

Help America Vote Act of 2002. 

The Election Day Survey represents the largest and most comprehensive survey of voting and 

election administration practices ever conducted by a U.S. government organization. Questions on 

the Election Day Survey covered voting statistics on voter registration; total ballots cast by mode of 

voting; specific statistics on absentee and provisional voting; votes for federal offices; the number 

overvotes and undervotes cast for each federal office; and the number of precinct, polling places, and 

poll workers. Questions covered election administration of voting equipment, reported equipment 

failures, disability accesses to polling places, and sufficient number of poll workers. 

State election administrators in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and four territories—Guam, 

Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands were requested to provide responses to 

the Election Day Survey. State administrators, in turn, went to the local level (county or township) 

and sought the data from the local election administrators. All state election administrators except 

American Samoa and Guam participated in the Election Day Survey. 

Election Data Services was contracted to compile the responses to the Election Day Survey and 

provide analysis. The principal investigator was Kimball W. Brace, president of Election Data 

Services. The statistical consultant was Dr. Michael P. McDonald, assistant professor of government 

and politics in the Department of Public and International Affairs at George Mason University. 

Support personnel included research analysts, database programmers, and administrative assistants, 

all employees of Election Data Services. 

Administering the Election Day Survey 

The Election Day Survey requested voting and election administration information from all states 

and responses were received from 6,568 local election administration jurisdictions in the United 

States and four of its territories. Forty-three questions were asked of each of these local election 

administration jurisdictions. In total, 282,424 responses to individual question items were received. 

This was the first time the Election Day Survey was administered, and as is typical with baseline 

surveys, many issues were identified in administering the survey. These issues included: 

• State and local election administrators do not share common terminology for 

survey items, for example, of what constitutes an absentee ballot or a poll 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report

Executive Summary, Page 2 September 27, 2005 

worker. Interpretation of the survey items by election administrators resulted 

in uneven reporting, sometimes within the same state. 

• Some state election administrators altered the method of response—an electronic spreadsheet—and sent the spreadsheet to local election administrators 

to complete. Some survey questions were altered by central election administrators, which caused further uneven reporting among states. Some states 

transmitted local administrators’ responses without recompiling the responses 

into the format requested by the EAC, requiring additional effort by Election 

Data Services to compile Election Day Survey responses. 

• Election Data Services identified many data-entry errors. In some cases, particularly those that were major outliers, we identified the error, asked the 

primary reporting source for clarification, and made a correction. However, 

we did not have the resources to validate all quarter-of-a-million-plus individual items on the survey and we are certain that many errors remain. 

• Election administrators were not given enough lead time to anticipate the 

compilation of statistics for their responses to the Election Day Survey, which 

resulted in some information being lost before it could be collected. 

Despite the problems in administering the Election Day Survey, we believe that reliable information 

was obtained for many of the questions and that our analysis illuminates some of the successes and 

challenges to election administration in the United States. However, we caution that our findings are 

only valid to reporting jurisdictions—we cannot make any inferences for unreported jurisdictions— 

and that the reliability of some responses reduces the overall validity of our analysis. 

Furthermore, we strongly recommend that consumers of the raw data accompanying this report be 

cautious when identifying problematic cases. Too often, we found a simple data-entry error or a 

unique method of reporting data were responsible for the outlier cases that we observed. 

We make three main recommendations to the EAC to improve future data collection efforts: 

• Election Data Services recommends that the EAC hold two symposiums, first, 

of state election administrators, and, second, of a larger pool of consumers of 

election data in order to produce accurate and consistent definitions of election administration statistics. A set of common definitions will increase the 

reliability of future data collection. We recommend that the symposiums be 

held in the near future to allow election administrators time to implement any 

new procedures that they may need to conform to the new definitions. 

• Election Data Services recommends that the next Election Day Survey be 

conducted by a method that provides interactive quality assurance checks. 

Such a system might be Web-based or through a spreadsheet. Validating responses at the time of data entry will greatly reduce the number of data-entry 

errors. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report

Executive Summary, Page 3 September 27, 2005 

• Election Data Services recommends that the EAC expand its clearinghouse 

role to include the ongoing funding and collection of precinct-based registration, turnout, election returns, precinct maps, polling place information, 

sample ballots, manuals, and other election administration items to assist in 

the analysis of the voting process in this country. 

Further, and more detailed, recommendations are included in the recommendation chapter of this 

study and readers are encouraged to review that section. 

General Findings 

We categorize and discuss the Election Day Survey items in 12 areas: 

1. Voter registration: counts of active and inactive voter registration 

2. Total ballots counted: overall statistics on total ballots cast 

3. Turnout Source: total ballots counted by mode of voting, cast in polling place, 

absentee, early, and provisional 

4. Absentee ballots: number of absentee ballots requested, returned, counted, and 

not counted 

5. Provisional ballots: ballots cast and ballots counted 

6. Drop-off: the difference between total ballots counted and the ballots with a 

vote recorded for a federal office, for president, Senate, and U.S. House 

7. Overvotes and undervotes: the number of overvotes (a ballot with more than 

one recorded vote for a candidate for an office) and the number of undervotes 

(a ballot with no recorded vote for a candidate for an office, for president, 

Senate, and U.S. House) 

8. Voting equipment usage by election jurisdictions 

9. Voting machine statistics: within election jurisdictions, the total number and 

number per precinct and polling place, and location of counting of ballots 

within polling place or central counting 

10. Poll workers: number of poll workers and the number of jurisdictions reporting inadequate number of poll workers 

11. Polling places: relationship between polling places and precincts 

12. Disability: access by wheelchair, visually impaired, and physically disabled 

Voter Registration 

On voter registration, 6,512 of the 6,568 jurisdictions reported a total voter registration of 

177,265,030. Of these, 4,879 jurisdictions reported active voter registration of 165,877,539, and 

3,049 jurisdictions reported inactive registration of 21,695,013. Active and inactive voter registration 

does not sum to total registration because half of the states include and the other half exclude 

inactive registration in their total registration statistics. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report

Executive Summary, Page 4 September 27, 2005 

For jurisdictions responding to the survey, the reported total voter registration constituted 79.5 

percent of the voting age population (all persons age 18 and older residing in the United States; 

VAP) or 86.0 percent of citizen voting age population (CVAP). 

Among jurisdictions reporting total voter registration, those with higher education, higher income, 

Election Day registration, more rural and small-town in nature, and those found in battleground 

states tended to have higher rates of registration. 

Among jurisdictions reporting inactive voter registration, those that had the largest populations, 

jurisdictions with lower education, those covered by Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, 

predominantly Hispanic jurisdictions, and those jurisdictions without statewide voter registration 

databases all had higher rates of inactive voters than other jurisdictions. 

Total Ballots Counted 

For ballots counted, 6,488 of 6,568 jurisdictions reported total ballots counted of 121,862,353. For 

reporting jurisdictions, this constituted 70.4 percent of voter registration, 55.8 percent of VAP, and 

60.7 percent of the CVAP. However, a number of states and localities, almost one-sixth of the 

nation, still only report the votes cast for the highest office on the ballot as their total turnout, not the 

actual number of persons who participated in the election. 

Total number of ballots cast as a percentage of CVAP was higher in jurisdictions with higher 

education, higher income, predominantly non-Hispanic White jurisdictions, those suburban in 

nature, jurisdictions not covered by Section 5 or Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, those with 

Election Day registration, those without early voting, and those jurisdictions in battleground states. 

Turnout Source 

Of the jurisdictions that reported the mode of voting, 73.5 percent of total ballots cast were reported 

to have been cast in a polling place on Election Day, 13.3 percent were reported to have been cast as 

an absentee ballot, 23.5 percent were reported to have been cast as an early vote, 1.2 percent were 

reported to have been cast as a provisional ballot, and the remaining 23.1 percent were cast in an 

unknown manner. We note that Kansas and Texas report all votes cast prior to Election Day as an 

early vote. Washington reported that 68.7 percent of its vote was absentee, while Texas reported that 

47.7 percent of its vote was cast early. There was some duplication of counting, especially where 

absentee ballots are counted on Election Day. 

Absentee Ballots 

Of those reporting jurisdictions, 16,870,660 absentee ballots were requested, 14,851,332 were 

returned (88.7 percent), and nearly all, or 14,740,215 (96.9 percent), were counted. 

Generally, those jurisdictions with fewer absentee ballots requested as a percentage of voter 

registration had a higher rate of return. This was true in jurisdictions with “no excuse” absentee 

voting and those permitting early voting. We speculate that the lower return rate is related to more 

difficult request criteria that deter less committed absentee voters from requesting a ballot. 

Jurisdictions with statewide voter registration databases reported similar request rates but a higher 

return rate, suggesting that better administration of registration roles improved the processing of 

absentee ballots. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report

Executive Summary, Page 5 September 27, 2005 

Higher levels of absentee balloting and lower rates of return were found in higher education and 

income jurisdictions and in larger population, urban areas. We also noted this pattern in Section 203 

covered jurisdictions, but we found that predominantly Hispanic and predominantly non-Hispanic 

Native American jurisdictions reported both lower rates of absentee ballot request and absentee 

ballot return. The most common reason for absentee ballots to be rejected was that there was no 

voter signature. 

Provisional Ballots 

For those reporting jurisdictions, 1,901,591 provisional ballots were reported to have been cast. Of 

those, 1,225,915 were reported counted (or 64.5 percent). Provisional ballots were used by 2.56 

percent of the persons casting ballots on Election Day, which also amounted to 1.25 percent of all 

registered voters for the election. The states of Washington and Alaska had the highest rates of 

provisional ballots cast, both over 10 percent of the ballots cast in the precincts. 

Jurisdictions that allowed provisional ballots to be cast jurisdiction-wide had higher rates of 

provisional ballots cast, as a percentage of total voter registration, and provisional ballots counted. 

Jurisdictions with a statewide voter registration database reported fewer provisional ballots cast, 

though a similar rate of acceptance. 

Section 203 covered jurisdictions reported a much higher rate of casting provisional ballots. Over 

one million provisional ballots, more than half of all provisional ballots cast, were cast in these 

jurisdictions even though they constituted an eighth of jurisdictions reporting provisional ballots. 

The much higher rate of casting provisional ballots was not offset by the higher rate of counting 

provisional ballots in these jurisdictions. 

Related, predominantly Hispanic jurisdictions reported the highest rate of casting provisional ballots, 

followed by predominantly non-Hispanic Native American jurisdictions. Higher incidences of 

casting provisional ballots were found in urban and high population density areas, but these 

jurisdictions also had higher rates of counting provisional ballots. Rates of counting provisional 

ballots also tended to increase with the income and education level within a jurisdiction. The most 

common reason for rejecting provisional ballots was that the voter was not registered. 

Drop-Off 

For reporting jurisdictions, drop-off for the presidential election was reported at 1,160,985 or 1.02 

percent of ballots cast for president. Drop-off for the Senate elections was reported at 5,676,784 or 

6.86 percent of ballots cast for Senate. Drop-off for the U.S. House races was reported at 11,669,373 

or 12.04 percent of the ballots cast for U.S. House. 

Drop-off is most associated with competition. With a high degree of competition, drop-off in the 

2004 presidential election was the lowest in a post-World War II presidential election. Among the 

Senate elections, drop-off was lowest in the most highly contested elections. Among the U.S. House 

elections, direct measures of competition were not asked on the Election Day Survey, however, 

elections in Section 5 and Section 203 covered jurisdictions reported higher rates of drop-off, which 

is consistent with these jurisdictions tending to be heavily Democratic and have relatively 

uncontested U.S. House elections. 

Among types of voting equipment, paper and punch card jurisdictions report about twice the 

presidential drop-off than other jurisdictions, while lever machines had the lowest drop-off rate. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report

Executive Summary, Page 6 September 27, 2005 

Higher levels of drop-off in presidential, Senate, and U.S. House elections were related to lower 

levels of education and income. 

Overvotes and Undervotes 

For reporting jurisdictions, in the presidential election 133,289 overvotes or 0.23 percent of total 

ballots cast for president were reported; 863,872 undervotes or 0.91 percent of total presidential 

ballots cast for president were reported. In the Senate elections, 49,100 overvotes or 0.11 percent of 

total ballots cast for Senate were reported; 2,488,016 undervotes or 3.80 percent of total ballots cast 

for Senate were reported. In the U.S. House elections, 56,173 overvotes or 0.12 percent of total 

ballots cast for U.S. House were reported; 5,077,325 undervotes or 6.27 percent of total ballots cast 

for U.S. House were reported. 

The overall pattern of overvotes and undervotes underscores conventional wisdom that overvotes are 

a true error by voters while the majority of undervotes tend to be true abstention from the election in 

question. The percentage of overvotes across federal elections is small and within a similar range, 

while undervotes tend to increase with less competition in the election and the “lack of importance” 

of the office in the minds of most voters. 

Still, we find variation in overvotes and undervotes. Perhaps of most interest is rates of overvoting 

and undervoting in relation to the type of voting equipment. Jurisdictions using punch card and paper 

voting systems reported the highest overvotes as a percentage of total ballots cast. Jurisdictions using 

electronic systems reported a low percentage of undervotes, but jurisdictions using lever systems 

also reported a low rate, as did jurisdictions using multiple systems. Optical scan jurisdictions tended 

to fall in the middle. 

Jurisdictions with the lowest income and education levels tended to report the highest percentage of 

overvotes and undervotes. Rural and small voting age population size jurisdictions tended to report 

the highest percentage of overvotes, usually followed by urban or the largest population 

jurisdictions. Predominantly Hispanic jurisdictions tended to report the highest percentage of 

overvotes, and a generally high percentage of undervotes for all offices. 

Voting Equipment Usage 

About 14 percent of the jurisdictions failed to report what kind of voting equipment was in use for 

the 2004 general election. For those that did, more than one quarter of the nation’s election 

jurisdictions used paper ballots, but because of their small size, only 1.8 percent of the registered 

voters voted in this manner. Nearly 40 percent of the nation’s registered voters used optical scan 

systems in 2004, and 25 percent used electronic systems. Another 12 percent utilized lever machines 

and nine percent were still voting with punch cards. 

Thirteen states and territories had uniform voting equipment in use. Optical scan systems are used 

statewide in Alaska, Arizona, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Rhode Island. Electronic systems cover the 

states of Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, and Nevada, while lever machines are uniformly used in 

New York. The District of Columbia and Hawaii have mixed systems in place jurisdiction-wide. 

Voting Machines 

Only 20 states provided information on the number of actual machines in use for voting. Only onethird of the punch card jurisdictions provided any data on number of units, and much of that data 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report

Executive Summary, Page 7 September 27, 2005 

was probably incorrectly reported anyway. Fewer than half of the optical scan, lever, and electronic 

system jurisdictions reported the number of units used. 

With those limitations in mind, we have calculated that electronic system jurisdictions average three 

devices per precinct and slightly over five devices per polling place. The highest ratio of machines 

per location occurred in the state of Maryland, where between nine and 10 devices were used. 

Due to the high cost of lever machines, they average only 1.5 machines per precinct and slightly 

over three machines per polling place. The maximum number per precinct and polling place 

occurred in North Carolina and Wyoming, with slightly more than three per precinct and six per 

polling place. 

Of the data reported, 90 percent of the punch card jurisdictions in this country utilize a central-count 

tallying process. On the other hand 61 percent of optical scan jurisdictions use a precinct-based 

tallying process. 

Poll Workers 

For reporting jurisdictions, there were at least 845,962 poll workers that worked at polling places on 

Election Day, which constituted almost one in 200 of the CVAP. There were an average of 5.7 poll 

workers per precinct and 7.9 per polling place. However, we noted that some jurisdictions use shifts 

of poll workers while others require poll workers to work the entire Election Day. 

Jurisdictions reported that 5,252 polling places or precincts were inadequately staffed on Election 

Day, or 5.8 percent of polling places. Inadequate staffing was reportedly concentrated in four states: 

Louisiana (64.7 percent of polling places inadequately staffed), Hawaii (44.3 percent), Delaware 

(28.3 percent), and Illinois (18.4 percent). Most other states reported 7.5 percent or fewer polling 

places with inadequate staffing. Patterns of inadequate staffing were greatly confounded by the 

concentration of inadequate staffing numbers in these four states, particularly in the larger states of 

Illinois and Louisiana. 

Jurisdictions with higher levels of income and education reported a higher average number of poll 

workers per polling place or precinct and reported lower rates of staffing problems per precinct. 

Staffing problems appeared to be particularly acute for jurisdictions in the lowest income and 

education categories. 

Small, rural jurisdictions and large urban jurisdictions tended to report higher rates of inadequate 

numbers of poll workers within polling places or precincts. 

Predominantly non-Hispanic Black jurisdictions reported a greater percentage of polling places or 

precincts with an inadequate number of poll workers. Predominantly non-Hispanic Native American 

jurisdictions reported the second-highest percentage of staffing problems. This appears to be related 

to similar higher reports on inadequate numbers of poll workers for Section 5 covered jurisdictions, 

though at least some of the observed relationships are attributable to Louisiana. 

Jurisdictions that anticipated Election Day needs reported higher averages of staffing of polling 

places or precincts and fewer instances of not being able to adequately staff polling places or 

precincts. For example, jurisdictions in battleground states reported fewer polling places and 

precincts with inadequate staffing, as did jurisdictions that allow Election Day registration. 

Jurisdictions with “no excuse” absentee balloting and those with early voting reported lower rates of 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report

Executive Summary, Page 8 September 27, 2005 

problems staffing polling places or precincts, perhaps because these alternative modes of voting 

reduced the Election Day burden for these jurisdictions. 

Polling Places 

For reporting jurisdictions, there were at least 174,252 precincts and 113,754 polling places, for an 

average ratio of 1.45:1 polling places to precincts. 

There are fewer polling places than precincts due to the administrative practice of consolidating 

multiple precincts into one polling place. In urban areas precinct consolidation is easier, and perhaps 

necessary, due to limited availability of suitable locations for polling places in dense population 

areas. We found higher reported ratios of precincts to polling places in urban areas, and by a 

consequence, in states and regions with larger urban populations. Other tabulations associated with 

urban/rural character, such as vote for presidential winner, report similar relationships. 

Income and education of a jurisdiction are also related, with higher reported ratios of precincts to 

polling places at higher levels of education and income. 

For some states, pressures are relieved in Election Day polling places through other methods of 

voting. Oregon, which conducts its election entirely by mail, has the need for one polling place per 

county. States with Election Day registration also consolidate fewer precincts than those without, 

perhaps to aid in the processing of voters at the polls on Election Day. 

Excluding Oregon, the strongest reported relationship between average voter registration per polling 

place is found among the population size of the jurisdiction. Jurisdictions of smaller size report a 

smaller number of registered voters per polling place. This size of the jurisdiction was related to 

other tabulations, such as the urban/rural character of the jurisdiction, the region the jurisdiction is 

located in, the type of equipment used, and the presidential winner of the jurisdiction. 

There is also a relationship between income and education, with lower reported average voter 

registration per jurisdiction for lower levels of income and education. There is also a relationship 

between service demands and average registration per polling place, as those jurisdictions with 

Election Day registration have less registration per polling place than other jurisdictions and those 

with early voting report higher average registration per polling place. 

Disability 

The most significant issue in this chapter is the overall lack of data. Only 26 of the 55 states and 

territories provided information on disability in response to question 21. While a greater number of 

polling places were reported to be wheelchair accessible (question 21a), the much smaller numbers 

of polling places reported to be available to the visually impaired (question 21b) or physically 

disabled (question 21c) may have resulted from how the survey questions were worded. Some states 

reported that they interpreted the last two questions as seeking information on the voting equipment 

in use and its accessibility, rather than the physical configuration of the polling place. 

Overall, 94.0 percent of the polling places and 70.9 percent of the precincts in this nation were 

reported to be wheelchair accessible. However, this information reflects data from only half of the 

nation’s election jurisdictions. Fewer than a quarter of the precincts and only 30 percent of the 

polling places were reported by the states as being locations where a visually impaired voter could 

cast a ballot in private. Part of the reason this information is so low is that a number of states 

reported actual zeros in the data cells, rather than leaving them blank. If one eliminates the zeros 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report

Executive Summary, Page 9 September 27, 2005 

from being part of the calculation, then the percentage rises to 68 percent for the visually impaired 

data. A physically disabled voter could cast a ballot on an accessible voting system in only about 

half the precincts and slightly more than 73 percent of the polling places. 

Common Patterns 

Across the analysis of separate sections of the Election Day Survey, consistent patterns emerge: 

• Jurisdictions with low education and income, compared with other jurisdictions, tend to report more inactive voter registration, lower voter turnout, 

higher number of provisional ballots cast, higher drop-off and associated 

components of overvotes and undervotes, lower average number of poll workers per polling place, and greater percentage of inadequately staffed polling 

places. While these patterns present a challenge to election administrators, 

they are consistent with a large body of academic literature that equates higher 

levels of civic participation to higher levels of education and income. Thus, 

these findings give us confidence in the overall validity of the responses provided to the EAC on the Election Day Survey and in other patterns we 

observe. 

• Jurisdictions in states with statewide voter registration databases tend to report 

less inactive voter registration, higher return rates of absentee ballots, and 

fewer provisional ballots cast. This suggests that better administration of registration rolls can improve the administration of elections, and perhaps reduce 

costs by reducing the number of absentee ballots sent to wrong addresses and 

the number of provisional ballots processed. 

• Jurisdictions covered by the Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act tended to 

report more inactive voter registration, lower voter turnout, fewer returned absentee ballots, and much greater numbers of provisional ballots cast. These 

patterns were often similar to those found among predominantly Hispanic and 

predominantly non-Hispanic Native American jurisdictions. These findings 

appear to be consistent with voters within these jurisdictions having difficulty 

in navigating the electoral process in a language that is not their native tongue. 
PART 1 

INTRODUCTION 

Under the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

(EAC) developed and distributed three surveys to state election directors to obtain baseline election 

administration data for identifying and prioritizing issues that affect voter enfranchisement and 

participation in the electoral process. The three surveys are the National Voter Registration Act 

(NVRA), Election Day, and Military and Overseas Absentee Ballot surveys. 

This is a report of the Election Day Survey, which is the largest and most comprehensive survey of 

voting and election administration practices ever conducted by a U.S. governmental organization. 

The survey was an attempt to create a complete enumeration of voting statistics and election 

practices in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and four territories—Guam, Puerto Rico, 

American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

State respondents to the survey have reported that 121,862,329 of 177,265,030 registered voters 

participated in the 2004 general election. This is the highest number of persons to have voted in an 

election in the United States and an increase of over 14 million voters from the 2000 general 

election. As a percentage of the citizen voting age population (CVAP) the turnout rate in the 2004 

election was 60.7 percent, which increased from 55 percent for the 2000 election and was the highest 

percentage of turnout since the 1968 election. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 1 

Introduction, page 2 September 27, 2005 

Survey Design and Development 

Development Timeline 

In July 2004, the EAC asked Election Data Services Inc. to compile a comprehensive list of data 

elements for a proposed election administration database. The list of recommended data items 

included voter registration and voter turnout statistics, election returns for federal offices, 

information on voting systems and system manufacturers, and organizational information for state 

and local election jurisdictions. In August 2004, Election Data Services was contracted by the EAC 

to conduct a telephone survey to determine which data elements state election directors were 

planning to collect from the November 2004 general election. Results of the telephone survey were 

presented to the EAC in September. 

EAC staff then proceeded with the design of the Election Day Survey, which was distributed to state 

election directors and secretaries of state on October 25, 2004. The survey was distributed in an 

electronic format with a request for a response by January 1, 2005. On January 10, 2005, the EAC 

published a request for proposal for assistance with the analysis and interpretation of the three 

HAVA surveys, including the Election Day Survey. A contract for survey analysis support was 

issued on February 15 to Election Data Services Inc., the successful bidder. Work covered by the 

contract included the tabulation of survey responses, cleanup and clarification of the survey data, 

analysis and interpretation of survey results, development of recommendations on future data 

collection, and compilation of the survey results and recommendations in a report to the EAC. 

The project team providing survey analysis support to the EAC was composed of a principal 

investigator, a statistical consultant, and support personnel. The principal investigator was Kimball 

W. Brace, president of Election Data Services, Inc. The statistical consultant was Dr. Michael P. 

McDonald, an assistant professor of government and politics in the Department of Public and 

International Affairs at George Mason University. Support personal included research analysts, 

database programmers, and administrative assistants, all employees of Election Data Services. 

Survey Questions 

The Election Day Survey consisted of 24 questions on five major topics: voter registration, election 

results, voting equipment, poll workers, and voting jurisdictions. The survey questions were as 

follows: 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 1 

Introduction, page 3 September 27, 2005 

Election Day Survey Questions 

Voter Registration 

 1. Number of active registered voters (1a), and inactive registered voters (1b). 

Election Results 

 2. Number of ballots counted statewide (2a), and by local jurisdiction (2b). 

 3. Number of ballots cast at polling places on Election Day statewide (3a), and by local 

jurisdiction (3b). 

 4. Number of absentee ballots requested statewide (4a), and by local jurisdiction (4b). 

 5. Number of absentee ballots returned statewide (5a), and by local jurisdiction (5b). 

 6. Number of absentee ballots counted statewide (6a), and by local jurisdiction (6b); 

number of absentee ballots not counted (6c); and five most common reasons for 

rejecting absentee ballots (6d). 

 7. Whether the state conducts early voting (7a); and number of early ballots counted 

statewide (7b), and by local jurisdiction (7c). 

 8. Number of provisional ballots cast statewide (8a), and by local jurisdiction (8b). 

 9. Number of provisional ballots counted statewide (9a), and by local jurisdiction (9b); 

and five most common reasons for rejecting provisional ballots (9c). 

10. Number of undervotes in each federal contest, by local jurisdiction. 

11. Number of overvotes in each federal contest, by local jurisdiction. 

12. Number of votes cast for all candidates in each federal contest, by local jurisdiction. 

Voting Equipment 

13. Type and manufacturer of voting systems in use; number of units for each system; 

software versions, if applicable; and whether used previously in a federal election, by 

local jurisdiction. 

14. Where any of the following voting machine malfunctions occurred, by local 

jurisdictions and precinct, and whether the affected machines were returned to service: 

(14a) power failure, (14b) broken counter, (14c) computer failure, (14d) printer failure, 

(14e) screen failure, (14f) fatal damage to machine, (14g) modem failure, (14h) scanner 

failure, (14i) ballot encoder or activator failure, (14j) audio ballot failure, and (14k) 

other malfunctions. 

Poll Workers 

15. Number of poll workers statewide (15a), and by local jurisdiction (15b). 

16. Required number of poll workers per precinct or polling place, by law or regulation. 

17a. Number of precincts or polling places in each local jurisdiction that did not have the 

required number of poll workers. 

17b. Number of additional poll workers that would have been needed to meet the 

requirement in question 16 for each precinct that had a deficit of poll workers. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 1 

Introduction, page 4 September 27, 2005 

Election Day Survey Questions (cont.) 

Voting Jurisdictions 

18. What constitutes a local election jurisdiction—e.g., county, township, or city? 

19. Number of precincts, by local jurisdiction. 

20. Number of polling places, by local jurisdiction. 

21a. Number of polling places in each local jurisdiction that are wheelchair accessible. 

21b. Number of polling places in each local jurisdiction where visually impaired voters can 

cast a private ballot. 

21c. Number of polling places that have an accessible voting system for physically disabled 

voters. 

Sources of Information 

22. Number of local election jurisdictions providing information for the survey. 

23. Contact information for officials of local election jurisdictions. 

24. Other sources of information for the survey. 

Applicability 

The survey covered 6,568 local election jurisdictions in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 

the four territories. The 24 survey questions were not applicable to all respondents. For example, 

North Dakota does not have voter registration. Six states with Election Day registration are exempt 

from provisional balloting. Questions on voting equipment would not be applicable to jurisdictions 

that use hand-counted paper ballots. 

Survey Response 

Election Jurisdictions 

Although the Election Day Survey was distributed to 55 state election directors (including four 

territories and the District of Columbia), the state directors were charged with gathering information 

from large numbers of local election jurisdictions to complete the survey. Texas has 254 counties, 

and Wisconsin has some 1,910 municipalities that conduct elections. The 6,568 election jurisdictions 

represented in the EAC survey database include 3,090 counties and county equivalents, and 3,460 

cities and towns in Wisconsin and the six New England states. Some 1,500 municipalities in 

Michigan and 2,600 municipalities in Minnesota also conduct elections; however, only county-level 

information was obtained from Michigan and Minnesota for the survey. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 1 

Introduction, page 5 September 27, 2005 

Number of Local Election Jurisdictions 

Alabama 67 Nevada 17 

Alaska 1 New Hampshire 242 

Arizona 15 New Jersey 21 

Arkansas 75 New Mexico 33 

California 58 New York 58 

Colorado 64 North Carolina 100 

Connecticut 169 North Dakota 53 

Delaware 3 Ohio 88 

District of Columbia 1 Oklahoma 77 

Florida 67 Oregon 36 

Georgia 159 Pennsylvania 67 

Hawaii 5 Rhode Island 39 

Idaho 44 South Carolina 46 

Illinois 110 South Dakota 66 

Indiana 92 Tennessee 95 

Iowa 99 Texas 254 

Kansas 105 Utah 29 

Kentucky 120 Vermont 246 

Louisiana 64 Virginia 134 

Maine 517 Washington 39 

Maryland 24 West Virginia 55 

Massachusetts 351 Wisconsin 1,910 

Michigan 83 Wyoming 23 

Minnesota 87 American Samoa 1 

Mississippi 82 Guam 1 

Missouri 116 Puerto Rico 110 

Montana 56 Virgin Islands 1 

Nebraska 93 Total 6,568 

Coverage 

At the time the contract for survey analysis support was issued in mid-February, the EAC had 

received responses to the Election Day Survey from 48 states and territories. By March 17, most 

state responses had been received. The last state responses were added to the database on March 31 

(Rhode Island) and April 13 (Michigan). As of April 15, there were two nonrespondents to the 

Election Day Survey: Guam and American Samoa. 

Supplemental data was added to the database up to July 15, 2005. This included corrected data from 

a follow-up review of survey data that was conducted during the second week of July. On July 8, 

2005, a spreadsheet containing data tabulated for local election jurisdictions was sent to each state 

election director. The state directors were asked to review the spreadsheets, provide missing data, 

correct data entries, if necessary, and return the spreadsheets by July 15, 2005. Responses to the 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 1 

Introduction, page 6 September 27, 2005 

survey follow-up review were received from 26 states. As of September 1, Guam and American 

Samoa were still nonrespondents to the Election Day Survey. 

Even with the follow-up review, many responses to the Election Day Survey are incomplete. In 

some cases, responses are missing one or more local election jurisdictions. In other cases, a response 

is missing for certain questions—for example, question 14 on voting equipment malfunctions. On 

March 15, the original cutoff date for data tabulation, overall completeness rates for original state 

responses varied from 91.5 percent complete to less than 20 percent, as shown below: 

 No. States 

Survey Completeness Rates by Mar. 15 

Over 80 percent complete 5 

60 to 80 percent complete 23 

40 to 60 percent complete 16 

20 to 40 percent complete 6 

Less than 20 percent complete 2 

 No response* 3 

*As of March 15, only statewide data had been received for the state of Rhode Island. Data for local election 

jurisdictions in Rhode Island was added to the survey database on March 31. 

Many states provided supplemental data in response to requests for missing data or clarifications of 

problem data. Some data had not been reported consistently. For example, two-thirds of the nation’s 

jurisdictions provided responses to questions on active registrations, but for inactive registration, less 

than half reported data. By comparing survey responses with reported registration data, Election 

Data Services determined that 20 states combined active and inactive registrations in their counts of 

overall registrations in the state. Twenty-six states reported only active registration. In four states, 

the determination of whether to report active and inactive voters in voter registration totals is at the 

discretion of individual local jurisdictions. Responses to other election data on the number of ballots 

cast by mode of voting, absentee ballots, provisional voting, and the number of undervotes by 

federal office were often incomplete. 

The following table summarizes the coverage of state responses to selected questions on the survey 

as of July 15, 2005. This summary includes supplemental data provided by state election directors as 

a result of the state follow-up review.

 Number of Reponses Coverage Rate 

Individual Survey Questions (Jurisdictions) (Percent) 

1a. Active registration 4,878 74.3 

 1b. Inactive registration 3,049 46.4 

 2a. Ballots counted 6,487 98.8 

3a. Ballots cast on Election Day 3,849 58.6 

4a. Absentee ballots requested 4,735 72.1 

5a. Absentee ballots returned 4,828 73.5 

6a. Absentee ballots counted 4,902 74.6 

6c. Absentee ballots not counted 1,741 26.5 

7b. Early ballots counted 1,306 71.8 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 1 

Introduction, page 7 September 27, 2005 

 Coverage Rate 

 Individual Survey Questions (Percent) 

8a. Provisional ballots cast 3,010 45.8 

9a. Provisional ballots counted 2,483 37.8 

12a. Votes cast for President 6,289 95.8 

10a. Presidential undervotes 4,427 67.4 

11a. Presidential overvotes 1,243 18.9 

12b. Votes cast for U.S. Senator 4,377 96.7 

10b. Senate undervotes 3,537 78.1 

11b. Senate overvotes 784 17.3 

12c. Votes cast for U.S. Representative 6,031 93.4 

 10c. Congressional undervotes 4,493 69.6 

 11c. Congressional overvotes 988 15.0 

13. Type of voting equipment n/a* n/a* 

 14. Voting equipment malfunctions n/a* n/a* 

15a. Number of poll workers 4,639 70.6 

16. Required number of poll workers per precinct 1,983 30.2 

17a. Precincts with fewer poll workers than required 2,289 34.9 

19. Number of precincts 5,395 82.1 

20. Number of polling places 5,180 78.9 

 21a. Wheelchair-accessible polling places 3,569 54.3 

 21b. Polling places where visually impaired cast private ballots 537 8.2 

21c. Polling places with accessible voting systems 1,206 18.4 

*Coverage rates could not be calculated for questions on voting equipment because many jurisdictions 

provided data for more than one type of voting equipment. 

From conversations with state election directors and an examination of survey responses, Election 

Data Services determined that some state election directors sent the survey or selected questions 

from the survey directly to local jurisdictions, while others rewrote the questions on a new version of 

the survey that was distributed to local election jurisdictions. 

In several instances, election directors noted in their responses that local election officials had not 

carefully read or fully understood certain questions on the Election Day Survey. For example, some 

responses to question 3b, “ballots cast on Election Day,” were identical to question 2b, “total number 

of ballots counted,” and did not exclude absentee ballot totals. Some local officials may have 

interpreted “ballots cast” (question 3b) as individual pages of a multipage ballot; therefore, five 

voters casting a three-page ballot would have been interpreted as 15 ballots cast, rather than five 

ballots cast. 

There are data quality issues, cases of missing data, and, inevitably, data entry errors. Some data 

entry and reporting errors were detected by data integrity reports that identified rates in excess of 

100 percent—for example, more ballots counted than registered voters, more ballots counted than 

ballots cast, more absentee ballots returned than absentee ballots requested, or more provisional 

ballots counted than provisional ballots cast. Other errors were detected by reports that compiled the 

highest and lowest 15 counties for each data category or reports that compared the survey responses 

with other data sources, such as certified election data published on the Web or surveys on similar 

topics conducted by other election organizations, such as electionline.org and the National 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 1 

Introduction, page 8 September 27, 2005 

Association of Secretaries of State. Still other errors were corrected through telephone calls for data 

clarifications—e.g., extra digits (123 ballots cast, instead of 1,023 ballots) or transpositions (113 

provisional ballots counted, instead of 131 ballots). 

Some states were asked to provide corrected data when, for example, (1) the number of absentee 

ballots returned was higher than the number of ballots requested (more than 100 jurisdictions), (2) 

the number of absentee ballots counted was higher than the number of ballots returned (more than 

140 jurisdictions), or (3) the number of provisional ballots counted was higher than the number of 

ballots cast (15 jurisdictions). Election Data Services has attempted to locate and correct errors in 

larger magnitude, but we are certain that smaller errors exist in the data. It is hoped that these small 

errors will not undermine the results of the analysis that we report, and that these errors are 

minimized when data is aggregated to the county level. Some problems remain with the data because 

requests for data corrections have not yet been received. 

Note: Because of the data quality issues, it is important to check the primary data sources (i.e., 

original survey responses) if certain items in this report seem questionable. Data errors were 

discovered and corrected throughout the analysis and report-writing phases of this project, 

right up to the date of the final report. 

Data Tabulation 

The electronic format that the EAC chose for the Election Day Survey was a Microsoft Excel 

spreadsheet. While most states used the Excel format for their responses, there were considerable 

variations among the states in the presentation of data presented on the Excel spreadsheets. For 

example, while most states reported election jurisdiction data in rows and survey questions in 

columns, a few states used the opposite format—i.e., rows for questions, and columns for 

jurisdictions. In some instances, particularly on voting equipment, individual data cells contained 

responses to two or more questions—e.g., equipment manufacturer and equipment name or type and 

software version. Some survey responses or supplements to survey responses were provided in 

Microsoft Word documents or .csv, .pdf, or html files (i.e., comma delimited text, Portable 

Document Format, or Hypertext Markup Language Web documents). 

To tabulate the survey, Election Data Services standardized the survey responses in new Microsoft 

Excel import files for addition to a special SQL (Structured Query Language) relational database that 

was created for the project. The special EAC database for the Election Day Survey has 6,568 records 

(one record for each local election jurisdiction) and 70 columns of data. Data integrity and quality 

assurance reports to assess jurisdictional coverage and data quality issues were produced from this 

database as well as 14 tables that present the survey results and form the basis for this report. 

Each of the 14 tables has a separate chapter in this report. The tables are entitled as follows: 

Table 1. Population Estimates Table 8. Overvotes and Undervotes 

Table 2. Voter Registration Table 9. Voting Equipment Usage 

Table 3. Ballots Counted Table 10. Voting Machines 

Table 4. Turnout Source Table 11. Voting Equipment Malfunctions 

Table 5. Absentee Ballots Table 12. Poll Workers 

Table 6. Provisional Ballots Table 13. Polling Places 

Table 7. Drop-Off Table 14. Disability 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 1 

Introduction, page 9 September 27, 2005 

Data Measurement 

Four basic methodologies were used to analyze the results of the Election Day Survey. They are (1) 

data entry and tabulation checks to provide complete and consistent nationwide coverage; (2) 

calculation of rates and ratios to provide meaningful comparisons among states and counties; (3) 

cross-tabulation and correlation by different criteria—e.g., type of voting equipment used—to reveal 

patterns between two variables; and (4) regression analysis to provide a statistically rigorous analysis 

of patterns revealed through cross-tabulation and correlation. 

Table Format 

The 14 tables present statewide summaries of the survey results. The questions are in columns and 

state responses to the survey questions are in rows. Next to each column containing a response to a 

survey question or a calculation representing responses to two or more questions is a column labeled 

“Cases.” The Cases column provides information on the number of jurisdictions that are represented 

by the survey response or calculation. For example, in the following illustration from Table 2, state 

responses to question 1a of the Election Day Survey on the number of active registered voters are in 

column 6, “Active Registration.” In column 7, “Cases” shows the number of local election 

jurisdictions covered by the state’s response to survey question 1a. 

Column 8, “Percent Active Registration” lists the number of active registered voters in column 6, 

divided by “Reported Total Registration” in column 4. “Cases” in column 9 shows the number of 

local jurisdictions that responded to question 1a on active registered voters (col. 6) and the number 

of jurisdictions covered by the calculation of total registered voters in column 4.
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 1 

Introduction, page 10 September 27, 2005 

Moving down the table and following the 55 state responses is a series of calculations showing the 

nationwide totals, with maximum, minimum, and average counts for each variable. These 

calculations are followed by a series of cross-tabulations for interpreting the survey data. The crosstabulations are the same for each table and cover the following three categories: (1) election 

administration factors, (2) geographic and demographic factors, and (3) political factors: 

Election Administration Geo/Demographic Political 

Type of Voting Equipment Regions Battleground States 

Changed Voting Equipment 

since 2000 

Urban to Rural Presidential Margin 

of Victory 

Statewide Voter Registration 

Database 

Size of Jurisdiction Red versus Blue 

Jurisdictions 

Election Day Registration Race and Ethnicity 

Provisional Ballot Acceptance Median Income 

No-Excuse Absentee Balloting High School Education 

Early Voting 

Sec. 203 Language Minority 

Requirements 

Sec. 5 Preclearance of Voting 

Procedures 

Cross Tabulations 

The following is a description of the cross-tabulation factors for interpreting the survey results. 

Type of Voting Equipment 

Cross-tabulations by voting equipment are for five generic equipment types: (1) paper, (2) lever, (3) 

electronic, (4) punch card, and (5) optical scan. Paper refers to the Australian or “mark choice” 

ballot, on which voters choose candidates or responses to ballot questions by marking boxes on a 

paper ballot, which are then counted by hand. Lever refers to mechanical lever machines, which 

display a full-face ballot with a small lever next to each candidate’s name and each ballot question. 

Voters enter a curtain-enclosed booth, make their choices for candidates and ballot questions by 

flipping the small levers, and then pull a large lever to open the curtain to exit the booth and record 

their votes on counters located on the back the machines. No paper trail of an individual voter’s 

choices are ever produced on a lever machine. 

Electronic refers to Direct Record Electronic (DRE) systems where voters use push buttons, select 

wheels, or touch screens to choose candidates or responses to ballot questions. Their choices are 

recorded and tabulated electronically in removable memory components. Punch card refers to both 

Votomatic and DataVote style systems, where voters insert paper ballot cards into a device and 

punch out chads next to candidate names and ballot questions. 1

 The voted punch cards are then 

 

1

 A Votomatic ballot card is prescored and printed only with numbered voting positions. A Votomatic ballot card is inserted into a frame on which a booklet identifying candidates or answers to ballot questions has been attached. A stylus 

is used to punch out chads at various voting positions. A DataVote ballot card is printed with a candidate name or answer 

to a ballot question at each voting position. A DataVote ballot card is inserted into a frame fitted with a movable device 

similar to a one-hole punch for punching out chads at voting positions. Because the candidate names are printed on the 

card, most “ballots” provided to voters encompass multiple physical cards. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 1 

Introduction, page 11 September 27, 2005 

processed by a computer reader, which tabulates the vote. Optical scan systems use paper ballots on 

which voters mark their choices for candidates and ballot questions with pencils or pencil-like 

devices. Voted ballot cards are then scanned by machines using “marksense” (e.g., infrared) 

technology to tabulate the vote. 

The data source for the voting equipment cross-tabulations is survey question 13, which asked for 

the type and manufacturer of voting equipment used at the November 2004 election. The number of 

local jurisdictions for each equipment type is shown below. The unknown category is for 

jurisdictions that did not respond to the survey question. 

Type of Voting Equipment Jurisdictions 

 Paper 1,734 

 Lever 394 

 Electronic 608 

 Punch Card 260 

 Optical Scan 2,541 

 Multiple Systems 123 

 Unknown 908 

Changed Voting Equipment Since 2000 

The cross tabulation for voting equipment changes are based on responses to survey question 13 and 

information maintained by Election Data Services on voting equipment used at the November 2000 

general election. The number of local jurisdictions that used different voting equipment in November 

2000 is as follows: 

Changed Voting Equipment Since Nov. 2000 Jurisdictions 

 Yes 1,753 

 No 4,815 

Statewide Voter Registration Database 

Section 303 of HAVA requires states to implement a statewide voter registration database by 

January 1, 2004, unless a waiver was obtained to extend the implementation deadline to January 1, 

2006. Seventeen states had statewide databases in place for the November 2004 general election, and 

the number of local jurisdictions in those states is as follows: 

Jurisdictions in states with statewide voter registration 

databases in place for the November 2004 election: 1,335 

Alaska Hawaii New Mexico 

Arizona Kentucky Oklahoma 

Connecticut Louisiana South Carolina 

Delaware Massachusetts South Dakota 

Dist. of Columbia Michigan West Virginia 

Georgia Minnesota 

Jurisdictions in other states: 5,233 

Election Day Registration 

Six states allow persons to register and vote on Election Day.2 Proponents of Election Day 

Registration (EDR), also called “same-day voter registration,” maintain that EDR increases the 

 

2

 Another state, Rhode Island, is not considered an Election Day Registration (EDR) state, but allows persons to register 

on Election Day to vote for president only. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 1 

Introduction, page 12 September 27, 2005 

opportunity to cast a vote and that the EDR states have higher than average voter turnout rates. The 

number of local jurisdictions in states that have EDR is as follows: 

Jurisdictions in states (6) with Election Day registration: 2,823 

Idaho Minnesota Wisconsin 

Maine New Hampshire Wyoming 

Jurisdictions in other states: 3,745 

Provisional Ballot Acceptance 

Provisional balloting allows voters who believe that they registered to cast a ballot even though their 

names do not appear on a voter list. A provisional ballot may be counted if, after investigation, it is 

determined that the voter was, in fact, eligible to vote. Provisional balloting is mandated by HAVA, 

although many states already had provisional balloting or other “fail-safe” voting procedures before 

HAVA was enacted. However, provisional balloting procedures differ among the states, and one 

major difference is where provisional ballots are cast. 

Provisional ballots in 28 states are disqualified if cast outside the voter’s home precinct, while in 18 

states, provisional ballots are eligible to be counted if cast in the voter’s home jurisdiction—e.g., 

county or municipality—but not necessarily in the voter’s home precinct. The number of local 

jurisdictions in states with in-precinct and out-of-precinct rules for counting provisional ballots is 

shown below. Other local jurisdictions are in states that have no such rules or are exempt from 

HAVA’s provisional balloting requirement. HAVA exempts states that do not have voter registration 

and states that have Election Day registration, although three states with Election Day registration, 

Maine, Wisconsin and Wyoming, use provisional ballots for first-time voters whose names do not 

appear on voter lists and who do not have proper identification at the polls on Election Day. 

Jurisdictions in states (28) where provisional ballots must be 

 cast in the voter’s home precinct (in precinct only): 4,350 

Alabama Kentucky Ohio 

Connecticut Massachusetts Oklahoma 

Dist. Columbia Michigan South Carolina 

Florida Mississippi South Dakota 

Hawaii Missouri Tennessee 

Indiana Montana Texas 

Iowa Nebraska Virginia 

Kansas Nevada West Virginia 

New Jersey Wisconsin 

New York Wyoming 

Jurisdictions in states (18) where provisional ballots are 

eligible to be counted if cast in the voter’s home jurisdiction 

but not necessarily in the voter’s home precinct 

(anywhere in jurisdiction): 

1,162 

Alaska Georgia Oregon 

Arizona Illinois Pennsylvania 

Arkansas Louisiana Rhode Island 

California Maryland Utah 

Colorado New Mexico Vermont 

Delaware North Carolina Washington 

Jurisdictions in other states: 1,056 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 1 

Introduction, page 13 September 27, 2005 

No Excuse Absentee Balloting 

The EAC defined absentee voting as “voting prior to Election Day which requires that the voter meet 

qualifications other than those generally required to register to vote.” For example, a voter might 

have to attest that he or she will be absent from the voting jurisdiction on Election Day. Many states 

now allow voters to cast absentee ballots without conditions. Cross-tabulations by “no-excuse” 

absentee balloting apply to jurisdictions in the following 24 states: 

Jurisdictions in states (24) with no-excuse absentee ballots: 3,781 

Alaska Kansas North Dakota 

Arizona Louisiana Oklahoma 

California Maine South Dakota 

Colorado Montana Utah 

Florida Nebraska Vermont 

Hawaii Nevada Washington 

Idaho New Mexico Wisconsin 

Iowa North Carolina Wyoming 

Jurisdictions in other states: 2,787 

Early Voting 

The EAC defined early voting as “any voting that occurred prior to November 2, 2004, for which 

there were no eligibility requirements. For example, the voter did not have to attest that he/she would 

be absent from the voting jurisdiction on the day of the election.” The number of local jurisdictions 

in the 27 states that conduct early voting is as follows: 

Jurisdictions in states (27) with early voting: 1,701 

Alaska Indiana North Dakota 

Arizona Iowa Oklahoma 

Arkansas Kansas South Dakota 

California Maine Tennessee 

Colorado Montana Texas 

Florida Nebraska Utah 

Georgia Nevada Vermont 

Hawaii New Mexico West Virginia 

Idaho North Carolina Wyoming 

Jurisdictions in other states: 4,867 

Section 203 Language Minority Requirements 

Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act requires election jurisdictions to provide language assistance at 

the polls, such as translation services or special ballots, if a language minority group represents a 

certain proportion of voting age citizens. Covered language minority groups are American Indians, 

Asian Americans, Alaskan Natives, and Spanish-heritage citizens. Section 203 cross-tabulations 

apply to 468 jurisdictions in 27 states.3

 

 

3

 “Implementation of the Provisions of the Voting Rights Act Regarding Language Minority Groups,” 28 C.F.R. Part 55. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 1 

Introduction, page 14 September 27, 2005 

Section 5 Preclearance of Voting Procedures 

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires certain jurisdictions to obtain federal approval (“preclearance”) before implementing changes to voting procedures. Section 5 cross-tabulations apply to 

880 covered jurisdictions in 16 states.4 

Regions 

Cross-tabulations by geographic area apply to four regional groupings of states used by the U.S. 

Census Bureau. These groupings exclude the four territories. The number of local jurisdictions in 

each of the four census regions—Northeast, Midwest, South, and West—is as follows: 

Jurisdictions in the nine Northeastern states: 1,710 

Connecticut New Hampshire Pennsylvania 

Maine New Jersey Rhode Island 

Massachusetts New York Vermont 

Jurisdictions in the 12 Midwestern states: 2,902 

Illinois Michigan North Dakota 

Indiana Minnesota Ohio 

Iowa Missouri South Dakota 

Kansas Nebraska Wisconsin 

Jurisdictions in the 17 Southern states: 1,423 

Alabama Kentucky South Carolina 

Arkansas Louisiana Tennessee 

Delaware Maryland Texas 

Dist. of Columbia Mississippi Virginia 

Florida North Carolina West Virginia 

Georgia Oklahoma 

Jurisdictions in the 13 Western states: 420 

Alaska Idaho Utah 

Arizona Montana Washington 

California Nevada Wyoming 

Colorado New Mexico 

Hawaii Oregon 

Jurisdictions in four territories: 113 

Urban to Rural 

Cross-tabulations by population density for four area types—urban, suburban, small town, and 

rural—were created for this study from the U.S. Census P.L. 94–171 Redistricting Data Summary 

File. The area quartiles were created by dividing the populations of geographic units represented in 

the P.L. File by the areas of those units in square miles. The four territories are not covered by these 

calculations. The number of local jurisdictions in each population density quartile is as follows: 

Area Population Density Jurisdictions 

 Urban 1,000 people per square mile or more 567 

 Suburban 250 to 999 people per square mile 871 

 Small Town 50 to 249 people per square mile 1,710 

 Rural 0 to 49 people per square mile 3,307 

 Territories (not available) 113 

 

4

 “Procedures for the Administration of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, As Amended,” 28 C.F.R. Part 51, 

and Appendix to Part 51, “Jurisdictions Covered Under Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, as Amended.” 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 1 

Introduction, page 15 September 27, 2005 

Size of Jurisdiction (VAP) 

Cross-tabulations by size of jurisdiction are based on selected ranges of the estimated voting age 

population (VAP) for the November 2, 2004, general election. VAP is defined as all persons age 18 

and older residing within a jurisdiction. Estimated VAP for November 2004 is based on U.S. Census 

Bureau estimates of the population by age on July 1, 2002, and July 1, 2003. The November 2004 

estimated VAP was constructed by extrapolating forward the difference between the July 1, 2002, 

and July 1, 2003, census estimates. The four territories are not covered by these ranges. The number 

of local jurisdictions in each range is as follows. 

 Voting Age Population (VAP) Jurisdictions 

 Less than 1,000 1,761 

 1,000 to 3,499 1,165 

 3,500 to 9,999 1,043 

10,000 to 49,999 1,704 

50,000 to 249,999 586 

 250,000 to 999,999 140 

1,000,000 or more 25 

 Territories and problem jurisdictions (not available) 144 

Most of the small jurisdictions are municipalities in Wisconsin and the six New England states. 

Cross-tabulations based on voter registration would have been preferable for this study but could not 

be created because of a lack of consistent voter registration data. 

Race and Ethnicity 

Cross-tabulations by race and ethnicity are also based on population counts from the U.S. Census 

P.L. 94–171 Redistricting Data Summary File for persons 18 years and over as well as 

Hispanic/Latino and non-Hispanic/Latino persons by race (63 categories). 

Race and Ethnic Categories Jurisdictions 

 Predominantly Non-Hispanic White 6,284 

 Predominantly Non-Hispanic Black 85 

Predominantly Non-Hispanic Native American 24 

 Predominantly Hispanic 50 

 Territories and problem jurisdictions (not available) 145 

Median Income 

Cross-tabulations by median income are based on income data in the U.S. Census Summary File 1 

(SF 1). The four territories are not included in these tabulations. The number of local jurisdictions in 

each range by median income is as follows: 

 Income Categories Jurisdictions 

 Less than $25,000 298 

 $25,000 to 29,999 884 

 $30,000 to 34,999 1,372 

 $35,000 to 39,999 1,215 

 $40,000 to 44,999 881 

 $45,000 to 49,999 587 

$50,000 or more 1,180 

 Territories and problem jurisdictions (not available) 151 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 1 

Introduction, page 16 September 27, 2005 

High School Education 

Cross-tabulations by high school graduation or equivalent diploma are based on educational 

attainment data in the U.S. Census Summary File 1 (SF 1). The four territories are not included in 

these tabulations. The number of local jurisdictions in each range by educational attainment is as 

follows: 

High School Graduation Rates Jurisdictions 

Less than 60 percent 126 

60 to 70 percent 661 

70 to 80 percent 1,646 

80 to 90 percent 3,111 

90 percent or higher 873 

 Territories and problem jurisdictions (not available) 151 

Battleground States 

Cross-tabulations by “battleground state” apply to the 2004 presidential election and are based on the 

number of local jurisdictions in the 17 battleground states as follows: 

Jurisdictions in the 17 battleground states: 3,093 

Arkansas Minnesota Oregon 

Arizona Missouri Pennsylvania 

Colorado Nevada Washington 

Florida New Hampshire West Virginia 

Iowa New Mexico Wisconsin 

Michigan Ohio 

Jurisdictions in other states: 3,475 

Presidential Margin of Victory 

Cross-tabulations by “margin of victory” are for the 2004 presidential election by the following 

quintiles: Less than 2.5 percent, 2.5 to 5.0 percent, 5.0 to 7.5 percent, 7.5 percent to 10.0 percent, 

and 10 percent or more. The number of local jurisdictions in each margin of victory quintile is 

shown below. The number does not sum to 6,568, the number of jurisdictions covered by the survey, 

because election returns were not reported for some smaller jurisdictions whose votes are included in 

the totals of another jurisdiction. 

Presidential Margin of Victory Jurisdictions 

Less than 2.5 percent 515 

2.5 percent to 5.0 percent 476 

5.0 percent to 7.5 percent 510 

7.5 percent to 10.0 percent 429 

 10 percent or more 4,492 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 1 

Introduction, page 17 September 27, 2005 

Red versus Blue Jurisdictions 

Cross-tabulations by “red versus blue” apply to the 2004 presidential election results and are based 

on local jurisdictions won by John Kerry (blue) and George W. Bush (red). The number of 

jurisdictions by margin of victory is shown below. The number does not sum to 6,568, the number of 

jurisdictions covered by the survey, because election returns were not reported for some smaller 

jurisdictions whose votes are included in the totals of another jurisdiction. 

Candidate Margin of Victory Jurisdictions 

 Red (Bush) Greater than 55 percent 3,115 

 Red (Bush) 50 percent to 55 percent 982 

 Red (Bush) Less than 50 percent 136 

 Tied 25 

 Blue (Kerry) Less than 50 percent 150 

 Blue (Kerry) 50 percent to 55 percent 872 

 Blue (Kerry) Greater than 55 percent 1,161 

REFERENCES [[references aren’t cited in text]] 

Brady, Henry E., Justin Buchler, Matt Jarvis, and John McNulty. Counting All the Votes: The Performance of 

Voting Technology in the United States. Department of Political Science, Survey Research Center, and 

Institute for Governmental Studies, University of California, Berkeley, September 2001. 

Dēmos Democracy Program. Election Day Registration Helps America Vote, Winter 2004. 

electionline.org. “Solution or Problem? Provisional Ballots in 2004,” electionline.org Briefing, March 2005. 

electionline.org. “The 2004 Election,” electionline.org Briefing, December 2004. 

electionline.org. “Statewide Voter Registration Database Status,” 5 April 2005 

<http://www.electionline.org/index.jsp?page=Database.Status>. 

National Association of Secretaries of State. Early Voting Survey, September 2004. 

National Association of Secretaries of State. Fact Sheet: The Different Types of Voting Systems, June 2004. 

United States. Election Assistance Commission. “Glossary for Voting Systems (DRAFT),” 12 April 2005 

<http://www.eac.gov/voting_glossary.asp>. 
PART 2 

ELECTION DAY SURVEY RESULTS 

Any discussion about the voting process must take into account several requirements that have been 

built into the American electoral system. First, not everyone can vote. Persons must have reached a 

certain age. The 26th Amendment, adopted in 1972, placed the minimum voting age at 18 years. 

Persons age 18 and older are commonly referred to as the voting age population (VAP). Second, 

being of voting age is not necessarily a guarantee of voting eligibility, because most states also 

require persons to be United States citizens. This smaller group of individuals is referred to as the 

citizen voting age population (CVAP). Third, in most states persons must also register to vote. Some 

states have made the registration process easier than others, such as the six states that have adopted 

Election Day Registration. The rural state of North Dakota has no registration requirement. 

But registering is just another step in the voting process. People have to turn out and cast a ballot. 

The easing of absentee balloting restrictions and the adoption of mail-in ballots has increased voter 

turnout to a certain degree. But the fourth step of the process still comes down to people making the 

effort to vote. Fifth, the American electoral system is unique in that it presents voters with many 

decisions on Election Day. Not only are there contests among candidates for federal offices, but also 

for state and local offices. Many states and localities place referendums on the ballot as well. Each 

contest on the ballot presents voters with a choice of whether to participate. 

At each step in the voting process, the demographic and political makeup of the electoral body 

changes. Individuals and various groups of individuals are affected differently. This study of the 

Election Day Survey analyzes data generated by election systems at each of the five steps. The data 

is presented in the following series of tables: 

Table 1. Population Estimates Table 8. Overvotes and Undervotes 

Table 2. Voter Registration Table 9. Voting Equipment Usage 

Table 3. Ballots Counted Table 10. Voting Machines 

Table 4. Turnout Source Table 11. Voting Equipment Malfunctions 

Table 5. Absentee Ballots Table 12. Poll Workers 

Table 6. Provisional Ballots Table 13. Polling Places 

Table 7. Drop-Off Table 14. Disability 

Each table has a separate chapter that contains background information about survey questions, the 

historical context for interpreting the survey results, and stipulations about jurisdictional coverage 

and the applicability of data items. The survey results in each table are summed to the state level for 

6,567 local election jurisdictions in the U.S. Election Assistance Commission dataset. The survey 

results are also subtotaled for each of the 18 cross-tabulation factors described earlier in Part 1. Each 

chapter provides an analysis of the survey results for each cross-tabulation factor. There is a separate 

chapter containing recommendations on future data collection. 
Chapter 1 

Population Estimates 

Table 1 presents estimates of the voting age population (VAP) and the citizen voting age population 

(CVAP) in the United States for the November 2, 2004, general election. The VAP is defined as all 

persons age 18 and older residing within a jurisdiction—a county, parish, or township, depending on 

where elections are administered. Estimated VAP for November 2004 is constructed from U.S. 

Census Bureau population estimates by age and jurisdiction for July 1 of a given year. (Census 

estimates are available at http://www.census.gov.) 

As of this writing, the July 1, 2004,VAP estimates have not been released, but they are anticipated 

by the end of the summer of 2005. We constructed the November 2, 2004, estimated VAP used in 

this report by extrapolating forward the difference between the July 1, 2002, and July 1, 2003, 

census estimates. This method constructs the best approximation of the November 2, 2004, VAP for 

local election jurisdictions. But we recognize that the method may incorrectly estimate population 

for a jurisdiction, such as underestimating population growth, particularly for jurisdictions with 

small populations, such as townships. To construct the best VAP available estimate for townships, 

we assigned the ratio of the newly released Census Bureau July 1, 2004, total population estimate 

from the county to the township to apportion our November 2, 2004, county-level VAP estimate to 

the township. 

It is important to understand that VAP is not a perfect estimate of those eligible to vote. VAP does 

not include estimates of voting-eligible persons living overseas. It includes persons who are 

ineligible to vote under state laws, such as noncitizens; ineligible felons, depending on state law; 

those determined by a court to be incompetent; those who are not registered to vote; and persons 

who might have moved recently. But obtaining uniform data for jurisdictions nationwide for each of 

these circumstances is impossible, and therefore, no possible adjustment can be made to the base 

data. 

We can, however, account for noncitizens, the largest ineligible population, by estimating the 

CVAP. We constructed CVAP by applying the 2000 census estimate of CVAP (which was obtained 

by Election Data Services as a special tabulation from the Census Bureau) as a percentage of the 

2000 census VAP to the November 2, 2004, population estimates described above. This method 

implicitly assumes that the April 1, 2000, report of the percentage citizens of VAP is equal to the 

November 4, 2004, percentage citizens of VAP. 

Methods exist to estimate the other eligible and ineligible populations, such as accounting for the 

overseas eligible population and ineligible felons from Department of Justice reports (McDonald and 

Popkin 2001; McDonald 2002), but no sound methodology exists to apportion these populations to 

counties and townships. For consistency across reporting units, we do not further adjust CVAP to 

attempt to better measure the voting-eligible population. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Population Estimates, Page 1-2 September 27, 2005

Applicability and Coverage 

VAP and CVAP estimates were available for all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. 

The Census Bureau did not produce post-2000 population estimates for Guam, American Samoa, 

and the Virgin Islands. 

Population Estimates 

Table 1 presents population estimates for the analysis of the survey results. Table 1 provides 

estimates of the VAP and the CVAP, and calculates CVAP as a percentage of VAP. The column 

headings in Table 1 are as follows: 

Column Headings for Table 1. Population Estimates 

Col.- Heading Description 

1 Code State census code 

2 Name Respondent to Election Day Survey 

3 Jurisdiction Number of local election jurisdictions from survey question 22 

4 2004 Estimated VAP Estimated November 2004 voting age population (VAP) 

5 Cases Number of jurisdictions for which VAP estimates were constructed 

6 2004 Estimated. 

Citizen VAP 

Estimated November 2004 citizen voting age population (CVAP) 

7 Cases Number of jurisdictions for which CVAP estimates were constructed 

8 Percent 2004 

Citizen of Total VAP 

Estimated November 2004 CVAP (col. 6) divided by estimated 

November 2004 total VAP (col. 4) 

9 Cases Number of jurisdictions for which VAP and CVAP estimates were 

constructed 

10 Cases > 100% Number of jurisdictions where estimated November 2004 CVAP is 

greater than total November 2004 VAP 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Population Estimates, Page 1-3 September 27, 2005

Analysis of Estimates 

The following is our analysis of the data in Table 1 for each of the 18 cross-tabulation factors 

described earlier in this report. A description of each factor follows a general summary and statelevel summary of the population data. 

1) Regions 10) Changed Voting Equipment since 2000 

2) Urban to Rural 11) Statewide Voter Registration Database 

3) Size of Jurisdiction 12) Election Day Registration 

4) Race and Ethnicity 13) Provisional Ballot Acceptance 

5) Median Income 14) No Excuse Absentee Balloting 

6) High School Education 15) Early Voting 

7) Section 203 Language Minority Requirements 16) Battleground States 

8) Section 5 Preclearance of Voting Procedures 17) Presidential Margin of Victory 

9) Type of Voting Equipment 18) Red versus Blue Jurisdictions 

Summary 

The uneven distribution of noncitizens across jurisdictions underscores the importance of using 

CVAP in addition to VAP when drawing conclusions of survey results across jurisdictions. If VAP 

were used, rates would be underestimated for jurisdictions with high proportions of noncitizens 

relative to other jurisdictions. Jurisdictions with high proportions of noncitizens can be found in 

Western states, particularly California; in urban and small cities; and in Section 203 and Section 5 

Voting Rights jurisdictions, among other categories. 

States 

Nationally, the 2000 census reported that 92.9 percent of the U.S. voting age population are citizens. 

The distribution of VAP and CVAP across the states and within cross-tabulations is reported in 

Table 1. California has the largest voting-age population at 26.6 million. California also has the 

largest noncitizen population, with only 81.3 percent of the VAP classified as citizens in the 2000 

census. West Virginia has the smallest noncitizen population as a percentage of the VAP, with 99.4 

percent of the VAP classified as citizens. 

Regions 

The largest proportion of non-citizens are located in the West, where only 86.8 percent of VAP are 

citizens. Jurisdictions located in the Midwest have the highest proportion of citizens, with 96.8 

percent. Jurisdictions in the Northeast and the South fall in the middle with 94.3 percent and 93.8 

percent citizens, respectively. In all, 224 jurisdictions were reported as having zero noncitizens 

among the VAP, primarily located in regions outside the West. 

Urban to Rural 

Among urban to rural categories, urban jurisdictions have the lowest percentage of citizens, 88.0 

percent. The remaining categories fall between 94.4 percent citizen in suburban to 97.3 percent 

citizen in rural jurisdictions. 

Size of Jurisdiction 

The smallest jurisdictions have citizenship of 99.3 percent of VAP. For small- to medium-sized 

jurisdictions up to 250,000 VAP, citizenship is above 96.1 percent. For the 23 largest jurisdictions in 

the nation, those with 1,000,000 or more, citizens are 83.2 percent of the VAP. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Population Estimates, Page 1-4 September 27, 2005

Race and Ethnicity 

Among racial and ethnic categories, predominantly Hispanic jurisdictions have the lowest 

percentage of citizens, only 75.7 percent. In predominantly non-Hispanic White jurisdictions, 

greater than 94.0 percent are citizens, and up to 98.0 percent are citizens in predominantly nonHispanic Native American jurisdictions. 

Median Income 

Lower income jurisdictions tend to have higher citizenship rates. The percentage of citizens among 

the voting age population ranges from 89.7 percent to 96.6 percent. 

High School Education 

Jurisdictions with lower percentages of the population completing high school have higher 

percentages of noncitizens. Jurisdictions with below a 60 percent high school completion rate have 

an 86.2 percent citizenship rate. Those above 90 percent high school completion report 94.0 percent 

citizenship among the VAP. 

Section 203 Language Minority Requirements 

Jurisdictions covered under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act have higher percentages of 

noncitizens. Section 203 jurisdictions are 85.4 percent citizen, while noncovered jurisdictions are 

96.6 percent citizen. 

Section 5 Preclearance of Voting Procedures 

Jurisdictions covered under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act have higher percentages of 

noncitizens. Section 5 jurisdictions are 90.3 percent citizen, while other noncovered jurisdictions are 

93.8 percent citizen. 

Type of Voting Equipment 

Jurisdictions that use hand-counted paper ballots have the highest proportion of citizens, 98.1 

percent, which may be because paper ballots are primarily used by smaller jurisdictions. Crosstabulations with other types of voting equipment are in the low- to mid-90 percent range. 

Changed Voting Equipment since 2000 

Jurisdictions that changed voting equipment from the 2000 election have a lower percentage of 

citizens, 88.7 percent, than other jurisdictions, 94.9 percent. The difference is partially a 

consequence of voting equipment changes in populous southern California and southern Florida 

counties with high noncitizen populations. 

Statewide Voter Registration Database 

States with statewide voter registration databases have a slightly higher percentage of citizens, 95.3 

percent, than those that do not, 92.2 percent. 

Election Day Registration 

States with Election Day Registration (EDR) have higher percentages of citizens, 97.2 percent, than 

those that do not, 92.6 percent. This difference is primarily attributed to the number of EDR states in 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Population Estimates, Page 1-5 September 27, 2005

the Northeast and Midwest. The two Western states with EDR, Idaho and Wyoming, also have high 

levels of citizenship. 

Provisional Ballot Acceptance 

States that allow provisional ballots to be counted if cast outside a voter’s home precinct have a 

lower percentage of citizens, 90.6 percent, than those that accept ballots cast in home precincts only, 

94.3 percent, or do not have provisional ballots, 97.0 percent. 

No Excuse Absentee Balloting 

States with no excuse absentee balloting have lower percentages of citizens than other states, 90.0 

percent versus 94.8. 

Early Voting 

States with early voting have a lower percentage of citizens, 89.7 percent, than states that do not 

have early voting, 95.7 percent. 

Battleground States 

Battleground states in the November 2004 general election had a higher percentage of citizens than 

those that were not battleground states, 95.0 percent versus 91.7 percent. 

Presidential Margin of Victory 

There is no pattern of citizenship among jurisdictions within states by presidential margin of victory. 

The percentage of citizens ranges from 90.7 percent to 96.0 percent among the categories. 

Red versus Blue Jurisdictions 

Jurisdictions won by Bush tend to have higher percentages of citizens, from 92.9 percent to 95.9 

percent, than jurisdictions won by Kerry, from 88.7 percent to 93.5 percent. 

REFERENCES 

McDonald, Michael P. “The Turnout Rate Among Eligible Voters for U.S. States, 1980-2000.” State Politics 

and Policy Quarterly 2 (2002): 199–212. 

McDonald, Michael P., and Samuel Popkin. “The Myth of the Vanishing Voter.” American Political Science 

Review 95 (2001): 963–74. 
StateLevelSummary_Master_20050919.xls -- Population Estimates

EAC Election Day Survey Cases = Number of Jurisdictions Reporting Subject MatterPopulation Estimates 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:02:20

Election Percent

Administration 2004 2004 Estimated 2004 Citizen Cases

Code Name Jurisdictions Estimated VAP Cases Citizen Vap Cases of Total VAP Cases >100%

01 Alabama 67 3,425,821 67 3,376,112 67 98.5 67

02 Alaska 1 470,027 1 454,708 1 96.7 1

04 Arizona 15 4,194,390 15 3,770,203 15 89.9 15

05 Arkansas 75 2,069,560 75 2,024,200 75 97.8 7506 California 58 26,647,955 58 21,671,670 58 81.3 58

08 Colorado 64 3,456,263 64 3,233,934 64 93.6 64

09 Connecticut 169 2,684,372 169 2,514,118 169 93.7 169

10 Delaware 3 629,009 3 605,748 3 96.3 311 District of Columbia 1 451,039 1 405,042 1 89.8 112 Florida 67 13,441,568 67 12,076,990 67 89.8 6713 Georgia 159 6,534,852 159 6,159,729 159 94.3 15915 Hawaii 5 980,154 5 900,647 5 91.9 516 Idaho 44 1,025,457 44 986,664 44 96.2 44

17 Illinois 110 9,518,482 110 6,471,142 102 92.9 102

18 Indiana 92 4,635,665 92 4,534,543 92 97.8 92

19 Iowa 99 2,274,174 99 2,221,452 99 97.7 9920 Kansas 105 2,049,512 105 1,972,661 105 96.3 105

21 Kentucky 120 3,157,197 120 3,110,923 120 98.5 12022 Louisiana 64 3,358,452 64 3,305,044 64 98.4 64

23 Maine 517 1,037,050 506 1,022,248 505 98.6 505

24 Maryland 24 4,200,854 24 3,940,414 24 93.8 24

25 Massachusetts 351 4,956,454 351 4,577,316 351 92.4 351

26 Michigan 83 7,616,344 83 7,369,271 83 96.8 83

27 Minnesota 87 3,872,349 87 3,736,578 87 96.5 8728 Mississippi 82 2,139,817 82 2,118,126 82 99.0 8229 Missouri 116 4,344,660 116 4,263,417 116 98.1 116

30 Montana 56 715,495 56 709,037 56 99.1 5631 Nebraska 93 1,316,475 93 1,272,795 93 96.7 93

32 Nevada 17 1,737,781 17 1,536,969 17 88.4 1733 New Hampshire 242 1,000,557 239 975,065 238 97.5 238

34 New Jersey 21 6,573,010 21 5,871,639 21 89.3 21

35 New Mexico 33 1,402,999 33 1,316,405 33 93.8 3336 New York 58 14,790,540 58 8,156,036 57 94.8 57

37 North Carolina 100 6,414,796 100 6,129,162 100 95.5 10038 North Dakota 53 490,179 53 484,528 53 98.8 5339 Ohio 88 8,680,792 88 8,532,693 88 98.3 88

40 Oklahoma 77 2,664,520 77 2,589,344 77 97.2 7741 Oregon 36 2,766,936 36 2,594,416 36 93.8 3642 Pennsylvania 67 9,615,172 67 9,395,376 67 97.7 6744 Rhode Island 39 842,911 39 785,112 39 93.1 39

45 South Carolina 46 3,174,262 46 3,106,879 46 97.9 46

46 South Dakota 66 576,196 66 569,346 66 98.8 66

47 Tennessee 95 4,516,679 95 4,423,433 95 97.9 95

48 Texas 254 16,263,861 254 14,443,878 254 88.8 254

49 Utah 29 1,645,366 29 1,548,346 29 94.1 29

50 Vermont 246 487,977 246 478,434 246 98.0 246

51 Virginia 134 5,695,220 134 5,388,364 134 94.6 13453 Washington 39 4,732,158 39 4,414,206 39 93.3 39

54 West Virginia 55 1,430,254 55 1,422,042 55 99.4 5555 Wisconsin 1,910 4,188,206 1,894 4,091,525 1,888 97.7 1,888

56 Wyoming 23 386,170 23 380,564 23 98.5 2360 American Samoa 166 Guam 172 Puerto Rico 11078 Virgin Islands 1

Total 6,568 221,279,989 6,425 197,438,494 6,408 92.9 6,408Maximum 1,910 26,647,955 1,894 21,671,670 1,888 99.4 1,888Average 119 4,338,823 125 3,871,343 125 95.3 125Minimum 1 386,170 1 380,564 1 81.3 1

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
StateLevelSummary_Master_20050919.xls -- Population Estimates

EAC Election Day Survey Cases = Number of Jurisdictions Reporting Subject MatterPopulation Estimates 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:02:20

Election Percent

Administration 2004 2004 Estimated 2004 Citizen Cases

Code Name Jurisdictions Estimated VAP Cases Citizen Vap Cases of Total VAP Cases >100%

Election Administration

Voting Equipment Used in 2004 

General Election

None / Unknown 908 14,612,312 775 13,583,011 770 93.0 770

Punch card 260 19,552,003 260 16,456,501 258 95.0 258

Lever 394 26,918,948 394 19,857,375 393 95.8 393

Paper 1,734 3,308,339 1,724 3,246,269 1,722 98.1 1,722

Optical scan 2,541 88,323,954 2,541 81,287,919 2,534 92.4 2,534

Electronic 608 52,761,316 608 48,448,239 608 91.8 608

Multiple Systems 123 15,803,117 123 14,559,180 123 92.1 123

Changed Voting Equipment Since 

2000 General Election

Yes 1,753 69,121,688 1,747 61,299,306 1,743 88.7 1,743

No 4,815 152,158,301 4,678 136,139,188 4,665 94.9 4,665

State Wide Voter Registration 

System in Place

Yes 1,335 48,152,870 1,335 45,913,343 1,335 95.3 1,335

No 5,233 173,127,119 5,090 151,525,151 5,073 92.2 5,073

Election Day Registration

Yes 2,823 11,509,789 2,793 11,192,644 2,785 97.2 2,785

No 3,745 209,770,200 3,632 186,245,850 3,623 92.6 3,623

Provisional Ballot Acceptance

In Overall Jurisdiction 1,162 88,988,159 1,162 78,298,249 1,154 90.6 1,154In Precinct Only 4,350 124,866,238 4,334 111,935,162 4,327 94.3 4,327None 1,056 7,425,592 929 7,205,083 927 97.0 927

No Excuse Absentee Balloting

Yes 3,781 85,693,320 3,754 77,136,882 3,747 90.0 3,747

No 2,787 135,586,669 2,671 120,301,612 2,661 94.8 2,661

Early Voting Allowed

Yes 1,701 99,654,623 1,701 89,386,654 1,701 89.7 1,701

No 4,867 121,625,366 4,724 108,051,840 4,707 95.7 4,707

Covered By Section 203, Language 

Minority Requirements

Yes 468 72,670,065 468 60,221,899 467 85.4 467

No 6,100 148,609,924 5,957 137,216,595 5,941 96.6 5,941

Covered By Section 5 of Voting 

Rights Act

Yes 880 56,030,484 879 50,618,730 879 90.3 879

No 5,688 165,249,505 5,546 146,819,764 5,529 93.8 5,529

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
StateLevelSummary_Master_20050919.xls -- Population Estimates

EAC Election Day Survey Cases = Number of Jurisdictions Reporting Subject MatterPopulation Estimates 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:02:20

Election Percent

Administration 2004 2004 Estimated 2004 Citizen Cases

Code Name Jurisdictions Estimated VAP Cases Citizen Vap Cases of Total VAP Cases >100%

Demographics

Region

Northeast 1,710 41,988,043 1,696 33,775,344 1,693 94.3 1,693

South 1,423 79,567,761 1,423 74,625,430 1,423 93.8 1,423

Midwest 2,902 49,563,034 2,886 45,519,951 2,872 96.8 2,872

West 420 50,161,151 420 43,517,769 420 86.8 420

Territories 113

Urban to Rural

Urban 567 82,075,044 567 64,512,025 558 88.0 558

Suburban 871 59,268,529 870 55,919,871 870 94.4 870

Small Towns 1,710 56,213,989 1,700 53,925,497 1,700 95.9 1,700

Rural 3,307 23,722,427 3,288 23,081,101 3,280 97.3 3,280

Not Available - Territories 113

Size of Jurisdiction (VAP)

< 1,000 1,761 899,315 1,759 893,183 1,754 99.3 1,754

>=1,000 to <3,500 1,165 2,267,899 1,165 2,237,383 1,165 98.7 1,165>=3,500 to <10,000 1,043 6,692,594 1,043 6,579,642 1,043 98.3 1,043>=10,000 to <50,000 1,704 38,463,619 1,704 37,481,869 1,701 97.6 1,701>=50,000 to <250,000 586 60,558,039 586 57,832,452 582 96.1 582>=250,000 to <1,000,000 140 63,995,785 140 59,030,487 140 92.2 140>=1,000,000 25 48,402,590 25 33,383,478 23 83.2 23Not Available 144 148 3

Race and Ethnicity

Predominently NH White 6,264 204,258,977 6,262 183,752,611 6,249 94.0 6,249

Predominently NH Black 85 4,061,404 85 3,808,732 84 94.3 84

Predominently NH Native American 24 268,560 24 263,114 24 98.0 24

Predominently Hispanic 50 12,658,812 50 9,583,359 50 75.7 50Not Available 145 32,236 4 30,678 1 95.6 1

Median Income

< $25,000 298 3,079,342 298 2,873,976 297 94.0 297

>=$25,000 to <$30,000 884 11,220,765 884 10,840,802 884 96.6 884>=$30,000 to <$35,000 1,372 28,691,481 1,372 27,644,524 1,370 96.5 1,370>=$35,000 to <$40,000 1,215 50,829,468 1,215 40,245,795 1,211 95.1 1,211>=$40,000 to <$45,000 881 49,717,211 881 44,603,496 881 89.7 881>=$45,000 to <$50,000 587 27,092,115 587 24,951,504 586 92.3 586>=$50,000 1,180 50,649,351 1,179 46,278,340 1,178 91.6 1,178

Not Available 151 256 9 57 1 100.0 1

High School Education

< 60% 126 2,401,104 126 2,070,013 126 86.2 126

>=60% to <70% 661 22,653,549 661 19,226,982 660 85.0 660>=70% to <80% 1,646 64,350,042 1,646 51,717,398 1,640 92.7 1,640>=80% to <90% 3,111 113,912,781 3,111 107,539,905 3,109 94.5 3,109>=90% 873 17,930,226 872 16,853,518 872 94.0 872

Not Available 151 32,287 9 30,678 1 95.6 1

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
StateLevelSummary_Master_20050919.xls -- Population Estimates

EAC Election Day Survey Cases = Number of Jurisdictions Reporting Subject MatterPopulation Estimates 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:02:20

Election Percent

Administration 2004 2004 Estimated 2004 Citizen Cases

Code Name Jurisdictions Estimated VAP Cases Citizen Vap Cases of Total VAP Cases >100%

Political

Battleground States in 2004 

Presidential Election

Yes 3,093 76,824,163 3,074 72,974,742 3,067 95.0 3,067

No 3,475 144,455,826 3,351 124,463,752 3,341 91.7 3,341

Margin of Victory in 2004 

Presidential Election

< 2.5% 515 19,185,454 515 18,004,419 514 94.0 514

>=2.5% to < 5.0% 476 14,781,804 471 13,849,899 470 94.2 470>=5.0% to < 7.5% 510 17,701,432 508 16,058,301 508 90.7 508>=7.5% to < 10.0 % 429 10,292,117 428 9,806,808 427 96.4 427>=10.0 % 4,492 159,310,466 4,486 139,710,470 4,476 92.6 4,476

Red vs Blue Jurisdictions Won By 

in 2004 Presidential Election

Bush > 55% 3,115 86,412,155 3,112 82,400,908 3,107 95.5 3,107

Bush 50% to 55% 982 32,877,232 977 30,553,191 977 92.9 977Bush < 50% 136 2,380,942 132 2,259,659 131 95.9 131

Kerry < 50% 150 5,883,881 150 5,524,046 150 93.9 150

Kerry 50% to 55% 872 29,466,232 872 27,160,231 870 92.8 870Kerry > 55% 1,161 64,245,074 1,159 49,526,130 1,154 88.7 1,154

Tied 25 14,267 21 14,123 17 99 17

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Chapter 2 

Voter Registration 

Most jurisdictions maintain a registry of persons who are eligible to vote. To be eligible to vote, a 

person must be a U.S. citizen, meet a residency requirement, and have attained the age of 18 by 

Election Day. Persons who have been legally declared insane or mentally incompetent or who have 

been convicted of a felony and have not had their civil rights legally restored generally cannot vote, 

depending on state law. Prior to HAVA (Help America Vote Act of 2002), voter registration rolls 

were administered by local election officials. HAVA required states to administer voter registration, 

although not all states have completed the transition to a statewide voter registration system. Only 17 

states had a fully functional statewide voter registration system in place for the 2004 election. 

To register to vote, a person must submit an application to the election authority of the local 

jurisdiction in which he or she resides. HAVA also requires that first-time registrants provide some 

form of identification. After the application has been processed, a voter registration, or confirmation, 

card is usually mailed to the registrant. The card assigns the registrant to a specific precinct and 

polling place. The registration remains “active” as long as the registrant lives at his or her original 

residence address. A person must reregister if he or he moves to a new place of residence or legally 

changes his or her name. The election authority will usually issue a new card if an assigned precinct 

or polling place is changed. 

To keep voter registries current, state and federal laws allow election authorities to designate a 

registrant as “inactive” if, over a period of time, the registrant has not voted in a series of elections or 

has not had any contact with or responded to mailings by the election jurisdiction. The National 

Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) prohibits election jurisdictions from removing a person 

from the voter registry for failure to vote [sec. 8(b)(2)] or failure to notify the registrar of a change of 

address within a jurisdiction [sec. 8(f)]. But the NVRA does not prohibit election jurisdictions from 

designating as “inactive”, voters who have not responded to certain address confirmation mailings 

[sec. 8(d)(2) mailings to confirm whether registrants continue to reside in the jurisdiction] and who 

have not appeared at the polls or attempted to reregister. The designation of “inactive” status allows 

election jurisdictions some administrative leeway in determining, for example, the number of 

signatures required for ballot access or the number of precincts, ballots, or voting machines 

necessary to service voters at an election. Persons may be removed from a voter registry for failure 

to respond to a sec. 8(d)(2) confirmation mailing if the registrant has failed to vote or appeared to 

vote in any election between the date of the confirmation notice and the day after the second 

subsequent general election for a federal office has occurred. 

Applicability and Coverage 

Question 1 of the Election Day Survey asked states to provide the number of active and inactive 

voters in each local election jurisdiction. But the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) did 

not specifically ask the states to provide the total number of registered voters at the time of the 

November 2004 general election. Nor did the EAC ask for the number of persons who registered to 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voter Registration, Page 2-2 September 27, 2005 

vote on Election Day in the six states with EDR: Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, 

Wisconsin, and Wyoming.1

Election Data Services had previously collected the reported numbers of registered voters from the 

states for their respective jurisdictions at the November election. A comparison of the EAC survey 

data and Election Data Services’ data showed the different ways in which states report voter 

registration numbers. In some states, voter registration is just the number of active voters, while in 

others, voter registration is a combination of active and inactive voters. In four states, the 

determination of whether to report active and inactive voters in voter registration totals is at the 

discretion of individual local jurisdictions. The different ways in which states report voter 

registration numbers are as follows: 

Voter Registration Reports Include Active Voters Only (26) 

Alabama Georgia Mississippi South Carolina 

Alaska Illinois Michigan South Dakota 

Arizona Indiana Nevada Utah 

California Kentucky New Hampshire* Vermont 

Connecticut Maine Oregon Washington 

Dist. of Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania 

Florida Minnesota Rhode Island* 

Voter Registration Reports Include Active and Inactive Voters (20)

Arkansas Kansas Nebraska Tennessee 

Colorado Louisiana New Mexico Texas 

Delaware Massachusetts New York Virginia 

Hawaii Missouri North Carolina West Virginia 

Idaho* Montana Oklahoma Wyoming* 

Reporting Active and Inactive Voters Varies by Local Jurisdiction (4)

Iowa New Jersey Ohio Wisconsin* 

Unknown (4)

American Samoa Guam Puerto Rico U.S. Virgin Islands 

*Voter registration reports also include voters who registered on Election Day. 

North Dakota does not have voter registration. 

Because of the differences among state voter registration reports and the fact that not every state 

provided uniform data on active voters, we added a special column to Table 2 called “Reported Total 

Registration.” All calculations in this study based on total voter registration use Reported Total 

Registration. For states that report only active voters, Reported Total Registration represents solely 

active voters. For states that report both active and inactive voters, Reported Total Registration is a 

combination of active and inactive voters. In four states—Iowa, New Jersey, Ohio, and Wisconsin—

where local election jurisdictions decide whether to report active and inactive voters, Reported Total 

Registration is a combination of active and inactive voters, depending on local practice. 

There are also two special cases: North Dakota and Wisconsin. North Dakota has no voter 

registration requirement and responded “Not Applicable” to survey question 1. In North Dakota, 

anyone of voting age is allowed to vote on Election Day. As a result, in Table 2, Reported Total 

 

1

 Rhode Island is not considered an Election Day Registration (EDR) state but allows persons to register on Election Day 

to vote for president only. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voter Registration, Page 2-3 September 27, 2005 

Registration for North Dakota is the estimated November 2004 voting age population (VAP). 

Wisconsin’s voter registration requirement applies only to municipalities with populations larger 

than 5,000. Only 337 of the state’s 1,900 local election jurisdictions reported voter registration 

numbers on the survey. Wisconsin is building a statewide voter registration database, and some 

jurisdictions smaller than 5,000 provided voter registration numbers on the survey. For all other 

Wisconsin jurisdictions, Reported Total Registration in Table 2 is estimated November 2004 VAP. 

Historical Context 

For most eligible citizens in the United States, the first step to participate in the electoral process is 

to register to vote, except in North Dakota, which has no voter registration, and in the six states with 

EDR. For residents of all other states, the last day to register to vote prior to an election depends on 

state law. Table 2a provides a list of state voter registration deadlines for the November 2004 general 

election. Some states have different deadlines for registration by mail or in person. Some of the 

states with EDR have deadlines for preregistration by mail. 

Prior to the adoption of the NVRA in 1993, individuals had to seek out voter registration 

applications on their own. After NVRA, voter registration applications were more readily available 

at public offices, most notably motor vehicles offices. The size of voter registries increased as voter 

registration became easier. But voter registration rolls contain a certain amount of “deadwood”—that 

is, duplicate names, erroneous or obsolete address information, and names of deceased and ineligible 

people still listed as active, or inactive, voters. Updating registration rolls for persons who change 

their places of residence is a continual challenge to registrars across the country. 

The 2000 census revealed that 46.7 percent of the U.S. population had moved in the previous five 

years. The people most likely to become deadwood on the voter registration rolls are those who 

moved just outside the county in which they formerly resided, which was 21.3 percent of the 

population. Yearly current population reports from the Census Bureau have constantly shown that 

about 17 percent of this nation’s population moves every year. The Current Population Survey (CPS) 

is a monthly survey of labor statistics conducted by the Census Bureau. In November of an election 

year, the CPS survey includes a limited number of voting questions. 

Table 2b shows trends in voter registration nationally. After 1994, voter registration as a percentage 

of the citizen voting age population increased about seven percentage points from 71.6 percent to 

78.7 percent. This corresponds to the time that states began implementing NVRA, which linked 

voter registration changes with driver’s license agencies. Since 1996, voter registration has held 

steady at a little more than 82 percent of the citizen voting age population (CVAP), but now 

complete data on 2004 shows it increased to 86 percent. Due to holes in the data collection, the EAC 

survey shows just 81.2 percent of the citizen voting age population was registered in 2004. 

While registration as a percentage of CVAP has increased, the percentage of persons identifying 

themselves as a citizen of voting age and registered to vote in the Census Bureau’s CPS has 

remained relatively constant, at 67.4 percent. Moreover, the difference between the percentage of 

CVAP on the CPS reported as registered and the aggregate national statistics shows that for the most 

recent elections, over 10 percent fewer people report being registered than the state-provided 

statistics indicate. What makes this difference all the more significant is that election surveys 

consistently find more people report voting than aggregate statistics indicate, a phenomenon 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voter Registration, Page 2-4 September 27, 2005 

sometimes attributed to “social desirability”—the desire by survey respondents to provide the 

socially correct answer. If people misreport that they vote when they do not, it would be expected 

that they would misreport registering when they have not. The most plausible explanations for the 

discrepancy are both deadwood, and misreporting by voters. 

Table 2a. State Voter Registration Deadlines for 2004 General Election 

31 days before the election 

Nevada (mail) 

30 days before the election 

Alaska Louisiana Pennsylvania Washington (mail) 

Arkansas Michigan Rhode Island Wyoming (mail) 

Dist. of Columbia Mississippi South Carolina 

Georgia Montana Tennessee

Hawaii Ohio Texas 

29 days before the election

Arizona Florida Kentucky Virginia 

Colorado Indiana New Jersey 

28 days before the election

Illinois New Mexico 

27 days before the election

Missouri 

25 days before the election

Idaho (mail) New York North Carolina Oklahoma*

24 days before the election 

Idaho (in person) 

21 days before the election

Maryland Minnesota (mail) Nevada (in-person) Oregon (new registrants) 

20 days before the election

Delaware Massachusetts Utah (mail) West Virginia 

18 days before the election

Nebraska

15 days before the election

California Kansas Washington (in person) 

Iowa (mail) South Dakota 

14 days before the election

Connecticut 

13 days before the election 

Wisconsin (mail) 

10 days before the election

Alabama Iowa (in person) New Hampshire (mail) Vermont 

8 days before the election

Utah (in person) Vermont 

No deadline

Maine 

Election Day Registration

Idaho Minnesota Wisconsin 

Maine New Hampshire Wyoming 

*

Registration applications may be submitted anytime, but registration cards may not be issued during the 24 days 

prior to an election. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voter Registration, Page 2-5 September 27, 2005 

Table 2b. Voter Registration Statistics, 1964–2004 

Year

Voting Age 

Population 

(VAP) 

Citizen

Voting Age

Population

(CVAP)

Registered

Voters

Percent 

Registered

of VAP

Percent 

Registered 

of CVAP

Percent 

Registered 

of CVAP 

(CPS)

20041 221,279,989 197,438,494 177,265,030 79.5 86.0 -- 

20021 216,207,290 198,902,000 162,993,315 73.3 82.3 66.5 

20001 202,609,000 194,477,000 163,931,394 80.9 82.7 69.5 

19981 200,929,000 190,007,000 156,036,945 77.7 82.1 67.1 

19962 192,198,000 185,849,000 146,370,909 76.2 78.7 65.9 

19942 189,406,000 181,909,000 130,292,822 68.8 71.6 67.1 

19922 185,392,000 178,694,000 133,821,178 72.2 74.9 68.2 

19902 181,734,000 -- 121,105,630 66.6 -- -- 

19882 178,701,000 -- 126,379,628 70.7 -- -- 

19862 174,555,000 -- 118,399,984 67.8 -- -- 

19842 170,485,000 -- 124,150,614 72.8 -- -- 

19822 166,017,000 -- 110,671,225 66.7 -- -- 

19802 160,755,000 -- 113,043,734 70.3 -- -- 

19782 154,655,000 -- 103,291,265 66.8 -- -- 

19762 148,704,000 -- 105,037,980 70.6 -- -- 

19743 140,892,000 -- 96,199,020 68.3 -- -- 

19724 132,243,000 -- 97,328,541 73.6 -- -- 

19705 115,520,000 -- 82,496,747 71.4 -- -- 

19686 111,433,000 -- 81,884,802 73.5 -- -- 

19667 104,661,000 -- 76,288,283 72.9 -- -- 

19648 98,569,000 -- 73,715,818 74.8 -- -- 

1 Includes all 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2

 Includes 48 states and the District of Columbia (excludes North 

Dakota and Wisconsin). 3 Includes 47 states and the District of Columbia (excludes Iowa, North Dakota, and Wisconsin). 4 Includes 46 states and the District of Columbia (excludes Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, and Wisconsin). 5 Includes 45 states and the District of Columbia (excludes Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, North Dakota, and Wisconsin). 6 Includes 44 states and the District of Columbia (excludes Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, North Dakota, and Wisconsin). 7 Includes 41 states (excludes Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, 

Wisconsin, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia). 8 Includes 40 states (excludes Alabama, Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, 

Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia). 

Other notes: Registered voter totals from 1998–2004 include the entire voting age population for North Dakota, which 

does not have voter registration, and Wisconsin, where only larger jurisdictions have voter registration. Voter registration statistics for 2004 are from the Election Day Survey. Voter registration data for 2002 and earlier is from Election 

Data Services Inc. Citizen voting age population (CVAP) was calculated by Dr. Michael McDonald. Voter registration rates from Current Population Survey (CPS) reports are from the U.S. Census Bureau. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voter Registration, Page 2-6 September 27, 2005 

Survey Results 

Table 2 presents data on active and inactive voters from question 1 on the Election Day Survey. In 

the table, numbers of active and inactive voters are calculated as percentages of the reported total 

number of registered voters as well as the VAP and theCVAP. The table also provides EDR statistics 

for four of the six states that allow voters to register on Election Day. The column headings in Table 

2 are as follows: 

Column Headings for Table 2. Voter Registration 

Col.- Heading Description 

1 Code State census code 

2 Name Respondent to Election Day Survey 

3 Jurisdiction Number of local election jurisdictions from survey question 22 

4 Reported Total 

Registration 

Number of active and inactive registered voters from 

survey questions 1a and 1b, supplemental data on Election Day 

registration in six states, and VAP data for North Dakota and jurisdictions in Wisconsin that do not have voter registration 

5 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 1, that provided Election Day registration data, or for which VAP data was 

substituted for voter registration data 

6 Active Registration Number of active registered voters from survey question 1a 

7 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 1a, that provided Election Day registration data, or for which VAP data was 

substituted 

8 Percent Active 

Registration 

Number of active registered voters (col. 6) divided by the total 

number of registered voters (col. 4) 

9 Inactive 

Registration 

Number of inactive registered voters from survey question 1b 

10 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 1b 

11 Percent Inactive 

Registration 

Number of inactive registered voters (col. 9) divided by the total 

number of registered voters (col. 4) 

12 

Percent Increase 

If Inactive Reg. Included 

Number of inactive registered voters (col. 9) divided by the number of active registered voters (col. 6) 

13 Election Day 

Registration 

Number of persons who registered to vote on Election Day 

(six states) 

14 Cases Number of jurisdictions that provided supplemental data on Election Day registration 

15 Percent Election 

Day Registration 

Number of persons who registered on Election Day (col. 13) divided by the total number of registered voters (col. 4) 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voter Registration, Page 2-7 September 27, 2005 

Column Headings for Table 2 (cont.) 

Col.- Heading Description 

16 Percent Total 

Registration of VAP 

Number of registered voters (col. 4) divided by the estimated voting age population (col. 4 of Table 1) 

17 Cases > 100% Number of jurisdictions where the reported number of registered 

voters (col. 4) is greater than the estimated voting age population 

(col. 4 of Table 1) 

18 Percent Active 

Registration of VAP 

Number of active registered voters (col. 6) divided by the estimated voting age population (col. 4 of Table 1) 

19 Cases > 100% Number of jurisdictions where the reported number of active registered voters (col. 6) is greater than the estimated voting age 

population (col. 4 of Table 1) 

20 Percent Total 

Registration of CVAP 

Number of registered voters (col. 4) divided by the estimated 

citizen voting age population (col. 6 of Table 1) 

21 Cases > 100% Number of jurisdictions where the reported number of registered 

voters (col. 4) is greater than the estimated citizen voting age 

population (col. 6 of Table 1) 

22 Percent Active 

Registration of CVAP 

Number of active registered voters (col. 6) divided by the estimated citizen voting age population (col. 6 of Table 1) 

23 Cases > 100% Number of jurisdictions where the reported number of active registered voters (col. 6) is greater than the estimated citizen voting 

age population (col. 6 of Table 1) 

Note: VAP = Voting Age Population, CVAP = Citizen Voting Age Population.
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voter Registration, Page 2-12 September 27, 2005 

Analysis of Survey Results 

The following is our analysis of the data in Table 2 for each of the 18 cross-tabulation factors 

described earlier in this report. A description of each factor follows a general summary and a statelevel summary of the survey data. 

1) Regions 10) Changed Voting Equipment Since 2000 

2) Urban to Rural 11) Statewide Voter Registration Database 

3) Size of Jurisdiction 12) Election Day Registration 

4) Race and Ethnicity 13) Provisional Ballot Acceptance 

5) Median Income 14) No Excuse Absentee Balloting 

6) High School Education 15) Early Voting 

7) Section 203 Language Minority Requirements 16) Battleground States 

8) Section 5 Pre-clearance of Voting Procedures 17) Presidential Margin of Victory 

9) Type of Voting Equipment 18) Red versus Blue Jurisdictions 

This analysis is based only on data that was reported to the EAC on the Election Day Survey. Many 

state responses to a survey question or part of a question did not cover all local election jurisdictions. 

In Table 2 as well as other tables in this report, a jurisdiction was excluded from a statistical 

calculation if its response was missing for one or more of the data items (i.e., columns) used in the 

calculation. A column labeled “Cases” next to each statistical calculation shows the number of 

jurisdictions covered by that calculation. 

Summary

The registration data for November 2004 shows that nearly 177.3 million persons were reported 

registered, an increase of nearly 15 million from the 2002 election and 14 million from the last 

presidential election in 2000. For 2004, voter registration constituted 79.5 percent of the VAP and 

86.0 percent of the CVAP of the United States excluding territories, according to responses to the 

EAC survey. If only active voters are considered the registration base, then voter registration 

constituted 74.9 percent of the VAP and 81.2 percent of the CVAP. 

The level of inactive voters was highest in the largest jurisdictions of this nation, along with those in 

the West. Jurisdictions that are predominantly Hispanic and those covered by section 203 of the 

Voting Rights Act (language minority requirements) also have some of the highest levels of inactive 

voters. This may be due to decades of failure to provide voting materials in minority languages, 

particularly mailings to clear up registration issues that go unanswered because the potential voter 

does not understand the written English language. These voters would, therefore, be more likely to 

be moved to the inactive registration lists. 

Registration rates are highest in small town and rural jurisdictions, along with those that have higher 

education levels. For 2004, battleground states clearly had higher registration rates than 

nonbattleground states. The lowest registration rates can be found in predominantly Hispanic 

communities, but that is also a function of lower citizenship rates. 

States 

For the states that incorporate both active and inactive voters into their registration counts, the share 

of their rolls that is inactive varies widely. Colorado reported the largest share of inactive voters 

(22.5 percent). However, in 12 of the remaining 19 states, the inactive voters amount to less than 10 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voter Registration, Page 2-13 September 27, 2005 

percent of the overall file. On average, inactive registrations constitute about 12 percent of a state’s 

voter file. The lowest is in Delaware, where inactives are reportedly only 4.8 percent of the overall 

voter file. 

In the 26 states that report active voters only on voter registration rolls, and report inactive 

separately, we found a significantly larger number of inactive voters. The large number of inactive 

voters balloons the size of state voter files. On the survey, California reported another 5.6 million 

registered voters as inactive, which would have increased the size of the state’s registration rolls by 

35.4 percent. The District of Columbia voter rolls would be 44.1 percent larger if inactive voters 

were considered. 

Alaska reported registration numbers that were more than our calculated VAP and CVAP. The state 

did not provide information on inactive voters. Alaska’s Department of Labor generates its own 

population estimates, and the department estimated VAP for July 1, 2004, of 461,887. As a result, 

the state itself reports more registered voters than their own estimated voting age population. North 

Dakota also hits the 100 percent mark, because the state has no voter registration and the state’s 

voting age population is considered as registered to vote for this study. Noncitizens in North Dakota 

constitute about 6,000 people, and since straight VAP was used for registration, the percentage of 

CVAP jumps over 100 percent. 

When noncitizens are excluded from the base population, four states—Alaska, North Dakota, Iowa, 

and Maine—have more registered voters than CVAP. Iowa includes inactive voters in its registration 

counts. That totals Iowa’s registered voters at over 100 percent of CVAP. However, if only active 

voters are considered, Iowa’s registration is 94.0 percent of CVAP. 

Maine, on the other hand, counts only active voters as its registration base. Despite this, the number 

of active voters exceeds the CVAP estimate on a statewide basis, as well as in 289 of the state’s 517 

townships. Again, the problem of small jurisdictions is apparent in the VAP and CVAP estimates. 

Even Maine’s planning office reports estimated VAP of just 1,010,187 for July 1, 2004. If that VAP 

number were aged to November, it would still be less than the registration total of 1,025,777. 

Table 2c presents the ranking of states by registration rates calculated against both VAP and CVAP 

for the state’s reported registration and the state’s active registration. Each state’s rank changes with 

each of four different methods of calculating registration rates. Yet in most cases the shift is not 

dramatic. States near the bottom under one method tend to be near the bottom in all methods. States 

near the top stay near the top no matter which method is used to calculate registration rates. 

For the six states with EDR, we made a special effort to collect data on how many people registered 

on Election Day. Unfortunately, the state of Maine did not keep a separate count of these individuals 

in 2004, but upon the completion of a statewide voter registration system, Maine will be able to 

report such numbers in 2006. Not all the jurisdictions responded to our request for EDR data. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voter Registration, Page 2-14 September 27, 2005 

Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voter Registration, Page 2-14 September 27, 2005 

Table 2c. State Rankings for Registration Calculations 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voter Registration, Page 2-15 September 27, 2005 

Regions

Strongly influenced by California, the West is the region with the largest share of inactive voters 

reported on voter registration rolls, making up 26.1 percent of the region’s voter file. The West also 

has the lowest registration rate in the nation, reporting only 68.5 percent of the VAP and 79.1 

percent of the CVAP. On the other hand, the Midwest reported the highest registration rate in the 

nation, 89.4 percent for VAP and 93.6 for CVAP. 

Urban to Rural 

Small town and rural areas reported the lowest rates of inactive voters in voter files. Rural 

communities also have the highest registration rates in the nation based on voting age population 

(84.2 percent). However, when noncitizens are taken out of the mix, urban jurisdictions have the 

highest registration rates for citizens (88.7 percent). 

Size of Jurisdiction 

There is a near linear relationship between the size of the jurisdiction and the reported level of 

inactive voters in the voter file. Clearly, the largest jurisdictions in this nation have the largest share 

of inactive registered voters on their rolls. At 21.6 percent, the jurisdictions that have more than 1 

million persons of voting age have more than twice as many inactive voters as the smallest 

jurisdictions in the nation, at 8.8 percent. 

The rate of registration, on the other hand, tends to be highest in the smaller jurisdictions, while the 

largest jurisdictions tend to have the lowest registration rates, no matter what method is used to 

calculate the rates. For example, nearly all (99.6 percent) persons of voting age are registered in 

jurisdictions with less than 1,000 population, but only 70.0 percent are registered in communities 

with more than 1 million persons. This order is retained when calculated as a percentage of CVAP. 

However, as noted earlier in this report, the smallest jurisdictions have the largest number of 

counties and towns that show more registered voters than the estimated VAP and CVAP. 

Race and Ethnicity 

Predominantly Hispanic communities have high levels of inactive voters on their rolls. Collectively, 

nearly 23.7 percent of their rolls are inactive. This compares with just 16.4 percent in predominantly 

African American jurisdictions and 14.9 in predominantly White communities. The predominately 

Native American jurisdictions in the country had the lowest levels of inactive voters, just 12.0 

percent of their rolls. 

Predominantly Hispanic jurisdictions also have the lowest voter registration rates in the country 

(61.5 percent), especially when registration rates are calculated based on VAP. Rates are higher, and 

on par with other jurisdictions, for Hispanic areas (81.4 percent) when non-citizens are removed 

from the calculations. Native American jurisdictions have the highest registration rates (86.0 percent 

of VAP, and 87.8 percent for CVAP). 

Median Income 

Jurisdictions with a median income of $40,000 to $45,000 have the highest share of inactive voters, 

19.9 percent. On the other hand, jurisdictions with the lowest median income have the lowest share 

of inactive voters, 9.7 percent. The lowest median income communities also have the highest 

registration rates. This is likely because of the rural nature of low-income jurisdictions. But the 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voter Registration, Page 2-16 September 27, 2005 

authors caution against reaching too many conclusions based on this aggregate dataset. Precinct level 

data would allow more concrete conclusions on this subject. 

High School Education 

Jurisdictions in the second lowest category of percentage of those with a high school education 

reported the highest rates of inactive voters on their rolls, 18.5 percent. The lowest rate was reported 

by the lowest education jurisdictions, at 9.6 percent. Excepting this, the share of inactive voters 

tended to decrease as education increased. The higher the levels of high school education, generally 

the higher the reported rates of registration. The lowest education jurisdictions defied the trend 

slightly. This is true for both VAP and CVAP. 

Section 203 Language Minority Requirements 

Jurisdictions covered by the language minority requirements of section 203 of the Voting Rights Act 

appear to have nearly twice the numbers of inactive voters on their rolls (21.5 percent), compared 

with jurisdictions that are not covered (12.1 percent). 

Covered jurisdictions also have a significantly lower voter registration rate among the voting age 

population, 70.6 percent compared with 83.8 percent for jurisdictions not covered by section 203. 

The difference, however, lessens when citizenship is taken into account, 83.0 percent for covered 

jurisdictions versus 87.3 percent for noncovered areas. 

Section 5 Preclearance of Voting Procedures

Section 5-covered jurisdictions have a slightly lower share of inactive voters, 15.1 versus 15.5 

percent. Section 5 jurisdictions reported lower registration rates than other jurisdictions, 68.3 versus 

77.2 percent for VAP and 75.6 versus 83.1 percent for CVAP. 

Type of Voting Equipment 

Jurisdictions that use lever machines and hand-counted paper ballots reported the lowest numbers of 

inactive voters, 9.5 and 10.4 percent, respectively. Jurisdictions using paper ballots also have the 

highest registration rates in the nation, 93.2 percent of VAP or 95.0 percent of CVAP. This is likely 

because these jurisdictions tend to be rural and in the Midwest. Jurisdictions that used multiple 

systems or optical scans reported the highest rates of inactive voters, 18.5 and 17.4 percent, 

respectively. These jurisdictions were largely in-line with the registration rates of other 

jurisdictions. Jurisdictions that used electronic machines reported the lowest registration rates, 75.9 

percent of VAP and 82.7 percent of CVAP. 

Changed Voting Equipment since 2000 

Jurisdictions that changed voting equipment since 2000 reported a higher percentage of inactive 

voters on their files, 18.9 versus 13.8. However, jurisdictions that changed voting systems reported 

lower registration rates than other jurisdictions, 74.1 versus 82.0 for VAP and 83.5 versus 87.1 for 

CVAP. 

Statewide Voter Registration Database 

Jurisdictions in states with a statewide voter registration database in place for the 2004 election 

reported a lower percentage of inactive voters than the rest of the nation, 11.0 versus 16.5 percent. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voter Registration, Page 2-17 September 27, 2005 

Jurisdictions in states with a statewide voter registration database reported slightly lower registration 

rates than other jurisdictions, 78.9 versus 79.7 percent for VAP; 82.7 versus 86.9 percent for CVAP. 

Election Day Registration 

Jurisdictions that allow EDR reported lower numbers of inactive voters on their rolls than other 

jurisdictions, 10.5 versus 15.5 percent. In addition, EDR jurisdictions have higher registration rates 

than other jurisdictions, 89.7 versus 78.9 for VAP and 92.2 versus 85.6 for CVAP. 

Provisional Ballot Acceptance 

Jurisdictions in states that allowed provisional ballots to be counted if they were cast in any precinct 

in the home jurisdiction reported nearly twice the numbers of inactive voters compared with 

jurisdictions where voters could vote in their home precincts only, 20.9 versus 11.9 percent. The 

“overall jurisdiction” communities also reported lower registration rates than the “in-precinct only” 

areas, 74.0 versus 83.0 percent for VAP and 82.0 versus 88.6 percent for CVAP. 

No Excuse Absentee Balloting 

Jurisdictions that allow the more liberal practice of accepting no excuse absentee ballots reported a 

higher share of inactive voters, 18.6 percent versus 13.3 percent. However, no excuse absentee 

balloting jurisdictions reported lower rates of registration, 75.8 versus 81.9 percent of VAP and 84.2 

versus 87.1 percent of CVAP. 

Early Voting 

Jurisdictions in states that allowed some form of early voting had a higher share of inactive voters, 

18.2 percent versus 12.7 percent. However, these same jurisdictions tended to have lower 

registration rates than those in states that do not have early voting provisions, 74.5 versus 83.5 

percent of VAP and 83.1 versus 88.3 percent of CVAP. 

Battleground States 

Jurisdictions in 2004 battleground states tended to have fewer inactive voters on the rolls than those 

in nonbattleground states, 13.8 percent versus 16.0 percent. However, the impact of the 2004 

campaign can be seen in battleground states’ higher registration rates than nonbattleground states, 

84.4 versus 76.9 percent for VAP and 88.8 versus 84.3 percent for CVAP. 

Presidential Margin of Victory 

There is no clear pattern of percentage of inactive voters by a jurisdiction’s presidential margin of 

victory, ranging between 12.5 and 16.0 percent. There do not appear to be significant differences in 

the level of inactive voters or registration rates whether jurisdictions had close or large margins of 

victory in the 2004 presidential election, ranging between 78.2 and 85.9 percent of VAP and 84.2 

and 89.4 percent of CVAP. 

Red versus Blue Jurisdictions 

Jurisdictions strongly carried by Kerry in the presidential election of 2004 reported the highest share 

of inactive registration, 20.0 percent, though there was no clear pattern among the remaining 

jurisdictions, which ranged between 12.0 and 15.3 percent. Registration rates in jurisdictions carried 

by Bush were similar to those jurisdictions carried by Kerry, ranging from 79.4 to 86.7 percent for 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voter Registration, Page 2-18 September 27, 2005 

Bush jurisdictions and 78.7 to 80.7 percent for Kerry jurisdictions, among VAP, and 83.2 to 90.3 

percent for Bush jurisdictions and 86.3 to 88.8 percent for Kerry jurisdictions, among CVAP. 

REFERENCES

Crocker, Royce. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. “Voter Registration and Turnout: 

1948–1994,” CRS Report to Congress. Washington: GPO, 1996. (The CRS report utilizes data compiled 

by Election Data Services, Inc.) 

Dēmos Democracy Program. Election Day Registration Helps America Vote, Winter 2004. 

League of Women Voters. “Voter Registration Deadlines,” 21 April 2005 

<http://www.lwv.org/voter/register.cfm?pid=deadlines>. 

Project Vote. “Voter Registration Deadlines,” 21 April 2005 

<http://www.projectvote.org/index.php?id=125>. 

United States. Federal Election Commission, National Clearinghouse on Election Administration. 

Implementing the National Voter Registration Act of 1993: Requirements, Issues, Approaches, and 

Examples. Washington: GPO, 1994. 
Registration

EAC Election Day Survey Registration 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:02:44 Percent Percent Perc

Election Reported Percent Percent Increase if Percent Total Act

Administration Total Active Active Inactive Inactive Inactive Reg Election Day Election Day Registration Cases Registrat

Code Name Jurisdictions Registration Cases Registration Cases Registration Registration Cases Registration Included Registration Cases Registration of VAP >100% of V

01 Alabama 67 2,597,629 67 2,597,629 67 100.0 245,356 63 10.4 75.8 5 75

02 Alaska 1 472,160 1 472,160 1 100.0 100.5 1 100

04 Arizona 15 2,642,120 15 2,642,120 15 100.0 253,833 15 9.6 63.0 63

05 Arkansas 75 1,699,934 75 1,495,645 75 88.0 204,289 74 12.1 82.1 4 7206 California 58 16,646,555 58 16,646,555 58 100.0 5,674,536 50 34.8 62.5 62

08 Colorado 64 3,101,956 64 2,405,306 64 77.5 696,650 64 22.5 89.7 19 69

09 Connecticut 169 1,831,567 169 1,831,567 169 100.0 110,062 168 6.0 68.2 2 6810 Delaware 3 553,917 3 532,336 3 96.1 21,581 2 4.8 88.1 8411 District of Columbia 1 383,919 1 383,919 1 100.0 169,209 1 44.1 85.1 8512 Florida 67 10,300,942 67 10,300,942 67 100.0 950,710 63 9.7 76.6 76

13 Georgia 159 4,248,802 159 4,248,802 159 100.0 703,153 159 16.5 65.0 65

15 Hawaii 5 647,238 4 580,035 4 89.6 67,203 4 10.4 66.0 5916 Idaho 44 915,637 44 798,015 44 87.2 0 117,622 44 12.8 89.3 7 7717 Illinois 110 7,195,882 104 7,195,882 104 100.0 1,588,705 94 22.3 78.0 14 7818 Indiana 92 4,296,602 92 4,296,602 92 100.0 92.7 19 9219 Iowa 99 2,226,721 98 2,080,886 98 93.5 159,897 98 7.2 98.3 14 9120 Kansas 105 1,695,457 105 1,582,832 105 93.4 112,625 83 9.0 82.7 5 7721 Kentucky 120 2,794,286 120 2,794,286 120 100.0 87,998 120 3.1 88.5 9 8822 Louisiana 64 2,932,142 64 2,693,686 64 91.9 238,456 64 8.1 87.3 3 8023 Maine 517 1,026,219 517 1,026,219 517 100.0 54,750 193 8.7 98.8 271 9824 Maryland 24 3,105,370 24 3,105,370 24 100.0 225,376 24 7.3 73.9 7325 Massachusetts 351 4,098,634 351 3,688,693 351 90.0 409,941 319 10.3 82.7 20 7426 Michigan 83 7,164,047 83 7,164,047 83 100.0 94.1 9 9427 Minnesota 87 2,977,496 87 2,977,496 87 100.0 322,897 87 10.8 590,242 87 19.8 76.9 76

28 Mississippi 82 1,469,608 66 1,469,608 66 100.0 215,741 53 16.0 83.0 20 83

29 Missouri 116 4,194,416 116 3,642,606 116 86.8 551,810 108 13.4 96.5 33 8330 Montana 56 638,474 56 520,056 56 81.5 118,418 56 18.5 89.2 4 7231 Nebraska 93 1,160,193 93 1,160,193 93 100.0 0 88.1 16 8832 Nevada 17 1,073,869 17 1,073,869 17 100.0 171,686 17 16.0 61.8 1 6133 New Hampshire 242 950,292 241 855,861 241 90.1 94,431 237 9.9 95.0 103 85

34 New Jersey 21 5,011,693 21 4,643,061 21 92.6 459,505 21 9.2 76.2 70

35 New Mexico 33 505,356 20 464,393 20 91.9 40,963 16 9.1 79.1 7236 New York 58 11,837,068 58 10,635,725 58 89.9 1,201,343 58 10.1 80.0 1 71

37 North Carolina 100 5,526,981 100 4,981,426 100 90.1 545,555 98 9.9 86.2 7 77

38 North Dakota 53 490,179 53 100.0 

39 Ohio 88 7,965,110 88 6,919,015 88 86.9 1,221,871 74 17.9 91.8 4 79

40 Oklahoma 77 2,143,978 77 1,840,028 77 85.8 303,950 77 14.2 80.5 1 6941 Oregon 36 2,141,249 36 2,141,249 36 100.0 552,125 35 26.0 77.4 7742 Pennsylvania 67 8,366,455 67 8,366,455 67 100.0 87.0 8744 Rhode Island 39 707,234 39 707,234 39 100.0 80,513 39 11.4 83.9 8 8345 South Carolina 46 2,318,235 46 2,318,235 46 100.0 342,231 46 14.8 73.0 7346 South Dakota 66 502,261 66 502,261 66 100.0 50,180 66 10.0 87.2 14 8747 Tennessee 95 3,748,235 95 3,352,390 95 89.4 395,845 92 10.6 83.0 2 7448 Texas 254 13,098,329 254 11,000,678 254 84.0 2,097,651 250 16.0 80.5 34 67

49 Utah 29 1,278,912 29 1,278,912 29 100.0 243,881 25 19.5 77.7 6 77

50 Vermont 246 444,508 246 444,508 246 100.0 91.1 47 9151 Virginia 134 4,515,675 134 4,179,304 134 92.6 336,371 134 7.4 79.3 7353 Washington 39 3,508,208 39 3,508,208 39 100.0 468,147 39 13.3 74.1 7454 West Virginia 55 1,168,694 55 1,168,694 55 100.0 81.7 1 8155 Wisconsin 1,910 4,179,774 1,894 2,439,282 314 85.1 443,772 348 15.3 99.8 123 84

56 Wyoming 23 273,950 23 232,396 23 84.8 41,554 23 15.2 70.9 1 6060 American Samoa 166 Guam 172 Puerto Rico 110 2,440,131 110 2,440,131 110 100.0 078 Virgin Islands 1 50,731 1 50,731 1 100.0

Total 6,568 177,265,030 6,512 165,877,539 4,879 94.5 21,695,013 3,049 12.4 18.5 1,287,621 739 16.0 79.5 828 74Maximum 1,910 16,646,555 1,894 16,646,555 517 100.0 5,674,536 319 22.5 44.1 590,242 348 19.8 100.5 271 100Average 119 3,344,623 122 3,189,952 93 95.0 516,547 78 11.6 15.5 257,524 147 14.6 82.7 24 77Minimum 1 50,731 1 50,731 1 77.5 0 1 4.8 3.1 41,554 23 9.9 61.8 1 59

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Registration

EAC Election Day Survey Registration 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:02:44 Percent Percent Perc

Election Reported Percent Percent Increase if Percent Total Act

Administration Total Active Active Inactive Inactive Inactive Reg Election Day Election Day Registration Cases Registrat

Code Name Jurisdictions Registration Cases Registration Cases Registration Registration Cases Registration Included Registration Cases Registration of VAP >100% of V

Election Administration

Voting Equipment Used in 2004 

General Election

None / Unknown 908 14,484,493 877 12,306,326 327 87.5 1,805,790 101 17.2 71,653 89 15.5 86.6 40 73

Punch card 260 15,767,547 259 15,068,416 259 95.6 2,318,032 172 19.1 81,348 19 13.9 80.7 28 77

Lever 394 21,662,619 390 20,137,558 380 93.0 1,652,114 341 9.5 18,976 10 18.4 80.7 13 75

Paper 1,734 3,085,167 1,733 2,457,622 1,062 93.0 167,697 345 10.4 47,019 210 11.1 93.2 383 85Optical scan 2,541 69,198,628 2,523 64,857,909 2,121 95.0 9,835,254 1,455 17.4 954,593 390 16.3 78.9 346 74

Electronic 608 40,068,685 608 38,987,236 608 97.3 4,386,796 547 12.6 707 1 11.8 75.9 13 73

Multiple Systems 123 12,997,891 122 12,062,472 122 92.8 1,529,330 88 18.5 113,325 20 19.2 82.2 5 76

Changed Voting Equipment Since 

2000 General Election

Yes 1,753 51,149,755 1,746 48,662,285 1,105 96.2 8,214,986 617 18.9 362,120 316 15.5 74.1 247 71

No 4,815 126,115,275 4,766 117,215,254 3,774 93.9 13,480,027 2,432 13.8 925,501 423 16.3 82.0 581 76

State Wide Voter Registration 

System in Place

Yes 1,335 37,384,852 1,321 36,302,758 1,321 97.1 3,121,657 1,144 11.0 590,242 87 19.8 78.9 60 76

No 5,233 139,880,178 5,191 129,574,781 3,558 93.8 18,573,356 1,905 16.5 697,379 652 13.8 79.7 768 74

Election Day Registration

Yes 2,823 10,323,368 2,806 8,329,269 1,226 92.5 377,647 280 10.5 1,287,621 739 16.0 89.7 505 81

No 3,745 166,941,662 3,706 157,548,270 3,653 94.7 21,317,366 2,769 15.5 78.9 323 74

Provisional Ballot Acceptance

In Overall Jurisdiction 1,162 65,077,741 1,143 63,330,247 1,143 97.3 11,537,763 798 20.9 74.0 109 72

In Precinct Only 4,350 103,336,604 4,316 94,398,839 2,736 92.5 9,779,603 1,971 11.9 485,326 371 15.3 83.0 338 76None 1,056 8,850,685 1,053 8,148,453 1,000 97.5 377,647 280 10.5 802,295 368 16.6 85.6 381 81

No Excuse Absentee Balloting

Yes 3,781 64,333,790 3,750 59,674,288 2,117 95.4 10,151,440 1,028 18.6 602,948 415 14.7 75.8 540 71

No 2,787 112,931,240 2,762 106,203,251 2,762 94.0 11,543,573 2,021 13.3 684,673 324 17.4 81.9 288 76

Early Voting Allowed

Yes 1,701 73,710,075 1,686 68,331,736 1,633 93.3 12,496,964 1,216 18.2 159,176 67 13.4 74.5 148 69

No 4,867 103,554,955 4,826 97,545,803 3,246 95.4 9,198,049 1,833 12.7 1,128,445 672 16.5 83.5 680 79

Covered By Section 203, 

Language Minority Requirements

Yes 468 50,756,496 453 47,954,918 452 94.5 10,555,046 424 21.5 14,226 5 14.3 70.6 45 66

No 6,100 126,508,534 6,059 117,922,621 4,427 94.6 11,139,967 2,625 12.1 1,273,395 734 16.1 83.8 783 79

Covered By Section 5 of Voting 

Rights Act

Yes 880 40,868,855 864 38,016,986 864 93.0 6,073,109 832 15.1 1,299 8 11.5 73.4 67 68

No 5,688 136,396,175 5,648 127,860,553 4,015 95.0 15,621,904 2,217 15.5 1,286,322 731 16.1 81.6 761 77

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Registration

EAC Election Day Survey Registration 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:02:44 Percent Percent Perc

Election Reported Percent Percent Increase if Percent Total Act

Administration Total Active Active Inactive Inactive Inactive Reg Election Day Election Day Registration Cases Registrat

Code Name Jurisdictions Registration Cases Registration Cases Registration Registration Cases Registration Included Registration Cases Registration of VAP >100% of V

Demographics

Region

Northeast 1,710 34,273,670 1,709 32,199,323 1,709 93.9 2,316,114 798 9.7 94,431 237 9.9 81.6 452 76

South 1,423 62,606,676 1,407 58,462,978 1,407 93.4 7,083,472 1,320 11.7 79.1 86 73

Midwest 2,902 44,048,138 2,879 39,961,102 1,246 94.6 4,007,985 610 16.0 1,034,014 435 17.6 89.4 251 84

West 420 33,845,684 406 32,763,274 406 96.8 8,287,442 321 26.1 159,176 67 13.4 68.5 39 66

Territories 113 2,490,862 111 2,490,862 111 100.0 0

Urban to Rural

Urban 567 63,441,314 566 59,292,913 445 93.7 9,349,663 280 17.5 559,369 145 16.4 77.3 58 72

Suburban 871 47,552,530 868 44,896,354 599 94.8 5,249,700 420 14.1 256,655 107 15.9 81.1 80 76

Small Towns 1,710 44,193,768 1,690 41,652,437 1,491 95.1 5,265,123 952 14.8 234,646 197 16.4 79.0 220 75Rural 3,307 19,586,556 3,277 17,544,973 2,233 94.5 1,830,527 1,397 12.3 236,951 290 15.1 84.2 470 78

Not Available - Territories 113 2,490,862 111 2,490,862 111 100.0 0

Size of Jurisdiction (VAP)

< 1,000 1,761 895,006 1,757 287,426 588 96.7 5,852 123 8.8 15,454 149 17.7 99.6 268 95

>=1,000 to <3,500 1,165 2,182,148 1,164 1,384,367 735 95.6 46,991 315 7.4 48,102 196 12.0 96.3 228 90>=3,500 to <10,000 1,043 5,966,645 1,037 5,494,187 1,010 94.3 336,266 660 8.7 150,860 218 12.4 89.6 189 84>=10,000 to <50,000 1,704 31,472,681 1,681 29,632,870 1,675 94.5 2,565,778 1,343 10.3 395,175 146 15.4 83.0 117 78>=50,000 to <250,000 586 48,992,270 582 45,811,079 579 93.9 5,148,210 471 13.2 355,187 25 17.2 81.5 22 76>=250,000 to <1,000,000 140 51,396,493 139 48,600,987 139 94.6 6,803,334 114 16.5 322,839 4 19.1 80.9 4 76>=1,000,000 25 33,867,508 25 32,174,367 25 95.0 6,788,582 23 21.6 70.0 66

Not Available 144 2,492,279 127 2,492,256 128 100.0 0 4 1 14.8 35.8 18

Race and Ethnicity

Predominently NH White 6,264 163,662,585 6,234 152,735,903 4,608 94.4 19,330,247 2,915 14.9 1,287,461 737 16.0 80.6 796 75Predominently NH Black 85 3,098,023 81 3,019,933 81 97.5 500,485 76 16.4 77.4 17 75

Predominently NH Native American 24 231,022 24 193,637 16 90.8 25,511 13 12.0 156 1 38.2 86.0 5 77

Predominently Hispanic 50 7,749,995 45 7,411,162 45 95.6 1,832,292 44 23.7 61.5 10 58Not Available 145 2,523,405 128 2,516,904 129 99.7 6,478 1 20.8 4 1 14.8 96.7 76

Median Income

< $25,000 298 2,504,552 287 2,375,742 258 95.4 213,755 194 9.7 295 3 16.8 84.0 81 80

>=$25,000 to <$30,000 884 8,917,739 871 8,142,330 735 92.7 963,033 547 12.4 10,562 20 12.4 81.8 107 75>=$30,000 to <$35,000 1,372 22,970,583 1,366 21,391,385 1,096 94.4 2,248,875 735 13.3 191,448 124 15.8 80.7 146 75>=$35,000 to <$40,000 1,215 40,443,694 1,213 37,271,917 892 93.1 4,729,718 550 13.8 257,295 134 15.7 80.3 162 74>=$40,000 to <$45,000 881 37,780,840 877 35,581,341 563 94.9 5,686,916 295 19.9 158,333 114 15.7 76.5 94 72>=$45,000 to <$50,000 587 21,218,675 587 19,910,108 363 94.8 2,958,204 199 16.6 180,853 96 16.4 78.3 78 74>=$50,000 1,180 40,936,586 1,178 38,712,415 841 95.6 4,894,512 529 14.6 488,831 247 16.4 80.8 159 77

Not Available 151 2,492,361 133 2,492,301 131 100.0 0 4 1 14.8 52.7 1 35

High School Education

< 60% 126 1,817,027 124 1,686,494 119 93.0 163,910 104 9.6 22 1 8.8 75.9 29 70

>=60% to <70% 661 14,944,978 648 14,489,498 580 97.2 2,652,049 521 18.5 1,201 5 12.3 66.6 57 64>=70% to <80% 1,646 49,285,773 1,631 45,617,972 1,224 93.2 6,695,452 879 16.1 152,083 91 15.4 77.1 123 71>=80% to <90% 3,111 93,198,279 3,105 87,425,017 2,123 95.0 10,587,245 1,192 14.9 637,418 411 16.1 82.4 367 78>=90% 873 15,495,512 871 14,141,635 702 93.0 1,589,879 352 12.8 496,893 230 16.2 86.5 251 80

Not Available 151 2,523,461 133 2,516,923 131 99.7 6,478 1 20.8 4 1 14.8 96.7 1 76

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Registration

EAC Election Day Survey Registration 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:02:44 Percent Percent Perc

Election Reported Percent Percent Increase if Percent Total Act

Administration Total Active Active Inactive Inactive Inactive Reg Election Day Election Day Registration Cases Registrat

Code Name Jurisdictions Registration Cases Registration Cases Registration Registration Cases Registration Included Registration Cases Registration of VAP >100% of V

Political

Battleground States in 2004 

Presidential Election

Yes 3,093 64,166,639 3,062 59,646,074 1,482 94.9 5,594,878 690 13.8 1,128,445 672 16.5 84.4 311 79

No 3,475 113,098,391 3,450 106,231,465 3,397 94.3 16,100,135 2,359 16.0 159,176 67 13.4 76.9 517 72

Margin of Victory in 2004 

Presidential Election

< 2.5% 515 15,923,548 513 14,919,388 359 94.5 1,671,431 213 14.2 129,495 76 16.1 83.2 75 78

>=2.5% to < 5.0% 476 11,133,130 472 10,464,146 327 95.0 1,068,379 180 12.6 91,415 60 16.3 79.3 63 75>=5.0% to < 7.5% 510 13,830,932 508 13,113,160 348 95.8 1,697,412 214 14.2 94,261 64 18.2 78.3 63 74>=7.5% to < 10.0 % 429 8,833,490 428 8,191,009 291 94.0 916,839 164 13.3 51,546 61 13.2 86.0 55 80>=10.0 % 4,492 125,044,988 4,463 116,692,695 3,433 94.3 16,340,905 2,277 16.0 920,429 475 16.0 78.8 571 74

Red vs Blue Jurisdictions Won By 

in 2004 Presidential Election

Bush > 55% 3,115 68,178,580 3,094 63,589,240 2,411 94.7 7,327,052 1,661 13.5 432,462 329 14.9 79.4 318 74

Bush 50% to 55% 982 26,682,203 979 24,709,512 666 93.6 3,256,469 383 15.3 248,572 153 17.2 81.4 117 76Bush < 50% 136 2,041,746 135 1,896,917 103 94.1 195,994 47 12.0 20,194 17 13.2 86.6 26 81Kerry < 50% 150 4,850,492 150 4,674,613 105 97.0 460,164 68 14.0 13,076 16 14.1 82.4 28 79Kerry 50% to 55% 872 23,160,396 866 21,666,572 610 94.4 2,321,254 360 12.1 114,988 106 15.1 80.5 114 75Kerry > 55% 1,161 49,846,628 1,154 46,837,501 857 94.4 8,134,033 529 19.5 457,854 115 17.1 77.7 220 73Tied 25 14,032 21 12,312 12 96.3 47 1 5.1 475 3 9.4 98.4 5 94

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Chapter 3 

Ballots Counted 

One would think that determining how many people turned out for an election would be a simple 

proposition. Not in the current state of the American election system. Different states, and even 

different jurisdictions in a given state, use different definitions, and, therefore, report different 

numbers. Some states and local jurisdictions simply report the number of people who voted as the 

total number of votes cast for all the candidates for the office on the ballot that received the highest 

number of votes. Immediately after World War II, nearly three-quarters of the country followed this 

practice. But as time went on and states began keeping track of vote history in voter registration 

files, it became apparent that slightly more people actually turned out to vote than voted for the 

highest office on the ballot. By 2002, thirty-nine states were reporting real turnout numbers. By 2004 

several more states had either passed laws or adopted administrative procedures to report this data. 

The Election Day Survey, however, adds another definition to the mix by asking for the “total 

number of ballots counted” as well as the number of ballots cast. Are ballots that were rejected 

included in this number—that is, one cast by a voter who showed up at the polls and cast what he or 

she thought was a valid vote? The definition section of the survey said, “The number provided in 

response to this question should include all ballots that were counted during Election Day, absentee, 

early voting, or late counting for the November 2, 2004, election (e.g., paper, electronic, military, 

absentee, and provisional ballots.” But what is being counted? We heard reports that some 

jurisdictions responding to this survey reported the total number of actual physical ballots or pieces 

of paper they counted, so that when an individual voter was provided with several ballot cards upon 

which to vote for different contests or measures, the number of ballots counted were two or three 

times the number of people who turned out. 

Applicability and Coverage 

An analysis of the 2004 data reported to the EAC showed that in 903 jurisdictions in 21 different 

states, including the entire state of Arkansas and most of the states of Vermont and Wisconsin, the 

reported number of ballots counted was identical to the number of votes cast for the office of 

president. The states where small numbers of jurisdictions submitted similar reports are Alabama, 

California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, 

Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin. 

Data and reports from all other states clearly showed that more people participated in the election 

than those that just voted for president. 

In addition, Election Data Services maintains its own data collection of election returns and turnout 

measures. Comparing what we call “Maximum Vote Turnout”—i.e., the highest of either the total 

voter turnout, or, where not reported, the total number of votes cast for all the candidates for the 

office on the ballot that received the highest number of votes —to the numbers that were reported on 

the survey to the EAC, we found that nearly 2.4 million more people voted in the 2004 election than 

was reported to the EAC. Several states turned in data that was incomplete: data was missing from 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Ballots Counted, Page 3–2 September 27, 2005 

certain local jurisdictions. For example, the state of Pennsylvania left out data for the largest 

counties—Erie, Berks, Philadelphia, and Allegheny (Pittsburgh)—along with 17 other counties. All 

told, 6,488 of the 6,568 jurisdictions in our database provided data on the number of ballots counted. 

Overall, 53 jurisdictions in the EAC database showed more ballots cast than there were registered 

voters in the jurisdiction. More than half of these occurred in Wisconsin, which allows Election Day 

registration and has nearly 2,000 townships and municipalities. Minnesota also has several 

jurisdictions with more than 100 percent of persons on the registration rolls turning out to vote. Like 

Wisconsin, Minnesota also allows Election Day registration, but the data is at the county level. 

When one shifts to voting age population, 78 jurisdictions showed more persons voting than the 

estimated voting age population, and 83 jurisdictions showed more votes cast than the estimated 

citizen voting age population. Most of these, however, are very small jurisdictions (notably in Maine 

and Wisconsin) where small numbers of people can be slightly off in the estimating process and are 

therefore more likely to be in contrast with other small data for the jurisdiction. For example, the 

estimation process may calculate 85 persons of voting age while the registration counts show there 

are 87 persons registered. 

Election administrators tend to look at turnout as measured against registered voters. These are two 

numbers that they know for their own jurisdiction and they can calculate for each election. On the 

other hand, academics and some political observers tend to calculate turnout against the base of 

voting age population. They do this because of the general belief that registration rolls contain 

varying levels of “deadwood” and inaccuracies and that voting age population provides a better base 

to use for comparative analysis. In the past several years, some academics (including the consultant 

on this project) have sought to modify the voting age population to take out the impact of noncitizens and other demographic groups not eligible to be part of the electorate. For the purposes of 

this study, we have calculated turnout using all three methods. 

Historical Context 

Traditionally, turnout in United States elections has been measured by the total number of votes cast 

for the “highest office.” In a presidential election, such as 2004, the highest office is the president. 

In other elections, particularly in non-presidential election years, highest office has been defined as 

the highest vote-getting office among U.S. Senate, governor, or the sum of all the U.S. House races 

in the state. 

Although similar sounding, the total number of ballots cast or counted is not the same as the total 

number of ballots cast for the highest office. Some voters, either intentionally or by error, may not 

record a vote for the highest office on the ballot. Yet, not all blank ballots are errors. For example, 

3,688 Nevada voters, or 0.44 percent, choose “None of these Candidates” in the 2004 presidential 

race. Although that choice in Nevada is generally considered a “candidate” in the traditional sense of 

the word, Nevada’s choice suggests that in states where voters do not have a similar choice, many 

abstain from the presidential election, but may vote for another office on the same ballot. 

In testimony before the EAC in May 2004, this study’s author presented a historical compilation of 

the difference between the total number of ballots cast and the vote for highest office. It was shown 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Ballots Counted, Page 3–3 September 27, 2005 

as percent drop-off, and is reproduced below in Table 3a. For more information on drop-off, see 

Chapter 7. 

Table 3a. Electoral Drop-Off Rates, 1948–2004 

Year 

Number of States 

Reporting Voter 

Turnout 

Actual Voter

Turnout

Highest Office

Turnout* Drop-Off Rate

2004 44 105,357,390 104,322,648 0.98%

2002 40 62,219,507 60,795,899 2.29%

2000 40 82,563,022 81,059,934 1.82%

1998 40 57,597,179 55,856,233 3.02%

1996 37 70,638,630 69,216,868 2.01%

1994 39 55,805,112 54,313,318 2.67%

1992 36 73,974,912 72,629,643 1.82%

1990 34 44,890,326 43,409,816 3.30%

1988 33 58,081,471 56,668,654 2.43%

1986 34 42,197,435 40,400,221 4.26%

1984 33 58,509,636 57,113,439 2.39%

1982 32 45,713,433 44,314,060 3.06%

1980 34 55,797,469 54,670,075 2.02%

1978 29 37,827,229 36,520,648 3.45%

1976 29 49,489,395 48,377,768 2.25%

1974 26 31,624,018 30,604,755 3.22%

1972 26 42,582,628 41,458,146 2.64%

1970 25 32,836,937 31,973,277 2.63%

1968 24 37,968,112 37,389,644 1.52%

1966 23 31,645,227 30,952,233 2.19%

1964 22 37,724,809 36,995,735 1.93%

1962 23 30,439,966 29,813,476 2.06%

1960 23 38,670,435 38,076,980 1.53%

1958 19 28,893,207 28,075,937 2.83%

1956 18 33,935,458 33,250,227 2.02%

1954 17 23,986,530 23,395,912 2.46%

1952 17 31,467,386 30,985,652 1.53%

1950 18 24,614,402 23,883,751 2.97%

1948 17 28,121,161 27,485,591 2.26%

*Total number of votes cast for all the candidates for the office on the ballot that received the highest number of votes. 

Source: Election Data Services, Inc. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Ballots Counted, Page 3–4 September 27, 2005 

The Election Day Survey represents the first systematic attempt by a federal agency to collect the 

total number of ballots cast in a federal election. Previously, some states have reported the total 

number of ballots cast as a part of their election results. In post-World War II elections, 17 states 

reported total number of ballots cast in 1948 and 39 reported in 2002. Although the data for 2004 is 

not complete, the request for total number of ballots cast on the Election Day Survey has produced a 

greater number of voter turnout reports. 

Survey Results 

Table 3 presents data on the number of ballots counted from question 2 on the Election Day Survey. 

In the table, the number of ballots counted is calculated as a percentage of the reported total number 

of registered voters as well as the voting age population (VAP) and the citizen voting age population 

(CVAP). The column headings in Table 3 are as follows: 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Ballots Counted, Page 3–5 September 27, 2005 

Column Headings for Table 3. Ballots Counted 

Col. Heading Description 

1 Code State census code 

2 Name Respondent to Election Day Survey 

3 Jurisdiction Number of local election jurisdictions from survey question 22 

4 2004 Estimated VAP 

Estimated November 2004 voting age population (VAP) from 

col. 4 of Table 1 

5 2004 Est. 

Citizen VAP 

Estimated November 2004 citizen voting age population (CVAP) 

from col. 4 of Table 1 

6 Cases Number of jurisdictions for which 2004 VAP and CVAP estimates were constructed 

7 Total 

Registration 

Number of active and inactive registered voters, number of persons who voted on Election Day in six states, and VAP data for 

North Dakota and jurisdictions in Wisconsin that do not have 

voter registration, from col. 4 of Table 2 

8 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey question 1, that 

provided Election Day registration data, or for which VAP data 

was substituted for voter registration data 

9 Total Ballots Counted Number of ballots counted from survey question 2 

10 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 2 

11 Percent Ballots 

Counted of Registration 

Number of ballots counted (col. 9) divided by the number of registered voters (col. 7) 

12 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey questions 1 and 

2, that provided Election Day registration data, or for which VAP 

data was substituted for voter registration data 

13 Cases > 100% Number of jurisdictions where the reported number of ballots 

counted (col. 9) is greater than the reported number of registered 

voters (col. 7). 

14 Percent Ballots Counted 

of VAP 

Number of ballots counted (col. 9) divided by the estimated voting age population (col. 4)) 

15 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey question 2 and 

for which 2004 VAP estimates were constructed 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Ballots Counted, Page 3–6 September 27, 2005 

Column Headings for Table 3 (cont.) 

Col. Heading Description 

16 Cases > 100% Number of jurisdictions where the reported number of ballots 

counted (col. 9) is greater than the estimated VAP (col. 4). 

17 Percent Ballots 

Counted of Citizen VAP 

Number of ballots counted (col. 9) divided by the estimated citizen voting age population (col. 5) 

18 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey question 2 and 

for which 2004 CVAP estimates were constructed 

19 Cases > 100% Number of jurisdictions where the reported number of ballots 

counted (col. 9) is greater than the estimated CVAP (col. 5). 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Ballots Counted, Page 3–7 September 27, 2005 

Analysis of Survey Results 

The following is our analysis of the data in Table 3 for each of the 18 cross-tabulation factors 

described earlier in this report. A description of each factor follows a general summary and a statelevel summary of the survey data. 

1) Regions 10) Changed Voting Equipment since 2000 

2) Urban to Rural 11) Statewide Voter Registration Database 

3) Size of Jurisdiction 12) Election Day Registration 

4) Race and Ethnicity 13) Provisional Ballot Acceptance 

5) Median Income 14) No Excuse Absentee Balloting 

6) High School Education 15) Early Voting 

7) Section 203 Language Minority Requirements 16) Battleground States 

8) Section 5 Pre-clearance of Voting Procedures 17) Presidential Margin of Victory 

9) Type of Voting Equipment 18) Red versus Blue Jurisdictions 

This analysis is based only on data that was reported to the EAC on the Election Day Survey. Many 

state responses to a survey question or part of a question did not cover all local election jurisdictions. 

In Table 3 as well as other tables in this report, a jurisdiction was excluded from a statistical 

calculation if its response was missing for one or more of the data items (i.e., columns) used in the 

calculation. A column labeled “Cases” next to each statistical calculation shows the number of 

jurisdictions covered by that calculation. 

Summary 

Overall, the EAC Election Day Survey found that over 121.8 million ballots were reported as 

counted in the 2004 general election, but not all jurisdictions reported data to the EAC. Other 

election studies have shown that over 123 million ballots were cast. We attribute the difference to 

jurisdictions not reporting total ballots counted. The EAC dataset shows that 70.4 percent of the total 

registered voters turned out to vote. Because states differ on whether their registration counts 

include “inactive voters” or not, we have also calculated turn-out percentages on the basis of just 

“active” registrations, which are available from all states. This has the impact of raising the percent 

of active registered voters that turned out to 74.6 percent. However, when voting age population is 

used as the denominator, only 55.8 percent of persons over 18 voted last fall. If non-citizens are 

excluded, the turnout rate increases to 60.7 percent of the citizen voting age population. Despite the 

data missing from some jurisdictions, these overall turnout rates are in line with other studies of 

turnout rates. 

States 

State turnout rates vary widely. The variation is widest when one studies turnout rates of registered 

voters because the registration numbers themselves are different based on the state’s inclusion or 

exclusion of “inactive” registrations. Minnesota reported the highest turnout of registered voters 

(95.5 percent), while Wyoming came in second at 89.7 percent. On the opposite end of the scale, 

Texas reported the lowest turnout of registered voters, at just 57.3 percent. This is more likely 

because inactive voters were included in Texas’ registration figures, thereby driving up the 

denominator in the turnout equation. Table 3b ranks states by turnout percentages for three different 

methods. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Ballots Counted, Page 3–8 September 27, 2005 

By excluding registration from the mix and just studying the percent of the voting age population 

that had their ballots counted, Minnesota still remains at the top of the list. This is also the case for 

citizen voting age population. The northern states of Maine, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Oregon 

and South Dakota round out the half dozen top turnout states for voting age population as well as 

citizen voting age population. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Ballots Counted, Page 3–9 September 27, 2005 

Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Ballots Counted, Page 3–9 September 27, 2005 

Table 3b Turnout Rates Sorted 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Ballots Counted, Page 3–10 September 27, 2005 

At the bottom of the scale, Texas and Hawaii report the lowest turnout rates when compared with 

voting age population and citizen voting age population. Southern states dominate the lowest turnout 

jurisdictions. 

Regions 

Reported turnout of registered voters is highest in the West, more than likely due to the dominance 

of California in the region and that California excludes inactive voters from its registration counts. 

Turnout is lowest in the southern part of the nation. 

When calculating turnout rates based on voting age population, there is a reversal in the West. That 

region of the nation becomes the lowest in turnout of voting age population and the second lowest in 

turnout by citizen voting age population. The Midwest region reported the highest turnout in the 

nation on either basis. 

Urban to Rural 

Suburban communities in the nation reported the highest turnout rates of any population group. This 

was the case, for all population groups except citizen voting age, where urban areas has slightly 

higher turnout rate. 

Rural areas reported the lowest voting rates among registered and citizen voting age population. 

Urban areas reported the lowest voting age population turnout rate, due to the sizable non-citizen 

population in urban areas. When excluding non-citizen, urban areas had a nearly 10 percentage 

point increase in turn-out, from 53.4 for total voting age population to 62.3 for citizen voting age 

population. 

Size of Jurisdiction 

Reported turnout rates are generally higher in the smallest jurisdictions than in the largest 

jurisdictions, though the differences are slight when studying the impact of registration. The pattern 

is more pronounced when the voting age population and citizen voting age population is examined. 

For example, turn-out of voting age population was 71.4 percent in jurisdictions with less than 1,000 

people, but dropped to just 47.4 percent for jurisdictions that had more than 1 million persons. 

Race and Ethnicity 

Turnout rates are highest in predominately white communities and the lowest, by a significant 

degree, in predominately Native American areas. This is true for both registration and citizen 

population based calculations. However, when overall voting age population is used, the 

predominately Hispanic communities had the lowest turnout rate (41.3%). 

Median Income 

Higher median income is related to the higher reported turnout rate for all methods of calculating 

turnout rates. 

High School Education 

Higher levels of high school education are related to higher turnout rates for all methods of 

calculating turnout rates. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Ballots Counted, Page 3–11 September 27, 2005 

Section 203 Language Minority Requirements 

Jurisdictions covered by Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act requiring language assistance at the 

polls tended to report lower turnout rates than jurisdictions not covered by the provisions. The 

difference is slight for registration turnout rates, largest for voting age population (over 10 

percentage points), and about five percentage points for citizen voting age population. 

Section 5 Preclearance of Voting Procedures 

Jurisdictions covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act reported lower voting rates than those 

jurisdictions not covered, for all methods of calculating turnout rates. 

Type of Voting Equipment 

Jurisdictions that used hand-counted paper ballots reported the highest turnout rates of any type of 

voting system for population-based turnout rates. However, when calculating turn-out as a percent 

of registered voters, those jurisdictions using optical scan voting equipment had the highest turnout 

rate of all voting systems. Jurisdictions that used lever machines had the lowest turnout rate for 

registration and voting age population based methods of calculating turnout rates. Surprisingly, 

jurisdictions that used electronic voting machines reported the lowest turnout rates when measured 

by citizen voting age population and the second lowest on overall voting age population. 

Changed Voting Equipment since 2000 

Jurisdictions that changed voting equipment in the past four years reported slightly higher turnout 

rates among registered voters than those jurisdictions that did not change. For voting age population 

and citizen voting age turnout rates, jurisdictions that changed voting equipment reported slightly 

lower turnout rates. 

Statewide Voter Registration Database 

Jurisdictions in states with a statewide voter registration database reported slightly higher turnout 

rates for registration and voting age population than jurisdictions in other states. Jurisdictions with 

statewide voter registration databases reported a slightly lower citizen voting age population turnout 

rate. 

Election Day Registration 

States that allow Election Day registration reported a significantly higher turnout rate than other 

states for all methods of calculating turnout rates. The difference in this category was the largest of 

any type of election administration procedure. 

Provisional Ballot Acceptance 

Turnout rates based on voter registration are slightly higher in jurisdictions that accept provisional 

ballots cast anywhere in a jurisdiction than in other jurisdictions. The pattern is reversed for turnout 

rates calculated for voting age or citizen voting age population. 

No Excuse Absentee Balloting 

Jurisdictions that allowed no excuse absentee balloting reported a slightly higher registration and 

citizen voting age population turnout rate but a lower voting age population turnout rate. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Ballots Counted, Page 3–12 September 27, 2005 

Early Voting 

Surprisingly, early voting actually had the opposite effect from what one would have anticipated. 

According to the data in the EAC dataset, jurisdictions that allow early voting actually reported a 

lower turnout rate than other non-early-voting jurisdictions, for all methods of calculating turnout 

rates. 

Battleground States 

Being a battleground state clearly had a positive impact on getting out the vote. Battleground states 

reported higher turnout rates than other states for all methods of calculating turnout rates. 

Presidential Margin of Victory 

Presidential margin of victory within a jurisdiction was unrelated to turnout rates, regardless of 

which method of calculating turnout rates was used. 

Red versus Blue Jurisdictions 

Jurisdictions won by Kerry in the 2004 election tended to report a slightly higher turnout rate than 

those carried by President Bush, for all methods of calculating turnout rates. 
Ballots Counted

EAC Election Day Survey CasBallots Counted 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:03:07 Percent Percent P

Election Total Ballots Ballots Counted 

Administration 2004 2004 Est. Reported Ballots Counted of Cases Of Active Cases Co

Code Name Jurisdictions Estimated VAP Citizen Vap Cases Registration Cases Counted Cases Registration Cases >100% Registration Cases >100% 

01 Alabama 67 3,425,821 3,376,112 67 2,597,629 67 1,683,735 61 72.7 61 72.7 61 02 Alaska 1 470,027 454,708 1 472,160 1 314,502 1 66.6 1 66.6 1 04 Arizona 15 4,194,390 3,770,203 15 2,642,120 15 2,038,077 15 77.1 15 77.1 15 05 Arkansas 75 2,069,560 2,024,200 75 1,699,934 75 1,055,510 75 62.1 75 70.6 75 06 California 58 26,647,955 21,671,670 58 16,646,555 58 12,359,633 53 75.6 53 75.6 53 08 Colorado 64 3,456,263 3,233,934 64 3,101,956 64 2,148,036 64 69.2 64 89.3 64 09 Connecticut 169 2,684,372 2,514,118 169 1,831,567 169 1,595,013 169 87.1 169 6 87.1 169 6 10 Delaware 3 629,009 605,748 3 553,917 3 377,407 3 68.1 3 70.9 3 11 District of Columbia 1 451,039 405,042 1 383,919 1 230,105 1 59.9 1 59.9 1 12 Florida 67 13,441,568 12,076,990 67 10,300,942 67 7,639,949 67 74.2 67 74.2 67 13 Georgia 159 6,534,852 6,159,729 159 4,248,802 159 3,317,336 159 78.1 159 78.1 159 15 Hawaii 5 980,154 900,647 5 647,238 4 431,203 4 66.6 4 74.3 4 16 Idaho 44 1,025,457 986,664 44 915,637 44 612,786 44 66.9 44 76.8 44 17 Illinois 110 9,518,482 6,471,142 102 7,195,882 104 5,361,048 110 72.0 104 1 72.0 104 1 18 Indiana 92 4,635,665 4,534,543 92 4,296,602 92 2,512,142 92 58.5 92 58.5 92 19 Iowa 99 2,274,174 2,221,452 99 2,226,721 98 1,513,894 98 68.0 98 72.8 98 1 20 Kansas 105 2,049,512 1,972,661 105 1,695,457 105 1,199,590 105 70.8 105 75.8 105 1 21 Kentucky 120 3,157,197 3,110,923 120 2,794,286 120 1,816,867 120 65.0 120 65.0 120 22 Louisiana 64 3,358,452 3,305,044 64 2,932,142 64 1,956,590 64 66.7 64 72.6 64 23 Maine 517 1,037,050 1,022,248 505 1,026,219 517 754,777 517 73.5 517 73.5 517 24 Maryland 24 4,200,854 3,940,414 24 3,105,370 24 2,395,127 24 77.1 24 77.1 24 25 Massachusetts 351 4,956,454 4,577,316 351 4,098,634 351 2,927,455 351 71.4 351 79.4 351 1 26 Michigan 83 7,616,344 7,369,271 83 7,164,047 83 4,876,237 83 68.1 83 68.1 83 27 Minnesota 87 3,872,349 3,736,578 87 2,977,496 87 2,842,912 87 95.5 87 12 95.5 87 12 28 Mississippi 82 2,139,817 2,118,126 82 1,469,608 66 1,163,460 82 65.9 66 65.9 66 29 Missouri 116 4,344,660 4,263,417 116 4,194,416 116 2,765,960 116 65.9 116 75.9 116 30 Montana 56 715,495 709,037 56 638,474 56 456,096 56 71.4 56 87.7 56 31 Nebraska 93 1,316,475 1,272,795 93 1,160,193 93 792,910 93 68.3 93 68.3 93 32 Nevada 17 1,737,781 1,536,969 17 1,073,869 17 831,833 17 77.5 17 77.5 17 33 New Hampshire 242 1,000,557 975,065 238 950,292 241 686,390 241 72.2 241 1 80.2 241 2 34 New Jersey 21 6,573,010 5,871,639 21 5,011,693 21 3,639,612 21 72.6 21 78.4 21 35 New Mexico 33 1,402,999 1,316,405 33 505,356 20 328,636 21 64.6 20 70.3 20 36 New York 58 14,790,540 8,156,036 57 11,837,068 58 7,448,266 58 62.9 58 70.0 58 37 North Carolina 100 6,414,796 6,129,162 100 5,526,981 100 3,571,420 100 64.6 100 71.7 100 38 North Dakota 53 490,179 484,528 53 490,179 53 316,049 53 64.5 53 39 Ohio 88 8,680,792 8,532,693 88 7,965,110 88 5,730,867 88 71.9 88 82.8 88 2 40 Oklahoma 77 2,664,520 2,589,344 77 2,143,978 77 1,474,304 77 68.8 77 80.1 77 41 Oregon 36 2,766,936 2,594,416 36 2,141,249 36 1,851,671 36 86.5 36 86.5 36 42 Pennsylvania 67 9,615,172 9,395,376 67 8,366,455 67 3,006,146 46 71.7 46 71.7 46 44 Rhode Island 39 842,911 785,112 39 707,234 39 440,743 39 62.3 39 62.3 39 45 South Carolina 46 3,174,262 3,106,879 46 2,318,235 46 1,626,720 46 70.2 46 70.2 46 46 South Dakota 66 576,196 569,346 66 502,261 66 394,930 66 78.6 66 78.6 66 47 Tennessee 95 4,516,679 4,423,433 95 3,748,235 95 2,458,213 95 65.6 95 73.3 95 48 Texas 254 16,263,861 14,443,878 254 13,098,329 254 7,507,333 254 57.3 254 68.2 254 49 Utah 29 1,645,366 1,548,346 29 1,278,912 29 942,045 29 73.7 29 73.7 29 50 Vermont 246 487,977 478,434 246 444,508 246 313,973 245 70.7 245 70.7 245 51 Virginia 134 5,695,220 5,388,364 134 4,515,675 134 3,223,156 134 71.4 134 77.1 134 53 Washington 39 4,732,158 4,414,206 39 3,508,208 39 2,885,001 39 82.2 39 82.2 39 54 West Virginia 55 1,430,254 1,422,042 55 1,168,694 55 769,645 55 65.9 55 65.9 55 55 Wisconsin 1,910 4,188,206 4,091,525 1,888 4,179,774 1,894 3,009,491 1,880 72.5 1,872 32 85.2 311 49 56 Wyoming 23 386,170 380,564 23 273,950 23 245,789 23 89.7 23 105.8 23 16 60 American Samoa 166 Guam 172 Puerto Rico 110 2,440,131 110 1,990,372 110 81.6 110 81.6 11078 Virgin Islands 1 50,731 1 31,391 1 61.9 1 61.9 1

Total 6,568 221,279,989 197,438,494 6,408 177,265,030 6,512 121,862,353 6,488 70.4 6,457 52 74.6 4,843 91 Maximum 1,910 26,647,955 21,671,670 1,888 16,646,555 1,894 12,359,633 1,880 95.5 1,872 32 105.8 517 49 Average 119 4,338,823 3,871,343 125 3,344,623 122 2,299,289 122 71.0 121 10 75.1 93 9 Minimum 1 386,170 380,564 1 50,731 1 31,391 1 57.3 1 1 58.5 1 1 

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Ballots Counted

EAC Election Day Survey CasBallots Counted 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:03:07 Percent Percent P

Election Total Ballots Ballots Counted 

Administration 2004 2004 Est. Reported Ballots Counted of Cases Of Active Cases Co

Code Name Jurisdictions Estimated VAP Citizen Vap Cases Registration Cases Counted Cases Registration Cases >100% Registration Cases >100% 

Election Administration

Voting Equipment Used in 2004 

General Election

None / Unknown 908 14,612,312 13,583,011 770 14,484,493 877 9,922,294 875 68.6 867 13 78.4 325 17 Punch card 260 19,552,003 16,456,501 258 15,767,547 259 10,938,861 255 70.6 254 74.0 254 3 Lever 394 26,918,948 19,857,375 393 21,662,619 390 12,981,126 384 66.9 380 7 72.6 370 8 Paper 1,734 3,308,339 3,246,269 1,722 3,085,167 1,733 2,172,234 1,727 71.1 1,726 10 77.0 1,060 7 Optical scan 2,541 88,323,954 81,287,919 2,534 69,198,628 2,523 49,661,061 2,524 71.7 2,507 19 75.5 2,111 51 Electronic 608 52,761,316 48,448,239 608 40,068,685 608 27,295,070 601 71.1 601 73.2 601 1 Multiple Systems 123 15,803,117 14,559,180 123 12,997,891 122 8,891,707 122 68.4 122 3 73.7 122 4 

Changed Voting Equipment Since 

2000 General Election

Yes 1,753 69,121,688 61,299,306 1,743 51,149,755 1,746 35,479,523 1,739 71.1 1,734 17 74.0 1,101 14 No 4,815 152,158,301 136,139,188 4,665 126,115,275 4,766 86,382,830 4,749 70.2 4,723 35 74.9 3,742 77 

State Wide Voter Registration 

System in Place

Yes 1,335 48,152,870 45,913,343 1,335 37,384,852 1,321 27,317,939 1,322 73.1 1,321 18 75.2 1,321 19 No 5,233 173,127,119 151,525,151 5,073 139,880,178 5,191 94,544,414 5,166 69.7 5,136 34 74.4 3,522 72 

Election Day Registration

Yes 2,823 11,509,789 11,192,644 2,785 10,323,368 2,806 8,152,145 2,792 79.2 2,784 45 86.7 1,223 79 No 3,745 209,770,200 186,245,850 3,623 166,941,662 3,706 113,710,208 3,696 69.9 3,673 7 74.0 3,620 12 

Provisional Ballot Acceptance

In Overall Jurisdiction 1,162 88,988,159 78,298,249 1,154 65,077,741 1,143 44,662,901 1,123 73.4 1,116 1 75.6 1,116 1 In Precinct Only 4,350 124,866,238 111,935,162 4,327 103,336,604 4,316 69,964,775 4,312 67.7 4,288 38 73.1 2,727 76 None 1,056 7,425,592 7,205,083 927 8,850,685 1,053 7,234,677 1,053 81.7 1,053 13 84.9 1,000 14 

No Excuse Absentee Balloting

Yes 3,781 85,693,320 77,136,882 3,747 64,333,790 3,750 46,531,514 3,731 72.7 3,722 32 76.2 2,108 67 No 2,787 135,586,669 120,301,612 2,661 112,931,240 2,762 75,330,839 2,757 69.1 2,735 20 73.7 2,735 24 

Early Voting Allowed

Yes 1,701 99,654,623 89,386,654 1,701 73,710,075 1,686 50,903,807 1,681 69.3 1,680 74.3 1,627 18 No 4,867 121,625,366 108,051,840 4,707 103,554,955 4,826 70,958,546 4,807 71.2 4,777 52 74.8 3,216 73 

Covered By Section 203, Language 

Minority Requirements

Yes 468 72,670,065 60,221,899 467 50,756,496 453 34,287,661 450 69.4 447 73.5 446 No 6,100 148,609,924 137,216,595 5,941 126,508,534 6,059 87,574,692 6,038 70.9 6,010 52 75.1 4,397 91 

Covered By Section 5 of Voting 

Rights Act

Yes 880 56,030,484 50,618,730 879 40,868,855 864 27,429,425 872 67.4 856 1 72.6 856 1 No 5,688 165,249,505 146,819,764 5,529 136,396,175 5,648 94,432,928 5,616 71.3 5,601 51 75.2 3,987 90 

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Ballots Counted

EAC Election Day Survey CasBallots Counted 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:03:07 Percent Percent P

Election Total Ballots Ballots Counted 

Administration 2004 2004 Est. Reported Ballots Counted of Cases Of Active Cases Co

Code Name Jurisdictions Estimated VAP Citizen Vap Cases Registration Cases Counted Cases Registration Cases >100% Registration Cases >100% 

Demographics

Region

Northeast 1,710 41,988,043 33,775,344 1,693 34,273,670 1,709 20,812,375 1,687 69.1 1,687 7 74.3 1,687 9 South 1,423 79,567,761 74,625,430 1,423 62,606,676 1,407 42,266,877 1,417 67.5 1,401 72.3 1,401 Midwest 2,902 49,563,034 45,519,951 2,872 44,048,138 2,879 31,316,030 2,871 70.7 2,857 45 74.8 1,243 66 West 420 50,161,151 43,517,769 420 33,845,684 406 25,445,308 402 75.8 401 78.3 401 16 Territories 113 2,490,862 111 2,021,763 111 81.2 111 81.2 111

Urban to Rural

Urban 567 82,075,044 64,512,025 558 63,441,314 566 42,675,443 563 69.4 562 4 74.2 442 17 Suburban 871 59,268,529 55,919,871 870 47,552,530 868 33,263,865 860 72.2 858 11 76.2 591 15 Small Towns 1,710 56,213,989 53,925,497 1,700 44,193,768 1,690 30,364,561 1,685 70.1 1,671 14 73.8 1,473 25 Rural 3,307 23,722,427 23,081,101 3,280 19,586,556 3,277 13,536,721 3,269 68.9 3,255 23 73.0 2,226 34 Not Available - Territories 113 2,490,862 111 2,021,763 111 81.2 111 81.2 111

Size of Jurisdiction (VAP)

< 1,000 1,761 899,315 893,183 1,754 895,006 1,757 634,024 1,740 71.6 1,739 25 78.0 585 12 >=1,000 to <3,500 1,165 2,267,899 2,237,383 1,165 2,182,148 1,164 1,630,543 1,162 74.9 1,162 9 78.6 735 23 >=3,500 to <10,000 1,043 6,692,594 6,579,642 1,043 5,966,645 1,037 4,256,986 1,038 71.3 1,035 4 75.7 1,009 23 >=10,000 to <50,000 1,704 38,463,619 37,481,869 1,701 31,472,681 1,681 21,817,391 1,689 69.2 1,671 9 73.2 1,665 25 >=50,000 to <250,000 586 60,558,039 57,832,452 582 48,992,270 582 33,587,618 570 70.3 568 5 75.0 565 7 >=250,000 to <1,000,000 140 63,995,785 59,030,487 140 51,396,493 139 35,485,241 133 71.9 133 76.2 133 >=1,000,000 25 48,402,590 33,383,478 23 33,867,508 25 22,427,696 24 68.4 24 72.1 24 Not Available 144 148 2,492,279 127 2,022,854 132 81.2 125 81.2 127 1 

Race and Ethnicity

Predominently NH White 6,264 204,258,977 183,752,611 6,249 163,662,585 6,234 112,362,361 6,201 70.5 6,182 52 74.9 4,573 90 Predominently NH Black 85 4,061,404 3,808,732 84 3,098,023 81 2,117,437 85 67.4 81 69.1 81 Predominently NH Native American 24 268,560 263,114 24 231,022 24 127,150 23 55.8 23 62.0 16 Predominently Hispanic 50 12,658,812 9,583,359 50 7,749,995 45 5,209,222 46 67.2 45 70.3 45 Not Available 145 32,236 30,678 1 2,523,405 128 2,046,183 133 81.1 126 81.3 128 1 

Median Income

< $25,000 298 3,079,342 2,873,976 297 2,504,552 287 1,488,479 294 57.5 287 3 60.3 258 >=$25,000 to <$30,000 884 11,220,765 10,840,802 884 8,917,739 871 5,685,388 876 63.3 867 2 68.4 732 2 >=$30,000 to <$35,000 1,372 28,691,481 27,644,524 1,370 22,970,583 1,366 14,312,622 1,356 67.0 1,353 5 71.4 1,084 15 >=$35,000 to <$40,000 1,215 50,829,468 40,245,795 1,211 40,443,694 1,213 26,144,458 1,204 67.5 1,203 11 72.7 884 18 >=$40,000 to <$45,000 881 49,717,211 44,603,496 881 37,780,840 877 26,227,676 871 69.8 868 4 73.6 558 10 >=$45,000 to <$50,000 587 27,092,115 24,951,504 586 21,218,675 587 15,037,096 577 73.3 577 8 77.5 357 9 >=$50,000 1,180 50,649,351 46,278,340 1,178 40,936,586 1,178 30,943,728 1,173 75.7 1,172 19 79.2 840 36 Not Available 151 256 57 1 2,492,361 133 2,022,906 137 81.2 130 81.2 130 1 

High School Education

< 60% 126 2,401,104 2,070,013 126 1,817,027 124 951,317 125 52.1 124 1 56.0 119 1 >=60% to <70% 661 22,653,549 19,226,982 660 14,944,978 648 10,083,603 652 68.1 641 2 70.1 575 >=70% to <80% 1,646 64,350,042 51,717,398 1,640 49,285,773 1,631 31,406,406 1,630 65.6 1,621 6 70.5 1,216 10 >=80% to <90% 3,111 113,912,781 107,539,905 3,109 93,198,279 3,105 65,275,468 3,074 72.1 3,072 23 76.1 2,102 49 >=90% 873 17,930,226 16,853,518 872 15,495,512 871 12,099,350 870 78.1 869 20 84.0 701 30 Not Available 151 32,287 30,678 1 2,523,461 133 2,046,209 137 81.1 130 81.3 130 1 

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Ballots Counted

EAC Election Day Survey CasBallots Counted 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:03:07 Percent Percent P

Election Total Ballots Ballots Counted 

Administration 2004 2004 Est. Reported Ballots Counted of Cases Of Active Cases Co

Code Name Jurisdictions Estimated VAP Citizen Vap Cases Registration Cases Counted Cases Registration Cases >100% Registration Cases >100% 

Political

Battleground States in 2004 

Presidential Election

Yes 3,093 76,824,163 72,974,742 3,067 64,166,639 3,062 43,980,255 3,028 73.3 3,019 45 77.6 1,458 66 No 3,475 144,455,826 124,463,752 3,341 113,098,391 3,450 77,882,098 3,460 68.9 3,438 7 73.1 3,385 25 

Margin of Victory in 2004 

Presidential Election

< 2.5% 515 19,185,454 18,004,419 514 15,923,548 513 10,753,542 508 69.8 506 5 74.1 354 8 >=2.5% to < 5.0% 476 14,781,804 13,849,899 470 11,133,130 472 8,077,591 471 72.9 469 3 76.8 325 6 >=5.0% to < 7.5% 510 17,701,432 16,058,301 508 13,830,932 508 9,931,823 506 73.5 505 5 76.7 346 9 >=7.5% to < 10.0 % 429 10,292,117 9,806,808 427 8,833,490 428 6,126,475 426 72.1 425 2 77.0 288 6 >=10.0 % 4,492 159,310,466 139,710,470 4,476 125,044,988 4,463 84,945,042 4,448 69.6 4,429 37 74.0 3,410 61 

Red vs Blue Jurisdictions Won By 

in 2004 Presidential Election

Bush > 55% 3,115 86,412,155 82,400,908 3,107 68,178,580 3,094 47,293,906 3,083 70.2 3,069 22 74.2 2,394 51 Bush 50% to 55% 982 32,877,232 30,553,191 977 26,682,203 979 18,343,733 974 69.8 973 10 74.6 663 18 Bush < 50% 136 2,380,942 2,259,659 131 2,041,746 135 1,386,188 135 70.7 134 1 75.4 102 1 Kerry < 50% 150 5,883,881 5,524,046 150 4,850,492 150 3,447,366 149 71.2 149 1 73.4 104 1 Kerry 50% to 55% 872 29,466,232 27,160,231 870 23,160,396 866 16,109,589 860 71.8 855 7 76.2 602 12 Kerry > 55% 1,161 64,245,074 49,526,130 1,154 49,846,628 1,154 33,249,808 1,152 69.8 1,148 11 74.1 852 7 Tied 25 14,267 14,123 17 14,032 21 9,842 18 70.5 17 74.0 12 

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Chapter 4 

Turnout Source 

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) asked a number of different questions about 

voting in the 2004 election. There were questions on how many ballots were counted (question 2) 

and the number of ballots cast in polling places (question 3). There was a series of questions about 

various aspects of absentee balloting (questions 4, 5, and 6), along with inquiries about early voting 

(question 7). Finally, there were questions about provisional ballots (questions 8 and 9). Each 

question appears to focus on a single subject, and it is clear that some states thought about them in 

that manner. However, each of these questions falls under the broader subject of the different 

methods that people can use to vote. By considering them together, one can look at what share of the 

total votes come from different voting methods, or “turnout source.” 

Table 4 provides data from the Election Day Survey on ballot sources—i.e., ballots cast at polling 

places on Election Day statewide, absentee ballots, early ballots, or provisional ballots. The first 

column of the Turnout Source Table shows the total number of ballots counted, as reported by the 

states and jurisdictions (question 2b). The number of reporting jurisdictions is reported in the next 

column to the right. 

The Sum Total Percent column is the total percentage generated by adding the percentages of each 

of the four voting methods identified in the table. For only 10 states, this totals 100 percent of the 

total ballots counted. For 23 states and territories, this calculation totals less than 100 percent, 

indicating either the state failed to report numbers for all four voting methods, or that ballots were 

left out of the count (for example, ballots separately tallied for overseas voting through the 

Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act [UOCAVA] survey. In 19 states and 

territories, this sum total percent is more than 100 percent, indicating either errors in reporting the 

component data, or that people reported the same ballot in two categories. For example, if absentee 

ballots are sent to the polling place to be counted on Election Day, it is possible that the same 

absentee ballot was tallied in the absentee question and the polling place question. It is also possible 

that in jurisdictions where the sum of percentages went well over 100 percent, that the state or local 

jurisdictions did not look at the original questions as components of the voting process. In all 

likelihood, the reported “voting in precinct/polling place” numbers are higher than they should be in 

those states and localities that total more than 100 percent. 

The Source Not Specified columns result from calculating the sum of the four voting methods and 

subtracting it from the total ballots counted. As with the Sum Total Percent column, a positive 

number in the Source Not Specified columns would occur when either the state failed to report 

numbers for any of the four categories, or they kept data separate for things like overseas voting or 

military voting. Negative numbers in the Source Not Specified columns occur when the four votingmethod numbers add to more than the total-ballots-counted number. 

The lack of data in some jurisdictions and for some questions created enormous problems in 

properly calculating and then analyzing the EAC dataset. It became even more difficult when 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Turnout Source, Page 4-2 September 27, 2005 

components of questions were expected to add to100 percent, and they did not. This chapter is 

particularly impacted by this problem since there is an assumption that the four methods of voting 

would add up to a total number of persons who voted. 

To calculate any percentage, one has to have both a denominator and a numerator. When creating 

summary calculations (like the subtotaling subject percentages), we used only those jurisdictions that 

reported both a numerator and denominator. However, the raw numbers shown in the tables are 

totals of all the available data sent to the EAC, without regard to whether there is a corresponding 

denominator or numerator. The Turnout Source data table contains percentage calculations for the 

four voting methods, and columns are entitled, “Percent (voting method) of Ballots Counted”. To 

make these calculations, both a numerator and denominator number had to be present in the dataset. 

In certain states and just about every subject subtotaling, not all jurisdictions had both, so where both 

numerator and denominator were not present, that jurisdiction’s data was dropped for the purposes 

of making the calculation. These are the percentages that have been used for the analysis below. 

Because the raw numbers in the table report all data provided to the EAC, Election Data Services did 

a separate calculation (Level Percent) that simply takes the reported subject numerator and divides 

that by the Total Ballots Counted (or denominator). As a result, the further the two percentage 

calculations are from each other, the greater the impact of missing data. 

Applicability and Coverage 

Nearly all states have some form of absentee voting, 20 states conduct early voting, and most states 

offer provisional ballots, although the six states with Election Day registration and jurisdictions that 

do not have voter registration are exempt from provisional ballot requirements.1 A growing number 

of states are opening up the absentee process by adopting a more liberal form of early voting. 

Statistics for early and provisional ballots counted are not reported for states that do not permit early 

voting or provisional balloting. (See Cross tabulation, Early Voting, and Provisional Ballot 

Acceptance for a list of applicable states.) 

Confusion concerning the distinction between questions 2 and 3 arose among some state election 

directors and from local jurisdictions. Question 2 requested the total number of ballots counted by all 

modes of voting, while question 3 requested total number of ballots cast in polling places. Some 

states were unresponsive to question 3, responding instead with just the total number of votes for 

question 2. Following phone conversations with some states, agreement was reached on how to 

calculate the answers to question 3 based on the responses to other questions. 

Confusion also arose concerning absentee ballots that were returned to polling places on Election 

Day or, per state law, delivered to the polling places by election administrators to be counted there. 

Were these ballots counted as cast on Election Day, or were they counted as absentee ballots? There 

 

1

 The six states with Election Day registration are Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. 

North Dakota and jurisdictions in Wisconsin with populations under 5,000 do not have voter registration. Twenty (20) 

states conduct early voting: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, 

Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and 

Wyoming. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Turnout Source, Page 4-3 September 27, 2005 

was confusion and different methods were employed by the various individuals filling out the 

survey, even by different local jurisdictions within the same state. 

Historical Context 

There were four modes of voting in the 2004 presidential election: voting in person at a polling 

place, voting by absentee ballot, voting in person early, and voting by provisional ballot. The 

traditional method of voting is in person in a polling place, a subject explored in detail in chapter 13. 

During the Civil War, the method of absentee balloting was introduced for soldiers, and was 

extended to civilians in the early 20th century, a subject explored in detail in chapter 5. The Help 

America Vote Act established the method of provisional balloting for all federal elections starting 

with the November 2, 2004, election, a subject we explore in detail in chapter 6. 

The method of voting not treated in a separate chapter is early voting. The Election Day Survey 

defines early voting as any voting that occurred before November 2, 2004, for which there were no 

eligibility requirements. A good example of a distinction between early and absentee balloting is 

where, in order to obtain a ballot, voters are required to attest that they will not be present at their 

home on Election Day. This is a requirement, and thus would be considered an absentee, not an early 

vote. 

Synonymous with early voting is the image of polling stations in malls, libraries, and election 

administration offices. Most jurisdictions allow voters to cast early ballots in these easy-to-find early 

voting polling stations up to three weeks prior to Election Day. However, under the Election Day 

Survey definition of early vote, “no excuse” absentee balloting also may reasonably be assumed to 

qualify, and at least Texas and Iowa interpreted the survey item this way. 

For Texas and Tennessee, two states that report historical early voting numbers, the percentage of 

voters casting an early vote has almost tripled since 1994. In the 1994 election, Texas reported 1.3 

million early votes counted, or 14.7 percent of total ballots counted. Tennessee reported 0.2 million 

early votes counted, or 6.0 percent of total ballots counted. By 2000, Texas reported 2.5 million 

early votes counted, or 20.1 percent of total ballots counted. Tennessee reported 0.7 million or 35.7 

percent of total ballots counted. (Texas does not provide separate statistics for “no excuse” absentee 

balloting and early voting, while Tennessee does not have “no excuse” absentee balloting and thus 

provides separate statistics.) The EAC study shows that by 2004, Texas reported that 47.7 percent of 

their total votes came from early voting, while early voting was 44.9 percent of all Tennessee’s total 

ballots cast. 

Survey Results 

Table 4 presents data on turnout sources from several questions on the Election Day Survey relating 

to ballots counted (question 2), ballots cast in polling places (question 3), absentee ballots counted 

(question 6), early voting ballots counted (question 7), and provisional ballots counted (question 8). 

In the table, the numbers of polling place, absentee, early voting, and provisional ballots counted are 

calculated as percentages of the total ballots counted. The column headings in Table 4 are as 

follows: 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Turnout Source, Page 4-4 September 27, 2005 

Table 4 Column Headings. Turnout Source 

Col. Heading Description 

1 Code State census code 

2 Name Respondent to Election Day Survey 

3 Jurisdiction Number of local election jurisdictions from survey question 22 

4 Total Ballots Counted Total number of ballots counted from survey question 2 

5 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 2 

6 Sum Total Percent Sum of four turnout source percentages: Percent in Polling Places 

(col. 12), Percent Absentee of Ballots Counted (col. 18), Percent 

Early Voting of Ballots Counted (col. 24), and Percent Provisional 

of Ballots Counted (col. 30) 

7 Unknown Source Unknown turnout source 

8 Percent Unknown Unknown turnout source (col. 7) divided by total ballots counted 

(col. 4) 

9 Ballots Counted in 

Polling Places 

Number of ballots cast in polling places on Election Day from 

survey question 3 

10 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 3 

11 Level Percent Number of ballots cast in polling places on Election Day (col. 9) 

divided by the total number of ballots counted (col. 4) 

12 Percent in 

Polling Places 

Number of ballots cast in polling places on Election Day (col. 9) 

divided by the total number of ballots counted (col. 4), but only for 

jurisdictions that reported both ballots cast in polling places and

total ballots counted. 

(Note: Raw numbers for this calculation are not in the table.)

13 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 2 and 3 

14 Cases > 100% Number of jurisdictions where the reported number of ballots cast 

in polling places (col. 9) is greater than the reported number of 

ballots counted (col. 4) 

15 Absentee Ballots 

 Counted 

Number of absentee ballots counted from survey question 6 

16 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 6 

17 Level Percent Number of absentee ballots counted (col. 15) divided by the total 

number of ballots counted (col. 4) 

18 Percent Absentee 

of Ballots Counted 

Number of absentee ballots counted (col. 15) divided by the total 

number of ballots counted (col. 4), but only for jurisdictions that 

reported both absentee ballots counted and total ballots counted. 

(Note: Raw numbers for this calculation are not in the table.)

19 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 2 and 6 

20 Cases > 100% Number of jurisdictions where the reported number of absentee 

ballots counted (col. 15) is greater than the reported total ballots 

cast (col. 4). 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Turnout Source, Page 4-5 September 27, 2005 

Table 4 Column Headings (cont.) 

Col. Heading Description 

21 Early Voting 

Ballots Counted 

Number of early voting ballots counted from survey question 7 

22 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey question 7 

23 Level Percent Number of early voting ballots counted (col. 21) divided by the 

total number of ballots counted (col. 4) 

24 Percent Early Voting 

of Ballots Counted 

Number of early voting ballots counted (col. 21) divided by the 

total number of ballots counted (col. 4), but only for jurisdictions 

that reported both early voting ballots and total ballots counted. 

(Note: Raw numbers for this calculation are not in the table.)

25 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 2 and 7 

26 Cases > 100% Number of jurisdictions where the reported number of early voting 

ballots counted (col. 21) is greater than the reported total ballots 

counted (col. 4). 

27 Provisional 

Ballots Counted 

Total number of provisional ballots cast from survey question 8 

28 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 8 

29 Level Percent Number of provisional ballots counted (col. 27) divided by the 

total number of ballots counted (col. 4) 

30 Percent Provisional 

of Ballots Counted 

Number of provisional ballots counted (col. 27) divided by the 

total number of ballots counted (col. 4), but only for jurisdictions 

that reported both provisional ballots and total ballots counted. 

(Note: Raw numbers for this calculation are not in the table.)

31 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 2 and 8 

32 

Cases > 100% 

Number of jurisdictions where the reported number of provisional 

ballots counted (col. 27) is greater than the reported total ballots 

counted (col. 4). 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Turnout Source, Page 4-6 September 27, 2005 

Analysis of Survey Results 

The following is our analysis of the data in Table 4 for each of the 18 cross-tabulation factors 

described earlier in this report. A description of each factor follows a general summary and a statelevel summary of the survey data. 

1) Regions 10) Changed Voting Equipment since 2000 

2) Urban to Rural 11) Statewide Voter Registration Database 

3) Size of Jurisdiction 12) Election Day Registration 

4) Race and Ethnicity 13) Provisional Ballot Acceptance 

5) Median Income 14) No Excuse Absentee Balloting 

6) High School Education 15) Early Voting 

7) Section 203 Language Minority Requirements 16) Battleground States 

8) Section 5 Preclearance of Voting Procedures 17) Presidential Margin of Victory 

9) Type of Voting Equipment 18) Red versus Blue Jurisdictions 

This analysis is based only on data that was reported to the EAC on the Election Day Survey. Many 

state responses to a survey question or part of a question did not cover all local election jurisdictions. 

In Table 4 as well as other tables in this report, a jurisdiction was excluded from a statistical 

calculation if its response was missing for one or more of the data items (i.e., columns) used in the 

calculation. A column labeled “Cases” next to each statistical calculation shows the number of 

jurisdictions covered by that calculation. 

Summary

Of the over 121.8 million ballots tallied for the EAC survey, at least 55.3 percent were cast in 

precincts or polling places, while nearly 12.0 percent were cast via absentee ballots. Another 8.4 

percent comes from early voting ballots in jurisdictions that allow that process, and provisional 

ballots contributed 1.0 percent. However, because data was not provided by all states and for all 

types, the voting method for at least 23.3 percent (or nearly 28.4 million votes) could not be 

determined. A bar chart of this data is contained in Figure 4.1. 

In states and jurisdictions that did provide data, voting in the polling places averaged 73.3 percent of 

the ballots cast. Absentee ballots accounted for 13.3 percent and in the jurisdictions that allowed 

early voting, that method amounted to more than 23.5 percent of all votes cast. All this information 

totals more than 100 percent because different states tallied information differently. In addition, 

these percentages were generated where both numerators and denominators were available, resulting 

in a smaller number of jurisdictions being covered. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Turnout Source, Page 4-7 September 27, 2005 

Figure 4.1 

Ballots Source 2004 

States 

Absentee voting has become a major part of some states’ voting processes. Washington State leads 

the pack with over two-thirds (68.7 percent) of its votes reported as cast absentee. California’s 

absentee data amounted to 32.4 percent of its votes. Iowa was also very high, showing 30.3 percent 

of its ballots from the absentee process. 

Oregon is unique, in that they allow vote by mail for all persons. The total reported for that state in 

the “Ballots Counted in Polling Place” column is the votes reported to have been counted on election 

day, all of which were received by mail. 

Allowing voters to vote early is a concept that has been growing in use. One of the leading states, 

Texas, reports that nearly 47.7 percent of its votes were cast early. Tennessee had nearly 44.9 

percent of its votes cast early, while Nevada reported nearly 41.7 percent and Arizona reported 40.8 

percent as early voting. 

Alaska reported the highest percent of its total votes coming from accepted provisional ballots: 7.2 

percent. California had the second highest, with 4.0 percent. Arizona and the District of Columbia 

reported that more than 3.5 percent of their ballots were provisional ballots. 

Regions 

The West Coast reported the highest rate of absentees, along with the use of provisional ballots. The 

South has the highest concentration of early voting, 28.8 percent. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Turnout Source, Page 4-8 September 27, 2005 

Urban to Rural 

Provisional ballots were reportedly used most in urban areas of the country. Early voting was highest 

in small towns and smallest in urban jurisdictions. Absentee voting was similar across jurisdictions 

but highest in suburban communities. 

Size of Jurisdiction 

As a jurisdiction got larger in size it had higher levels of absentee and provisional ballots. Similar 

early voting levels were reported across jurisdictions, with no clear pattern to usage. 

Race and Ethnicity 

Predominantly Hispanic jurisdictions reported the highest levels of absentee and provisional ballot 

usage. Predominantly non-Hispanic White jurisdictions reported the highest usage of early voting. 

Predominantly non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic Native American jurisdictions reported similar 

lower levels of absentee, early, and provisional voting. 

Median Income 

Jurisdictions with higher income levels tended to report higher usage of absentee balloting. The 

trend is reversed for early and provisional voting. 

High School Education 

Jurisdictions with higher education levels tended to report higher usage of absentee balloting. There 

was no discernible pattern for early voting, and some caution should be taken in interpreting the high 

level of early voting for the lowest education category since there were few reporting jurisdictions. 

Jurisdictions in the second lowest category of education reported the highest provisional balloting; 

however, the lowest education category reported the lowest. 

Section 203 Language Minority Requirements 

Jurisdictions covered by Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act reported higher usage of absentee, 

early voting, and provisional ballots. 

Section 5 Preclearance of Voting Procedures 

Jurisdictions covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act reported using absentee balloting about 

1.5 times less, early voting about 1.5 times more, and provisional ballots about the same as other 

jurisdictions. 

Type of Voting Equipment 

Jurisdictions that used optical scan voting systems reported the highest rate of absentee ballots, over 

three times greater than the lowest rate among jurisdictions that used lever machines. There was no 

discernible pattern in reported use of provisional ballots, as all jurisdictions reported about 1.0 

percent, except for those that use paper ballots, which reported provisional ballots were 0.2 percent 

of total ballots cast. 

Changed Voting Equipment since 2000 

Jurisdictions that changed voting equipment reported higher levels of absentee and provisional 

balloting than other jurisdictions. The opposite was reported for early voting jurisdictions. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Turnout Source, Page 4-9 September 27, 2005 

Statewide Voter Registration Database 

The existence of a statewide voter registration database in 2004 did lead to significantly lower levels 

of provisional ballot usage in those communities. Jurisdictions in states with a statewide voter 

registration database reported more than half the level of provisional balloting than other 

jurisdictions, 0.5 versus 1.2 percent. Jurisdictions within a state with a statewide voter registration 

database also reported lower levels of absentee and early voting than other jurisdictions. 

Election Day Registration 

States with Election Day registration reported much lower rates of absentee ballot usage, early 

voting, and provisional ballots being cast, presumably because more people registered to vote at their 

polling place on Election Day than other jurisdictions. 

Provisional Ballot Acceptance 

States that let provisional ballots be counted if they were cast anywhere in a jurisdiction reported 

nearly four times the level of provisional ballot usage compared with states that required voters to be 

in the correct precinct. These jurisdictions also reported twice the level of absentee voting and half 

the level of early voting. 

No Excuse Absentee Balloting 

Jurisdictions with no excuse absentee balloting laws reported more use of absentee ballots than other 

jurisdictions, 23.6 percent versus 7.1 percent. These jurisdictions, however, reported lower use of 

early voting, 36.6 versus 16.6 percent, but over three times the use of provisional ballots than other 

jurisdictions, 1.8 versus 0.5 percent. 

Early Voting 

Jurisdictions in states that allow early voting reported higher absentee balloting, 17.6 percent versus 

10.0 percent, and higher provisional balloting, 1.5 versus 0.8 percent. 

Battleground States 

Jurisdictions in a battleground state reported higher levels of absentee balloting than other 

jurisdictions, 17.0 percent versus 11.1 percent, while levels of early and provisional balloting were 

similar. 

Presidential Margin of Victory 

The degree of competitiveness in the 2004 presidential election within a jurisdiction was not clearly 

related to the usage of absentee, early, or provisional ballots. 

Red versus Blue Jurisdictions 

Jurisdictions won by Kerry tended to report slightly higher levels of absentee ballot usage than other 

jurisdictions, while jurisdictions won by Bush tended to report higher levels of early voting (except 

for jurisdictions won by Kerry by 50 to 55 percent). There was no clear pattern among jurisdictions 

with regard to provisional ballot usage, except that jurisdictions won overwhelmingly by Kerry 

reported nearly twice the level of provisional balloting as other jurisdictions. 
Turnout Source

EAC Election Day Survey Source Turnout Source 2004 General Election Not Specified

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:03:33 Ballots Percent Early Percent 

Election Total Sum Counted Percent Absentee Absentee Voting Early Voting 

Administration Ballots Total Unknown Percent In Polling Level In Polling Cases Ballots Level of Ballots Cases Ballots Level of Ballots 

Code Name Jurisdictions Counted Cases Percent Source Unknown Place Cases Percent Places Cases >100% Counted Cases Percent Counted Cases >100% Counted Cases Percent Counted 

01 Alabama 67 1,683,735 61 3.5 1,640,098 97.4 41,772 45 2.5 3.4 44 

02 Alaska 1 314,502 1 100.0 0 219,093 1 69.7 69.7 1 62,017 1 19.7 19.7 1 10,894 1 3.5 3.5 

04 Arizona 15 2,038,077 15 99.8 4,171 0.2 1,129,374 15 55.4 55.4 15 0 830,874 15 40.8 40.8 

05 Arkansas 75 1,055,510 75 129.9 125,326 11.9 644,642 61 61.1 95.7 61 40,013 65 3.8 4.6 65 241,851 71 22.9 29.3 

06 California 58 12,359,633 53 102.7 (326,085) (2.6) 7,920,257 52 64.1 64.1 52 4,108,088 57 33.2 32.4 52 165,608 14 1.3 2.2 

08 Colorado 64 2,148,036 64 101.0 99,376 4.6 997,219 59 46.4 49.9 59 600,075 62 27.9 29.8 62 412,280 60 19.2 19.5 

09 Connecticut 169 1,595,013 169 100.0 0 1,452,817 169 91.1 91.1 169 141,698 169 8.9 8.9 169 

10 Delaware 3 377,407 3 100.0 0 359,023 3 95.1 95.1 3 18,360 3 4.9 4.9 3 

11 District of Columbia 1 230,105 1 96.2 8,786 3.8 203,448 1 88.4 88.4 1 9,894 1 4.3 4.3 1 12 Florida 67 7,639,949 67 100.0 0 4,865,283 67 63.7 63.7 67 1,336,297 67 17.5 17.5 67 1,428,362 67 18.7 18.7 13 Georgia 159 3,317,336 159 111.7 (387,083) (11.7) 2,642,907 159 79.7 79.7 159 669,940 159 20.2 20.2 159 387,596 159 11.7 11.7 

15 Hawaii 5 431,203 4 103.2 (13,627) (3.2) 311,484 4 72.2 72.2 4 83,098 4 19.3 19.3 4 50,223 4 11.6 11.6 

16 Idaho 44 612,786 44 99.4 3,747 0.6 515,191 44 84.1 84.1 44 34,609 44 5.6 5.6 44 59,239 44 9.7 9.7 

17 Illinois 110 5,361,048 110 5.7 5,147,633 96.0 191,177 95 3.6 5.3 95 

18 Indiana 92 2,512,142 92 100.0 (511) (0.0) 2,251,193 92 89.6 89.6 92 260,550 92 10.4 10.4 92 

19 Iowa 99 1,513,894 98 102.1 (25,443) (1.7) 1,073,283 97 70.9 71.3 97 458,016 98 30.3 30.3 98 20 Kansas 105 1,199,590 105 103.6 3,679 0.3 944,696 103 78.8 80.1 103 219,136 92 18.3 20.9 21 Kentucky 120 1,816,867 120 5.4 1,717,985 94.6 98,661 120 5.4 5.4 120 22 Louisiana 64 1,956,590 64 93.6 126,149 6.4 1,801,259 64 92.1 92.1 64 26,870 64 1.4 1.4 64 

23 Maine 517 754,777 517 100.1 (486) (0.1) 754,777 517 100.0 100.0 517 

24 Maryland 24 2,395,127 24 99.9 1,531 0.1 2,222,296 24 92.8 92.8 24 139,440 24 5.8 5.8 24 

25 Massachusetts 351 2,927,455 351 101.9 (41,964) (1.4) 2,821,607 351 96.4 96.4 351 145,493 280 5.0 5.4 280 

26 Michigan 83 4,876,237 83 84.4 761,532 15.6 3,250,173 83 66.7 66.7 83 861,305 83 17.7 17.7 83 

27 Minnesota 87 2,842,912 87 100.0 0 2,611,201 87 91.8 91.8 87 231,711 87 8.2 8.2 87

28 Mississippi 82 1,163,460 82 0.0 1,163,460 100.029 Missouri 116 2,765,960 116 7.5 2,558,061 92.5 204,607 116 7.4 7.4 116 

30 Montana 56 456,096 56 116.8 (76,234) (16.7) 387,994 56 85.1 85.1 56 91,076 56 20.0 20.0 56 52,882 55 11.6 11.7 

31 Nebraska 93 792,910 93 100.0 0 672,570 93 84.8 84.8 93 106,552 93 13.4 13.4 93 32 Nevada 17 831,833 17 100.0 0 389,200 17 46.8 46.8 17 93,364 17 11.2 11.2 17 346,823 17 41.7 41.7 

33 New Hampshire 242 686,390 241 99.6 2,718 0.4 621,613 241 90.6 90.6 241 1 62,059 239 9.0 9.0 239

34 New Jersey 21 3,639,612 21 100.0 0 3,409,951 21 93.7 93.7 21 194,168 21 5.3 5.3 21 

35 New Mexico 33 328,636 21 109.3 (21,324) (6.5) 183,499 20 55.8 58.6 20 65,936 21 20.1 20.1 21 97,611 21 29.7 29.7 36 New York 58 7,448,266 58 5.7 7,080,873 95.1 269,390 53 3.6 4.2 53 37 North Carolina 100 3,571,420 100 100.0 0 2,413,768 100 67.6 67.6 100 122,984 100 3.4 3.4 100 984,298 100 27.6 27.6 

38 North Dakota 53 316,049 53 106.1 0 258,410 53 81.8 81.8 53 51,116 53 16.2 16.2 53 6,523 3 2.1 8.2 

39 Ohio 88 5,730,867 88 100.0 196 0.0 4,995,745 88 87.2 87.2 88 611,210 88 10.7 10.7 88 

40 Oklahoma 77 1,474,304 77 105.8 (85,804) (5.8) 1,324,424 77 89.8 89.8 77 149,880 77 10.2 10.2 77 85,603 77 5.8 5.8 

41 Oregon * 36 1,851,671 36 86.8 244,727 13.2 1,585,776 36 85.6 85.6 36 14,091 29 0.8 0.8 29 

42 Pennsylvania 67 3,006,146 46 4.8 2,859,883 95.1 146,263 48 4.9 4.8 4644 Rhode Island 39 440,743 39 100.2 (984) (0.2) 421,472 39 95.6 95.6 39 19,271 39 4.4 4.4 39 

45 South Carolina 46 1,626,720 46 0.2 1,623,513 99.8 

46 South Dakota 66 394,930 66 0.0 394,864 100.0 47 Tennessee 95 2,458,213 95 100.1 (3,169) (0.1) 1,297,895 95 52.8 52.8 95 57,676 95 2.3 2.3 95 1,102,513 95 44.9 44.9 

48 Texas 254 7,507,333 254 100.1 (4,716) (0.1) 3,641,419 254 48.5 48.5 254 283,159 248 3.8 3.8 248 3,580,330 254 47.7 47.7 49 Utah 29 942,045 29 103.4 883,740 93.8 8,263 5 0.9 97.7 5 31,467 24 3.3 3.7 24 

50 Vermont 246 313,973 245 100.0 (30) (0.0) 253,901 245 80.9 80.9 245 60,072 244 19.1 19.1 244 51 Virginia 134 3,223,156 134 100.0 (559) (0.0) 3,001,097 134 93.1 93.1 134 221,890 134 6.9 6.9 134 

53 Washington 39 2,885,001 39 100.7 0 828,444 34 28.7 29.4 34 1,982,457 39 68.7 68.7 39 

54 West Virginia 55 769,645 55 116.4 (126,060) (16.4) 740,702 55 96.2 96.2 55 1 20,004 55 2.6 2.6 55 126,503 55 16.4 16.4 55 Wisconsin 1,910 3,009,491 1,880 12.6 2,744,474 91.2 264,898 1,259 8.8 12.6 1,247 2 

56 Wyoming 23 245,789 23 100.1 (254) (0.1) 198,781 23 80.9 80.9 23 47,008 23 19.1 19.1 23 230 18 0.1 0.1 

60 American Samoa 1 0.066 Guam 1 0.072 Puerto Rico 110 1,990,372 110 98.9 20,998 1.1 1,947,634 110 97.9 97.9 110 9,215 110 0.5 0.5 110 78 Virgin Islands 1 31,391 1 101.1 (335) (1.1) 30,211 1 96.2 96.2 1 1,318 1 4.2 4.2 1 

Total 6,568 121,862,353 6,488 111.5 28,102,852 23.1 67,603,992 3,850 55.5 73.5 3,850 2 14,740,215 4,902 12.1 13.3 4,882 2 10,189,379 1,222 8.4 23.5 1Maximum 1,910 12,359,633 1,880 129.9 7,080,873 100.0 7,920,257 517 100.0 100.0 517 1 4,108,088 1,259 68.7 68.7 1,247 2 3,580,330 254 47.7 47.7 Average 119 2,299,289 122 80.4 530,242 24.9 1,572,185 89 76.5 79.8 89 1 307,087 104 11.4 11.6 103 2 509,468 61 19.3 20.1 Minimum 1 31,391 1 0.0 (387,083) (16.7) 8,263 1 0.9 29.4 1 1 0 1 0.5 0.5 1 2 230 1 0.1 0.1 

Voting in Precinct/Polling Place Absentee Voting Early Voting 

* Oregon does vote-by-mail. Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Turnout Source

EAC Election Day Survey Source Turnout Source 2004 General Election Not Specified

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:03:33 Ballots Percent Early Percent 

Election Total Sum Counted Percent Absentee Absentee Voting Early Voting 

Administration Ballots Total Unknown Percent In Polling Level In Polling Cases Ballots Level of Ballots Cases Ballots Level of Ballots 

Code Name Jurisdictions Counted Cases Percent Source Unknown Place Cases Percent Places Cases >100% Counted Cases Percent Counted Cases >100% Counted Cases Percent Counted 

Voting in Precinct/Polling Place Absentee Voting Early Voting 

Election Administration

Voting Equipment Used in 2004 

General Election

None / Unknown 908 9,922,294 875 619,629 6.2 7,286,032 248 73.4 78.5 248 657,844 238 6.6 7.1 238 1,246,292 27 12.6 45.6 

Punch card 260 10,938,861 255 5,243,965 47.9 3,875,388 132 35.4 72.5 132 1,183,648 233 10.8 12.4 231 530,785 74 4.9 24.1 Lever 394 12,981,126 384 8,487,732 65.4 3,700,759 287 28.5 90.0 287 583,080 369 4.5 5.0 369 98,512 22 0.8 33.6 Paper 1,734 2,172,234 1,727 860,903 39.6 1,044,700 1,011 48.1 86.2 1,011 1 150,782 1,256 6.9 8.4 1,251 111,944 171 5.2 25.5 Optical scan 2,541 49,661,061 2,524 9,029,296 18.2 28,352,237 1,617 57.1 71.1 1,617 7,347,262 2,126 14.8 16.8 2,115 2 4,334,886 598 8.7 21.1 

Electronic 608 27,295,070 601 3,231,509 11.8 17,384,983 441 63.7 73.8 441 1 3,269,181 560 12.0 12.9 558 3,173,908 296 11.6 22.4 Multiple Systems 123 8,891,707 122 629,818 7.1 5,959,893 114 67.0 69.2 114 1,548,418 120 17.4 17.5 120 693,052 34 7.8 22.4 

Changed Voting Equipment Since 

2000 General Election

Yes 1,753 35,479,523 1,739 3,936,182 11.1 21,652,417 874 61.0 69.9 874 2 5,573,374 1,265 15.7 16.6 1,260 1 3,826,021 323 10.8 19.0 

No 4,815 86,382,830 4,749 24,166,670 28.0 45,951,575 2,976 53.2 75.3 2,976 9,166,841 3,637 10.6 11.9 3,622 1 6,363,358 899 7.4 27.3 

State Wide Voter Registration 

System in Place

Yes 1,335 27,317,939 1,322 3,961,138 14.5 19,051,011 1,089 69.7 81.2 1,089 1 2,584,867 1,124 9.5 11.2 1,124 1,589,304 332 5.8 18.3 

No 5,233 94,544,414 5,166 24,141,714 25.5 48,552,981 2,761 51.4 70.8 2,761 1 12,155,348 3,778 12.9 13.9 3,758 2 8,600,075 890 9.1 24.7 

Election Day Registration

Yes 2,823 8,152,145 2,792 2,750,199 33.7 4,701,563 912 57.7 91.4 912 1 640,285 1,652 7.9 9.9 1,640 2 59,469 62 0.7 7.4 

No 3,745 113,710,208 3,696 25,352,653 22.3 62,902,429 2,938 55.3 72.4 2,938 1 14,099,930 3,250 12.4 13.6 3,242 10,129,910 1,160 8.9 23.8 1

Provisional Ballot Acceptance

In Overall Jurisdiction 1,162 44,662,901 1,123 8,757,030 19.6 23,631,193 917 52.9 68.0 917 8,298,521 1,074 18.6 20.3 1,067 3,131,012 441 7.0 15.7 In Precinct Only 4,350 69,964,775 4,312 19,319,180 27.6 37,233,762 1,880 53.2 74.4 1,880 1 6,051,666 3,294 8.6 9.6 3,281 2 6,992,605 734 10.0 30.7 None 1,056 7,234,677 1,053 26,642 0.4 6,739,037 1,053 93.1 93.1 1,053 1 390,028 534 5.4 6.0 534 65,762 47 0.9 9.5 

No Excuse Absentee Balloting

Yes 3,781 46,531,514 3,731 3,710,913 8.0 27,451,170 1,746 59.0 65.5 1,746 9,775,880 2,403 21.0 23.6 2,386 2 4,750,586 588 10.2 16.6 

No 2,787 75,330,839 2,757 24,391,939 32.4 40,152,822 2,104 53.3 80.2 2,104 2 4,964,335 2,499 6.6 7.2 2,496 5,438,793 634 7.2 36.6 

Early Voting Allowed

Yes 1,701 50,903,807 1,681 (833,530) (1.6) 32,353,422 1,657 63.6 64.3 1,657 1 8,434,428 1,546 16.6 17.6 1,541 10,189,379 1,222 20.0 23.5 1

No 4,867 70,958,546 4,807 28,936,382 40.8 35,250,570 2,193 49.7 84.6 2,193 1 6,305,787 3,356 8.9 10.1 3,341 2 

Covered By Section 203, Language 

Minority Requirements

Yes 468 34,287,661 450 3,583,240 10.5 18,294,853 414 53.4 60.7 414 6,020,135 400 17.6 19.3 395 5,701,036 345 16.6 26.3 

No 6,100 87,574,692 6,038 24,519,612 28.0 49,309,139 3,436 56.3 79.7 3,436 2 8,720,080 4,502 10.0 11.0 4,487 2 4,488,343 877 5.1 20.6 

Covered By Section 5 of Voting 

Rights Act

Yes 880 27,429,425 872 3,868,325 14.1 15,774,405 681 57.5 68.7 681 2,180,434 706 7.9 9.5 703 5,328,856 475 19.4 29.9 

No 5,688 94,432,928 5,616 24,234,527 25.7 51,829,587 3,169 54.9 75.1 3,169 2 12,559,781 4,196 13.3 14.3 4,179 2 4,860,523 747 5.1 19.0 

* Oregon does vote-by-mail. Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Turnout Source

EAC Election Day Survey Source Turnout Source 2004 General Election Not Specified

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:03:33 Ballots Percent Early Percent 

Election Total Sum Counted Percent Absentee Absentee Voting Early Voting 

Administration Ballots Total Unknown Percent In Polling Level In Polling Cases Ballots Level of Ballots Cases Ballots Level of Ballots 

Code Name Jurisdictions Counted Cases Percent Source Unknown Place Cases Percent Places Cases >100% Counted Cases Percent Counted Cases >100% Counted Cases Percent Counted 

Voting in Precinct/Polling Place Absentee Voting Early Voting 

Demographics

Region

Northeast 1,710 20,812,375 1,687 9,900,010 47.6 9,736,138 1,583 46.8 94.0 1,583 1 1,038,414 1,093 5.0 5.5 1,091 

South 1,423 42,266,877 1,417 5,799,457 13.7 25,158,163 1,094 59.5 70.7 1,094 1 3,236,840 1,257 7.7 8.3 1,256 7,937,056 878 18.8 28.8 

Midwest 2,902 31,316,030 2,871 11,584,485 37.0 16,057,271 696 51.3 81.3 696 3,241,142 2,064 10.3 12.0 2,052 2 225,659 95 0.7 20.0 

West 420 25,445,308 402 798,237 3.1 14,674,575 366 57.7 60.4 366 7,213,286 377 28.3 30.8 372 2,026,664 249 8.0 13.7 Territories 113 2,021,763 111 20,663 1.0 1,977,845 111 97.8 97.8 111 10,533 111 0.5 0.5 111 

Urban to Rural

Urban 567 42,675,443 563 10,862,910 25.5 23,932,272 286 56.1 77.2 286 4,820,385 479 11.3 12.0 478 2,508,694 25 5.9 18.9 

Suburban 871 33,263,865 860 6,645,551 20.0 18,338,813 486 55.1 68.9 486 1 4,720,914 688 14.2 16.3 687 1 3,217,189 89 9.7 24.2 Small Towns 1,710 30,364,561 1,685 7,563,884 24.9 15,783,352 1,133 52.0 70.9 1,133 1 3,573,928 1,340 11.8 12.7 1,335 1 3,201,269 348 10.5 28.7 

Rural 3,307 13,536,721 3,269 3,009,844 22.2 7,571,710 1,834 55.9 75.0 1,834 1,614,455 2,284 11.9 14.4 2,271 1,262,227 760 9.3 22.0 

Not Available - Territories 113 2,021,763 111 20,663 1.0 1,977,845 111 97.8 97.8 111 10,533 111 0.5 0.5 111 

Size of Jurisdiction (VAP)

< 1,000 1,761 634,024 1,740 413,264 65.2 181,680 535 28.7 91.4 535 36,901 1,016 5.8 9.1 1,004 1 2,089 21 0.3 21.1 

>=1,000 to <3,500 1,165 1,630,543 1,162 637,181 39.1 818,638 638 50.2 88.1 638 1 134,433 766 8.2 12.4 765 1 39,210 120 2.4 22.2 >=3,500 to <10,000 1,043 4,256,986 1,038 1,003,300 23.6 2,618,360 764 61.5 84.7 764 416,948 846 9.8 11.9 845 211,772 279 5.0 20.7 >=10,000 to <50,000 1,704 21,817,391 1,689 5,165,538 23.7 12,888,120 1,245 59.1 80.1 1,245 1 2,012,094 1,499 9.2 10.3 1,497 1,681,757 547 7.7 25.7 >=50,000 to <250,000 586 33,587,618 570 8,387,441 25.0 18,301,533 419 54.5 74.0 419 3,685,800 516 11.0 12.1 513 3,012,970 198 9.0 26.8 >=250,000 to <1,000,000 140 35,485,241 133 7,067,174 19.9 20,669,035 106 58.2 72.9 106 4,741,873 124 13.4 14.3 123 2,623,060 44 7.4 22.0 >=1,000,000 25 22,427,696 24 5,408,099 24.1 10,147,890 19 45.2 61.1 19 3,701,625 22 16.5 18.3 22 2,618,521 13 11.7 20.9 Not Available 144 2,022,854 132 20,855 1.0 1,978,736 124 97.8 97.8 124 10,541 113 0.5 0.5 113 

Race and Ethnicity

Predominently NH White 6,264 112,362,361 6,201 27,852,076 24.8 60,592,039 3,627 53.9 73.0 3,627 2 13,714,675 4,685 12.2 13.5 4,665 2 9,185,781 1,147 8.2 24.4 1Predominently NH Black 85 2,117,437 85 427,124 20.2 1,460,762 42 69.0 88.6 42 133,709 48 6.3 7.8 48 75,091 25 3.5 13.7 

Predominently NH Native American 24 127,150 23 23,559 18.5 82,833 11 65.1 78.5 11 5,447 12 4.3 6.3 12 13,416 6 10.6 13.5 

Predominently Hispanic 50 5,209,222 46 (220,762) (4.2) 3,480,693 45 66.8 67.0 45 866,228 43 16.6 16.7 43 910,634 43 17.5 17.8 

Not Available 145 2,046,183 133 20,855 1.0 1,987,665 125 97.1 97.1 125 20,156 114 1.0 1.0 114 4,457 1 0.2 19.1 

Median Income

< $25,000 298 1,488,479 294 657,657 44.2 607,157 168 40.8 78.7 168 73,437 189 4.9 6.3 189 148,276 88 10.0 27.7 >=$25,000 to <$30,000 884 5,685,388 876 1,302,465 22.9 3,268,500 594 57.5 79.3 594 1 429,286 617 7.6 9.1 617 663,549 344 11.7 24.4 >=$30,000 to <$35,000 1,372 14,312,622 1,356 3,774,256 26.4 7,393,539 842 51.7 73.2 842 1,376,230 1,000 9.6 11.2 998 1,693,698 401 11.8 28.0 >=$35,000 to <$40,000 1,215 26,144,458 1,204 9,027,571 34.5 11,981,812 703 45.8 71.6 703 2,485,580 915 9.5 10.6 911 1 2,460,233 198 9.4 27.7 >=$40,000 to <$45,000 881 26,227,676 871 3,698,470 14.1 16,288,261 452 62.1 73.1 452 3,508,658 655 13.4 14.2 650 2,331,208 92 8.9 20.3 >=$45,000 to <$50,000 587 15,037,096 577 2,917,029 19.4 8,091,829 292 53.8 67.5 292 1 2,225,866 439 14.8 17.5 434 1,602,280 50 10.7 24.4 >=$50,000 1,180 30,943,728 1,173 6,704,538 21.7 17,994,126 672 58.2 75.0 672 4,630,608 973 15.0 15.9 969 1 1,290,135 49 4.2 18.0 

Not Available 151 2,022,906 137 20,866 1.0 1,978,768 127 97.8 97.8 127 10,550 114 0.5 0.5 114 

High School Education

< 60% 126 951,317 125 263,707 27.7 456,226 73 48.0 68.4 73 47,916 106 5.0 5.6 106 181,380 48 19.1 40.9 >=60% to <70% 661 10,083,603 652 1,120,323 11.1 6,195,326 421 61.4 73.0 421 1,483,723 505 14.7 15.4 501 1,069,084 305 10.6 16.3 >=70% to <80% 1,646 31,406,406 1,630 9,462,513 30.1 15,020,134 959 47.8 70.5 959 1 2,947,349 1,260 9.4 10.5 1,258 3,703,715 480 11.8 28.1 >=80% to <90% 3,111 65,275,468 3,074 15,446,742 23.7 36,448,287 1,692 55.8 73.8 1,692 1 8,161,642 2,241 12.5 13.9 2,228 1 4,595,262 346 7.0 22.1 >=90% 873 12,099,350 870 1,788,701 14.8 7,496,339 578 62.0 74.3 578 2,079,429 676 17.2 18.6 675 1 635,481 42 5.3 25.9 Not Available 151 2,046,209 137 20,866 1.0 1,987,680 127 97.1 97.1 127 20,156 114 1.0 1.0 114 4,457 1 0.2 19.1 

* Oregon does vote-by-mail. Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Turnout Source

EAC Election Day Survey Source Turnout Source 2004 General Election Not Specified

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:03:33 Ballots Percent Early Percent 

Election Total Sum Counted Percent Absentee Absentee Voting Early Voting 

Administration Ballots Total Unknown Percent In Polling Level In Polling Cases Ballots Level of Ballots Cases Ballots Level of Ballots 

Code Name Jurisdictions Counted Cases Percent Source Unknown Place Cases Percent Places Cases >100% Counted Cases Percent Counted Cases >100% Counted Cases Percent Counted 

Voting in Precinct/Polling Place Absentee Voting Early Voting 

Political

Battleground States in 2004 

Presidential Election

Yes 3,093 43,980,255 3,028 9,227,637 21.0 23,916,154 960 54.4 69.2 960 2 6,992,306 2,373 15.9 17.2 2,359 2 3,484,304 306 7.9 24.0 

No 3,475 77,882,098 3,460 18,875,215 24.2 43,687,838 2,890 56.1 76.1 2,890 7,747,909 2,529 9.9 11.1 2,523 6,705,075 916 8.6 23.2 

Margin of Victory in 2004 

Presidential Election

< 2.5% 515 10,753,542 508 2,621,914 24.4 5,750,849 291 53.5 71.4 291 1 1,448,820 353 13.5 14.4 351 859,746 43 8.0 26.9 >=2.5% to < 5.0% 476 8,077,591 471 2,310,119 28.6 3,999,669 266 49.5 70.6 266 1,037,806 328 12.8 13.9 327 673,994 49 8.3 25.2 >=5.0% to < 7.5% 510 9,931,823 506 2,013,191 20.3 5,578,649 276 56.2 70.4 276 1,448,166 379 14.6 15.6 378 757,159 43 7.6 19.3 >=7.5% to < 10.0 % 429 6,126,475 426 1,551,321 25.3 3,452,732 235 56.4 75.6 235 889,544 313 14.5 15.3 312 185,561 37 3.0 21.0 >=10.0 % 4,492 84,945,042 4,448 19,584,788 23.1 46,839,469 2,664 55.1 73.5 2,664 1 9,904,864 3,408 11.7 13.0 3,393 2 7,712,919 1,050 9.1 23.5 1

Red vs Blue Jurisdictions Won By 

in 2004 Presidential Election

Bush > 55% 3,115 47,293,906 3,083 10,212,053 21.6 26,081,362 1,780 55.1 72.0 1,780 5,075,995 2,407 10.7 12.3 2,397 1 5,550,017 933 11.7 25.9 

Bush 50% to 55% 982 18,343,733 974 4,366,611 23.8 9,749,715 516 53.2 70.6 516 2,279,780 721 12.4 13.3 718 1,780,970 109 9.7 24.2 Bush < 50% 136 1,386,188 135 460,212 33.2 654,013 85 47.2 72.4 85 153,040 81 11.0 11.8 81 115,367 7 8.3 18.6 

Kerry < 50% 150 3,447,366 149 974,470 28.3 1,743,644 91 50.6 71.0 91 570,565 96 16.6 17.4 95 114,916 7 3.3 13.2 Kerry 50% to 55% 872 16,109,589 860 3,974,416 24.7 8,518,800 508 52.9 70.6 508 1 2,115,907 632 13.1 14.0 628 1,366,455 70 8.5 32.5 Kerry > 55% 1,161 33,249,808 1,152 8,093,576 24.3 18,869,951 746 56.8 76.9 746 1 4,533,913 844 13.6 14.9 842 1 1,261,654 96 3.8 14.1 

Tied 25 9,842 18 696 7.1 8,659 12 88.0 95.1 12 482 10 4.9 8.2 10 

* Oregon does vote-by-mail. Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Chapter 5 

Absentee Ballots 

On its instructions to the Election Day Survey, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) 

defined absentee voting as “voting prior to Election Day which requires that the voter meet 

qualifications other than those generally required to register to vote.” Such requirements might be 

that the voter must attest that they will be absent from their voting jurisdiction on Election Day. The 

Election Day Survey instructions specifically request that ballots cast by military and overseas voters 

not be included in responses to the survey. Statistics on military and overseas absentee ballots were 

collected separately through the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) 

survey (which was labeled “The Military and Overseas Absentee Ballot Survey”). 

On absentee voting, the Election Day Survey asked for the number of absentee ballots requested, the 

number returned, the number counted, the number not counted, and the five most common reasons 

for rejecting absentee ballots. Table 5 presents results from the Election Day Survey on absentee 

voting. 

Applicability and Coverage 

Nearly all states have some form of absentee ballots. The following 24 states provide “no excuse” 

absentee ballots: 

Alaska Idaho North Carolina South Dakota 

Arizona Iowa North Dakota Utah 

California Kansas Nebraska Vermont 

Colorado Louisiana New Mexico Washington 

Florida Maine Nevada Wisconsin 

Hawaii Montana Oklahoma Wyoming 

In addition, Oregon conducts elections by mail. Absentee voting is reported in Oregon for persons 

who request a ballot because they will be away from their normal resident address when the mail 

ballots are shipped to the state’s voters. Those numbers are listed in Oregon’s absentee column in 

the tables, while the vote-by-mail counts are listed in the “Ballots Cast in Polling Place” column. 

No jurisdiction among the following states reported absentee ballots requested: Alabama, Arizona 

(which classifies all absentee votes as early votes), Connecticut, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, New 

Hampshire, and Vermont. No jurisdiction among the following states reported absentees returned: 

Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, and Vermont. No 

jurisdiction within the following states reported absentees counted: Arizona, Kansas, Maine, 

Mississippi, South Carolina, and South Dakota. No jurisdiction among 30 states reported absentees 

not counted. 

Historical Context 

Absentee voting was first established in the mid-1800s for soldiers during the Civil War. Northern 

soldiers were reported to have cast 154,045 votes in 1864 (Lee 1916). Vermont became the first state 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Absentee Ballots, Page 5-2 September 27, 2005 

to adopt absentee voting for civilians in 1896, followed by Kansas in 1901 (for rail workers only, 

expanded to all citizens in 1911) and Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and North Dakota in 1914 

(Steinbicker 1938). These early absentee balloting procedures did not operate in the same manner as 

today. For example, Kansas and Nebraska permitted persons traveling outside their home county to 

cast a vote on Election Day in the presence of an election judge in another county within the same 

state, which would be forwarded to the home county (Lee 1916). North Dakota was the first state to 

adopt absentee voting in the familiar form known to modern voters: absentee voting by mail. Like 

the secret ballot, the method was imported from Australia, which adopted absentee voting by mail in 

1902 (Lee 1916). During and following World War I, absentee ballot laws were extended to military 

personnel in nearly all states and were extended to civilians in all states, except Rhode Island, 

Connecticut, and Kentucky by 1925 (Ray 1926). 

As the number of states that allowed absentee voting increased, the acceptable reasons to be 

permitted to cast an absentee ballot expanded. For example, by 1925, 11 states permitted sick and 

disabled persons the right to cast an absentee ballot (Ray 1926). Michigan was perhaps the first state 

to allow “no excuse” absentee voting by permitting absentee voting for “any person necessarily 

absent while engaged in the pursuit of lawful business, or recreation” (Election Laws of Michigan, 

Revision of 1936, Ch. X. Art. 3134, as quoted in Steinbicker 1938, original emphasis). Today, states 

allow absentee balloting under a wide range of excuses that vary among the states, including: 

religion, business, school, disability, and persons who live far from their polling place. Twenty-four 

states permit absentee voting for any reason, or “no excuse.” 

Complete historical statistics on absentee voting do not exist. A study of the 1936 election estimated 

that absentee ballots constituted about 2.0 percent, or 0.9 million, of all ballots counted (Steinbicker 

1938). Another study estimated 4.9 percent, or 3.4 million, absentee ballots were counted in the 1960 

election (Andrews 1966). These estimates are unreliable since they depend on extrapolating absentee 

statistics from a few states to the entire country. 

Compared with the historical numbers, the number of absentee ballots cast has increased in recent 

elections. Mitofsky International and Edison Media Research (the national exit poll organization) 

estimate that 16.0 percent or 16.8 million absentee ballots were counted in the 2000 presidential 

election. A similar percentage of 16.0 percent, or 12.5 million, were counted in the 2002 

congressional election. Previous election estimates are not as reliable due to missing data for some 

states. At a minimum, 12.0 percent, or 8.7 million, absentee ballots were cast in the 1998 election; 

11.0 percent, or 10.6 million, in the 1996 election; 8.4 percent, or 6.4 million, in the 1994 election; 

and 7.7 percent, or 8.1 million, in the 1992 election. 

Some states have kept track of absentee balloting in the past, but most states have not. In many 

instances, in both states and localities, absentee balloting numbers and results are combined with the 

results from polling place voting and reported as just a single number. Therefore, data is not 

available for a great deal of the country, especially on election returns. Some localities do keep 

separate totals on absentee voting, but keep them only at the county level, not by precinct. As more 

and more people vote via absentee, any kind of demographic and political analysis becomes much 

more difficult to conduct in those jurisdictions. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Absentee Ballots, Page 5-3 September 27, 2005 

Survey Results 

Table 5 presents data on absentee ballots requested, returned, and counted from questions 4–6 on the 

Election Day Survey. In the table, the number of absentee ballots requested is calculated as a 

percentage of reported total registration, the number of absentee ballots returned is calculated as a 

percentage of absentee ballots requested, and the number of absentee ballots counted is calculated as 

a percentage of absentee ballots returned. The column headings in Table 5 are as follows: 

Table 5 Column Headings. Absentee Ballots 

Col. Heading Description 

1 Code State census code 

2 Name Respondent to Election Day Survey 

3 Jurisdiction Number of local election jurisdictions from survey question 22 

4 Total Registration Number of active and inactive registered voters, number of persons who voted on Election Day in six states, and VAP data for 

North Dakota and jurisdictions in Wisconsin that do not have 

voter registration, from col. 4 of Table 2 

5 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey question 1, that 

provided Election Day registration data, or for which VAP data 

was substituted for voter registration data 

6 Total Requested 

Absentee Ballots Number of absentee ballots requested from survey question 4 

7 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 4 

8 Percent Requested 

of Absentee Registration 

Number of absentee ballots requested (col. 6) divided by the 

number of registered voters (col. 4) 

9 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey questions 1 and 

4, that provided Election Day registration data, or for which VAP 

data was substituted for voter registration data 

10 Cases > 100% Number of jurisdictions where the reported number of absentee 

ballots requested (col. 6) is greater than the reported number of 

registered voters (col. 4) 

11 Total Absentees 

Returned 

Number of absentee ballots returned from survey question 5 

12 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 5 

13 Percent Absentees 

Returned of Requested 

Number of absentee ballots returned (col. 11) divided by the 

number of absentee ballots requested (col. 6) 

14 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey questions 4 and 

5 

15 Cases > 100% Number of jurisdictions where the reported number of absentee 

ballots returned (col. 11) is greater than the reported number of 

absentee ballots requested (col. 6) 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Absentee Ballots, Page 5-4 September 27, 2005 

Table 5 Column Headings (cont.) 

Col. Heading Description 

16 Absentees Counted Number of absentee ballots counted from survey question 6b 

17 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 6b 

18 Percent Absentee 

Counted of Returned 

Number of absentee ballots counted (col. 16) divided by the 

number of absentee ballots returned (col. 11) 

19 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 5 and 6b 

20 Cases > 100% 

Number of jurisdictions where the reported number of absentee 

ballots counted (col. 16) is greater than the number of absentee 

ballots returned (col. 11) 

21 Total Absentees 

Not Counted 

Number of absentee ballots not counted from survey question 6c 

22 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 6c 

23 Percent Absentees 

Not Counted of Returned 

Number of absentee ballots not counted (col. 21) divided by the 

number of absentee ballots returned (col. 11) 

24 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 5 and 6c 

25 Cases > 100% Number of jurisdictions where the reported number of absentee 

ballots not counted (col. 21) is greater than the reported number 

of absentee ballots returned (col. 11) 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Absentee Ballots, Page 5-5 September 27, 2005 

Analysis of Survey Results 

The following is our analysis of the data in Table 5 for each of the 18 cross-tabulation factors 

described earlier in this report. A description of each factor follows a general summary and a statelevel summary of the survey data. 

1) Regions 10) Changed Voting Equipment since 2000 

2) Urban to Rural 11) Statewide Voter Registration Database 

3) Size of Jurisdiction 12) Election Day Registration 

4) Race and Ethnicity 13) Provisional Ballot Acceptance 

5) Median Income 14) No Excuse Absentee Balloting 

6) High School Education 15) Early Voting 

7) Section 203 Language Minority Requirements 16) Battleground States 

8) Section 5 Preclearance of Voting Procedures 17) Presidential Margin of Victory 

9) Type of Voting Equipment 18) Red versus Blue Jurisdictions 

This analysis is based only on data that was reported to the EAC on the Election Day Survey. Many 

state responses to a survey question or part of a question did not cover all local election jurisdictions. 

In Table 5 as well as other tables in this report, a jurisdiction was excluded from a statistical 

calculation if its response was missing for one or more of the data items (i.e., columns) used in the 

calculation. A column labeled “Cases” next to each statistical calculation shows the number of 

jurisdictions covered by that calculation. 

Summary 

In the Election Day Survey, the EAC requested the number of absentee ballots requested, the 

number returned, and the number counted in each jurisdiction. Analysis is provided for four 

measures reported in Table 5. The total number of absentee ballots requested is calculated as a ratio 

to the total voter registration. The number of absentee ballots returned is calculated as a ratio to the 

number of absentee ballots requested. The number of absentee ballots reported counted and not 

counted is calculated as a ratio to the number of absentee ballots returned. 

States were also asked to provide the five most common reasons why the absentee ballots were 

rejected, although the actual numbers of ballots rejected by the reasons for rejection were not 

requested. The states were not asked to provide this information for their individual jurisdictions, 

just a statewide summary. The reasons, according to their frequency of mention by states, are as 

follows: 

Reasons for Rejecting Absentee Ballots Frequency of Mention 

No voter signature 11 

Ballot not timely received 9 

Non-matching signature 8 

Elector voted early or at the polls 6 

Ballot returned as undeliverable 5 

Ineligible to vote 4 

No ballot application on record 3 

No witness signature 3 

Spoiled ballot 3 

Ballot missing from envelope 2 

Ballot returned in unofficial envelope 2 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Absentee Ballots, Page 5-6 September 27, 2005 

Reasons for Rejecting Absentee Ballots (cont). Frequency of Mention 

Multiple ballots returned in one envelope 2 

Elector deceased 2 

Ballot replaced 1 

Envelope not sealed 1 

First-time voter without proper identification 1 

No election official’s signature on ballot 1 

No residence address on return envelope 1 

Since fewer jurisdictions reported absentee ballots not counted, and because this should be the 

reciprocal of ballots counted, the analysis below is discussed in terms of absentee ballots counted. 

However, because of the high rate of counting returned absentee ballots, we found little variation 

among jurisdictions that might provide insight into why absentee ballots were not counted beyond 

the reasons provided by the states. 

A pattern emerges in the tabulations between reported requested and returned absentee ballots. 

Those jurisdictions reporting a lower rate of absentee ballots requested tend to have higher rates of 

absentee ballots returned (correlation = -0.22). 

An explanation may be related to the ease of requesting an absentee ballot. Jurisdictions with “no 

excuse” absentee balloting report much higher request rates, but lower return rates, by about six 

percentage points, than other jurisdictions. This pattern was similar to those jurisdictions permitting 

early voting. We suspect jurisdictions with administrative procedures aimed to make voting more 

accessible have other administrative provisions (unasked on the Election Day Survey) that ease the 

request of absentee ballots, such as permanent absentee balloting. Where absentee ballots are more 

difficult to obtain, the request rates may be lower, but the return rates are higher since these voters 

truly desire to cast an absentee ballot. 

We also note that centralized management of voter registration databases increases return rates and 

counting of absentee ballots. Jurisdictions with statewide voter registration databases reported 

slightly lower request rates compared to jurisdictions in states without statewide voter registration 

databases, but reported a return rate almost 6 percentage points higher and a counting rate over 3 

percentage points higher. 

There is a general pattern of absentee ballot requests according to socioeconomic status, with lower 

income and education jurisdictions tending to report lower rates of requesting absentee ballots than 

high income and education jurisdictions. However, lower socioeconomic status jurisdictions reported 

higher rates of return. 

There is also a general pattern of absentee ballot requests according to size of the jurisdiction and the 

urban and rural character of a jurisdiction. Small-sized and rural jurisdictions tended to report the 

lowest rates of absentee requests while large-sized and urban areas reported the highest rates of 

absentee ballot requests. Like socioeconomic status, the large population and urban areas tended to 

report the lowest rates of absentee ballots returned. 

Among Section 203 covered jurisdictions, we see a higher reported rate of requested absentee 

ballots, and a lower rate of return than other jurisdictions. This is consistent with the findings already 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Absentee Ballots, Page 5-7 September 27, 2005 

discussed above, that jurisdictions that report higher rates of requesting absentee ballots report fewer 

ballots returned than other jurisdictions, though there may be a slight amplification of this negative 

relationship in Section 203 jurisdictions when compared to similar tabulations, in terms of absentee 

ballots requested, such as jurisdictions that permit early voting or “no excuse” voting. This 

relationship may be related to the lower return rates in predominantly Hispanic and predominantly 

non-Hispanic Native American jurisdictions, these latter jurisdictions in particular reported both a 

low request rate and a low return rate. 

States 

Washington reported the highest rate of absentees cast as a percentage of registration, at 64.5 

percent, more than twice that of the next closest state, California. Oregon reported the lowest 

percentage, at 0.9 percent, but this report is deceptive since the state’s balloting is completely by 

mail and absentees refer only to people who request a ballot because they will be away from their 

normal residence when the normal mail ballots are to be sent out. Next to Oregon, Louisiana had the 

lowest percentage of absentee ballots requested, at 1.2 percent. Twenty states and two territories 

reported absentee ballots requested as a percentage of registration at 5 percent or lower. 

The District of Columbia reported the lowest percentage of returned absentee ballots (at 72.6 

percent), and five states reported return rates between 70 to 80 percent. However, states with low 

rates of return may count absentees returned to polling places on Election Day as votes cast within 

polling place, rather than as an absentee ballot. Colorado had the highest return rate of 98.0 percent, 

and 20 states and two territories reported return rates above 90 percent. 

The most consistent reporting across jurisdictions is the counting of absentees. Jurisdictions reported 

that most returned absentee ballots were counted. The District of Columbia reported the lowest rate 

of counting absentee ballots at 87.5 percent and Maryland reported the highest rate, slightly over 100 

percent. Approximately 81 jurisdictions reported more absentee ballots counted than the number 

returned because voters turned in absentee ballots in the polling place or other locations and they 

were not counted as part of the returned pool of ballots. 

Regions 

The West had, by far, the highest reported rate of absentee ballots requested, due to the popularity of 

absentee voting within states in the region and laws that promote absentee voting. The request rate 

would be even higher if all of Oregon’s mail-in ballots were classified as absentee. The reported 

request rate of absentee balloting in the West, 27.1 percent, was more than six times that of the 

lowest region, the Northeast, at 4.3 percent. The Midwest reported an absentee request rate of 9.0 

percent and the South, 6.9 percent. 

The South reported the lowest rate of absentee return, 88.4 percent, followed by, in increasing order, 

the Northeast, 88.5 percent; the West, 86.6 percent; and the Midwest, 94.1 percent. 

The South reported a counting rate of returned absentee ballots of 93.7 percent; all other regions 

reported a counting rate around 98 percent. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Absentee Ballots, Page 5-8 September 27, 2005 

Urban to Rural 

As one would expect, suburban jurisdictions reported the highest rate of requested absentee ballots 

(at 13.5 percent). On the other hand, urban jurisdictions reported the lowest request rate of absentee 

ballots, 9.5 percent. 

Small town jurisdictions reported the lowest rate of return, 87.3 percent, and rural areas report the 

highest rate of return, 92.2 percent. 

Urban areas reported the lowest rates of counting absentee ballots, 94.3 percent, and suburban areas 

reported the highest rates, 98.6 percent. 

Size of Jurisdiction 

The largest population jurisdictions, those over one million voting age population (VAP), reported a 

rate of requested absentee ballots of 14.8 percent, more than double that of the smallest population 

jurisdictions, 6.8 percent. There is no discernible pattern among jurisdictions with populations inbetween, which vary within 7.8 and 11.6 percent. 

On the other hand, the reported rate of return tends to decrease with population size of the 

jurisdiction. The largest population jurisdictions reported the lowest rate of return, 86.4 percent, 

while the smallest population jurisdictions reported this highest, 95.6 percent. 

Reported rates of counting absentee ballots were slightly over 98 percent for all jurisdictions except 

the largest, which reported a counting rate of 93.0 percent. 

Race and Ethnicity 

Predominantly Hispanic jurisdictions reported the highest request rate for absentee ballots, 13.6 

percent, slightly more than twice the lowest reported rate in predominantly non-Hispanic Black 

jurisdictions, at 5.7 percent. Predominantly non-Hispanic White jurisdictions reported a rate, 10.9 

percent, slightly lower than predominantly Hispanic jurisdictions. Predominantly non-Hispanic 

Native American jurisdictions reported a rate, 6.1 percent, slightly higher than predominantly nonHispanic Black jurisdictions. 

Predominantly Hispanic jurisdictions reported the lowest return rate, 87.5 percent, and 

predominantly non-Hispanic Black jurisdictions reporting the highest return rate, 90.7 percent. 

Predominantly non-Hispanic White jurisdictions reported the lowest counting rate, 96.8 percent, and 

predominantly non-Hispanic Black jurisdictions reported the highest counting rate, 99.7 percent. 

Median Income 

Reported rates of absentee ballots requested tend to increase with jurisdiction median income, 

though the rate slightly drops off at the highest income level. The reported request rate for the 

highest income jurisdictions, 13.8 percent, is about three times greater than the lowest income 

jurisdictions, 4.7 percent. 

Reported rates of return tend higher for lower income jurisdictions than for higher income 

jurisdictions. The lowest income jurisdictions reported the highest rate of return, 92.2 percent, 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Absentee Ballots, Page 5-9 September 27, 2005 

slightly more than five percentage points greater than jurisdictions with median income $45,000–

50,000, at 87.4 percent. 

Reported rates of counting absentee ballots tended not to vary in a discernible pattern with median 

income. The lowest rate of counting was 92.8 percent for jurisdiction median income $40,000–

45,000, and the highest rate was 99.3 percent for jurisdictions with median income $45,000–

$50,000. 

High School Education 

Reported rates of absentee ballots requested tend to increase with education levels, except for the 

second lowest level of education, which reported a rate much higher than the trend, 12.5 percent. 

Jurisdictions with the lowest level of education reported a request rate of 3.4 percent and those at the 

highest level reported 17.8 percent. 

Reported rates of absentee ballots returned tend to increase with education levels, except that the 

highest rate of return was reported by jurisdictions with the lowest rates of education, 97.2 percent. 

This surprising result may be related to the small request rate within these jurisdictions. The second 

lowest education category reported a return rate of 96.0 percent and the highest reported 90.2 

percent. 

Reported rates of counting absentee ballots tend not to vary greatly with education, between 96.3 

and 98.6 percent. 

Section 203 Language Minority Requirements 

Jurisdictions covered by Section 203 reported almost twice the absentee request rate than other 

jurisdictions, 15.9 versus 8.6 percent. Jurisdictions covered by Section 203 reported a return rate five 

percentage points lower than other jurisdictions, 85.9 versus 90.9 percent. Jurisdictions covered by 

Section 203 reported a counting rate four percentage points lower than other jurisdictions, 94.6 

versus 98.6 percent. 

Section 5 Preclearance of Voting Procedures 

Jurisdictions covered by Section 5 reported a lower absentee request rate than other jurisdictions, 7.3 

versus 11.8 percent. Jurisdictions covered by Section 5 reported a return rate slightly higher than 

other jurisdictions, 90.4 versus 88.3 percent. Jurisdictions covered by Section 5 reported a counting 

rate slightly higher than other jurisdictions, 98.4 versus 96.6 percent. 

Type of Voting Equipment 

Optical scan voting equipment jurisdictions reported the highest absentee ballot request rate, 14.5 

percent, more than four times higher than the lowest reported rate for lever jurisdictions, 3.2 percent. 

Optimal scan jurisdictions were followed by, in descending order: multiple-systems, electronic, 

punch-card, and paper-equipment jurisdictions. 

Lever voting-equipment jurisdictions reported the lowest rate of absentee ballot return, 85.6 percent. 

Paper jurisdictions had the highest rate, 95.2 percent. Paper jurisdictions were followed by, in 

descending order: multiple-systems, electronic, optical-scan, punch-card, and lever jurisdictions. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Absentee Ballots, Page 5-10 September 27, 2005 

Reported rates of counting absentee ballots were above 97 percent for all jurisdictions except 

electronic, at 93.5 percent. 

Changed Voting Equipment since 2000 

Jurisdictions that changed voting equipment reported higher rates of requesting absentee ballots than 

other jurisdictions, 14.2 versus 9.3 percent. Jurisdictions that changed voting equipment reported 

slightly lower rates of returned absentee ballots than other jurisdictions, 88.4 versus 88.8 percent. 

Jurisdictions that changed voting equipment reported lower rates of counting absentee ballots than 

other jurisdictions, 95.1 versus 98.0 percent. 

Statewide Voter Registration Database 

Jurisdictions with statewide voter registration databases reported lower rates of requesting absentee 

ballots than other jurisdictions, 8.7 versus 11.3 percent. Jurisdictions with statewide voter 

registration databases reported higher rates of returned absentee ballots than other jurisdictions, 93.4 

versus 87.8 percent. Jurisdictions with statewide voter registration databases reported higher rates of 

counting absentee ballots than other jurisdictions, 99.0 versus 96.4 percent. 

Election Day Registration 

Jurisdictions with Election Day registration reported slightly lower rates of requesting absentee 

ballots than other jurisdictions, 10.2 versus 10.8 percent. Jurisdictions with Election Day registration 

reported higher rates of returned absentee ballots than other jurisdictions, 94.7 versus 88.4 percent. 

Jurisdictions with Election Day registration reported slightly lower rates of counting absentee ballots 

than other jurisdictions, 96.6 versus 96.9 percent. 

Provisional Ballot Acceptance 

Jurisdictions employing within-jurisdiction provisional ballot acceptance reported a higher rate of 

requesting absentee ballots than jurisdictions employing within-precinct provisional ballot 

acceptance, 16.1 versus 7.6 percent. Jurisdictions employing within-jurisdiction provisional ballot 

acceptance experienced lower rates of returned absentee ballots than jurisdictions employing withinprecinct provisional ballot acceptance, 87.4 versus 90.0 percent. Jurisdictions employing withinjurisdiction provisional ballot acceptance experienced higher rates of counting absentee ballots than 

jurisdictions employing within-precinct provisional ballot acceptance, 98.0 versus 95.4 percent. 

No Excuse Absentee Balloting 

Jurisdictions with “no excuse” absentee balloting reported almost four times the rate of requesting 

absentee ballots than other jurisdictions, 20.1 versus 5.1 percent. Jurisdictions with “no excuse” 

absentee balloting reported lower rates of returned absentee ballots than other jurisdictions, 87.1 

versus 92.3 percent. Jurisdictions with “no excuse” absentee balloting reported lower rates of 

counted absentee ballots than other jurisdictions, 96.1 versus 98.5 percent. 

Early Voting 

Jurisdictions with early voting reported almost twice the rate of requesting absentee ballots than 

other jurisdictions, 14.6 versus 7.8 percent. Jurisdictions with early voting reported lower rates of 

returned absentee ballots than other jurisdictions, 87.5 versus 90.3 percent. Jurisdictions with early 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Absentee Ballots, Page 5-11 September 27, 2005 

voting reported lower rates of counting absentee ballots than other jurisdictions, 95.4 versus 98.9 

percent. 

Battleground States 

Jurisdictions in battleground states reported a higher rate of requesting absentee ballots than other 

jurisdictions, 14.2 versus 8.9 percent. Jurisdictions in battleground states reported slightly higher 

rates of returned absentee ballots than other jurisdictions, 89.3 versus 88.1 percent. Jurisdictions in 

battleground states reported slightly lower rates of counting absentee ballots than other jurisdictions, 

96.0 versus 97.6 percent. 

Presidential Margin of Victory 

The reported absentee ballot request rate is similar among jurisdictions according to the presidential 

margin of victory, ranging between 11.1 and 13.1 percent. The reported absentee ballots return rate 

is similar among jurisdictions according to the presidential margin of victory, ranging between 88.0 

and 90.3 percent. The reported absentee ballot counting rate is similar among jurisdictions according 

to the presidential margin of victory, ranging between 96.1 and 98.8 percent. It should be noted that 

the lowest rate of counting absentee ballots was from the least competitive jurisdictions. 

Red versus Blue Jurisdictions 

Jurisdictions won by Kerry tended to have slightly higher rates of requesting absentee ballots than 

jurisdictions won by Bush, averaging about 13 percent among jurisdictions won by Kerry and 10 

percent for those won by Bush. The reported rate of returning absentee ballots was similar across 

jurisdictions with regard to the presidential vote within the jurisdiction, ranging between 88.5 and 

90.4 percent. The reported rate of counting absentee ballots was similar across jurisdictions with 

regard to the presidential vote within the jurisdiction, above 97.7 percent for all jurisdictions except 

those won overwhelmingly by Kerry, which reported a counting rate of 93.9 percent. 

REFERENCES 

Andrews, William G. 1966. “American Voting Participation.” The Western Political Quarterly 19(4): 639–

52. 

Lee, Duncan Campbell. 1916. [article title?] Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation 16(2): 333–45. 

Steinbicker, Paul G. 1938. “Absentee Voting in the United States.” The American Political Science Review

32(5): 898–907. 

Ray, P. Orman. 1926. “Absent-voting Legislation, 1924-1925.” The American Political Science Review 20(2): 

347–49. 
Absentee

EAC Election Day Survey Cases = NumbAbsentee Ballots 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:03:57 Total Percent Percent Percent 

Election Requested Requested Total Absentees Absentee Total 

Administration Total Absentee Absentee of Cases Absentees Returned of Cases Absentees Counted of Cases Absentees 

Code Name Jurisdictions Registration Cases Ballots Cases Registration Cases >100% Returned Cases Requested Cases >100% Counted Cases Returned Cases >100% Not Counted Cases N

01 Alabama 67 2,597,629 67 41,772 45

02 Alaska 1 472,160 1 85,570 1 18.1 1 64,110 1 74.9 1 62,017 1 96.7 1 

04 Arizona 15 2,642,120 15 0 0 0 0 05 Arkansas 75 1,699,934 75 34,430 59 2.7 59 40,013 65

06 California 58 16,646,555 58 4,866,605 54 29.5 54 4,181,809 56 85.9 54 2 4,108,088 57 96.7 55 4 73,731 47 

08 Colorado 64 3,101,956 64 673,304 62 21.8 62 328,551 47 98.0 46 5 600,075 62 96.3 46 3 

09 Connecticut 169 1,831,567 169 144,582 169 141,698 169 98.0 169 2 

10 Delaware 3 553,917 3 20,004 3 3.6 3 18,449 3 92.2 3 18,360 3 99.5 3 89 3 11 District of Columbia 1 383,919 1 14,538 1 3.8 1 10,555 1 72.6 1 9,894 1 93.7 1 

12 Florida 67 10,300,942 67 1,820,114 67 17.7 67 1,526,579 67 83.9 67 1,336,297 67 87.5 67 16,150 65 

13 Georgia 159 4,248,802 159 693,027 159 16.3 159 671,257 159 96.9 159 669,940 159 99.8 159 23,046 134 15 Hawaii 5 647,238 4 93,996 4 14.5 4 83,926 4 89.3 4 83,098 4 99.0 4 

16 Idaho 44 915,637 44 39,303 44 4.3 44 34,706 44 88.3 44 1 34,609 44 99.7 44 97 9 

17 Illinois 110 7,195,882 104 294,874 104 4.1 104 253,221 104 85.9 104 191,177 95 99.6 95 1 18 Indiana 92 4,296,602 92 260,550 92 260,550 92 100.0 92 0 

19 Iowa 99 2,226,721 98 496,607 98 22.3 98 468,612 98 94.4 98 458,016 98 97.7 98 10,596 97 

20 Kansas 105 1,695,457 105

21 Kentucky 120 2,794,286 120 104,127 120 3.7 120 100,253 120 96.3 120 98,661 120 98.4 120 1,592 114 22 Louisiana 64 2,932,142 64 35,741 64 1.2 64 27,628 64 77.3 64 26,870 64 97.3 64 758 42 

23 Maine 517 1,026,219 517 169,126 507 16.5 507 162,663 507 96.2 507

24 Maryland 24 3,105,370 24 146,425 24 4.7 24 134,671 24 92.0 24 139,440 24 103.5 24 19 3,900 24 

25 Massachusetts 351 4,098,634 351 166,099 288 4.3 288 147,841 280 89.1 279 145,493 280 98.6 278 1 

26 Michigan 83 7,164,047 83 900,168 83 12.6 83 868,628 83 96.5 83 861,305 83 99.2 83 7,322 83 

27 Minnesota 87 2,977,496 87 231,711 87

28 Mississippi 82 1,469,608 66 115,526 62 4.0 60

29 Missouri 116 4,194,416 116 218,973 116 5.2 116 207,980 115 95.2 115 204,607 116 98.2 115 

30 Montana 56 638,474 56 99,567 56 15.6 56 94,967 56 95.4 56 91,076 56 95.9 56 1 3,891 49 

31 Nebraska 93 1,160,193 93 112,392 93 9.7 93 106,306 93 94.6 93 106,552 93 100.2 93 29 

32 Nevada 17 1,073,869 17 118,321 17 11.0 17 91,307 16 79.1 16 1 93,364 17 99.3 16 1 33 New Hampshire 242 950,292 241 62,059 239

34 New Jersey 21 5,011,693 21 226,219 21 4.5 21 200,259 21 88.5 21 194,168 21 97.0 21 6,091 21 

35 New Mexico 33 505,356 20 71,680 20 14.5 19 54,609 18 91.7 18 1 65,936 21 98.3 18 3 

36 New York 58 11,837,068 58 367,109 56 3.3 56 308,087 56 83.9 56 2 269,390 53 96.4 53 9,957 53 37 North Carolina 100 5,526,981 100 152,401 100 2.8 100 128,606 100 84.4 100 122,984 100 95.6 100 5,622 61 38 North Dakota 53 490,179 53 53,866 53 11.0 53 51,569 53 95.7 53 51,116 53 99.1 53 453 38 39 Ohio 88 7,965,110 88 667,292 88 8.4 88 626,729 88 93.9 88 611,210 88 97.5 88 3 

40 Oklahoma 77 2,143,978 77 164,744 77 7.7 77 151,688 77 92.1 77 149,880 77 98.8 77 1,808 73 41 Oregon 36 2,141,249 36 19,300 34 0.9 34 14,378 29 77.3 29 14,091 29 98.0 29 287 14 42 Pennsylvania 67 8,366,455 67 262,064 64 3.8 64 150,080 48 89.7 48 7 146,263 48 97.5 48 3,974 34 44 Rhode Island 39 707,234 39 21,498 39 3.0 39 19,304 39 89.8 39 7 19,271 39 99.8 39 33 24 

45 South Carolina 46 2,318,235 46 181,045 46 7.8 46 158,018 46 87.3 46

46 South Dakota 66 502,261 66 98,014 66 19.5 66 94,634 66 96.6 66

47 Tennessee 95 3,748,235 95 64,447 95 1.7 95 58,690 95 91.1 95 57,676 95 98.3 95 

48 Texas 254 13,098,329 254 324,554 246 2.6 246 295,251 248 89.6 245 13 283,159 248 95.9 248 12,421 201 

49 Utah 29 1,278,912 29 45,419 28 3.6 28 36,510 28 80.4 28 1 31,467 24 100.1 24 1 

50 Vermont 246 444,508 246 60,072 244 942 85

51 Virginia 134 4,515,675 134 239,283 134 5.3 134 224,403 134 93.8 134 3 221,890 134 98.9 134 

53 Washington 39 3,508,208 39 2,210,249 34 64.5 34 1,916,812 34 86.7 34 1,982,457 39 99.8 34 2 

54 West Virginia 55 1,168,694 55 22,263 53 2.0 53 19,333 53 86.8 53 20,004 55 98.8 53 5 55 Wisconsin 1,910 4,179,774 1,894 307,719 1,263 9.4 1,262 2 295,366 1,259 94.4 1258 4 264,898 1,259 95.8 1255 6 56 Wyoming 23 273,950 23 48,948 23 17.9 23 47,238 23 96.5 23 47,008 23 99.5 23 230 18 

60 American Samoa 166 Guam 172 Puerto Rico 110 2,440,131 110 2,221 109 0.1 109 9,215 110 414.7 109 107 9,215 110 100.0 110 

78 Virgin Islands 1 50,731 1 1,488 1 2.9 1 1,402 1 94.2 1 1,318 1 94.0 1 

Total 55 177,265,030 6,512 16,870,660 4,736 10.8 4,732 2 14,851,332 4,829 88.7 4559 154 14,740,215 4,902 96.9 4186 81 182,990 1,289 Maximum 1,910 16,646,555 1,894 4,866,605 1,263 64.5 1,262 2 4,181,809 1,259 414.7 1258 107 4,108,088 1,259 103.5 1255 29 73,731 201 Average 119 3,344,623 122 366,753 105 9.9 105 2 322,855 107 97.0 106 11 307,087 104 98.0 99 5 7,624 58 Minimum 1 50,731 1 0 1 0.1 1 2 0 1 72.6 1 1 0 1 87.5 1 1 0 3 

Requested Absentees Returned Absentees Counted Absentees Not C

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Absentee

EAC Election Day Survey Cases = NumbAbsentee Ballots 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:03:57 Total Percent Percent Percent 

Election Requested Requested Total Absentees Absentee Total 

Administration Total Absentee Absentee of Cases Absentees Returned of Cases Absentees Counted of Cases Absentees 

Code Name Jurisdictions Registration Cases Ballots Cases Registration Cases >100% Returned Cases Requested Cases >100% Counted Cases Returned Cases >100% Not Counted Cases N

Requested Absentees Returned Absentees Counted Absentees Not C

Election Administration

Voting Equipment Used in 2004 

General Election

None / Unknown 908 14,484,493 877 723,148 247 5.3 246 663,998 246 93.4 245 108 657,844 238 97.4 232 6 2,489 6 

Punch card 260 15,767,547 259 1,334,105 234 8.9 234 1,193,054 237 87.7 218 2 1,183,648 233 99.3 227 5 5,647 45 

Lever 394 21,662,619 390 692,678 215 3.4 214 627,179 369 85.6 199 4 583,080 369 97.2 366 4 13,827 109 

Paper 1,734 3,085,167 1,733 168,260 1,330 6.7 1,329 156,285 1,311 95.2 1311 6 150,782 1,256 99.0 913 22 1,003 136 Optical scan 2,541 69,198,628 2,523 8,310,070 2,056 14.5 2,055 2 7,231,586 1,981 88.0 1945 28 7,347,262 2,126 98.0 1799 23 49,417 589 

Electronic 608 40,068,685 608 3,962,711 553 11.1 553 3,588,232 587 88.5 543 5 3,269,181 560 93.5 551 21 78,202 358 

Multiple Systems 123 12,997,891 122 1,679,688 101 13.6 101 1,390,998 98 92.2 98 1 1,548,418 120 97.3 98 32,405 46 

Changed Voting Equipment Since 

2000 General Election

Yes 1,753 51,149,755 1,746 6,504,908 1,164 14.3 1,164 1 5,738,187 1,224 88.5 1148 4 5,573,374 1,265 95.1 1045 27 43,532 284 

No 4,815 126,115,275 4,766 10,365,752 3,572 9.4 3,568 1 9,113,145 3,605 88.9 3411 150 9,166,841 3,637 98.0 3141 54 139,458 1,005 

State Wide Voter Registration 

System in Place

Yes 1,335 37,384,852 1,321 2,651,016 985 8.9 984 2,615,511 1,144 93.6 974 1 2,584,867 1,124 99.0 1030 11 34,615 449 

No 5,233 139,880,178 5,191 14,219,644 3,751 11.3 3,748 2 12,235,821 3,685 87.8 3585 153 12,155,348 3,778 96.4 3156 70 148,375 840 

Election Day Registration

Yes 2,823 10,323,368 2,806 565,096 1,837 10.3 1,836 2 539,973 1,833 94.7 1832 5 640,285 1,652 96.7 1322 6 327 27 

No 3,745 166,941,662 3,706 16,305,564 2,899 10.9 2,896 14,311,359 2,996 88.5 2727 149 14,099,930 3,250 96.9 2864 75 182,663 1,262 

Provisional Ballot Acceptance

In Overall Jurisdiction 1,162 65,077,741 1,143 9,632,591 849 16.1 848 7,999,995 754 87.4 751 23 8,298,521 1,074 98.0 739 33 112,382 468 In Precinct Only 4,350 103,336,604 4,316 6,972,065 3,173 7.6 3,170 2 6,591,782 3,360 90.1 3094 23 6,051,666 3,294 95.5 3239 48 70,058 774 None 1,056 8,850,685 1,053 266,004 714 5.4 714 259,555 715 97.6 714 108 390,028 534 99.3 208 550 47 

No Excuse Absentee Balloting

Yes 3,781 64,333,790 3,750 11,763,686 2,731 20.2 2,729 2 9,948,196 2,711 87.1 2707 15 9,775,880 2,403 96.1 2128 50 114,278 584 

No 2,787 112,931,240 2,762 5,106,974 2,005 5.2 2,003 4,903,136 2,118 92.4 1852 139 4,964,335 2,499 98.6 2058 31 68,712 705 

Early Voting Allowed

Yes 1,701 73,710,075 1,686 9,923,747 1,288 14.6 1,287 8,352,808 1,215 87.5 1209 23 8,434,428 1,546 95.4 1213 17 148,987 877 

No 4,867 103,554,955 4,826 6,946,913 3,448 7.9 3,445 2 6,498,524 3,614 90.4 3350 131 6,305,787 3,356 98.9 2973 64 34,003 412 

Covered By Section 203, 

Language Minority Requirements

Yes 468 50,756,496 453 7,377,338 415 15.9 414 6,278,091 414 85.9 402 18 6,020,135 400 94.6 393 9 97,439 276 

No 6,100 126,508,534 6,059 9,493,322 4,321 8.7 4,318 2 8,573,241 4,415 91.0 4157 136 8,720,080 4,502 98.6 3793 72 85,551 1,013 

Covered By Section 5 of Voting 

Rights Act

Yes 880 40,868,855 864 2,622,102 760 7.3 758 2,270,593 700 90.4 697 16 2,180,434 706 98.4 651 1 -9,512 411 

No 5,688 136,396,175 5,648 14,248,558 3,976 11.9 3,974 2 12,580,739 4,129 88.4 3862 138 12,559,781 4,196 96.6 3535 80 192,502 878 

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Absentee

EAC Election Day Survey Cases = NumbAbsentee Ballots 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:03:57 Total Percent Percent Percent 

Election Requested Requested Total Absentees Absentee Total 

Administration Total Absentee Absentee of Cases Absentees Returned of Cases Absentees Counted of Cases Absentees 

Code Name Jurisdictions Registration Cases Ballots Cases Registration Cases >100% Returned Cases Requested Cases >100% Counted Cases Returned Cases >100% Not Counted Cases N

Requested Absentees Returned Absentees Counted Absentees Not C

Demographics

Region

Northeast 1,710 34,273,670 1,709 1,212,115 975 4.3 975 1,132,816 1,120 88.5 950 16 1,038,414 1,093 97.4 608 3 20,997 217 

South 1,423 62,606,676 1,407 4,132,669 1,310 6.9 1,308 3,525,381 1,191 88.4 1188 16 3,236,840 1,257 93.7 1145 24 65,386 717 

Midwest 2,902 44,048,138 2,879 3,149,905 1,964 9.2 1,963 2 3,233,595 2,051 94.2 1958 4 3,241,142 2,064 98.4 1972 39 18,371 218 

West 420 33,845,684 406 8,372,262 377 27.1 376 6,948,923 356 86.6 353 11 7,213,286 377 97.7 350 15 78,236 137 

Territories 113 2,490,862 111 3,709 110 0.1 110 10,617 111 286.1 110 107 10,533 111 99.2 111 

Urban to Rural

Urban 567 63,441,314 566 5,670,099 432 9.6 432 5,033,429 474 88.5 427 6 4,820,385 479 94.4 462 5 90,392 65 

Suburban 871 47,552,530 868 5,265,333 599 13.5 599 1 4,593,632 672 88.8 583 6 4,720,914 688 98.6 627 16 62,504 133 

Small Towns 1,710 44,193,768 1,690 4,141,911 1,238 10.7 1,237 1 3,651,437 1,295 87.3 1188 10 3,573,928 1,340 97.5 1099 17 9,913 437 

Rural 3,307 19,586,556 3,277 1,789,608 2,357 10.8 2,354 1,562,217 2,277 92.2 2251 25 1,614,455 2,284 98.4 1887 43 20,181 654 

Not Available - Territories 113 2,490,862 111 3,709 110 0.1 110 10,617 111 286.1 110 107 10,533 111 99.2 111 

Size of Jurisdiction (VAP)

< 1,000 1,761 895,006 1,757 38,191 1,085 6.8 1,085 1 37,406 1,083 95.6 1080 1 36,901 1,016 98.6 819 5 119 38 

>=1,000 to <3,500 1,165 2,182,148 1,164 152,236 742 10.8 742 1 148,765 769 95.4 733 6 134,433 766 98.5 575 13 751 107 >=3,500 to <10,000 1,043 5,966,645 1,037 432,781 778 9.5 777 424,804 798 95.5 740 10 416,948 846 98.0 714 19 3,239 254 >=10,000 to <50,000 1,704 31,472,681 1,681 2,066,132 1,359 7.8 1,358 2,004,802 1,407 93.5 1269 21 2,012,094 1,499 98.2 1348 24 22,833 537 >=50,000 to <250,000 586 48,992,270 582 4,149,249 504 9.7 503 3,754,246 508 89.1 477 7 3,685,800 516 98.8 481 16 40,505 259 >=250,000 to <1,000,000 140 51,396,493 139 5,400,674 125 11.7 125 4,466,839 120 87.6 117 1 4,741,873 124 98.1 115 4 19,690 76 >=1,000,000 25 33,867,508 25 4,627,465 23 14.8 23 4,003,644 23 86.5 23 1 3,701,625 22 93.1 22 95,853 18 

Not Available 144 2,492,279 127 3,932 120 0.2 119 10,826 121 275.2 120 107 10,541 113 99.2 112 

Race and Ethnicity

Predominently NH White 6,264 163,662,585 6,234 15,612,881 4,482 11.0 4,481 2 13,793,684 4,593 88.7 4327 45 13,714,675 4,685 96.8 3980 80 159,485 1,236 Predominently NH Black 85 3,098,023 81 227,214 70 5.7 69 143,684 52 90.7 51 133,709 48 99.7 40 1 4,988 21 

Predominently NH Native American 24 231,022 24 10,499 20 6.1 20 9,427 20 89.8 20 5,447 12 97.2 11 113 4 

Predominently Hispanic 50 7,749,995 45 1,005,984 43 13.6 42 884,054 42 87.5 40 2 866,228 43 97.8 42 18,404 28 Not Available 145 2,523,405 128 14,082 121 0.6 120 20,483 122 145.4 121 107 20,156 114 99.4 113 

Median Income

< $25,000 298 2,504,552 287 151,452 258 4.7 256 78,626 230 92.2 228 73,437 189 98.7 168 4 1,241 84 

>=$25,000 to <$30,000 884 8,917,739 871 510,418 746 6.3 745 437,260 683 91.7 681 11 429,286 617 97.9 546 18 8,045 242 >=$30,000 to <$35,000 1,372 22,970,583 1,366 1,574,055 1,049 8.4 1,049 1,401,035 1,026 89.9 1007 13 1,376,230 1,000 97.9 867 20 28,597 367 >=$35,000 to <$40,000 1,215 40,443,694 1,213 2,936,674 897 8.1 897 1 2,500,192 913 87.7 880 9 2,485,580 915 98.0 769 13 38,804 274 >=$40,000 to <$45,000 881 37,780,840 877 4,161,562 563 12.3 563 3,813,681 605 88.7 557 5 3,508,658 655 92.8 540 7 88,474 151 >=$45,000 to <$50,000 587 21,218,675 587 2,475,130 365 13.9 365 2,181,987 381 87.4 360 2 2,225,866 439 99.3 347 1 -49,484 63 >=$50,000 1,180 40,936,586 1,178 5,057,433 737 14.0 737 1 4,427,721 869 89.0 725 7 4,630,608 973 98.2 837 18 67,313 108 

Not Available 151 2,492,361 133 3,936 121 0.2 120 10,830 122 275.0 121 107 10,550 114 99.2 112 

High School Education

< 60% 126 1,817,027 124 52,521 116 3.4 116 49,329 105 97.2 104 1 47,916 106 97.5 101 1,039 62 

>=60% to <70% 661 14,944,978 648 1,769,625 556 12.5 554 1,458,935 500 86.0 496 5 1,483,723 505 97.6 448 5 -25,495 228 >=70% to <80% 1,646 49,285,773 1,631 3,540,501 1,281 7.9 1,280 3,036,101 1,274 86.9 1222 20 2,947,349 1,260 97.1 1113 16 79,004 415 >=80% to <90% 3,111 93,198,279 3,105 9,361,286 2,145 11.6 2,145 1 8,498,560 2,242 89.3 2108 17 8,161,642 2,241 96.3 1904 50 120,669 527 >=90% 873 15,495,512 871 2,132,641 516 17.8 516 1 1,787,920 585 90.8 507 4 2,079,429 676 98.6 507 10 7,773 57 

Not Available 151 2,523,461 133 14,086 122 0.6 121 20,487 123 145.4 122 107 20,156 114 99.4 113 

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Absentee

EAC Election Day Survey Cases = NumbAbsentee Ballots 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:03:57 Total Percent Percent Percent 

Election Requested Requested Total Absentees Absentee Total 

Administration Total Absentee Absentee of Cases Absentees Returned of Cases Absentees Counted of Cases Absentees 

Code Name Jurisdictions Registration Cases Ballots Cases Registration Cases >100% Returned Cases Requested Cases >100% Counted Cases Returned Cases >100% Not Counted Cases N

Requested Absentees Returned Absentees Counted Absentees Not C

Political

Battleground States in 2004 

Presidential Election

Yes 3,093 64,166,639 3,062 7,822,484 2,058 14.3 2,056 2 6,568,964 1,955 89.4 1953 18 6,992,306 2,373 96.0 1950 23 38,329 293 

No 3,475 113,098,391 3,450 9,048,176 2,678 8.9 2,676 8,282,368 2,874 88.1 2606 136 7,747,909 2,529 97.6 2236 58 144,661 996 

Margin of Victory in 2004 

Presidential Election

< 2.5% 515 15,923,548 513 1,580,879 336 11.7 336 1,479,904 362 89.7 327 1 1,448,820 353 98.8 285 5 19,126 73 

>=2.5% to < 5.0% 476 11,133,130 472 1,146,426 326 11.0 326 933,092 334 88.0 313 5 1,037,806 328 98.8 263 5 9,651 59 >=5.0% to < 7.5% 510 13,830,932 508 1,703,199 380 13.0 379 1,338,088 390 88.1 368 5 1,448,166 379 98.2 322 5 15,543 82 >=7.5% to < 10.0 % 429 8,833,490 428 963,415 291 12.9 291 883,284 295 90.3 277 889,544 313 98.3 247 3 6,845 54 >=10.0 % 4,492 125,044,988 4,463 11,472,993 3,288 10.6 3,286 2 10,206,247 3,331 88.5 3159 36 9,904,864 3,408 96.1 2952 63 131,825 1,021 

Red vs Blue Jurisdictions Won By 

in 2004 Presidential Election

Bush > 55% 3,115 68,178,580 3,094 5,812,982 2,408 10.1 2,407 1 5,264,857 2,424 88.7 2318 32 5,075,995 2,407 97.9 2209 56 104,781 832 

Bush 50% to 55% 982 26,682,203 979 2,570,129 697 10.4 696 2,071,546 704 88.5 668 5 2,279,780 721 97.8 588 9 31,355 162 Bush < 50% 136 2,041,746 135 168,761 85 9.4 85 156,198 96 90.4 83 153,040 81 98.3 59 1 2,134 16 

Kerry < 50% 150 4,850,492 150 649,776 93 15.2 93 590,593 108 88.1 93 570,565 96 97.7 78 9,974 21 

Kerry 50% to 55% 872 23,160,396 866 2,337,981 591 11.5 591 2,115,483 614 89.1 568 6 2,115,907 632 99.4 505 9 11,151 113 Kerry > 55% 1,161 49,846,628 1,154 5,326,659 742 12.0 741 1 4,641,330 761 88.5 709 4 4,533,913 844 94.0 630 6 23,595 145 

Tied 25 14,032 21 663 10 9.3 9 708 11 97.1 10 482 10 100.0 6 0 

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Chapter 6 

Provisional Ballots 

Table 6 presents data from the Election Day Survey on provisional ballots. Under the Help America 

Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), if an individual appears at the polls on Election Day to cast a ballot but 

is not listed on the voter registration rolls, that individual is permitted to cast a provisional ballot. 

And if the individual is later determined to be eligible to vote, the provisional ballot is counted as a 

vote. The Election Day Survey asked for the number of provisional ballots cast, the number counted, 

and the five most common reasons for rejecting provisional ballots. 

Section 302(a) of HAVA establishes the process of provisional balloting: 

If an individual declares that such individual is a registered voter in the 

jurisdiction in which the individual desires to vote and that the individual is 

eligible to vote in an election for Federal office, but the name of the individual 

does not appear on the official list of eligible voters for the polling place or an 

election official asserts that the individual is not eligible to vote, such individual 

shall be permitted to cast a provisional ballot as follows. 

The applicability of provisional balloting covers individuals who appear at the polls on Election Day 

to cast a ballot but are not listed on the voter registration rolls; in some states, first-time voters who 

cannot provide identification, as required under HAVA; and in some states, voters who were 

challenged at the poll. Election administrators are required to notify individuals of their opportunity 

to cast a provisional ballot. 

While all individuals may cast a provisional ballot, the states differed in their interpretation of the 

phrase “registered voter in the jurisdiction in which the individual desires to vote” as to what defines 

a valid provisional ballot: is the jurisdiction an individual’s voting precinct, county, or some other 

jurisdiction? The ambiguity in the HAVA language resulted in controversy in the 2004 election and 

lawsuits seeking to expand the definition of “jurisdiction” when counting provisional ballots. In 

2004, as detailed below, in 18 states provisional ballots were eligible to be counted if cast outside the 

individual’s home precinct. In 25 states, provisional ballots were disqualified if cast outside the 

individual’s home precinct. Seven states with Election Day registration were exempt from the 

HAVA provision, but three of these adopted provisional ballots for some classes of individuals 

seeking to vote. 

If the individual is later determined to be eligible to vote, the provisional ballot is counted as a vote. 

A 2004 survey of 35 state election administrators by the National Association of Secretaries of State 

(NASS) revealed that for the 2004 election states begin verification procedures as early as Election 

Day and as late as one week after the election. The procedure may last as short a period as the 

completion of Election Day up to more than two weeks. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Provisional Ballots, Page 6-2 September 27, 2005 

HAVA requires that states provide individuals casting provisional ballots with free access to a 

mechanism by which they can determine the disposition of their ballots. The NASS survey revealed 

that the methods of notification varied among Web sites, toll-free phone lines, and direct contact by 

local election administrators. 

Applicability and Coverage 

HAVA required all states to offer provisional ballots in federal elections beginning in 2004, although 

some states are exempt because they have no voter registration (North Dakota) or have alternative 

systems, such as Election Day registration (Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, 

and Wyoming). The states of Maine, Wisconsin, and Wyoming allowed provisional balloting for 

first-time voters who were unable to provide identification or whose ballots were challenged at the 

polls. The other four states had no form of provisional balloting and no data was reported for them. 

New Hampshire and North Dakota allowed voters without identification to sign affidavits swearing 

to their identity. Minnesota and Idaho did not allow first-time voters without identification to cast 

ballots. 

Mississippi and Pennsylvania failed to provide any data on provisional ballot use in their states. The 

states of California, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, and West Virginia 

did not provide full statistics for all their jurisdictions. 

Reasons for rejecting provisional ballots vary. In 18 states, provisional ballots are eligible to be 

counted if cast outside the individual’s home precinct. In 25 states, provisional ballots are 

disqualified if cast outside the individual’s home precinct. 

States where provisional ballots are eligible to be counted if cast outside the correct precinct: 

Alaska Delaware New Mexico Utah 

Arizona Georgia North Carolina Vermont 

Arkansas Illinois Oregon Washington 

California Louisiana Pennsylvania 

Colorado Maryland Rhode Island 

Historical Context 

Prior to the adoption of HAVA, some states provided for the casting and counting of provisional 

ballots. The rules regarding the use of “provisional ballots” were uneven among states. For example, 

Ohio provided a method of provisional balloting to persons who moved within the state but did not 

reregister at their new address by Election Day. California provided a method of provisional 

balloting to persons who could not establish their eligibility at the polls. Texas provided a method of 

provisional balloting for persons who were challenged at the polls. State and local jurisdiction 

statistics are unavailable as to the incidence of these pre-HAVA forms of provisional balloting. 

HAVA mandated the use of provisional ballots in federal elections starting January 1, 2004. The 

November 2, 2004, election is the first federal election to be conducted with national usage of 

provisional ballots. Although provisional balloting has provided a minimum standard for provisional 

balloting, as described above, the application of how and when provisional ballots will be cast and 

counted varies among the states. Furthermore, some states permit provisional balloting only in 

federal elections. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Provisional Ballots, Page 6-3 September 27, 2005 

Survey Results 

Table 6 presents data on provisional ballots cast and counted from questions 8 and 9 on the Election 

Day Survey. In the table, the number of provisional ballots cast is calculated as a percentage of 

reported total registration, and the number of provisional ballots counted is calculated as a 

percentage of provisional ballots cast. The column headings in Table 6 are as follows: 

Column Headings for Table 6. Provisional Ballots 

Col. Heading Description 

1 Code State census code 

2 Name Respondent to Election Day Survey 

3 Jurisdiction Number of local election jurisdictions from survey question 22 

4 Total Registration Number of active and inactive registered voters, number of persons who voted on Election Day in six states, and VAP data for 

North Dakota and jurisdictions in Wisconsin that do not have voter 

registration, from col. 4 of Table 2, “Registration” 

5 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey question 1, provided Election Day registration data, or for which VAP data was 

substituted for voter registration data 

6 Ballots Cast 

in Polling Places 

Number of ballots cast in polling places on Election Day, from col. 

9 of Table 4, “Turnout Source” 

7 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey questions 1 and 

3, that provided Election Day registration data, and for which VAP 

data was substituted for voter registration data 

8 Total Provisional Cast Number of provisional ballots cast from survey question 8 

9 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 8 

10 Percent Provisional 

Cast of Registration 

Number of provisional ballots cast (col. 6) divided by the number 

of registered voters (col. 4) 

11 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey questions 1 and 

8, provided Election Day registration data, or for which VAP data 

was substituted for voter registration data 

12 Cases > 100% Number of jurisdictions where the reported number of provisional 

ballots cast (col. 6) is greater than the reported number of registered voters (col. 4) 

13 Percent Provisional 

Cast of Polling Places 

Number of provisional ballots cast (col. 8) divided by the number 

of ballots cast in polling places on Election Day (col. 6) 

14 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey questions 3 and 8 

15 Cases > 100% Number of jurisdictions where the reported number of provisional 

ballots cast (col. 8) is greater than the number of ballots cast in 

polling places on Election Day (col. 6) 

16 Total Provisional 

Counted 

Number of provisional ballots counted from survey question 9 

17 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 9 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Provisional Ballots, Page 6-4 September 27, 2005 

Column Headings for Table 6 (cont.) 

Col. Heading Description 

18 Percent Provisional 

Counted of Prov Cast 

Number of provisional ballots counted (col. 11) divided by the 

number of provisional ballots cast (col. 6) 

19 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 8 and 9 

20 Cases > 100% Number of jurisdictions where the reported number of provisional 

ballots counted (col. 11) is greater than the reported number of 

provisional ballots cast (col. 6) 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Provisional Ballots, Page 6-5 September 27, 2005 

Analysis of Survey Results 

The following is our analysis of the data in Table 6 for each of the 18 cross-tabulation factors 

described earlier in this report. A description of each factor follows a general summary and a statelevel summary of the survey data. 

1) Regions 10) Changed Voting Equipment since 2000 

2) Urban to Rural 11) Statewide Voter Registration Database 

3) Size of Jurisdiction 12) Election Day Registration 

4) Race and Ethnicity 13) Provisional Ballot Acceptance 

5) Median Income 14) No Excuse Absentee Balloting 

6) High School Education 15) Early Voting 

7) Section 203 Language Minority Requirements 16) Battleground States 

8) Section 5 Preclearance of Voting Procedures 17) Presidential Margin of Victory 

9) Type of Voting Equipment 18) Red versus Blue Jurisdictions 

This analysis is based only on data that was reported to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission on 

the Election Day Survey. Many state responses to a survey question or part of a question did not 

cover all local election jurisdictions. In Table 6 as well as other tables in this report, a jurisdiction 

was excluded from a statistical calculation if its response was missing for one or more of the data 

items (i.e., columns) used in the calculation. A column labeled “Cases” next to each statistical 

calculation shows the number of jurisdictions covered by that calculation. 

Summary 

Regarding provisional ballots, the Election Day Survey asked for the number of provisional ballots 

cast, the number counted, and the five most common reasons for rejecting provisional ballots. 

Overall, at least 1,901,591 individuals sought to cast a provisional ballot in the 2004 election. That 

amounted to 1.25 percent of all persons registered for the election and 2.56 percent of ballots cast in 

polling places on Election Day. The states reported that at least 1,225,915 provisional ballots were 

counted, or 64.50 percent of those provisional ballots cast. 

States were also asked to provide the five most common reasons why the provisional ballots were 

rejected, although the actual numbers of ballots rejected categorized by the reasons for rejection 

were not requested. The states were not asked to provide this information for their individual 

jurisdictions, just a statewide summary. The reasons, according to their frequency of mention by 

states, are as follows: 

Reasons for Rejecting Provisional Ballots Frequency of Mention 

Not registered 18 

Wrong precinct 14 

Improper ID 7 

Incomplete ballot form 6 

Wrong jurisdiction 5 

Already voted 3 

Ballot not timely received 3 

Ineligible to vote 3 

No signature 3 

Administrative error 2 

Non-matching signature 2 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Provisional Ballots, Page 6-6 September 27, 2005 

Reasons for Rejecting Provisional Ballots (cont.) Frequency of Mention 

Other 2 

Registration purged 2 

Deceased 1 

Elector challenged 1 

First-time voter registering on Election Day 1 

Missing ballot 1 

Multiple ballots in one envelope 1 

Name missing from voter list 1 

Nonappearance within 24 hours 1 

Nonverifiable signature 1 

We calculated three measures of provisional balloting in our analysis: the number of reported 

provisional ballots cast as a percentage of the voter registration, the number of reported provisional 

ballots cast as a percentage of ballots cast in polling places, and the report number of provisional 

ballots that were counted as a percentage of the reported number of provisional ballots cast. 

Generally we found the same relationships for the number of provisional ballots cast as a percentage 

of voter registration or as a percentage of ballots cast in polling places. 

The patterns of provisional balloting revealed by our analysis suggest that administrative rules and 

procedures are most related to the casting and counting of provisional ballots. Most notably, 

jurisdictions that permitted jurisdiction-wide acceptance of provisional ballots reported higher rates 

of provisional ballots being cast, but also reported a much higher incidence of provisional ballots 

being counted, than other jurisdictions. 

Those jurisdictions with statewide voter registration databases reported a lower incidence of casting 

provisional ballots than states without voter registration databases, suggesting that better 

administration of voter registration rolls might be associated with fewer instances where voters 

would be required to cast a provisional ballot due to a problem with their voter registration. 

Over one million provisional ballots were reportedly cast in Section 203 covered jurisdictions, and 

correspondingly, there was a higher incidence of provisional ballots cast in Section 203 covered 

jurisdictions than those jurisdictions not covered. The rate of counting the provisional ballots was 

slightly higher in Section 203 jurisdictions, but could not offset the much higher incidence of casting 

provisional ballots. 

On a related note, predominantly Hispanic jurisdictions had the highest rate of casting provisional 

ballots, followed by predominantly non-Hispanic Native American jurisdictions. While the counting 

of provisional ballots was highest in predominantly Hispanic jurisdictions, predominantly nonHispanic Native American jurisdictions had a counting rate under 50 percent. 

Higher incidences of casting provisional ballots can also be found in urban and high population 

density areas, but these jurisdictions also had higher rates of counting provisional ballots. Rates of 

counting provisional ballots also tended to increase with the income and education level within a 

jurisdiction. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Provisional Ballots, Page 6-7 September 27, 2005 

States 

Among those jurisdictions reporting, Alaska reported the highest incidence of provisional ballots 

cast as a percentage of voter registration, at 4.93 percent, followed by California, at 4.08 percent, and 

Arizona at 3.84 percent. Twenty-four states reported provisional ballots as a percentage of 

registration at 0.3 percent or lower, with Vermont and Wyoming the lowest at just under 0.03 

percent. 

As a percentage of votes cast at the polling place, Washington was the highest at 11.29 percent, 

followed by Alaska, 10.63 percent; Arizona, 8.99 percent; and California, 8.47 percent. The change 

in the relative order is a consequence of the varied incidence of other methods of voting, such as 

absentee and early voting. The states with the lowest incidence of provisional balloting were again 

Vermont and Wyoming at 0.05 percent. 

States reported a very wide range of whether the ballots were counted. Maine had the highest rate of 

provisional ballots counted, and serves as an interesting case, since the state permits first-time voters 

without required identification to cast a provisional ballot. Maine reports slightly more ballots 

counted, 486, than cast, 483. This is presumably a consequence of a data-entry error. More 

generally, nearly all provisional ballots cast in Maine were counted. 

After Maine, Alaska reported the highest rate of counting provisional ballots, at 96.60 percent. Thus, 

even though Alaska had the highest incidence of provisional balloting, those ballots tended to be 

counted. Oregon followed at 85 percent, and also serves as an interesting case because persons 

casting a provisional ballot are motivated people who go to their county election administrative 

offices to cast a ballot if they did not receive one by mail. Washington, Nebraska, and Ohio all 

reported counting rates near 79 percent. 

States with low reported rates of counting provisional ballots were Delaware at 6.3 percent, Hawaii 

at 7.20 percent, and Oklahoma at 7.70 percent. Table 6A shows the states sorted by the two methods 

of calculations. 

Regions 

Jurisdictions in the West reported the highest percentage of provisional ballots cast, 2.94 percent of 

voter registration or 6.54 percent of votes cast in polling places, but also reported the highest rate of 

counting those ballots, 74 percent. The Northeast reported the second highest percentage of 

provisional ballots cast as a percentage of voter registration, 1.34, but reported the lowest rate of 

counting those ballots, 42.8 percent. As percentage of ballots cast at the polling place, the Northeast 

reported the lowest incidence of cast provisional ballots at 0.86 percent. The Midwest was next in 

provisional ballots cast, 0.80 percent of registration or 1.91 of votes cast in polling place, and 

reported the second highest rate of counting, 69.20 percent. The South reported the lowest rate of 

casting provisional ballots, at 0.44 percent of registration and 1.01 percent of ballots cast in polling 

places, and the third highest rate of counting, at 49.90 percent. 

Urban to Rural 

Urban jurisdictions reported the highest rate of provisional ballots cast, 1.55 percent, followed by 

suburban jurisdictions at 1.12 percent, small towns at 1.02 percent, and rural jurisdictions, at 0.67 

percent. The same pattern was reported when calculated as a percentage of ballots cast in polling 

places. Suburban jurisdictions reported the highest rate of counting provisional ballots, 73.10 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Provisional Ballots, Page 6-8 September 27, 2005 

percent, followed by rural jurisdictions at 68.50 percent, urban jurisdictions at 61.60 percent, and 

small towns at 59.30 percent. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Provisional Ballots, Page 6-9 September 27, 2005 

Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Provisional Ballots, Page 6-9 September 27, 2005 

 Table 6a. Provisional Ballot Usage, Sorted 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Provisional Ballots, Page 6-10 September 27, 2005 

Size of Jurisdiction 

The urban-to-rural trend on rate of provisional ballots cast persists for the population size of the 

jurisdiction. The reported rate of provisional ballots cast increases with population size, from 0.10 

percent for voter registration in jurisdictions under 1,000 voting age population (VAP), to 2.51 

percent in jurisdictions over one million VAP. For percentage of ballots cast in polling places, the 

percentages ranged from 0.08 percent for the smallest jurisdiction to 6.08 percent for the largest. 

The reported rate of counting provisional ballots generally increased with population size of the 

jurisdiction. Jurisdictions with a population between 1,000 and 3,500 VAP reported the lowest rate 

of counting provisional ballots, at 52.10 percent, while the largest jurisdictions reported 66.90 

percent. However, the trend did not hold for the smallest jurisdictions below 1,000 VAP, which 

reported 65.40 percent. 

Race and Ethnicity 

The highest reported incidence of casting provisional ballots among voter registration was in 

predominantly Hispanic jurisdictions, 2.81 percent, followed by predominantly non-Hispanic Native 

American jurisdictions, 1.89 percent; predominantly non-Hispanic Black areas, 1.28 percent; and 

predominantly non-Hispanic White communities, 1.12 percent. The order was the same when 

calculated as a percentage of ballots cast in polling places, ranging between 6.25 and 2.25 percent. 

The highest reported rate of counting provisional ballots was also among predominantly Hispanic 

jurisdictions, 79.30 percent, followed by predominantly non-Hispanic White areas, 62.60 percent; 

predominantly non-Hispanic Black communities, 58.60 percent; and predominantly non-Hispanic 

Native American jurisdictions, 48.70 percent. 

Median Income 

Reported rates of casting provisional ballots as a percentage of voter registration generally rise with 

the income level of the jurisdiction, from a 0.22 percent rate for jurisdictions with a median income 

less than $25,000 to a 1.52 percent rate for median income between $40,000 and $45,000. The rate 

drops off for the highest income jurisdictions, to 1.29 percent for those with a median income above 

$50,000. The same pattern holds when calculated as a percentage of ballots cast in polling places, 

ranging from 0.63 percent for the lowest category to 3.22 percent for jurisdictions with $40,000–

$45,000 median income, before dropping slightly to 2.49 percent for the highest category. 

Generally, higher income jurisdictions counted provisional ballots at nearly twice the rate of lower 

income communities. The reported rates for counting ballots follows a similar pattern, from a low of 

39.80 percent counted in the lowest income category, to a high in the $45,000 and $50,000 range of 

75.90 percent, and then dropping off slightly for the highest income category to 69.30 percent. 

However, jurisdictions in the $35,000 and $40,000 range break the pattern, dipping to a 42.20 

percent counted rate. 

High School Education 

The greatest variation in reported rates of provisional ballots cast occurs for the two lowest 

education categories. For the lowest, the rate of casting ballots is 0.23 percent; the rate jumps to 2.37 

percent in the next highest category, and then declines to a little more than 1.00 percent for the 

remainder. The pattern is the same when calculated as a percentage of ballots cast in polling places, 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Provisional Ballots, Page 6-11 September 27, 2005 

0.84 percent for the lowest category, 5.41 for the next highest, and about 2.00 percent for the 

remainder. 

The reported counting rate of provisional ballots generally shows a positive relationship between 

ballots counted and education levels, rising from a low of 52.60 percent for the lowest education 

category and rising to 72.30 percent for the highest. The deviation from the increasing pattern occurs 

at the medium range of 70–80 percent high school education, with a counting rate dipping to 52.60 

percent. 

Section 203 Language Minority Requirements 

There is a large difference in the reported rate of provisional ballots cast among Section 203 covered 

jurisdictions. Those covered reported a rate based on voter registration much higher, 2.04 percent, 

than those that are not covered, 0.82 percent. When calculated as a percentage of ballots cast in 

polling places, Section 203 covered jurisdictions reported 5.09 versus 1.38 percent for other 

jurisdictions. Section 203 covered jurisdictions reported a slightly higher rate of counting provisional 

ballots, 68.4 percent, than those not covered, 59.8 percent. 

Section 5 Preclearance of Voting Procedures 

Section 5 covered jurisdictions reported a slightly lower rate of casting provisional ballots when 

calculated as a percentage of voter registration, 1.03 versus 1.25 percent, and a slightly higher rate 

when calculated for ballots cast in polling places, 2.49 versus 2.42 percent. Section 5 covered 

jurisdictions reported a slightly higher rate of counting provisional ballots than jurisdictions not 

covered by Section 5, 68.40 versus 63.20 percent. 

Type of Voting Equipment 

Among those jurisdictions reporting voting equipment, those with lever machines reported the 

highest rate of casting provisional ballots when calculated as a percentage of voter registration, at 

1.61 percent, but the second lowest when calculated as a percentage of ballots cast in polling places, 

0.68 percent. Paper jurisdictions reported the lowest rate by either measure, 0.30 percent for voter 

registration and 0.39 percent for ballots cast in polling places. Most jurisdictions using other types of 

voting equipment have similar rates of casting provisional ballots, around 1 percent for voter 

registration or 2 to 3 percent for ballots cast in polling places. 

Lever machine jurisdictions reported the lowest rate of counting those ballots, 41.30 percent, 

followed by paper jurisdictions, which reported a counting rate of 58 percent. Other jurisdictions 

ranged between 60 and 70 percent counting rates. 

Changed Voting Equipment since 2000 

Those jurisdictions that changed voting equipment reported a higher rate of provisional ballots 

cast— 1.54 percent for voter registration and 3.42 percent for ballots cast in polling places—than 

those jurisdictions that did not, which measured 1.05 and 1.97 percent, respectively. Those 

jurisdictions that changed voting equipment also reported a higher rate of provisional ballots 

counted, 67.50 percent, than those jurisdictions that did not, 62.40 percent. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Provisional Ballots, Page 6-12 September 27, 2005 

Statewide Voter Registration Database 

Statewide voter registration databases lead to almost half the number of provisional ballots being 

cast. Those jurisdictions with statewide voter registration databases reported a lower rate of casting 

provisional ballots, 0.59 percent for voter registration and 1.21 percent for ballots cast in polling 

places, than other jurisdictions, 1.37 and 2.86 percent, respectively. Both types of jurisdictions 

reported similar levels of counting provisional ballots, slightly above 64 percent. 

Election Day Registration 

Those jurisdictions with Election Day registration might reasonably be assumed to not need 

provisional ballots because voters can register at the polls. However, for three of the seven Election 

Day registration states—Maine, Wisconsin, and Wyoming—provisional balloting was provided for 

first-time voters who were unable to provide identification or voters whose ballots were challenged 

at the polls. As the numbers show, this was a rare event in these three states. In those states with 

Election Day registration the reported incidence of provisional ballots cast was 0.03 percent or 

registration or 0.04 percent of ballots cast in polling places, and 78 percent of these ballots were 

counted. For states without Election Day registration, the reported incidence of provisional ballots 

cast was 1.22 percent of registration or 2.50 percent of ballots cast in polling places, and 64.3 

percent were counted. 

Provisional Ballot Acceptance 

Jurisdictions with jurisdictionwide provisional ballot acceptance reported higher rates of provisional 

ballots cast, 2.09 percent of registration or 4.67 percent of ballots cast in polling places, than those 

with in-precinct-only acceptance, 0.72 and 1.18 percent, respectively. Predictably, those jurisdictions 

with more permissive jurisdictionwide acceptance reported higher rates of counting provisional 

ballots, 71.50 percent, than other jurisdictions, 52.50 percent. 

No Excuse Absentee Balloting 

Jurisdictions with no excuse absentee balloting reported more than twice the rate of casting 

provisional ballots, 1.94 percent of registration or 4.20 of ballots cast in polling places, than those 

jurisdictions that did not, 0.74 and 1.14 percent, respectively. Jurisdictions with no excuse absentee 

balloting reported a higher rate of counting provisional ballots, 71.7 percent, than those jurisdictions 

that did not, 52.5 percent. 

Early Voting 

Jurisdictions with early voting reported a higher incidence of provisional ballots cast, 1.52 percent of 

registration and 3.430 percent of ballots cast in polling places, than those jurisdictions that did not, 

0.93 and 1.45 percent, respectively. Jurisdictions with early voting reported a higher rate of 

provisional ballots counted, 68.40 percent, compared to other jurisdictions, 58.60 percent. 

Battleground States 

Jurisdictions in battleground states reported a slightly lower incidence of casting provisional ballots, 

1.04 percent pf registration and 2.39 of ballots cast in polling places, than those jurisdictions that 

were not battleground states, which measured 1.27 and 2.46 percent, respectively. Jurisdictions in 

battleground states reported a higher rate of counting provisional ballots, 71.30 percent, than those 

jurisdictions that were not in battleground states, at 61.80 percent. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Provisional Ballots, Page 6-13 September 27, 2005 

Presidential Margin of Victory 

No clear pattern emerges for provisional balloting and presidential margin of victory. The reported 

incidence of casting provisional ballots ranged from 0.78 to 1.32 percent of registration and 1.68 to 

2.86 percent of ballots cast in polling places. The reported rate of counting provisional ballots ranged 

from 62.60 to 79.60 percent. Of note, the range where either presidential candidate won by between 

5.00 to 7.50 percent reported both the highest incidence of provisional ballot casting and rate of 

counting. 

Red versus Blue Jurisdictions 

Jurisdictions in which Bush won a plurality of the vote reported the lowest incidence of casting 

provisional ballots, 0.37 percent of registration and 0.51 percent of ballots cast in polling places, 

while those that were won by Kerry by more than 55 percent reported the highest incidence of 

casting provisional ballots, 1.65 and 3.28 percent, respectively. For the other categories, the 

incidence of casting provisional ballots was slightly less than 1 percent for registration and around 2 

percent for ballots cast in polling places. 

Jurisdictions in which Bush won a plurality of the vote reported the lowest rate of counting 

provisional ballots, 54.5 percent, while those that were won by Bush with between 50 and 55 percent 

reported the highest rate of counting provisional ballots, 73.2 percent. Those that were won by Kerry 

by more than 55 percent reported the second highest rate of counting ballots, at 71.0 percent. The 

remainder of jurisdictions varied between 59.9 percent and 68.2 percent. 

REFERENCES 

National Association of Secretaries of State. 2004. Summaries and Highlights: NASS Survey of the Election 

Community Regarding Provisional Ballots. Washington, DC. 
Provisional

EAC Election Day Survey Cases = Number of JurisProvisional Ballots 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:04:16 Ballots Percent Percent 

Election Cast Total Provisional Provisional Total 

Administration Total In Polling Provisional Cast of Cases Cast of Cases Provisional 

Code Name Jurisdictions Registration Cases Place Cases Cast Cases Registration Cases >100% Polling Place Cases >100% Counted Cas

01 Alabama 67 2,597,629 67 6,478 67 0.25 67 1,865 

02 Alaska 1 472,160 1 219,093 1 23,285 1 4.93 1 10.63 1 22,498 

04 Arizona 15 2,642,120 15 1,129,374 15 101,536 15 3.84 15 8.99 15 73,658 

05 Arkansas 75 1,699,934 75 644,642 61 7,675 75 0.45 75 0.56 61 3,678 06 California 58 16,646,555 58 7,920,257 52 668,408 51 4.08 51 8.47 48 491,765 

08 Colorado 64 3,101,956 64 997,219 59 51,529 64 1.66 64 4.88 59 39,086 

09 Connecticut 169 1,831,567 169 1,452,817 169 1,573 169 0.09 169 0.11 169 498 1

10 Delaware 3 553,917 3 359,023 3 384 3 0.07 3 0.11 3 24 

11 District of Columbia 1 383,919 1 203,448 1 11,212 1 2.92 1 5.51 1 7,977 

12 Florida 67 10,300,942 67 4,865,283 67 27,742 67 0.27 67 0.57 67 10,007 

13 Georgia 159 4,248,802 159 2,642,907 159 12,895 159 0.30 159 0.49 159 3,976 1

15 Hawaii 5 647,238 4 311,484 4 346 4 0.05 4 0.11 4 25 

16 Idaho 44 915,637 44 515,191 44 0 44 44 44 0 17 Illinois 110 7,195,882 104 43,464 110 0.60 104 22,238 1

18 Indiana 92 4,296,602 92 2,251,193 92 5,707 89 0.14 89 0.26 89 910 

19 Iowa 99 2,226,721 98 1,073,283 97 15,406 97 0.69 97 1.44 96 8,038 20 Kansas 105 1,695,457 105 944,696 103 45,535 104 2.69 104 4.78 102 32,079 1

21 Kentucky 120 2,794,286 120 1,494 120 0.05 120 221 1

22 Louisiana 64 2,932,142 64 1,801,259 64 5,880 64 0.20 64 0.33 64 2,312 

23 Maine 517 1,026,219 517 754,777 517 483 516 0.05 516 0.06 516 486 5

24 Maryland 24 3,105,370 24 2,222,296 24 48,936 24 1.58 24 2.20 24 31,860 

25 Massachusetts 351 4,098,634 351 2,821,607 351 10,060 351 0.25 351 0.36 351 2,319 3

26 Michigan 83 7,164,047 83 3,250,173 83 5,610 83 0.08 83 0.17 83 3,227 

27 Minnesota 87 2,977,496 87 2,611,201 87

28 Mississippi 82 1,469,608 6629 Missouri 116 4,194,416 116 8,183 116 0.20 116 3,292 1

30 Montana 56 638,474 56 387,994 56 623 56 0.10 56 0.16 56 378 

31 Nebraska 93 1,160,193 93 672,570 93 17,421 93 1.50 93 2.59 93 13,788 

32 Nevada 17 1,073,869 17 389,200 17 6,153 17 0.57 17 1.58 17 2,446 33 New Hampshire 242 950,292 241 621,613 241

34 New Jersey 21 5,011,693 21 3,409,951 21 64,226 21 1.28 21 1.88 21 35,493 

35 New Mexico 33 505,356 20 183,499 20 6,410 20 1.31 19 3.59 19 2,914 

36 New York 58 11,837,068 58 243,450 56 2.21 56 98,003 37 North Carolina 100 5,526,981 100 2,413,768 100 77,469 100 1.40 100 3.21 100 50,370 1

38 North Dakota 53 490,179 53 258,410 5339 Ohio 88 7,965,110 88 4,995,745 88 157,714 88 1.98 88 3.16 88 123,716 

40 Oklahoma 77 2,143,978 77 1,324,424 77 2,615 77 0.12 77 0.20 77 201 

41 Oregon 36 2,141,249 36 1,585,776 36 8,298 36 0.39 36 0.52 36 7,077 

42 Pennsylvania 67 8,366,455 67

44 Rhode Island 39 707,234 39 421,472 39 2,147 39 0.30 39 0.51 39 984 

45 South Carolina 46 2,318,235 46 4,930 46 0.21 46 3,207 

46 South Dakota 66 502,261 66 533 66 0.11 66 66 

47 Tennessee 95 3,748,235 95 1,297,895 95 8,778 95 0.23 95 0.68 95 3,298 

48 Texas 254 13,098,329 254 3,641,419 254 35,282 254 0.27 254 0.97 254 7,141 2

49 Utah 29 1,278,912 29 8,263 5 26,389 29 2.06 29 0.45 5 18,575 

50 Vermont 246 444,508 246 253,901 245 121 246 0.03 246 0.05 245 30 2

51 Virginia 134 4,515,675 134 3,001,097 134 4,609 134 0.10 134 0.15 134 728 1

53 Washington 39 3,508,208 39 828,444 34 93,781 39 2.67 39 11.29 34 1 74,100 

54 West Virginia 55 1,168,694 55 740,702 55 14,658 55 1.25 55 1.98 55 8,496 

55 Wisconsin 1,910 4,179,774 1,894 374 66 0.04 66 119 

56 Wyoming 23 273,950 23 198,781 23 95 23 0.03 23 0.05 23 24 

60 American Samoa 166 Guam 172 Puerto Rico 110 2,440,131 110 1,947,634 110 21,440 110 0.88 110 1.10 110 12,525 178 Virgin Islands 1 50,731 1 30,211 1 254 1 0.50 1 0.84 1 197 

1 Total 6,568 177,265,030 6,512 67,603,992 3,850 1,901,591 4,161 1.25 4,154 2.55 3,458 1 1,225,915 4,132 Maximum 1,910 16,646,555 1,894 7,920,257 517 668,408 516 4.93 516 11.29 516 1 491,765 53 Average 119 3,344,623 122 1,572,185 89 39,616 86 0.96 86 2.18 86 1 25,539 84 Minimum 1 50,731 1 8,263 1 0 1 0.03 1 0.05 1 1 0 

Provisional Ballots Cast Provisio

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Provisional

EAC Election Day Survey Cases = Number of JurisProvisional Ballots 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:04:16 Ballots Percent Percent 

Election Cast Total Provisional Provisional Total 

Administration Total In Polling Provisional Cast of Cases Cast of Cases Provisional 

Code Name Jurisdictions Registration Cases Place Cases Cast Cases Registration Cases >100% Polling Place Cases >100% Counted Cas

Provisional Ballots Cast Provisio

Election Administration

Voting Equipment Used in 2004 

General Election

None / Unknown 908 14,484,493 877 7,286,032 248 159,860 260 1.16 259 2.19 242 112,497 2

Punch card 260 15,767,547 259 3,875,388 132 155,157 238 1.06 237 2.33 132 1 105,075 2

Lever 394 21,662,619 390 3,700,759 287 268,706 349 1.61 349 0.68 287 111,043 3

Paper 1,734 3,085,167 1,733 1,044,700 1,011 6,830 883 0.30 883 0.39 854 3,905 8

Optical scan 2,541 69,198,628 2,523 28,352,237 1,617 855,694 1,735 1.39 1,730 3.27 1,409 597,380 1,7

Electronic 608 40,068,685 608 17,384,983 441 364,916 595 0.97 595 2.06 439 235,489 5

Multiple Systems 123 12,997,891 122 5,959,893 114 90,428 101 0.73 101 1.60 95 60,526 1

Changed Voting Equipment Since 

2000 General Election

Yes 1,753 51,149,755 1,746 21,652,417 874 727,717 824 1.54 821 3.42 696 491,529 8

No 4,815 126,115,275 4,766 45,951,575 2,976 1,173,874 3,337 1.05 3,333 1.96 2,762 1 734,386 3,3

State Wide Voter Registration 

System in Place

Yes 1,335 37,384,852 1,321 19,051,011 1,089 203,421 1,234 0.59 1,233 1.20 1,001 131,619 1,2

No 5,233 139,880,178 5,191 48,552,981 2,761 1,698,170 2,927 1.37 2,921 2.86 2,457 1 1,094,296 2,9

Election Day Registration

Yes 2,823 10,323,368 2,806 4,701,563 912 952 649 0.03 649 0.04 583 629 6

No 3,745 166,941,662 3,706 62,902,429 2,938 1,900,639 3,512 1.22 3,505 2.49 2,875 1 1,225,286 3,5

Provisional Ballot Acceptance

In Overall Jurisdiction 1,162 65,077,741 1,143 23,631,193 917 1,178,607 1,075 2.09 1,068 4.67 912 1 845,145 1,0

In Precinct Only 4,350 103,336,604 4,316 37,233,762 1,880 700,807 2,415 0.72 2,415 1.17 1,875 367,562 2,3None 1,056 8,850,685 1,053 6,739,037 1,053 22,177 671 0.50 671 0.68 671 13,208 6

No Excuse Absentee Balloting

Yes 3,781 64,333,790 3,750 27,451,170 1,746 1,172,134 1,859 1.94 1,858 4.20 1,685 1 842,965 1,8

No 2,787 112,931,240 2,762 40,152,822 2,104 729,457 2,302 0.74 2,296 1.13 1,773 382,950 2,3

Early Voting Allowed

Yes 1,701 73,710,075 1,686 32,353,422 1,657 1,106,561 1,624 1.52 1,623 3.43 1,597 760,108 1,6

No 4,867 103,554,955 4,826 35,250,570 2,193 795,030 2,537 0.93 2,531 1.44 1,861 1 465,807 2,5

Covered By Section 203, Language 

Minority Requirements

Yes 468 50,756,496 453 18,294,853 414 1,002,817 437 2.04 436 5.09 408 688,397 4

No 6,100 126,508,534 6,059 49,309,139 3,436 898,774 3,724 0.82 3,718 1.37 3,050 1 537,518 3,6

Covered By Section 5 of Voting 

Rights Act

Yes 880 40,868,855 864 15,774,405 681 405,262 788 1.03 788 2.49 672 277,405 7

No 5,688 136,396,175 5,648 51,829,587 3,169 1,496,329 3,373 1.25 3,366 2.41 2,786 1 948,510 3,3

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Provisional

EAC Election Day Survey Cases = Number of JurisProvisional Ballots 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:04:16 Ballots Percent Percent 

Election Cast Total Provisional Provisional Total 

Administration Total In Polling Provisional Cast of Cases Cast of Cases Provisional 

Code Name Jurisdictions Registration Cases Place Cases Cast Cases Registration Cases >100% Polling Place Cases >100% Counted Cas

Provisional Ballots Cast Provisio

Demographics

Region

Northeast 1,710 34,273,670 1,709 9,736,138 1,583 322,060 1,398 1.34 1,398 0.86 1,341 137,813 1,3

South 1,423 62,606,676 1,407 25,158,163 1,094 271,037 1,341 0.44 1,341 1.01 1,094 135,361 1,3Midwest 2,902 44,048,138 2,879 16,057,271 696 299,947 912 0.80 906 1.88 551 207,473 8

West 420 33,845,684 406 14,674,575 366 986,853 399 2.94 398 6.54 361 1 732,546 4

Territories 113 2,490,862 111 1,977,845 111 21,694 111 0.87 111 1.10 111 12,722 1

Urban to Rural

Urban 567 63,441,314 566 23,932,272 286 894,564 341 1.55 340 2.80 276 551,182 3

Suburban 871 47,552,530 868 18,338,813 486 466,973 491 1.12 490 2.44 442 341,398 4

Small Towns 1,710 44,193,768 1,690 15,783,352 1,133 404,198 1,244 1.02 1,243 2.42 1,007 242,128 1,2

Rural 3,307 19,586,556 3,277 7,571,710 1,834 114,162 1,974 0.67 1,970 1.55 1,622 1 78,485 1,9Not Available - Territories 113 2,490,862 111 1,977,845 111 21,694 111 0.87 111 1.10 111 12,722 1

Size of Jurisdiction (VAP)

< 1,000 1,761 895,006 1,757 181,680 535 236 466 0.10 466 0.08 459 90 4>=1,000 to <3,500 1,165 2,182,148 1,164 818,638 638 2,081 566 0.19 566 0.30 519 1,081 5>=3,500 to <10,000 1,043 5,966,645 1,037 2,618,360 764 12,298 820 0.26 819 0.47 667 6,606 8>=10,000 to <50,000 1,704 31,472,681 1,681 12,888,120 1,245 115,002 1,513 0.41 1,508 0.86 1,166 69,882 1,5>=50,000 to <250,000 586 48,992,270 582 18,301,533 419 306,278 528 0.69 527 1.42 403 1 199,874 5>=250,000 to <1,000,000 140 51,396,493 139 20,669,035 106 619,796 122 1.39 122 2.85 103 384,099 1>=1,000,000 25 33,867,508 25 10,147,890 19 824,206 24 2.51 24 6.05 19 551,561 Not Available 144 2,492,279 127 1,978,736 124 21,694 122 0.87 122 1.10 122 12,722 1

Race and Ethnicity

Predominently NH White 6,264 163,662,585 6,234 60,592,039 3,627 1,622,859 3,913 1.12 3,907 2.24 3,240 1 1,017,790 3,8

Predominently NH Black 85 3,098,023 81 1,460,762 42 35,430 64 1.28 64 2.37 42 20,751 

Predominently NH Native American 24 231,022 24 82,833 11 3,746 15 1.89 15 4.82 8 1,895 

Predominently Hispanic 50 7,749,995 45 3,480,693 45 217,449 46 2.81 45 6.25 45 172,429 Not Available 145 2,523,405 128 1,987,665 125 22,107 123 0.88 123 1.11 123 13,050 1

Median Income

< $25,000 298 2,504,552 287 607,157 168 4,906 238 0.22 237 0.63 164 1,952 2

>=$25,000 to <$30,000 884 8,917,739 871 3,268,500 594 39,738 694 0.48 693 1.16 568 21,588 6>=$30,000 to <$35,000 1,372 22,970,583 1,366 7,393,539 842 114,745 983 0.61 981 1.43 785 74,899 9>=$35,000 to <$40,000 1,215 40,443,694 1,213 11,981,812 703 443,747 768 1.23 768 2.17 619 1 189,262 7>=$40,000 to <$45,000 881 37,780,840 877 16,288,261 452 545,436 457 1.52 454 3.21 388 401,079 4>=$45,000 to <$50,000 587 21,218,675 587 8,091,829 292 263,544 270 1.39 270 3.09 241 200,092 2>=$50,000 1,180 40,936,586 1,178 17,994,126 672 467,781 628 1.29 628 2.47 570 324,321 6Not Available 151 2,492,361 133 1,978,768 127 21,694 123 0.87 123 1.10 123 12,722 1

High School Education

< 60% 126 1,817,027 124 456,226 73 3,973 107 0.23 107 0.84 70 2,088 1>=60% to <70% 661 14,944,978 648 6,195,326 421 338,669 543 2.37 542 5.41 416 215,147 5>=70% to <80% 1,646 49,285,773 1,631 15,020,134 959 513,390 1,120 1.13 1,116 2.12 885 272,695 1,1>=80% to <90% 3,111 93,198,279 3,105 36,448,287 1,692 886,040 1,753 1.08 1,751 2.20 1,491 1 623,535 1,7>=90% 873 15,495,512 871 7,496,339 578 137,412 514 1.06 514 1.99 472 99,400 5Not Available 151 2,523,461 133 1,987,680 127 22,107 124 0.88 124 1.11 124 13,050 1

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Provisional

EAC Election Day Survey Cases = Number of JurisProvisional Ballots 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:04:16 Ballots Percent Percent 

Election Cast Total Provisional Provisional Total 

Administration Total In Polling Provisional Cast of Cases Cast of Cases Provisional 

Code Name Jurisdictions Registration Cases Place Cases Cast Cases Registration Cases >100% Polling Place Cases >100% Counted Cas

Provisional Ballots Cast Provisio

Political

Battleground States in 2004 

Presidential Election

Yes 3,093 64,166,639 3,062 23,916,154 960 505,069 838 1.04 837 2.37 630 1 359,854 8

No 3,475 113,098,391 3,450 43,687,838 2,890 1,396,522 3,323 1.27 3,317 2.46 2,828 866,061 3,3

Margin of Victory in 2004 

Presidential Election

< 2.5% 515 15,923,548 513 5,750,849 291 110,895 283 0.78 281 1.64 246 72,213 2

>=2.5% to < 5.0% 476 11,133,130 472 3,999,669 266 89,616 266 0.99 265 1.95 235 56,003 2>=5.0% to < 7.5% 510 13,830,932 508 5,578,649 276 169,276 292 1.31 292 2.86 245 134,658 2>=7.5% to < 10.0 % 429 8,833,490 428 3,452,732 235 65,284 229 0.83 229 1.78 199 47,317 2>=10.0 % 4,492 125,044,988 4,463 46,839,469 2,664 1,444,826 2,978 1.29 2,974 2.63 2,420 1 903,002 2,9

Red vs Blue Jurisdictions Won By 

in 2004 Presidential Election

Bush > 55% 3,115 68,178,580 3,094 26,081,362 1,780 604,309 2,094 0.97 2,091 2.22 1,622 1 374,479 2,0Bush 50% to 55% 982 26,682,203 979 9,749,715 516 227,774 521 0.95 521 2.25 426 166,657 5Bush < 50% 136 2,041,746 135 654,013 85 6,534 86 0.37 85 0.51 75 3,556 Kerry < 50% 150 4,850,492 150 1,743,644 91 58,781 89 1.29 89 2.43 83 43,771 Kerry 50% to 55% 872 23,160,396 866 8,518,800 508 196,453 504 0.95 502 1.93 454 134,011 4Kerry > 55% 1,161 49,846,628 1,154 18,869,951 746 786,041 748 1.82 747 3.28 679 490,714 7Tied 25 14,032 21 8,659 12 5 8 0.06 8 0.10 8 5 

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Chapter 7 

Drop-Off 

Table 7 provides data from the Election Day Survey on drop-off rates. Drop-off is the difference 

between voter turnout (total ballots cast) and the total number of votes cast for all candidates in a 

particular contest. This raw number difference is usually expressed as a percentage of the total votes 

cast in the election. For example, if one hundred people turned out to vote, and ninety of them cast a 

ballot for President, there would be a 10 percent drop-off for President. 

 The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) asked for the total number of votes cast for the 

three federal offices that were on the ballot in the 2004 general election (U.S. president, U.S. Senate, 

and U.S. House of Representative), and therefore drop-off is calculated for only those contests. On 

the other hand, drop-off can be calculated for any office on the ballot, all the way down to local 

contests and referendums. Generally, the farther down the ballot, the higher the rate of drop-off as 

voter fatigue or unfamiliarity with the candidates or issues increases. 

Drop-off represents a combination of overvotes and undervotes, which we analyze in chapter 8, and 

is also sometimes referred to as the “residual vote.” Drop-off rates for each office in this study were 

calculated from survey questions on ballots cast and votes for all candidates in each federal contest. 

Applicability and Coverage 

Citizens of the territories of the United States cannot cast votes for president and Senate, but do have 

nonvoting representation in the U.S. House. Presidential vote totals were not received for the states 

of Pennsylvania and South Carolina, and U.S. House results were not received from Illinois, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Tennessee. 

In calculating drop-off from the numbers reported to the EAC through the Election Day Survey, 

Election Data Services identified 903 jurisdictions that reported zero drop-off for president. For 

some of these jurisdictions, particularly smaller jurisdictions, this may be a correct number. On the 

other hand, for jurisdictions with larger populations, this zero drop-off is likely a consequence of 

jurisdictions historically reporting the total votes for highest office as the total turnout. For 2004, the 

entire state of Arkansas, a significant number of jurisdictions in Mississippi and Vermont, along with 

numerous individual jurisdictions in 21 other states followed this practice. It is also possible that 

some jurisdictions misinterpreted this survey item. In addition, Election Data Services also found 

176 jurisdictions that reported a negative drop-off for president, which cannot be logically correct 

since it implies that more people voted for president than cast a ballot. Research into a number of 

these negative drop-off jurisdictions found data-entry errors in the answers submitted by 

jurisdictions to the Election Day Survey. Unfortunately, we did not have the resources to validate 

every number. 

For contests for U.S. Senate, 412 jurisdictions reported zero drop-off and 138 reported negative 

drop-off. For U.S. House, 372 jurisdictions reported zero drop-off and 72 reported negative drop-off. 

The error is correlated across offices on the ballot. Jurisdictions reporting zero drop-off for president, 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Drop-Off, Page 7-2 September 27, 2005 

Senate, and U.S. House totaled 302. Forty-five jurisdictions reported negative drop-off for president, 

Senate, and U.S. House. 

Care should also be used in interpreting the drop-off data calculated for the U.S. House. Some 

jurisdictions have more than one House district, and summing drop-off across districts appears to 

have been a high administrative hurdle, as many large population jurisdictions reported implausibly 

high drop-off for U.S. House. In cases where a candidate ran unopposed, some jurisdictions save the 

administrative costs of holding the election and simply declare the unopposed candidate the winner. 

Drop-off in these jurisdictions will be much higher, and will be further confounded if a jurisdiction 

had two districts where one race was contested and one was not. 

However, it may not always be the case that the presidential election will have the smallest drop-off. 

We note that jurisdictions tended to report less drop-off for Senate or U.S. House than president, 

particularly in hotly contested lower ballot elections. For example, all but one of South Dakota’s 

counties reported less drop-off for Senate than for president. In all, 272 jurisdictions reported less 

drop-off in the Senate race than in the presidential race and 188 jurisdictions reported less drop-off 

in the U.S. House race than in the presidential race. Six hundred fifty-five jurisdictions reported less 

drop-off in the U.S. House race than in the Senate race. 

That Senate or U.S. House turnout can be higher than presidential turnout explains some of the 

negative values for Senate drop-off among jurisdictions that reported presidential drop-off as total 

ballots cast. Thirty-seven jurisdictions with zero presidential drop-off reported negative Senate dropoff and 10 jurisdictions with zero reported presidential drop-off reported negative U.S. House dropoff. 

Historical Context 

Not all persons register a vote for a particular office on the ballot, even if it is the first contest listed. 

Some abstention is intentional, where a voter may feel they do not know enough about the 

candidates or issues on the ballot in order to cast a vote in the particular contest. Some abstention 

may be due to voter error by failing to mark a ballot so that a vote can be recorded, or by casting a 

vote more times than allowed. 

The state of Nevada has attempted to cut down the level of drop-off by providing a separate ballot 

line for “none of these candidates” in the presidential, U.S. Senate, judgeship, and other statewide 

contests. This ballot line is treated as if the contest had another candidate. But, despite this effort, 

there is still drop-off in these contests. For example, in the 2004 presidential contest, 3,688 or 0.44 

percent of voters cast a vote for “none of these candidates,” but another 1,976 voters (or 0.24 

percent) failed to register any vote for the presidential office. 

In the past, Election Data Services has provided election statistics to the Congressional Research 

Service (Crocker 1996). Among these statistics are two numbers that are related to drop-off: the total 

number of ballots cast and the vote for highest office, which tend to be the vote for president in a 

presidential election year or the vote for governor, U.S. Senate, or the summation of all U.S. House 

races in nonpresidential years. Election Data Services calculates the vote for highest office for each 

jurisdiction in the state, which leads to variation in which office is used across the state. The 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Drop-Off, Page 7-3 September 27, 2005 

coverage of the total ballots cast varies. Seventeen states reported the total number of ballots cast in 

1948, half in 1970, and 38 in 2000. 

Figure 7a plots vote for highest office drop-off in federal elections, post-World War II, from 1948-

2004. (The data are drawn from Table 3a in this report.) There has been little in the way of a trend in 

percent drop-off over this time period, with drop-off generally remaining between 1.5 percent and 

3.5 percent. 

It is noteworthy that residual vote is lower in presidential elections than in midterm elections. One 

factor that is related to the narrowing of the residual vote is the competition for the race at the top of 

the ballot. During a presidential election, voters are drawn to the high profile election and fewer 

abstain from the race at the top of the ballot. In midterm elections, sometimes one of the two parties 

will field a weak candidate or even no candidate, and thus some voters may abstain from this race, 

but choose to participate in another contest on the same ballot. 

In the 2004 election, reported drop-off was 0.99 percent, the lowest level in post-World War II elections. As we shall see, drop-off is lowest in jurisdictions using electronic voting, so this may be a 

consequence of the increasing adoption of that voting technology. The 2004 election was also a close 

election, and voters were primed to believe that their vote counted more than in other elections and, 

as a consequence of the aftermath of the 2000 Florida recount, were told to closely pay attention to 

their vote in order to make sure that it was properly recorded. Greater attention to the casting of ballots by voters and the new technology may have contributed to the low drop-off rate in the 2004 

election. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Drop-Off, Page 7-4 September 27, 2005 

Figure 7.1 Drop-Off Rate, 1948-2004

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

1946194819501952195419561958196019621964196619681970197219741976197819801982198419861988199019921994199619982000200220042006

Year

Drop-Off Rate
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Drop-Off, Page 7-5 September 27, 2005 

Survey Results 

Table 7 presents drop-off data for federal elections covered by question 12 on the Election Day 

Survey. In the table, the drop-off rates for presidential, senatorial, and congressional elections are 

calculated as percentages of ballots counted. The column headings in Table 7 are as follows: 

Table 7 Column Headings. Drop-Off 

Col. Heading Description 

1 Code State census code 

2 Name Respondent to Election Day Survey 

3 Jurisdiction Number of local election jurisdictions from survey question 22 

4 Total Ballots Counted Number of ballots counted from survey question 2 

5 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 2 

6 Total President Number of votes for President from survey question 12 

7 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 12 

8 Number Not 

Voting for President 

Number of ballots counted (col. 4) minus the number of votes for 

President (col. 6) 

9 

Percent DropOff for President 

Number of votes for President (col. 6) divided by the number of 

ballots counted (col. 4). 

10 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 2 and 12 

11 Total Pres. > Total 

Ballots Exceptions 

Number of jurisdictions that reported more votes for President 

(col. 6) than the total number of ballots counted (col. 4) 

12 Total Senate Number of votes for U.S. Senator from survey question 12 

13 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 12 

14 Number Not 

Voting for Senate 

Number of ballots counted (col. 4) minus the number of votes for 

U.S. Senator (col. 12) 

15 Percent DropOff for Senate 

Number of votes for U.S. Senator (col. 12) divided by the number 

of ballots counted (col. 4). 

16 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 2 and 12 

17 Total Sen. > Total 

Ballots Exceptions 

Number of jurisdictions that reported more votes for U.S. Senator 

(col. 12) than the total number of ballots counted (col. 4) 

18 Total Cong. Dist. Number of votes for U.S. Representative from survey question 12 

19 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 12 

20 Number Not 

Voting for Cong. Dist. 

Number of ballots counted (col. 4) minus the number of votes for 

U.S. Representative (col. 18) 

21 

Percent Drop 

Off for Cong. Dist. 

Number of votes for U.S. Representative (col. 18) divided by the 

number of ballots counted (col. 4). 

22 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 2 and 12 

23 Total Cong. > Total 

Ballots Exceptions 

Number of jurisdictions that reported more votes for U.S. Representative (col. 18) than the total number of ballots counted (col. 4) 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Drop-Off, Page 7-6 September 27, 2005 

Analysis of Survey Results 

The following is our analysis of the data in Table 7 for each of the 18 cross-tabulation factors 

described earlier in this report. A description of each factor follows a general summary and a statelevel summary of the survey data. 

1) Regions 10) Changed Voting Equipment since 2000 

2) Urban to Rural 11) Statewide Voter Registration Database 

3) Size of Jurisdiction 12) Election Day Registration 

4) Race and Ethnicity 13) Provisional Ballot Acceptance 

5) Median Income 14) No Excuse Absentee Balloting 

6) High School Education 15) Early Voting 

7) Section 203 Language Minority Requirements 16) Battleground States 

8) Section 5 Preclearance of Voting Procedures 17) Presidential Margin of Victory 

9) Type of Voting Equipment 18) Red versus Blue Jurisdictions 

This analysis is based only on data that was reported to the EAC on the Election Day Survey. Many 

state responses to a survey question or part of a question did not cover all local election jurisdictions. 

In Table 7 as well as other tables in this report, a jurisdiction was excluded from a statistical 

calculation if its response was missing for one or more of the data items (i.e., columns) used in the 

calculation. A column labeled “Cases” next to each statistical calculation shows the number of 

jurisdictions covered by that calculation. 

Summary 

Drop-off is the difference between voter turnout (ballots cast) and the total number of votes for all 

candidates in a contest. Drop-off is reported for three federal offices: president, Senate, and U.S. 

House. Lacking resources to validate all these data, we exclude jurisdictions reporting negative dropoff for the state-level responses to the Election Day Survey as presented in Table 7. 

For the subtotaling tabulations appearing below the state statistics in Table 7, we remove 

jurisdictions reporting zero drop-off. We recognize that by doing so, we are likely inflating the 

amount of drop-off reported in our tabulations. After examination of the responses to the Election 

Day Survey, we believe that a significant number of jurisdictions reported presidential vote as total 

ballots cast, and thus reported zero drop-off for president and that including those jurisdictions leads 

to shifts in the drop-off analysis. Although Arkansas and major parts of Mississippi and Vermont 

were reporting presidential vote as the total ballots cast for all jurisdictions, there are many 

jurisdictions in other states that appeared to do the same. The analysis is thus biased either by 

keeping zero values for drop-off reported values or by excluding all zero values. We choose to 

exclude the zero values because we believe it to be in less error. 

There is a pattern evident across offices found in many academic studies of drop-off, and an 

associated measure known as roll-off, or the “...the tendency of the electorate to vote for ‘prestige’ 

offices but not for the lower offices on the same ballot” (Burnham 1965: 9). Drop-off was least for 

the presidential election, reported 1.02 percent; higher for the lower profile Senate races, reported 

6.86 percent; and highest for the House races, reported 12.83 percent. The primary draw for voters is 

information and excitement about the election, and academic studies consistently find that voters 

have more information and follow the presidential election more closely than Senate and U.S. House 

races. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Drop-Off, Page 7-7 September 27, 2005 

There is some evidence that competition reduced drop-off. Those jurisdictions with a closer 

presidential margin of victory reported lower rates of presidential drop-off. However, Senate and 

U.S. House reported drop-off was not related to the presidential margin of victory, but was 

associated with slightly lower drop-off for these offices among battleground states. 

Among the demographic tabulations, reported presidential, Senate, and U.S. House drop-off is 

related to education and income levels, with lower levels of education and income related to higher 

rates of drop-off. Presidential drop-off is reportedly high in predominantly non-Hispanic Native 

American jurisdictions, and is more than twice the drop-off in predominantly Hispanic jurisdictions 

and nearly eight times greater than predominantly non-Hispanic Black jurisdictions. Interestingly, 

Senate and U.S. House drop-off is least in non-Hispanic Native American jurisdictions, likely a 

consequence of the hotly contested Senate and U.S. House races in South Dakota. 

Section 203 and Section 5 jurisdictions reported large drop-off in U.S. House elections, perhaps 

because these jurisdictions are located within heavily Democratic districts that rarely draw a strong 

Republican challenger. 

Among types of voting equipment, paper and punch card jurisdictions report about 50 percent more 

drop-off than optical scan jurisdictions and twice the presidential drop-off of all other jurisdictions. 

States 

In the presidential election, New Mexico reported the largest presidential drop-off, 2.61 percent, but 

caution should be used in interpreting this number, since only two-thirds of the counties in the state 

reported information. Excluding Arkansas, Vermont reported the lowest drop-off rate of .02 percent, 

but here too incorrect data provided by many towns in the state makes the statewide number suspect. 

For the Senate elections, the competitiveness of the election is related to drop-off. For example, in 

Idaho, Republican Crapo ran unopposed, except for a small number of write-in votes for Democrat 

McClure. Although Crapo won a landslide victory, many Idaho voters chose to abstain, and the state 

reported drop-off in the Senate election of 17.76 percent. In contrast, South Dakota, with a closely 

contested Senate campaign, reported a smaller drop-off for Senate than for president. Between-state 

comparisons of U.S. House drop-off are less reliable due to the uneven reporting across the states. 

Regions 

Across regions, the Midwest and West reported higher drop-off, 1.34 and 1.22, respectively, for 

president than the Northeast and South, .085 and .096, respectively. The pattern is not the same for 

the Senate and U.S. House races, primarily because these strongly contested races are different than 

the presidential battleground states. Few contested Senate elections were held in the Northeast, 

which reported the highest Senate drop-off, 9.73 percent. All other jurisdictions reported less than 

half the Senate drop-off of the Northeast, between 3.32 and 4.50 percent. 

Urban to Rural 

Rural jurisdictions reported the highest percentage of presidential drop-off, 1.60 percent, while other 

jurisdictions varied between 0.95 and 1.19 percent. For Senate, urban jurisdictions reported the 

highest percent of drop-off, 5.32 percent, while the remainder varied between 4.27 and 4.34 percent. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Drop-Off, Page 7-8 September 27, 2005 

Size of Jurisdiction 

Presidential drop-off tended to decrease with increasing jurisdiction population, with jurisdictions in 

the second smallest category, 1,000 to 3,500 voting age population (VAP), reporting the highest 

presidential drop-off, 2.82 percent, while jurisdictions in the 250,000-to-1 million range reported the 

lowest drop-off, 0.78 percent. There is no clear pattern related to the population size of a jurisdiction 

for reported drop-off for Senate, varying between 3.38 and 8.56 percent, and U.S. House races, 

varying between 7.66 and 20.26 percent. 

Race and Ethnicity 

Predominantly non-Hispanic Native American jurisdictions reported the highest presidential dropoff, 4.18 percent, over five times that of predominantly non-Hispanic Black jurisdictions, at 0.82 

percent. Hispanic jurisdictions reported the second highest drop-off, 1.17 percent, followed by 

predominantly non-Hispanic White, 1.07 percent. In contrast to president, non-Hispanic Native 

American jurisdictions reported the lowest level of drop-off for the Senate, 3.30, due perhaps to the 

high profile election in South Dakota, and the lowest for U.S. House, 4.65 percent, again due in part 

to a high profile U.S. House race in South Dakota. Predominantly Hispanic jurisdictions reported the 

highest percentage of drop-off in Senate elections, 5.48 percent. African American jurisdictions had 

the highest rate of drop-off in U.S. House races, 22.78 percent, likely due to the noncompetitive 

nature of congressional races in heavily African American districts. 

Median Income 

There is a strong pattern to drop-off in jurisdictions according to their income levels. Those with the 

lowest median income completion have more than three times the level of presidential drop-off than 

those jurisdictions with the highest median income, 2.41 versus 0.78 percent. The same pattern of 

decreasing reported drop-off with rising income generally holds for Senate elections, 7.33 for the 

lowest income areas versus 4.32 percent for the highest income areas, but no relationship was 

evident in U.S. House elections. 

High School Education 

There is a strong pattern to drop-off in jurisdictions according to their education levels. Those with 

the lowest rates of high school completion have nearly four times the amount of presidential drop-off 

than those jurisdictions with the highest rate of high school completion, 2.05 versus 0.69 percent. 

The same pattern of reported decreasing drop-off with rising education generally holds for Senate, 

7.53 versus 3.75 percent, but no clear relationship was evident in U.S. House elections. 

Section 203 Language Minority Requirements 

Section 203 covered jurisdictions reported slightly higher presidential drop-off than other 

jurisdictions, 1.17 versus 1.07 percent. Section 203 covered jurisdictions reported slightly lower 

Senate drop-off compared with other jurisdictions. Section 203 covered jurisdictions reported higher 

U.S. House drop-off than other jurisdictions, 4.60 versus 8.01 percent, and reported higher drop-off 

in U.S. House elections, 16.41 versus 11.36 percent. 

Section 5 Preclearance of Voting Procedures 

Section 5 jurisdictions reported slightly higher presidential drop-off than other jurisdictions, 1.19 

versus 1.07 percent. Section 5 jurisdictions reported slightly lower Senate drop-off than other 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Drop-Off, Page 7-9 September 27, 2005 

jurisdictions, 4.30 versus 7.55 percent. Section 5 jurisdictions reported higher U.S. House drop-off 

than other jurisdictions, 14.41 versus 12.49 percent. 

Type of Voting Equipment 

Among known types of voting equipment, punch card and paper equipment have higher presidential 

drop-off than other types, 1.60 percent and 1.54 percent, respectively. Optical scan equipment has 

the next highest drop-off at around 1.12 percent, followed by electronic, lever, and multiple systems 

jurisdictions, all reporting slightly higher than 0.8 percent. 

Drop-off rates for Senate and U.S. House are uniformly higher among all types of voting equipment. 

Jurisdictions with lever machines reported the highest drop-off for both Senate and U.S. House, at 

9.81 percent and 17.17 percent, respectively. Other jurisdictions reported similar drop-off rates for 

Senate, ranging from 3.5 percent to 4.3 percent. (Multiple systems reported drop-off of 2.31 

percent.) There was more variation in U.S. House drop-off, with jurisdictions using punch cards 

reporting the lowest drop-off, 4.38 percent. 

Changed Voting Equipment since 2000 

Jurisdictions that changed voting equipment reported slightly lower presidential drop-off than those 

that did not, 0.97 versus 1.16 percent. Jurisdictions that changed voting equipment reported lower 

Senate drop-off than those that did not, 3.77 versus 8.67 percent, and higher U.S. House drop-off 

than other jurisdictions, 16.59 versus 11.19 percent. 

Statewide Voter Registration Database 

Jurisdictions with a statewide voter registration database reported lower presidential drop-off than 

those that did not, 0.82 versus 1.18 percent. Jurisdictions with a statewide voter registration database 

reported lower Senate drop-off than those that did not, 4.70 versus 7.45 percent. Jurisdictions with a 

statewide voter registration database reported higher U.S. House drop-off than those that do not have 

one, 14.72 versus 12.41 percent. 

Election Day Registration 

Jurisdictions with Election Day registration reported higher drop-off for presidential, 1.34 versus 

1.08 percent, and senatorial contests, 7.74 versus 6.97 percent, than those that do not have Election 

Day registration. Jurisdictions with Election Day registration reported lower U.S. House drop-off 

than those that do not, 5.75 versus 13.67 percent. 

Provisional Ballot Acceptance 

There was slightly higher reported presidential drop-off among jurisdictions that accept provisional 

ballots jurisdiction-wide than those that accept provisional ballots only cast within precinct, 1.14 

versus 1.07 percent. There was slightly higher reported Senate drop-off among jurisdictions that 

accept provisional ballots jurisdiction-wide than those that accept provisional ballots cast only within 

precinct, 3.87 versus 5.29 percent. There was slightly lower reported U.S. House drop-off among 

jurisdictions that accept provisional ballots jurisdiction-wide than those that accept provisional 

ballots only cast within precinct, 13.24 versus 14.07 percent. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Drop-Off, Page 7-10 September 27, 2005 

No Excuse Absentee Balloting 

Jurisdictions with no excuse absentee balloting reported higher presidential drop-off than those that 

do not, 1.18 versus 1.04 percent. Jurisdictions with no excuse absentee balloting reported slightly 

lower Senate drop-off than those that do not, 4.21 versus 10.15 percent. Jurisdictions with no excuse 

absentee balloting reported lower U.S. House drop-off than those that do not, 12.63 versus 13.30 

percent. 

Early Voting 

Jurisdictions with early voting reported slightly higher levels of presidential drop-off than other 

jurisdictions. Jurisdictions with early voting reported lower levels of Senate drop-off than other 

jurisdictions. Jurisdictions with early voting reported slightly higher levels of U.S. House drop-off 

than other jurisdictions. 

Battleground States 

Jurisdictions in battleground states reported lower presidential drop-off than other jurisdictions, 1.03 

versus 1.14 percent. Jurisdictions in battleground states reported lower Senate drop-off, 3.66 versus 

9.19 percent, and lower U.S. House drop-off, 12.25 versus 13.37 percent, than other jurisdictions. 

Presidential Margin of Victory 

Jurisdictions with a higher margin of victory tended to report slightly higher presidential drop-off 

than those jurisdictions with a lower margin of victory, 0.96 versus 1.17 percent. There was no 

pattern and little variation in reported Senate drop-off among jurisdictions according to the 

presidential margin of victory, varying between 3.91 and 5.21 percent. There was no pattern and 

high variation in reported U.S. House drop-off among jurisdictions according to the presidential 

margin of victory. 

Red versus Blue Jurisdictions 

Similar to the margin of victory, jurisdictions that were won by the highest margin for either 

candidate tended to report higher levels of presidential drop-off, the same 1.21 percent for 

jurisdictions won overwhelmingly either by Bush or Kerry. Those where the election was closest 

reported the smallest drop-off, 0.96 and 0.78 respectively for jurisdictions won by Bush or Kerry by 

a plurality. Jurisdictions where the election was closest, where Bush or Kerry won by a plurality, 

reported the highest Senate drop-off, 9.20 and 5.85 percent respectively. All other jurisdictions 

varied between 4.03 and 5.12 percent. There was high variation in reported U.S. House drop-off 

among jurisdictions according to the presidential winner within the jurisdiction. Those jurisdictions 

won by a plurality by either candidate reported the highest levels of U.S. House drop-off, 17.12 and 

34.17 percent respectively for jurisdictions won by Bush or Kerry by a plurality. 

REFERENCES 

Burnham, Walter Dean. 1965. “The Changing Shape of the American Political Universe.” The 

American Political Science Review 59(1): 7–28. 

Crocker, Royce. 1996. Voter Registration and Turnout: 1948–1994. CRS Report to Congress: CRS122. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. (This CRS report utilizes data compiled 

by Election Data Services, Inc.) 
Drop-Off

EAC Election Day Survey Cases = NumbeDrop-Off 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:04:40 Number Percent Number Percent Nu

Election Total Not Voting Drop-off Total Pres. > Not Voting Drop-off Total Sen. > Not V

Administration Ballots Total For For Total Ballots Total For For Total Ballots Total 

Code Name Jurisdictions Counted Cases President Cases President President Cases Exceptions Senate Cases Senate Senate Cases Exceptions Cong Dist Cases Con

01 Alabama 67 1,683,735 61 1,758,927 64 13,608 1.12 59 24 1,751,909 64 27,373 2.42 59 21 1,638,054 62 7

02 Alaska 1 314,502 1 312,598 1 1,904 0.61 1 308,315 1 6,187 1.97 1 299,996 1 1

04 Arizona 15 2,038,077 15 2,013,913 15 24,164 1.19 15 1,932,503 15 105,574 5.18 15 1,869,664 15 16

05 Arkansas 75 1,055,510 75 1,055,510 75 0 75 1,040,021 75 19,343 2.21 75 26 791,667 46 106 California 58 12,359,633 53 12,266,320 55 154,770 1.28 52 2 11,808,639 55 611,796 5.07 52 2 10,265,624 55 2,15

08 Colorado 64 2,148,036 64 2,130,472 64 17,564 0.82 64 2,107,900 64 40,136 1.87 64 2,040,001 64 10

09 Connecticut 169 1,595,013 169 1,578,757 169 17,146 1.11 169 5 1,424,726 169 171,082 10.74 169 1 1,428,604 169 1610 Delaware 3 377,407 3 375,273 3 2,134 0.57 3 356,053 3 2

11 District of Columbia 1 230,105 1 227,586 1 2,519 1.09 1 221,213 1 12 Florida 67 7,639,949 67 7,609,810 67 30,139 0.39 67 7,429,894 67 210,055 2.75 67 5,627,494 65 1,88

13 Georgia 159 3,317,336 159 3,304,484 159 12,852 0.39 159 3,222,467 159 94,869 2.86 159 2,256,560 159 1,0615 Hawaii 5 431,203 4 430,565 4 638 0.15 4 427,492 4 3,711 0.86 4 428,342 4 

16 Idaho 44 612,786 44 598,447 44 14,339 2.34 44 503,932 44 108,854 17.76 44 572,426 44 417 Illinois 110 5,361,048 110 5,070,558 96 33,122 0.66 96 6 4,998,444 96 115,574 2.31 96 7

18 Indiana 92 2,512,142 92 2,467,863 92 44,279 1.76 92 2,428,233 92 83,909 3.34 92 1,866,709 84 4219 Iowa 99 1,513,894 98 1,488,776 97 18,313 1.22 97 1 1,462,091 97 45,017 3.00 97 1 1,431,874 96 620 Kansas 105 1,199,590 105 1,188,799 105 14,058 1.28 105 17 1,129,857 105 71,432 6.02 105 6 1,156,790 105 421 Kentucky 120 1,816,867 120 1,794,860 120 22,007 1.21 120 1,724,362 120 92,505 5.09 120 1,635,045 120 1822 Louisiana 64 1,956,590 64 1,943,106 64 13,606 0.71 64 2 1,848,056 64 108,534 5.55 64 1,035,862 48 3023 Maine 517 754,777 517 741,081 517 13,696 1.81 517 710,512 517 424 Maryland 24 2,395,127 24 2,386,668 24 8,459 0.35 24 2,323,177 24 71,950 3.00 24 2,228,796 24 1625 Massachusetts 351 2,927,455 351 2,912,395 351 15,060 0.51 351 2,472,146 350 4526 Michigan 83 4,876,237 83 4,839,252 83 36,985 0.76 83 4,628,840 83 24

27 Minnesota 87 2,842,912 87 2,825,015 87 17,897 0.63 87 2,721,681 87 1228 Mississippi 82 1,163,460 82 1,152,145 82 11,315 0.97 82 1,116,203 82 429 Missouri 116 2,765,960 116 2,731,364 116 34,596 1.25 116 2,706,402 116 59,558 2.15 116 1,749,317 110 18

30 Montana 56 456,096 56 450,313 56 5,783 1.27 56 442,929 56 1

31 Nebraska 93 792,910 93 778,186 93 14,724 1.86 93 764,972 93 232 Nevada 17 831,833 17 829,587 17 2,246 0.27 17 810,068 17 21,765 2.62 17 791,430 17 4

33 New Hampshire 242 686,390 241 677,634 238 10,763 1.59 238 11 657,049 238 31,148 4.55 238 2 652,664 240 3

34 New Jersey 21 3,639,612 21 3,609,691 21 29,921 0.82 21 3,284,595 21 35

35 New Mexico 33 328,636 21 320,066 21 8,570 2.61 21 5,790 1 469 7.49 1 316,192 21 1

36 New York 58 7,448,266 58 7,391,036 58 57,230 0.77 58 6,702,875 58 745,391 10.01 58 2,819,282 55 90

37 North Carolina 100 3,571,420 100 3,501,007 100 70,413 1.97 100 3,420,245 100 151,175 4.23 100 3,409,472 100 1638 North Dakota 53 316,049 53 312,833 53 3,216 1.02 53 310,696 53 5,353 1.69 53 310,814 53 

39 Ohio 88 5,730,867 88 5,627,207 88 103,660 1.81 88 5,427,452 88 303,415 5.29 88

40 Oklahoma 77 1,474,304 77 1,467,052 77 7,252 0.49 77 1,455,330 77 18,974 1.29 77 1,418,515 77 541 Oregon 36 1,851,671 36 1,836,782 36 14,889 0.80 36 1,780,550 36 71,121 3.84 36 1,772,306 36 742 Pennsylvania 67 3,006,146 4644 Rhode Island 39 440,743 39 437,134 39 3,609 0.82 39 402,165 39 3

45 South Carolina 46 1,626,720 46

46 South Dakota 66 394,930 66 388,215 66 6,715 1.70 66 391,188 66 3,742 0.95 66 389,468 66 

47 Tennessee 95 2,458,213 95 2,434,949 95 23,394 0.96 95 2

48 Texas 254 7,507,333 254 7,410,766 254 96,567 1.29 254 6,836,206 254 6749 Utah 29 942,045 29 928,379 29 13,666 1.45 29 913,845 29 28,200 2.99 29 908,531 29 3

50 Vermont 246 313,973 245 314,275 246 48 0.02 245 4 314,273 246 48 0.02 245 5 225,106 231 8

51 Virginia 134 3,223,156 134 3,198,367 134 24,807 0.77 134 2 2,548,424 133 6653 Washington 39 2,885,001 39 2,859,084 39 25,917 0.90 39 2,818,651 39 66,350 2.30 39 2,729,995 39 1554 West Virginia 55 769,645 55 756,341 55 13,602 1.80 55 3 721,665 55 4

55 Wisconsin 1,910 3,009,491 1,880 2,992,340 1,897 45,982 1.58 1,880 73 2,869,954 1,897 190,622 6.39 1,880 63 2,815,739 1,896 22

56 Wyoming 23 245,789 23 242,948 23 2,841 1.16 23 238,677 23 

60 American Samoa 166 Guam 172 Puerto Rico 110 1,990,372 110 0 1,990,372 100.00 1,959,553 110 378 Virgin Islands 1 31,391 1 30,211 1 1,180 3.76 1 30,211 1 

Total 6,568 121,862,353 6,488 113,968,736 6,290 1,160,985 1.02 6,264 152 78,486,597 4,377 5,676,784 6.86 4,351 134 86,338,384 6,039 11,669Maximum 1,910 12,359,633 1,880 12,266,320 1,897 154,770 2.61 1,880 73 11,808,639 1,897 1,990,372 100.00 1,880 63 10,265,624 1,896 2,155Average 119 2,299,289 122 2,325,892 128 23,693 1.08 127 11 2,242,474 128 162,193 6.90 127 13 1,798,716 125 243Minimum 1 31,391 1 227,586 1 0 0.02 1 1 0 1 48 0.02 1 1 30,211 1 1

Presidential U.S. Senate U.S. House 

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Drop-Off

EAC Election Day Survey Cases = NumbeDrop-Off 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:04:40 Number Percent Number Percent Nu

Election Total Not Voting Drop-off Total Pres. > Not Voting Drop-off Total Sen. > Not V

Administration Ballots Total For For Total Ballots Total For For Total Ballots Total 

Code Name Jurisdictions Counted Cases President Cases President President Cases Exceptions Senate Cases Senate Senate Cases Exceptions Cong Dist Cases Con

Presidential U.S. Senate U.S. House 

Election Administration President, U.S. Senate, and U.S. House of Representatives Drop-

Voting Equipment Used in 2004 

General Election

None / Unknown 908 9,922,294 875 7,782,772 766 136,741 1.76 761 27 4,837,124 715 2,277,688 32.37 710 23 5,193,674 798 31

Punch card 260 10,938,861 255 10,202,265 244 134,740 1.60 243 4 8,160,186 173 348,741 4.30 172 6 5,618,247 177 25

Lever 394 12,981,126 384 11,663,153 374 95,556 0.83 374 10 9,135,575 305 993,452 9.81 305 1 6,439,348 349 1,33

Paper 1,734 2,172,234 1,727 2,135,810 1,732 29,342 1.54 1,726 46 1,384,461 1,106 55,016 4.29 1,100 39 1,464,574 1,724 13

Optical scan 2,541 49,661,061 2,524 48,141,235 2,490 483,390 1.12 2,479 64 33,045,332 1,589 1,125,428 3.51 1,578 65 40,376,414 2,378 5,22

Electronic 608 27,295,070 601 25,285,382 564 216,995 0.86 561 19,329,451 461 823,495 4.12 458 19,563,903 501 3,40

Multiple Systems 123 8,891,707 122 8,758,119 120 64,221 0.83 120 1 2,594,468 28 52,964 2.31 28 7,682,224 112 1,00

Changed Voting Equipment Since 

2000 General Election

Yes 1,753 35,479,523 1,739 34,381,658 1,722 320,668 0.97 1,715 52 26,799,451 1,434 1,031,159 3.77 1,427 25 26,546,492 1,629 5,19

No 4,815 86,382,830 4,749 79,587,078 4,568 840,317 1.16 4,549 100 51,687,146 2,943 4,645,625 8.67 2,924 109 59,791,892 4,410 6,47

State Wide Voter Registration 

System in Place

Yes 1,335 27,317,939 1,322 25,489,478 1,276 203,051 0.82 1,276 10 12,740,229 676 605,647 4.70 676 1 22,199,846 1,259 2,87

No 5,233 94,544,414 5,166 88,479,258 5,014 957,934 1.18 4,988 142 65,746,368 3,701 5,071,137 7.45 3,675 133 64,138,538 4,780 8,79

Election Day Registration

Yes 2,823 8,152,145 2,792 8,077,465 2,806 105,518 1.34 2,789 84 4,030,935 2,179 330,624 7.74 2,162 65 7,711,699 2,807 46

No 3,745 113,710,208 3,696 105,891,271 3,484 1,055,467 1.08 3,475 68 74,455,662 2,198 5,346,160 6.97 2,189 69 78,626,685 3,232 11,20

Provisional Ballot Acceptance

In Overall Jurisdiction 1,162 44,662,901 1,123 41,055,629 1,066 405,687 1.14 1,062 14 38,842,876 1,004 1,491,326 3.87 1,000 40 30,907,990 910 4,58In Precinct Only 4,350 69,964,775 4,312 67,758,097 4,285 695,387 1.07 4,263 127 38,141,833 3,037 2,048,551 5.29 3,015 92 48,472,533 4,077 6,80None 1,056 7,234,677 1,053 5,155,010 939 59,911 1.16 939 11 1,501,888 336 2,136,907 58.80 336 2 6,957,861 1,052 27

No Excuse Absentee Balloting

Yes 3,781 46,531,514 3,731 46,108,172 3,750 510,564 1.18 3,729 99 42,268,719 3,041 1,797,994 4.21 3,020 77 40,200,425 3,715 5,66

No 2,787 75,330,839 2,757 67,860,564 2,540 650,421 1.04 2,535 53 36,217,878 1,336 3,878,790 10.15 1,331 57 46,137,959 2,324 6,00

Early Voting Allowed

Yes 1,701 50,903,807 1,681 50,439,831 1,683 522,673 1.12 1,679 29 37,689,513 1,180 1,514,758 4.01 1,176 40 41,451,444 1,541 6,67

No 4,867 70,958,546 4,807 63,528,905 4,607 638,312 1.08 4,585 123 40,797,084 3,197 4,162,026 9.64 3,175 94 44,886,940 4,498 4,99

Covered By Section 203, 

Language Minority Requirements

Yes 468 34,287,661 450 33,986,664 452 362,562 1.17 449 4 23,303,504 149 1,089,591 4.60 146 2 25,887,743 447 4,96

No 6,100 87,574,692 6,038 79,982,072 5,838 798,423 1.07 5,815 148 55,183,093 4,228 4,587,193 8.01 4,205 132 60,450,641 5,592 6,70

Covered By Section 5 of Voting 

Rights Act

Yes 880 27,429,425 872 25,638,280 829 285,559 1.19 823 29 13,521,427 361 569,836 4.30 355 21 21,772,674 812 3,47

No 5,688 94,432,928 5,616 88,330,456 5,461 875,426 1.07 5,441 123 64,965,170 4,016 5,106,948 7.55 3,996 113 64,565,710 5,227 8,19

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Drop-Off

EAC Election Day Survey Cases = NumbeDrop-Off 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:04:40 Number Percent Number Percent Nu

Election Total Not Voting Drop-off Total Pres. > Not Voting Drop-off Total Sen. > Not V

Administration Ballots Total For For Total Ballots Total For For Total Ballots Total 

Code Name Jurisdictions Counted Cases President Cases President President Cases Exceptions Senate Cases Senate Senate Cases Exceptions Cong Dist Cases Con

Presidential U.S. Senate U.S. House 

Demographics

Region

Northeast 1,710 20,812,375 1,687 17,662,003 1,639 147,473 0.85 1,638 20 9,098,923 711 947,669 9.73 710 8 11,995,074 1,622 2,08

South 1,423 42,266,877 1,417 40,376,851 1,374 352,674 0.96 1,369 33 24,215,461 750 794,778 3.32 745 47 31,841,229 1,229 5,36

Midwest 2,902 31,316,030 2,871 30,710,408 2,873 373,547 1.34 2,856 97 21,724,317 2,610 878,622 4.07 2,593 77 17,836,204 2,673 1,35

West 420 25,445,308 402 25,219,474 404 287,291 1.22 401 2 23,417,685 305 1,064,163 4.50 302 2 22,676,113 404 2,83

Territories 113 2,021,763 111 30,211 1 1,991,552 98.51 1 1,989,764 111 3

Urban to Rural

Urban 567 42,675,443 563 41,592,050 562 398,607 1.01 560 10 27,244,638 373 1,502,958 5.32 371 6 26,198,612 534 5,12

Suburban 871 33,263,865 860 30,993,718 847 285,490 0.95 845 15 22,314,125 602 981,444 4.27 600 15 23,915,863 809 4,11

Small Towns 1,710 30,364,561 1,685 28,304,035 1,634 292,227 1.19 1,627 38 20,398,374 1,114 855,122 4.34 1,107 33 22,603,090 1,461 1,68

Rural 3,307 13,536,721 3,269 13,078,933 3,247 184,661 1.60 3,232 89 8,499,249 2,287 345,708 4.33 2,272 80 11,631,055 3,124 71

Not Available - Territories 113 2,021,763 111 30,211 1 1,991,552 98.51 1 1,989,764 111 3

Size of Jurisdiction (VAP)

< 1,000 1,761 634,024 1,740 636,085 1,754 6,957 1.46 1,739 60 526,044 1,425 25,000 5.51 1,410 52 577,365 1,751 6

>=1,000 to <3,500 1,165 1,630,543 1,162 1,597,029 1,164 40,658 2.82 1,162 24 1,092,727 842 88,900 8.56 840 16 1,502,245 1,160 13>=3,500 to <10,000 1,043 4,256,986 1,038 4,156,692 1,029 60,236 1.59 1,028 21 2,393,836 618 142,597 6.23 617 23 3,742,764 982 31>=10,000 to <50,000 1,704 21,817,391 1,689 20,865,743 1,641 273,979 1.47 1,637 37 12,477,672 1,006 585,754 4.89 1,002 32 16,947,060 1,431 1,34>=50,000 to <250,000 586 33,587,618 570 31,211,163 534 275,154 0.95 530 8 21,055,221 369 994,141 4.75 365 8 24,517,131 456 2,07>=250,000 to <1,000,000 140 35,485,241 133 33,329,394 125 245,112 0.78 125 1 23,242,925 89 793,020 3.38 89 1 23,788,846 109 5,04>=1,000,000 25 22,427,696 24 22,168,851 24 258,845 1.24 24 17,664,923 19 1,055,789 5.64 19 13,270,041 18 2,65

Not Available 144 2,022,854 132 3,779 19 44 6.63 19 1 33,249 9 1,991,583 98.50 9 2 1,992,932 132 3

Race and Ethnicity

Predominently NH White 6,264 112,362,361 6,201 106,734,482 6,127 1,055,209 1.07 6,102 148 73,276,603 4,300 3,413,658 4.64 4,275 125 78,272,192 5,767 10,59

Predominently NH Black 85 2,117,437 85 1,960,695 73 14,101 0.82 73 3 1,337,737 43 52,456 3.96 43 6 1,377,203 69 37

Predominently NH Native American 24 127,150 23 123,548 24 5,312 4.18 23 85,914 17 2,871 3.30 16 1 122,765 24 

Predominently Hispanic 50 5,209,222 46 5,122,903 46 86,319 1.71 46 3,729,765 7 216,216 5.48 7 4,549,963 46 65Not Available 145 2,046,183 133 27,108 20 44 6.63 20 1 56,578 10 1,991,583 98.50 10 2 2,016,261 133 3

Median Income

< $25,000 298 1,488,479 294 1,440,538 291 24,692 2.41 291 6 806,941 159 52,744 7.33 159 15 1,191,846 274 14

>=$25,000 to <$30,000 884 5,685,388 876 5,455,490 866 78,404 1.70 863 12 3,199,718 488 135,443 4.50 485 23 4,234,332 798 30>=$30,000 to <$35,000 1,372 14,312,622 1,356 13,179,325 1,316 165,933 1.45 1,313 34 8,865,756 889 362,817 4.39 886 32 11,170,815 1,228 77>=$35,000 to <$40,000 1,215 26,144,458 1,204 24,868,484 1,182 251,089 1.12 1,177 37 18,552,287 865 988,143 5.22 860 20 15,829,284 1,101 1,76>=$40,000 to <$45,000 881 26,227,676 871 24,994,175 862 282,093 1.18 857 23 18,228,672 692 912,831 4.88 687 17 19,709,032 805 2,57>=$45,000 to <$50,000 587 15,037,096 577 14,514,853 578 140,457 0.98 572 15 10,040,530 442 411,510 4.00 436 9 9,594,222 555 2,77>=$50,000 1,180 30,943,728 1,173 29,512,042 1,172 218,271 0.78 1,168 24 18,759,411 830 821,707 4.32 826 16 22,615,873 1,142 3,29

Not Available 151 2,022,906 137 3,829 23 46 6.91 23 1 33,282 12 1,991,589 98.50 12 2 1,992,980 136 3

High School Education

< 60% 126 951,317 125 931,510 124 16,216 2.05 124 336,333 63 26,503 7.53 63 2 778,033 114 10

>=60% to <70% 661 10,083,603 652 9,719,374 635 154,138 1.78 629 25 7,482,643 392 374,159 5.23 386 31 8,292,294 563 99>=70% to <80% 1,646 31,406,406 1,630 29,496,147 1,589 348,449 1.33 1,587 39 18,778,364 1,094 983,190 5.18 1,092 41 20,677,376 1,469 2,03>=80% to <90% 3,111 65,275,468 3,074 61,770,600 3,048 563,253 0.96 3,031 72 44,838,970 2,242 2,035,099 4.49 2,225 49 44,262,963 2,901 7,51>=90% 873 12,099,350 870 12,023,973 871 78,883 0.69 870 15 6,993,702 574 266,244 3.75 573 9 10,311,435 856 99

Not Available 151 2,046,209 137 27,132 23 46 6.91 23 1 56,585 12 1,991,589 98.50 12 2 2,016,283 136 3

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Drop-Off

EAC Election Day Survey Cases = NumbeDrop-Off 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:04:40 Number Percent Number Percent Nu

Election Total Not Voting Drop-off Total Pres. > Not Voting Drop-off Total Sen. > Not V

Administration Ballots Total For For Total Ballots Total For For Total Ballots Total 

Code Name Jurisdictions Counted Cases President Cases President President Cases Exceptions Senate Cases Senate Senate Cases Exceptions Cong Dist Cases Con

Presidential U.S. Senate U.S. House 

Political

Battleground States in 2004 

Presidential Election

Yes 3,093 43,980,255 3,028 40,593,153 2,995 405,287 1.03 2,978 88 31,048,325 2,750 1,164,573 3.66 2,733 92 30,660,529 2,870 3,39

No 3,475 77,882,098 3,460 73,375,583 3,295 755,698 1.14 3,286 64 47,438,272 1,627 4,512,211 9.19 1,618 42 55,677,855 3,169 8,27

Margin of Victory in 2004 

Presidential Election

< 2.5% 515 10,753,542 508 10,520,129 502 96,163 0.96 499 13 7,307,480 344 364,717 4.86 341 9 7,345,052 478 1,25

>=2.5% to < 5.0% 476 8,077,591 471 6,840,604 462 48,544 0.78 460 9 4,912,863 320 194,109 4.25 318 10 5,877,115 435 42>=5.0% to < 7.5% 510 9,931,823 506 9,790,598 504 99,084 1.04 503 14 7,359,512 353 334,778 4.45 352 6 5,979,485 483 2,14>=7.5% to < 10.0 % 429 6,126,475 426 5,948,052 422 54,824 0.99 421 14 4,412,861 299 185,948 4.22 298 11 4,322,549 398 27>=10.0 % 4,492 84,945,042 4,448 80,860,548 4,384 862,325 1.16 4,365 100 54,455,145 3,044 2,605,387 4.75 3,025 97 60,816,606 4,117 7,53

Red vs Blue Jurisdictions Won By 

in 2004 Presidential Election

Bush > 55% 3,115 47,293,906 3,083 44,578,904 3,029 494,305 1.21 3,016 85 30,588,738 2,176 1,215,700 4.03 2,163 73 36,235,076 2,814 3,46

Bush 50% to 55% 982 18,343,733 974 17,379,107 963 184,958 1.14 959 25 11,240,315 707 518,758 4.57 703 17 12,785,725 898 2,06Bush < 50% 136 1,386,188 135 1,318,265 131 12,408 0.96 131 4 1,114,145 83 112,274 9.20 83 1 1,008,995 128 20

Kerry < 50% 150 3,447,366 149 3,423,694 149 25,550 0.75 149 5 2,476,702 99 136,073 5.26 99 2 2,418,039 146 28

Kerry 50% to 55% 872 16,109,589 860 15,319,622 856 124,181 0.88 850 19 11,167,231 577 445,792 4.07 571 18 10,476,132 817 1,88Kerry > 55% 1,161 33,249,808 1,152 31,936,516 1,140 319,478 1.07 1,137 12 21,860,730 718 1,256,342 5.55 715 22 21,413,183 1,102 3,72

Tied 25 9,842 18 9,741 17 102 1.21 17 1 5,669 11 290 5.38 11 9,178 17 

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Chapter 8 

Overvotes and Undervotes 

Table 8 presents data from the Election Day Survey on overvotes and undervotes for candidates in 

federal contests at the November 2004 general election. Traditionally, overvotes and undervotes are 

the two components that combine together to make up drop-off. (See chapter 7). While drop-off is a 

data element calculated from known data items, overvotes and undervotes are actual numbers that 

have to be generated by vote-tallying software. 

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) survey defined “overvote” as an occurrence “when 

a voter makes more than the permitted number of selections in a single race/contest or when a voter 

makes a selection in a race/contest on which he/she was not eligible to vote.” The problems with the 

EAC definition are how to operationally test for the latter part of the definition and be able to collect 

that data. 

Traditionally, overvotes occur when a voter casts more votes for an office than they are allowed to 

cast. For example, in a “vote for one” office like president, a voter casting votes for two or more 

candidates would have overvoted for that office only. As a result, the voter’s candidate choice would 

not be recorded for that office. The voter’s choices for other offices, if properly cast, would be 

counted under most state laws. Independent research has shown that the higher the allowable votes 

for an office (like a “vote for five” contest), the higher the rate of overvotes. It would appear that 

voters have a hard time keeping track of how many candidates they have voted for. 

Overvoting usually comes about because of voter mistakes and/or bad ballot design. Actual data has 

shown that when candidates for a single office are spread across multiple pages in a ballot book, or 

multiple columns on a ballot, greater numbers of overvotes occur. Many times voters fall prey to 

mistakes they have no control over. 

The EAC defined an “undervote” as an occurrence “when a voter makes less than that allowed 

number of selections in a single race/contest or when a voter votes on less than all of the 

races/contests for which he/she is eligible to vote.” It is possible that an undervote can occur when a 

voter simply does not see a contest, and then fails to vote for any candidate for that office. But it is 

also possible, in fact, more likely, that an undervote occurs through the voter’s choice to not cast a 

vote for that office. This choice may be because they do not know anything about the candidates and 

do not want to make an uneducated choice, or they uniformly do not like any of the candidates. It is 

not proper to attribute all of the “undervotes” to errors in voting equipment, as some commentators 

have subscribed, but it is possible that a small number may be linked to faulty voting equipment. 

Applicability and Coverage 

For some voting systems, such as electronic direct recording electronic (DRE) machines, overvotes 

can be prevented through programming in the units. As a result, overvote reports tend to not be 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Overvotes and undervotes, Page 8-2 September 27, 2005 

generated in jurisdictions using that type of system. The EAC survey shows that only one-third of 

the nation’s jurisdictions reported the number of overvotes. Overvote and undervote reports have 

traditionally been difficult to obtain. The EAC survey was able to obtain undervote counts from just 

two-thirds of the nation’s jurisdictions. 

Historical Context 

Overvotes and undervotes traditionally have been tied to advances and variation in voting 

technology. When votes were cast by voice or by party-printed ballots in the 19th century, overvotes 

and undervotes would have been more difficult to cast. A person voicing their vote for multiple 

candidates when only one was allowed would have been corrected on the spot, and abstention would 

have been specifically voiced by the voter. Similarly, with party-printed ballots, voters would have 

had to alter the existing ballot to cast an overvote or an undervote. 

In 1888, Massachusetts became the first state to adopt the secret ballot (Evans 1917), which moved 

administration of printing ballots away from the political parties and to local jurisdictions. As more 

jurisdictions adopted the secret ballot, many maintained the use of paper ballots, but provided boxes 

for voters to check off the candidate they wanted to vote for. An early alternative system of lever 

machines was adopted in New York in 1892. 

Voters’ experiences varied with the format of the ballot: some jurisdictions created “office bloc” 

formats where voters selected among candidates for offices, while other adopted “party bloc” 

formats that allowed the selection of all candidates for one party with one check of a box. While the 

party bloc format reduced the amount of split-ticket voting (Rusk 1970), it also likely reduced the 

incidence of overvotes and undervotes for offices on the ballot (Walker 1966). 

There are few historical statistics on the incidence of overvoting and undervoting. Research specific 

to overvoting and undervoting, rather than the broader subject of drop-off or residual votes, first 

examined municipal elections where multiple candidates could be selected for a single office, such 

as school board, and compared rates of overvoting and undervoting using paper and punch card 

ballots in an experimental setting (Shocket, Heighberger, and Brown 1992). In the wake of the 2000 

election, a number of academic studies (e.g., Brady, Herron, Mebane, Sekhon, Shotts, and Wand 

2001) and a consortium of news organizations (Keating and Balz 2001) examined the structure of 

the Florida ballot in relation to overvoting and undervoting for president. 

Traditionally (i.e., before 2000), vote-tallying software did not report undervotes and overvotes 

unless specifically programmed to generate such numbers. Vote equipment and vote-tallying 

software vendors usually have not advocated to election administrators that they exercise any option 

to print overvotes and undervotes with the election results. This study’s principal investigator has 

over three decades of observing elections and studying election results, but has found only a few 

instances of overvote and undervote tallies. Where we have found such data, generally the 

information is heavily tilted toward the undervotes, with few overvotes recorded. It is typical to find 

that only about 10 percent of the drop-off in a contest is caused by overvoting, while 90 percent of 

the drop-off is due to undervoting. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Overvotes and undervotes, Page 8-3 September 27, 2005 

Survey Results 

Table 8 presents data on overvotes and undervotes from question 12 on the Election Day Survey. In 

the table, the overvotes and undervotes, which are the components of drop-off, are calculated for 

presidential, senatorial, and congressional elections as percentages of ballots counted. The column 

headings in Table 8 are as follows: 

Table 8 Column Headings. Overvotes and undervotes 

Col. Heading Description 

1 Code State census code 

2 Name Respondent to Election Day Survey 

3 Jurisdiction Number of local election jurisdictions from survey question 22 

4 Total Ballots Counted Number of ballots counted from survey question 2 

5 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 2 

6 Total Ballots 

for President 

Number of votes for president from survey question 12 

7 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 12 

8 Number Not Voting for 

President (Drop-off) 

Number of ballots counted (col. 4) minus the number of votes for 

president (col. 6) 

9 Percent Not Voting for 

President (Drop-off) 

Number not voting for president (col. 8) divided by the number of 

ballots counted (col. 4). 

10 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 2 and 12 

11 Exceptions Number of jurisdictions that reported more votes for president 

(col. 6) than the total number of ballots counted (col. 4) 

12 Total Overvotes 

for President 

Number of overvotes for president from survey question 11 

13 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 11 

14 Percent President Overvotes of Total Ballots 

Number of overvotes for president (col. 12) divided by the number 

of ballots counted (col. 4). 

15 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 2 and 11 

16 Percent Pres. 

Overvotes of Total 

Over & Undervotes 

Number of overvotes for president (col. 14) divided by the sum of 

the number of overvotes for president (col. 12) and the number of 

undervotes for president (col. 18). 

17 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 10, 11, and 12 

18 Total Undervotes 

for President 

Number of undervotes for resident from survey question 10 

19 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 10 

20 Percent President Undervotes of Total Ballots 

Number of undervotes for president (col. 18) divided by the 

number of ballots counted (col. 4). 

21 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 2 and 10 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Overvotes and undervotes, Page 8-4 September 27, 2005 

Table 8 Column Headings (cont.) 

Col. Heading Description 

22 

Percent Pres. 

Undervotes of Total 

 Over & Undervotes 

Number of undervotes for president (col. 18) divided by the sum 

of the number of overvotes for president (col. 12) and the number 

of undervotes for president (col. 18). 

23 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 10, 11, and 12 

24 Total Ballots 

for U.S. Senate 

Number of votes for U.S. Senator from survey question 12 

25 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 12 

26 Number Not Voting for 

U.S. Senate (Drop-off) 

Number of ballots counted (col. 4) minus the number of votes for 

U.S. Senator (col. 24) 

27 Percent Not Voting for 

U.S. Senate (Drop-off) 

Number not voting for U.S. Senator (col. 26) divided by the number of ballots counted (col. 4). 

28 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 2 and 12 

29 Exceptions Number of jurisdictions that reported more votes for U.S. Senator 

(col. 24) than the total number of ballots counted (col. 4) 

30 Total Overvotes 

for U.S. Senate 

Number of overvotes for U.S. Senator from survey question 11 

31 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 11 

32 Percent 

U.S. Senate Overvotes 

 of Total Ballots 

Number of overvotes for U.S. Senator (col. 30) divided by the 

number of ballots counted (col. 4). 

33 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 2 and 11 

34 Percent U.S. Sen. 

Overvotes of Total 

Over & Undervotes 

Number of overvotes for U.S. Senator (col. 30) divided by the sum 

of the number of overvotes for U.S. Senator (col. 30) and the number of undervotes for U.S. Senator (col. 36). 

35 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 10, 11, and 12 

36 Total Undervotes 

for U.S. Senate 

Number of undervotes for U.S. Senator from survey question 10 

37 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 10 

38 Percent 

U.S. Senate Undervotes 

 of Total Ballots 

Number of undervotes for U.S. Senator (col. 36) divided by the 

number of ballots counted (col. 4). 

39 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 2 and 10 

40 Percent U.S. Sen. 

Undervotes of Total 

 Over & Undervotes 

Number of undervotes for U.S. Senator (col. 36) divided by the 

sum of the number of overvotes for U.S. Senator (col. 30) and the 

number of undervotes for U.S. Senator (col. 36). 

41 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 10, 11, and 12 

42 Total Ballots 

for Congress 

Number of votes for U.S. Representative from survey question 12 

43 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 12 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Overvotes and undervotes, Page 8-5 September 27, 2005 

Table 8 Column Headings (cont.) 

Col. Heading Description 

44 Number Not Voting for 

Congress (Drop-off) 

Number of ballots counted (col. 4) minus the number of votes for 

U.S. Representative (col. 42) 

45 Percent Not Voting for 

Congress (Drop-off) 

Number not voting for U.S. Representative (col. 44) divided by the 

number of ballots counted (col. 4). 

46 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 2 and 12 

47 Exceptions Number of jurisdictions that reported more votes for U.S. Representative (col. 42) than the total number of ballots counted (col. 4) 

48 Total Overvotes 

for Congress 

Number of overvotes for U.S. Representative from survey 

question 11 

49 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 11 

50 

Percent Congress 

Overvotes of Total Ballots 

This cell has an extra line of space at the top. Number of overvotes 

for U.S. Representative (col. 48) divided by the number of ballots 

counted (col. 4). 

51 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to both question 2 and 11 

52 Percent Congress 

Overvotes of Total 

Over & Undervotes 

Number of overvotes for U.S. Representative (col. 48) divided by 

the sum of the number of overvotes for U.S. Representative 

(col. 48) and the number of undervotes for U.S. Representative 

(col. 54). 

53 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 10, 11, and 12 

54 Total Undervotes 

for Congress 

Number of undervotes for U.S. Representative from survey question 10 

55 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 10 

56 

Percent Congress 

Undervotes of 

Total Ballots 

Number of undervotes for U.S. Representative (col. 54) divided by 

the number of ballots counted (col. 4). 

57 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to both questions 2 and 10 

58 

This cell has an extra 

line of space at the top. 

Percent Undervotes 

of Total Over & 

Undervotes 

Number of undervotes for U.S. Representative (col. 54) divided by 

the sum of the number of overvotes for U.S. Representative (col. 

48) and the number of undervotes for U.S. Representative (col. 

54). 

59 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 10, 11, and 12 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Overvotes and undervotes, Page 8-6 September 27, 2005 

Analysis of Survey Results 

The following is our analysis of the data in Table 8 for each of the 18 cross-tabulation factors 

described earlier in this report. A description of each factor follows a general summary and a statelevel summary of the survey data. 

1) Regions 10) Changed Voting Equipment since 2000 

2) Urban to Rural 11) Statewide Voter Registration Database 

3) Size of Jurisdiction 12) Election Day Registration 

4) Race and Ethnicity 13) Provisional Ballot Acceptance 

5) Median Income 14) No Excuse Absentee Balloting 

6) High School Education 15) Early Voting 

7) Section 203 Language Minority Requirements 16) Battleground States 

8) Section 5 Preclearance of Voting Procedures 17) Presidential Margin of Victory 

9) Type of Voting Equipment 18) Red versus Blue Jurisdictions 

This analysis is based only on data that was reported to the EAC on the Election Day Survey. Many 

state responses to a survey question or part of a question did not cover all local election jurisdictions. 

In Table 8 as well as other tables in this report, a jurisdiction was excluded from a statistical 

calculation if its response was missing for one or more of the data items (i.e., columns) used in the 

calculation. A column labeled “Cases” next to each statistical calculation shows the number of 

jurisdictions covered by that calculation. 

Summary 

Drop-off, which is a combination of undervotes and overvotes, is analyzed in chapter 7, and 

although a column is reported for presidential, Senate, and U.S. House drop-off, it is not discussed in 

depth in this chapter. 

Nationally, for president, 133,289 overvotes were reported cast, or 0.23 percent of total ballots cast. 

863,872 presidential undervotes were reported, or 0.91 percent of total ballots cast. For Senate, 

49,100 overvotes were reported, or 0.11 percent of total ballots cast in Senate contests. For Senate 

races, 2,488,016 Senate undervotes were reported, or 3.80 percent of total ballots cast. For U.S. 

House, 56,173 overvotes were reported, or 0.12 percent of total ballots cast in House contests. 

5,077,325 undervotes in House elections were reported, or 6.27 percent of total ballots cast. 

Considerable care should be taken in interpreting the analysis presented here. Many jurisdictions did 

not provide overvotes and undervotes on their response to the Election Day Survey, so the analysis is 

only valid for reporting jurisdictions. In addition, some jurisdictions provided data for either 

overvotes or undervotes, but not both. We also make two caveats for overvotes and undervotes: 

• For overvotes, only a small percentage of overvotes were reported cast, and any inference is 

suspect when there is little variation. 

• For undervotes, particularly for Senate and U.S. House, undervotes are a function of the 

competitiveness of the election. We note sizable increases in undervotes for elections that 

were won handily by one candidate, particularly when that candidate was unopposed. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Overvotes and undervotes, Page 8-7 September 27, 2005 

With these caveats in mind, we note a few interesting patterns in our analysis: 

Jurisdictions with the lowest income and education levels tended to report the highest percentage of 

overvotes and undervotes. The percentages tended to drop to a lower level at the second-to-third 

lowest income and education categories. 

Many of the studies in the wake of the 2000 election focused on the relationship between voting 

equipment and overvotes and undervotes. For overvotes, which are more clearly an error in the 

recording of a vote, we note that punch card jurisdictions reported the highest overvotes as a 

percentage of total ballots cast for president and Senate, and were second highest to paper ballot 

jurisdictions for U.S. House elections. Overvotes are more prone to occur in voting systems where a 

voter marks a physical ballot and it is deposited in a ballot box to be counted at the close of the polls. 

Systems that provide an in-precinct checking capability are likely to see lower numbers of overvotes. 

Electronic systems reported a low percentage of undervotes, but lever systems also reported a low 

rate, as did jurisdictions using multiple systems. Optical scan jurisdictions tended to fall in the 

middle. 

Predominantly Hispanic jurisdictions tended to report the highest percentage of overvotes for all 

offices, and generally a high percentage of undervotes for U.S. House and Senate. Predominantly 

non-Hispanic Native American jurisdictions reported the highest percentage of undervotes for 

president. 

States 

For the presidential election, Alaska reported the lowest overvotes as a percentage of total ballots 

cast, 0.01 percent. Idaho reported the highest, 1.50 percent. Alabama and Maryland reported the 

lowest undervotes as a percentage of total ballots cast, 0.30 percent. Nevada also reported a low 

number of undervotes, 0.44 percent; Nevada is the only state that presents voters with “None of 

these candidates” as an option for presidential vote. New Mexico reported the highest percentage of 

undervotes, 2.74 percent, but this was based on reports of only 10 of the state’s 33 counties. 

For Senate, Maryland reported the lowest overvotes as a percentage of total ballots cast, 0.002 

percent. Illinois reported the highest percent of overvotes at 0.27 percent. Colorado reported the 

lowest percentage of undervotes at 0.47 percent and Idaho reported the highest, at 17.60 percent. The 

high percentage in Idaho and the second highest in Connecticut at 10.71 percent, reflect the lack of 

competition for the office of Senate in these states—both winning candidates won handily. 

Democrats in Idaho chose not to nominate a candidate, though a Democratic write-in did receive a 

small number of votes. 

For U.S. House, Maryland reported the lowest undervotes as a percentage of total ballots cast, 0.003 

percent, and Washington reported the highest, at 0.84 percent. Puerto Rico reported the lowest 

number of undervotes for its nonvoting member of Congress, 0.25 percent, and North Dakota was 

next, at 1.51 percent. Massachusetts and Connecticut reported undervotes for U.S. House slightly 

higher than 10 percent. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Overvotes and undervotes, Page 8-8 September 27, 2005 

Regions 

For president, reported percentage overvotes were lowest in the Northeast and South, 0.03 and 0.08 

percent, respectively, and were greatest in the Midwest and West, 0.36 and 0.25 percent, 

respectively. Percentage undervotes were generally equal across regions, with the Midwest reporting 

the highest, 1.00 percent, and the Northeast the lowest, 0.75 percent. 

For Senate, reported percentage overvotes were lowest in the Northeast and South, 0.02 and 0.01 

percent, respectively, and were greatest in the Midwest and West, 0.17 and 0.11 percent, 

respectively. Percentage undervotes were greatest in the Northeast, 9.29 percent, and relatively 

similar elsewhere, varying between 3.12 and 3.99 percent. 

For U.S. House, reported percentage overvotes was greatest in the U.S. territories, 0.20 percent, 

followed by the West, 0.19 percent; Midwest, 0.12 percent; and Northeast, 0.10 percent. The South 

reported the lowest percentage at 0.02 percent. Percentage of undervotes was greatest in the 

Northeast, 9.76 percent, followed by the South, 6.59 percent, and the West and Midwest, which were 

5.97 and 4.49 percent, respectively. The U.S. territories reported percentage of undervotes at 0.25 

percent. 

Urban to Rural 

For president, urban and suburban jurisdictions reported the lowest percentage of overvotes, 0.15 

and 0.13 percent, respectively. Small towns and rural jurisdictions reported higher percentages, 0.18 

and 0.33 percent, respectively. Percentage of undervotes was highest among rural jurisdictions, 1.34 

percent, and similar elsewhere, 0.77 to 0.88 percent. 

For Senate, urban jurisdictions reported the highest percentage of overvotes, 0.12 percent, and other 

jurisdictions varied between 0.04 and 0.07 percent. Percentage of undervotes was also highest in 

urban areas, 4.39 percent, and varied between 3.17 and 3.71 percent elsewhere. 

For U.S. House, suburban jurisdictions reported 0.21 percent overvotes, while other jurisdictions 

reported 0.05 to 0.09 percent. Urban jurisdictions reported the highest percentage of undervotes, 7.43 

percent, and jurisdictions elsewhere reported around 6.00 percent. The territories reported overvotes 

of 0.20 percent and undervotes of 0.25 percent. 

Size of Jurisdiction 

For president, jurisdictions with voting age population (VAP) in the two categories 3,500 to 10,000 

and 10,000 to 50,000 reported the highest percentage of overvotes, 0.31 and 0.28 percent, 

respectively. All other jurisdictions reported between 0.12 and 0.18 percent. Jurisdictions with VAP 

between 1,000 to 3,500 reported the highest percentage of undervotes, 2.66 percent, followed by 

10,000 to 50,000, 1.29 percent; and 3,500 to 10,000, 1.15 percent; followed by all other jurisdictions 

at 0.62 to 1.03 percent. 

For Senate, reported overvotes ranged as a percentage between 0.05 and 0.12 percent, with no clear 

pattern. Percentage undervotes tended to be higher in smaller jurisdictions, those with populations of 

up to 50,000 voting-age population reporting over 4.43 percent and larger jurisdictions all reporting 

below 3.89 percent. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Overvotes and undervotes, Page 8-9 September 27, 2005 

For U.S. House, smaller jurisdictions under 3,500 reported higher percentages of overvotes and 

undervotes than larger jurisdictions. The smallest jurisdictions, under 1,000 voting age population, 

reported the highest percentage of overvotes and undervotes, 0.32 and 11.21 percent, respectively. 

Race and Ethnicity 

For president, predominantly Hispanic jurisdictions reported much higher percentages of overvotes, 

0.29 percent, than for predominantly non-Hispanic White and predominantly non-Hispanic Black 

jurisdictions, 0.17 and 0.10 percent, respectively. Predominantly non-Hispanic Native American and 

predominantly Hispanic jurisdictions reported higher percentages of undervotes, 3.93 and 1.40 

percent, respectively, than for predominantly non-Hispanic White and predominantly non-Hispanic 

Black jurisdictions, 0.87 and 0.57 percent, respectively. 

For Senate, predominantly Hispanic jurisdictions reported a higher percentage of overvotes, 0.19 

percent, than all other jurisdictions, which reported 0.06 percent and below. Predominantly Hispanic 

reported higher percentages of undervotes, 5.22 percent, than other jurisdictions, which reported 

between 3.34 and 3.93 percent. 

For U.S. House, predominantly Hispanic and predominantly non-Hispanic White jurisdictions 

reported higher percentages of overvotes, 0.12 percent for both, than for predominantly nonHispanic Native American, at 0.08 percent, and predominantly non-Hispanic Black jurisdictions, at 

0.02 percent. Predominantly Hispanic jurisdictions reported the highest percentage of undervotes, 

8.96 percent, and predominantly non-Hispanic Native American jurisdictions reported the lowest, at 

4.44 percent, while all other jurisdictions varied between 6.15 and 6.26 percent. 

Median Income 

For president, reported percentage of overvotes tended to decrease as median income within a 

jurisdiction increased, from 0.31 to 0.08 percent. The same pattern is evident in percentage of 

undervotes, which tended to decrease as median income in a jurisdiction increased, from 1.83 to 0.65 

percent. 

For Senate, reported percentage of overvotes showed no clear pattern, varying between 0.04 and 

0.09 percent. For percentage of undervotes, the lowest median income jurisdiction reported the 

highest percent, 5.31, but varied between 3.51 and 3.92 for the remaining jurisdictions without 

exhibiting a clear pattern. 

For U.S. House, for percentage of overvotes, the second to highest [ “second highest”?] median 

income jurisdictions reported the highest level, 0.22 percent, and the highest median income 

jurisdictions the next highest level, 0.16 percent, while the remaining jurisdictions measured 

between 0.05 and 0.12 percent. For percentage of undervotes, the lowest median income jurisdiction 

reported the highest level, 8.38 percent, . The remaining jurisdictions varied between 5.37 and 7.44 

percent without exhibiting a clear pattern. 

High School Education 

For president, reported percentage of overvotes was highest in jurisdictions for the two lowest 

categories of education, 0.22 percent for the lowest , 0.34 percent for the second lowest, and 0.16 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Overvotes and undervotes, Page 8-10 September 27, 2005 

percent or lower for the remainder. Reported percentage of undervotes trended down with increasing 

education, ranging from 1.66 to 0.48 percent. 

For Senate, jurisdictions in the second lowest and third lowest categories of education reported the 

highest percentage of overvotes, 0.15 and 0.08 percent, respectively. The lowest category reported 

0.03 percent, the second highest reported 0.06 percent and the highest reported 0.03 percent. 

Jurisdictions with the two lowest education categories reported the highest percentage of undervotes, 

5.64 percent for the lowest and 4.65 percent for the second lowest. The remainder varied between 

3.34 and 3.95 percent. 

For U.S. House, there was no clear pattern to reported overvotes, which ranged between 0.07 and 

0.26 percent. Percentage of undervotes tended to follow a pattern of decreasing overvotes with 

increasing education, though jurisdictions in the second lowest education category reported the 

highest percentage of undervotes, 8.93 percent. The highest education category reported the lowest 

percentage, 5.50 percent. 

Section 203 Language Minority Requirements 

For president, Section 203 covered jurisdictions reported the same percentage of overvotes as other 

jurisdictions, 0.17 percent, and reported a higher percentage of undervotes than other jurisdictions, 

1.04 versus 0.83 percent. For Senate, Section 203 covered jurisdictions reported a higher percentage 

of overvotes than other jurisdictions, 0.10 versus 0.05 percent, and reported a slightly lower 

percentage of undervotes than other jurisdictions, 3.73 versus 3.81 percent. For U.S. House, Section 

203 covered jurisdictions reported a slightly lower percentage of overvotes than other jurisdictions, 

0.11 versus 0.13 percent, and reported a higher percentage of undervotes than other jurisdictions, 

7.02 versus 5.88 percent. 

Section 5 Preclearance of Voting Procedures 

For president, Section 5 covered jurisdictions reported a lower percentage of overvotes than other 

jurisdictions, 0.12 versus 0.20 percent, and reported a higher percentage of undervotes than other 

jurisdictions, 1.08 versus 0.84 percent. For Senate, Section 5 covered jurisdictions reported a slightly 

lower percentage of overvotes than other jurisdictions, 0.06 versus 0.08 percent, and reported a 

slightly higher percentage of undervotes than other jurisdictions, 3.87 versus 3.76 percent. For U.S. 

House, Section 5 covered jurisdictions reported a lower percentage of overvotes than other 

jurisdictions, 0.08 versus 0.14 percent, and reported a higher percentage of undervotes than other 

jurisdictions, 7.37 versus 5.84 percent. 

Type of Voting Equipment 

For president, jurisdictions with lever machines reported the lowest percentage of overvotes, 0.004 

percent. Electronic machines were next lowest at 0.03 percent. Although electronic machines inform 

voters that an overvote is an error, voters in these jurisdictions can still cast absentee and provisional 

ballots that may produce overvotes. Multiple system jurisdictions reported 0.06 percent overvotes. 

Punch card jurisdictions reported the highest percentage of overvotes, 0.49 percent, and paper and 

optical scan jurisdictions reported 0.22 and 0.21 percent overvotes, respectively. Punch card 

jurisdictions also reported the highest percentage of undervotes, 1.41 percent, followed by paper at 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Overvotes and undervotes, Page 8-11 September 27, 2005 

0.98 percent, lever at 0.94 percent, optical scan at 0.86 percent, and electronic and multiple systems, 

both at 0.70 percent. 

For Senate, electronic and multiple system jurisdictions reported the lowest percentage of overvotes 

at 0.02 percent, followed by, in increasing order, paper, 0.06 percent; optical scan, 0.08 percent; and 

punch card, 0.24 percent. (No jurisdictions with lever machines reported overvotes in a Senate race.) 

For undervotes, lever jurisdictions reported the highest percentage of undervotes, 9.17 percent, 

followed by punch cards, 4.08 percent;, electronic, 3.60 percent; paper, 3.33 percent; optical scan, 

3.27 percent; and multiple systems, 2.23 percent. 

For U.S. House, paper jurisdictions reported the highest percentage of overvotes, 0.35 percent, and 

in descending order, punch cards at 0.22 percent, optical scan at 0.15 percent, lever and electronic at 

0.05 percent, and multiple systems at 0.02 percent. Lever jurisdictions reported the highest 

percentage of undervotes, at 10.58 percent, and in descending order, paper at 9.77 percent, electronic 

at 7.10 percent, optical scan at 5.88 percent, punch card at 5.01 percent, and multiple systems at 4.71 

percent. 

Changed Voting Equipment since 2000 

For all three types of federal offices, jurisdictions that changed voting equipment reported a lower 

percentage of overvotes and undervotes than jurisdictions that did not change voting equipment. 

Statewide Voter Registration Database 

For president, jurisdictions with a statewide voter registration database reported a lower percentage 

of overvotes than other jurisdictions, 0.08 versus 0.19 percent, and a lower percentage of undervotes 

than other jurisdictions, 0.73 versus 0.95 percent. For Senate, jurisdictions with a statewide voter 

registration database reported a lower percentage of overvotes than other jurisdictions, 0.03 versus 

0.08 percent, and reported a higher percentage of undervotes than other jurisdictions, 4.40 versus 

3.65 percent. For U.S. House, jurisdictions with a statewide voter registration database reported a 

lower percentage of overvotes than other jurisdictions, 0.08 versus 0.13 percent, and reported a 

higher percentage of undervotes than other jurisdictions, 6.95 versus 6.04 percent. 

Election Day Registration 

For president, jurisdictions with Election Day registration reported a higher percentage of overvotes 

than other jurisdictions, 1.27 versus 0.16 percent, and reported a higher percentage of undervotes 

than other jurisdictions, 1.08 versus 0.88 percent. For Senate, jurisdictions with Election Day 

registration reported a lower percentage of overvotes than other jurisdictions, 0.02 versus 0.07 

percent, and reported a higher percentage of undervotes than other jurisdictions, 7.89 versus 3.55 

percent. For U.S. House, jurisdictions with Election Day voter registration reported a slightly higher 

percentage of overvotes than other jurisdictions, 0.14 versus 0.12 percent, and reported a lower 

percentage of undervotes than other jurisdictions, 5.65 versus 6.33 percent. 

Provisional Ballot Acceptance 

For president, jurisdictions with no provisional ballots reported a higher percentage of overvotes, 

1.02 percent, than other jurisdictions, which reported 0.18 percent of overvotes for within-
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Overvotes and undervotes, Page 8-12 September 27, 2005 

jurisdiction acceptance and 0.14 percent for within-precinct acceptance. Percentage of undervotes 

did not vary greatly by jurisdiction with regard to provisional ballot acceptance, ranging from 0.66 to 

0.91 percent. 

For Senate, jurisdictions with provisional ballots accepted in the overall jurisdiction reported the 

highest rate of overvotes, 0.11 percent, versus 0.03 percent for jurisdictions with within-precinct 

acceptance and no provisional ballots. Jurisdictions without provisional ballots had the highest 

percentage of undervotes, 11.95 percent (mainly due to Idaho[-why is that again?]), while other 

jurisdictions reported similar percentages: 3.54 percent in jurisdictionwide acceptance and 3.85 

percent within-precinct acceptance. 

For U.S. House, jurisdictions with no provisional ballots and within jurisdiction acceptance of 

ballots reported the highest percentage of overvotes, 0.18 percent, versus 0.04 percent for withinprecinct acceptance. Jurisdiction with no provisional ballots reported the lowest percentage of 

undervotes, 2.67 percent, with 6.02 percent for jurisdictionwide acceptance and 6.94 for withinprecinct acceptance. 

No Excuse Absentee Balloting 

For president, jurisdictions with “no excuse” absentee balloting reported a slightly higher percentage 

of overvotes than other jurisdictions, 0.18 versus 0.17 percent, and reported a slightly lower 

percentage of overvotes than other jurisdictions, 0.88 versus 0.91 percent. For Senate, jurisdictions 

with “no excuse” absentee balloting reported a slightly lower percentage of overvotes than other 

jurisdictions, 0.07 versus 0.08 percent, and reported a slightly lower percentage of undervotes than 

other jurisdictions, 3.77 versus 3.80 percent. For U.S. House, jurisdictions with “no excuse” absentee 

balloting reported a higher percentage of overvotes than other jurisdictions, 0.14 versus 0.07 percent, 

and reported a lower percentage of undervotes than other jurisdictions, 6.04 versus 6.52 percent. 

Early Voting 

For president, jurisdictions with early voting reported a slightly lower percentage of overvotes than 

other jurisdictions, 0.17 versus 0.18 percent, and reported a higher percentage of overvotes than 

other jurisdictions, 0.95 versus 0.85 percent. For Senate, jurisdictions with early voting reported a 

slightly lower percentage of overvotes than other jurisdictions, 0.06 versus 0.10 percent, and 

reported a lower percentage of undervotes than other jurisdictions, 3.54 versus 4.09 percent. For U.S. 

House, jurisdictions with early voting reported a lower percentage of overvotes than other 

jurisdictions, 0.06 versus 0.26 percent, and reported slightly a higher percentage of undervotes than 

other jurisdictions, 6.35 versus 6.18 percent. 

Battleground States 

For president, jurisdictions in battleground states reported a slightly higher percentage of overvotes 

than other jurisdictions, 0.23 versus 0.15 percent, and reported a lower percentage of undervotes than 

other jurisdictions, 0.80 versus 0.96 percent. For Senate, jurisdictions in battleground states reported 

a slightly lower percentage of overvotes than other jurisdictions, 0.07 versus 0.08 percent, and 

reported a lower percentage of undervotes than other jurisdictions, 3.29 versus 4.15 percent. For U.S. 

House, jurisdictions in battleground states reported a higher percentage of overvotes than other 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Overvotes and undervotes, Page 8-13 September 27, 2005 

jurisdictions, 0.19 versus 0.09 percent, and reported a lower percentage of undervotes than other 

jurisdictions, 5.64 versus 6.59 percent. 

Presidential Margin of Victory 

For president, there was no clear pattern to reported percentage of overvotes by presidential margin 

of victory within the jurisdiction, ranging from 0.10 to 0.18 percent. There was no clear pattern for 

undervoters, either, ranging from 0.80 to 0.91 percent across categories. 

For Senate, there was no clear pattern to reported percentage of overvotes by presidential margin of 

victory within the jurisdiction, ranging from 0.03 to 0.07 percent. Reported percentage of undervotes 

also did not exhibit a clear pattern with presidential margin of victory within the jurisdiction, ranging 

from 3.02 to 4.52 percent. 

For U.S. House, the percentage of overvotes tended to decrease with presidential margin of victory 

within the jurisdiction, ranging from 0.37 to 0.02 percent. Reported percentage of undervotes tended 

to increase slightly with presidential margin of victory within the jurisdiction, ranging from 5.60 to 

6.60 percent. 

Red versus Blue Jurisdictions 

For president, there was no clear pattern to overvotes by the presidential winner within the 

jurisdiction, ranging from 0.7 to 0.20 percent across categories. Jurisdictions won by Bush reported 

higher undervotes, ranging between 0.90 and 0.93 percent, than jurisdictions won by Kerry, which 

ranged from 0.77 to 0.86 percent. 

For Senate, those jurisdictions won by Kerry tended to report a higher percentage of overvotes, 0.05 

to 0.11 percent, than jurisdictions won by Bush, ranging from 0.01 to 0.05 percent. Jurisdictions that 

Kerry won by a plurality reported the highest percentage of undervotes, 9.37 percent, while the 

remainder varied between 3.34 and 4.27 percent. (The few tied jurisdictions reported the highest 

undervote, 6.36 percent.) 

For U.S. House, those jurisdictions won by Bush tended to report a lower percentage of overvotes, 

ranging between 0.01 and 0.08 percent, than those won by Kerry, ranging between 0.08 and 0.21 

percent. (The few tied jurisdictions reported an overvote of 0.17 percent.) There was no clear pattern 

for undervotes, which varied between 5.20 percent in jurisdictions won by Kerry by a plurality, to 

7.90 percent for those jurisdictions won by Bush by a plurality. (The few tied jurisdictions reported 

the highest undervote, 11.45 percent.) 

REFERENCES 

Brady, Henry E., Michael C. Herron, Walter R. Mebane Jr., Jasjeet Singh Sekhon, Kenneth W. Shotts, and 

Jonathan Wand. 2001. “‘Law and Data’: The Butterfly Ballot Episode.” PS: Political Science and Politics

34(1): 59–69. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Overvotes and undervotes, Page 8-14 September 27, 2005 

Evans, Eldon C. 1917. A History of the Australian Ballot System in the United States. Chicago: University of 

Chicago Press. 

Keating, Dan and Dan Balz. 2001. “Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush: But Study Finds Gore 

Might Have Won Statewide Tally of All Uncounted Ballots.” The Washington Post, November 12, 2001: 

A1. 

Rusk, Jerrold G. 1970. “The Effect of the Australian Ballot Reform on Split Ticket Voting, 1876–1908.” 

American Political Science Review 64: 1220–38. 

Shocket, Peter A., Neil R. Heighberger, and Clyde Brown. 1992. “The Effect of Voting Technology on 

Voting Behavior in a Simulated Multi-Candidate City Council Election: A Political Experiment of Ballot 

Transparency.” The Western Political Quarterly 45(2): 521–37. 

Walker, Jack L. 1966. “Ballot Forms and Voter Fatigue: An Analysis of the Office Block and Party Column 

Ballots.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 10: 448–63. 
Overvotes and Undervotes

EAC Election Day SurveyOver and Undervotes 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:05:59 Total Number Percent Total Percent Percent Total 

Election Total Ballots Not Voting Not Voting Overvotes President Overvotes of Undervotes 

Administration Ballots For For President For President For OverVotes of Total Over & For 

Code Name Jurisdictions Counted Cases President Cases (Drop-off) (Drop-off) Cases Exception President Cases Total Ballots Cases Undervotes Cases President Case

01 Alabama 67 1,683,735 61 1,758,927 64 13,608 1.12 59 24 710 58 0.05 58 13.4 58 4,569 5

02 Alaska 1 314,502 1 312,598 1 1,904 0.61 1 25 1 0.01 1 100.0 104 Arizona 15 2,038,077 15 2,013,913 15 24,164 1.19 15 5,745 15 0.28 15 25.4 15 16,866 105 Arkansas 75 1,055,510 75 1,055,510 75 0 75 7,144 75 0.68 75 45.4 65 8,579 706 California 58 12,359,633 53 12,266,320 55 154,770 1.28 52 2 29,616 54 0.24 51 20.1 54 117,522 508 Colorado 64 2,148,036 64 2,130,472 64 17,564 0.82 64 1,313 14 0.37 14 51.4 14 1,242 109 Connecticut 169 1,595,013 169 1,578,757 169 17,146 1.11 169 5 0 169 169 165 18,487 1610 Delaware 3 377,407 3 375,273 3 2,134 0.57 3 0 3 3 3 2,134 11 District of Columbia 1 230,105 1 227,586 1 2,519 1.09 1 624 1 0.27 1 24.9 1 1,883 12 Florida 67 7,639,949 67 7,609,810 67 30,139 0.39 67 4,046 67 0.05 67 12.8 67 27,475 613 Georgia 159 3,317,336 159 3,304,484 159 12,852 0.39 159 0 159 159 159 12,852 1515 Hawaii 5 431,203 4 430,565 4 638 0.15 4 202 4 0.05 4 7.6 4 2,446 4 16 Idaho 44 612,786 44 598,447 44 14,339 2.34 44 8,424 28 1.50 28 66.2 28 4,294 217 Illinois 110 5,361,048 110 5,070,558 96 33,122 0.66 96 6 16,229 94 0.32 94 23.2 91 53,668 918 Indiana 92 2,512,142 92 2,467,863 92 44,279 1.76 9219 Iowa 99 1,513,894 98 1,488,776 97 18,313 1.22 97 1 4,260 97 0.28 97 40.5 92 6,258 920 Kansas 105 1,199,590 105 1,188,799 105 14,058 1.28 105 17 752 66 0.08 66 6.0 55 14,064 821 Kentucky 120 1,816,867 120 1,794,860 120 22,007 1.21 12022 Louisiana 64 1,956,590 64 1,943,106 64 13,606 0.71 64 2 0 64 64 62 13,606 623 Maine 517 754,777 517 741,081 517 13,696 1.81 51724 Maryland 24 2,395,127 24 2,386,668 24 8,459 0.35 24 247 24 0.01 24 3.3 24 7,292 225 Massachusetts 351 2,927,455 351 2,912,395 351 15,060 0.51 351 15,060 35

26 Michigan 83 4,876,237 83 4,839,252 83 36,985 0.76 83 36,940 8

27 Minnesota 87 2,842,912 87 2,825,015 87 17,897 0.63 87 17,897 828 Mississippi 82 1,163,460 82 1,152,145 82 11,315 0.97 8229 Missouri 116 2,765,960 116 2,731,364 116 34,596 1.25 116 32,042 11

30 Montana 56 456,096 56 450,313 56 5,783 1.27 56 1,450 51 0.33 51 37.1 40 2,629 5

31 Nebraska 93 792,910 93 778,186 93 14,724 1.86 93 4,282 93 0.54 93 50.9 88 4,132 932 Nevada 17 831,833 17 829,587 17 2,246 0.27 17 146 12 0.02 12 5.3 12 3,688 133 New Hampshire 242 686,390 241 677,634 238 10,763 1.59 238 1134 New Jersey 21 3,639,612 21 3,609,691 21 29,921 0.82 21 385 21 0.01 21 1.3 21 29,536 235 New Mexico 33 328,636 21 320,066 21 8,570 2.61 21 0 5 5 5 4,310 136 New York 58 7,448,266 58 7,391,036 58 57,230 0.77 5837 North Carolina 100 3,571,420 100 3,501,007 100 70,413 1.97 100 0 100 100 98 70,413 1038 North Dakota 53 316,049 53 312,833 53 3,216 1.02 53 415 48 0.14 48 16.1 48 2,168 439 Ohio 88 5,730,867 88 5,627,207 88 103,660 1.81 88 20,226 71 0.48 71 30.1 71 55,094 740 Oklahoma 77 1,474,304 77 1,467,052 77 7,252 0.49 77 1,146 77 0.08 77 10.9 77 9,400 741 Oregon 36 1,851,671 36 1,836,782 36 14,889 0.80 36 3,209 36 0.17 36 21.6 36 11,645 342 Pennsylvania 67 3,006,146 4644 Rhode Island 39 440,743 39 437,134 39 3,609 0.82 39 970 39 0.22 39 26.9 39 2,639 345 South Carolina 46 1,626,720 4646 South Dakota 66 394,930 66 388,215 66 6,715 1.70 66 898 43 0.28 43 18.0 43 4,114 447 Tennessee 95 2,458,213 95 2,434,949 95 23,394 0.96 95 2 3,019 22 1.21 22 54.6 22 20,375 948 Texas 254 7,507,333 254 7,410,766 254 96,567 1.29 254 6,445 254 0.09 254 5.2 153 117,363 2549 Utah 29 942,045 29 928,379 29 13,666 1.45 29 2,745 22 0.32 22 22.2 22 11,054 250 Vermont 246 313,973 245 314,275 246 48 0.02 245 4 464 246 0.15 245 23.8 226 1,487 2451 Virginia 134 3,223,156 134 3,198,367 134 24,807 0.77 134 2 1,703 134 0.05 134 6.6 131 23,174 1353 Washington 39 2,885,001 39 2,859,084 39 25,917 0.90 39 4,572 37 0.16 37 21.9 37 16,452 354 West Virginia 55 769,645 55 756,341 55 13,602 1.80 55 3 1,444 28 0.43 28 18.2 28 13,602 555 Wisconsin 1,910 3,009,491 1,880 2,992,340 1,897 45,982 1.58 1,880 73 44,482 1,4956 Wyoming 23 245,789 23 242,948 23 2,841 1.16 23 433 16 0.32 16 31.6 16 939 160 American Samoa 166 Guam 172 Puerto Rico 110 1,990,372 11078 Virgin Islands 1 31,391 1

Total 6,568 121,862,353 6,488 113,968,736 6,290 1,160,985 1.02 6,264 152 133,289 2,348 0.23 2,344 22.4 2,171 863,872 4,61Maximum 1,910 12,359,633 1,880 12,266,320 1,897 154,770 2.61 1,880 73 29,616 254 1.50 254 100.0 226 117,522 1,493 Average 119 2,299,289 122 2,325,892 128 23,693 1.08 127 11 3,507 61 0.29 61 26.3 57 20,568 109 Minimum 1 31,391 1 227,586 1 0 0.02 1 1 0 1 0.01 1 1.3 1 939 

Presidential Drop-off Presidential Overvotes 

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Overvotes and Undervotes

EAC Election Day SurveyOver and Undervotes 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:05:59 Total Number Percent Total Percent Percent Total 

Election Total Ballots Not Voting Not Voting Overvotes President Overvotes of Undervotes 

Administration Ballots For For President For President For OverVotes of Total Over & For 

Code Name Jurisdictions Counted Cases President Cases (Drop-off) (Drop-off) Cases Exception President Cases Total Ballots Cases Undervotes Cases President Case

Presidential Drop-off Presidential Overvotes 

Election Administration

Voting Equipment Used in 2004 

General Election

None / Unknown 908 9,922,294 875 7,782,772 766 136,741 1.76 761 27 13,644 78 0.24 78 15.9 77 82,530 57

Punch card 260 10,938,861 255 10,202,265 244 134,740 1.60 243 4 38,733 145 0.49 144 26.3 144 138,039 21

Lever 394 12,981,126 384 11,663,153 374 95,556 0.83 374 10 171 275 0.00 275 0.4 262 38,882 29

Paper 1,734 2,172,234 1,727 2,135,810 1,732 29,342 1.54 1,726 46 1,122 353 0.22 352 34.5 232 15,128 99

Optical scan 2,541 49,661,061 2,524 48,141,235 2,490 483,390 1.12 2,479 64 71,128 1,097 0.21 1,096 19.6 1,065 377,631 2,02

Electronic 608 27,295,070 601 25,285,382 564 216,995 0.86 561 5,890 347 0.03 346 4.0 339 155,197 39

Multiple Systems 123 8,891,707 122 8,758,119 120 64,221 0.83 120 1 2,601 53 0.06 53 9.2 52 56,465 10

Changed Voting Equipment Since 

2000 General Election

Yes 1,753 35,479,523 1,739 34,381,658 1,722 320,668 0.97 1,715 52 30,680 493 0.11 492 12.7 478 235,133 1,17

No 4,815 86,382,830 4,749 79,587,078 4,568 840,317 1.16 4,549 100 102,609 1,855 0.21 1,852 18.0 1,693 628,739 3,43

State Wide Voter Registration 

System in Place

Yes 1,335 27,317,939 1,322 25,489,478 1,276 203,051 0.82 1,276 10 10,084 569 0.08 569 9.9 563 169,597 1,11

No 5,233 94,544,414 5,166 88,479,258 5,014 957,934 1.18 4,988 142 123,205 1,779 0.19 1,775 17.4 1,608 694,275 3,49

Election Day Registration

Yes 2,823 8,152,145 2,792 8,077,465 2,806 105,518 1.34 2,789 84 8,857 44 1.27 44 62.9 44 67,612 1,62

No 3,745 113,710,208 3,696 105,891,271 3,484 1,055,467 1.08 3,475 68 124,432 2,304 0.16 2,300 15.6 2,127 796,260 2,98

Provisional Ballot Acceptance

In Overall Jurisdiction 1,162 44,662,901 1,123 41,055,629 1,066 405,687 1.14 1,062 14 72,279 988 0.18 984 17.1 951 351,761 99In Precinct Only 4,350 69,964,775 4,312 67,758,097 4,285 695,387 1.07 4,263 127 52,171 1,284 0.14 1,284 13.9 1,144 487,752 3,45None 1,056 7,234,677 1,053 5,155,010 939 59,911 1.16 939 11 8,839 76 1.02 76 57.8 76 24,359 16

No Excuse Absentee Balloting

Yes 3,781 46,531,514 3,731 46,108,172 3,750 510,564 1.18 3,729 99 70,934 1,160 0.18 1,156 17.8 1,104 379,041 2,68

No 2,787 75,330,839 2,757 67,860,564 2,540 650,421 1.04 2,535 53 62,355 1,188 0.17 1,188 15.1 1,067 484,831 1,92

Early Voting Allowed

Yes 1,701 50,903,807 1,681 50,439,831 1,683 522,673 1.12 1,679 29 76,489 1,439 0.17 1,435 15.2 1,279 457,972 1,56

No 4,867 70,958,546 4,807 63,528,905 4,607 638,312 1.08 4,585 123 56,800 909 0.18 909 18.5 892 405,900 3,04

Covered By Section 203, 

Language Minority Requirements

Yes 468 34,287,661 450 33,986,664 452 362,562 1.17 449 4 54,079 396 0.17 393 14.0 293 333,686 40

No 6,100 87,574,692 6,038 79,982,072 5,838 798,423 1.07 5,815 148 79,210 1,952 0.17 1,951 18.6 1,878 530,186 4,20

Covered By Section 5 of Voting 

Rights Act

Yes 880 27,429,425 872 25,638,280 829 285,559 1.19 823 29 28,842 732 0.12 731 9.9 626 263,161 72

No 5,688 94,432,928 5,616 88,330,456 5,461 875,426 1.07 5,441 123 104,447 1,616 0.20 1,613 20.1 1,545 600,711 3,88

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Overvotes and Undervotes

EAC Election Day SurveyOver and Undervotes 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:05:59 Total Number Percent Total Percent Percent Total 

Election Total Ballots Not Voting Not Voting Overvotes President Overvotes of Undervotes 

Administration Ballots For For President For President For OverVotes of Total Over & For 

Code Name Jurisdictions Counted Cases President Cases (Drop-off) (Drop-off) Cases Exception President Cases Total Ballots Cases Undervotes Cases President Case

Presidential Drop-off Presidential Overvotes 

Demographics

Region

Northeast 1,710 20,812,375 1,687 17,662,003 1,639 147,473 0.85 1,638 20 1,819 475 0.03 474 3.4 451 67,209 82

South 1,423 42,266,877 1,417 40,376,851 1,374 352,674 0.96 1,369 33 26,528 1,066 0.08 1,066 7.9 948 332,717 1,15Midwest 2,902 31,316,030 2,871 30,710,408 2,873 373,547 1.34 2,856 97 47,062 512 0.36 512 26.9 488 270,859 2,32West 420 25,445,308 402 25,219,474 404 287,291 1.22 401 2 57,880 295 0.25 292 23.4 284 193,087 30Territories 113 2,021,763 111

Urban to Rural

Urban 567 42,675,443 563 41,592,050 562 398,607 1.01 560 10 41,399 163 0.15 163 14.4 162 311,062 50

Suburban 871 33,263,865 860 30,993,718 847 285,490 0.95 845 15 27,741 246 0.13 246 15.3 244 202,530 66Small Towns 1,710 30,364,561 1,685 28,304,035 1,634 292,227 1.19 1,627 38 34,882 670 0.18 668 17.8 655 204,665 1,10Rural 3,307 13,536,721 3,269 13,078,933 3,247 184,661 1.60 3,232 89 29,267 1,269 0.33 1,267 20.1 1,110 145,615 2,34Not Available - Territories 113 2,021,763 111

Size of Jurisdiction (VAP)

< 1,000 1,761 634,024 1,740 636,085 1,754 6,957 1.46 1,739 60 124 156.0 0.18 154 26.7 125 3,713 1,07

>=1,000 to <3,500 1,165 1,630,543 1,162 1,597,029 1,164 40,658 2.82 1,162 24 753 290.0 0.18 290 17.9 234 30,337 81>=3,500 to <10,000 1,043 4,256,986 1,038 4,156,692 1,029 60,236 1.59 1,028 21 6,105 493.0 0.31 493 18.9 439 38,425 80>=10,000 to <50,000 1,704 21,817,391 1,689 20,865,743 1,641 273,979 1.47 1,637 37 33,043 937.0 0.28 937 16.5 909 223,906 1,34>=50,000 to <250,000 586 33,587,618 570 31,211,163 534 275,154 0.95 530 8 31,892 359.0 0.15 357 17.0 352 196,270 44>=250,000 to <1,000,000 140 35,485,241 133 33,329,394 125 245,112 0.78 125 1 30,324 94.0 0.12 94 16.9 93 185,170 11>=1,000,000 25 22,427,696 24 22,168,851 24 258,845 1.24 24 31,048 19.0 0.18 19 15.0 19 186,050 2Not Available 144 2,022,854 132 3,779 19 44 6.63 19 1 1 

Race and Ethnicity

Predominently NH White 6,264 112,362,361 6,201 106,734,482 6,127 1,055,209 1.07 6,102 148 116,355 2248.0 0.17 2,244 16.4 2,078 777,582 4,50

Predominently NH Black 85 2,117,437 85 1,960,695 73 14,101 0.82 73 3 1,806 52.0 0.10 52 15.4 51 9,894 5

Predominently NH Native American 24 127,150 23 123,548 24 5,312 4.18 23 164 10.0 0.15 10 3.6 10 4,387 1

Predominently Hispanic 50 5,209,222 46 5,122,903 46 86,319 1.71 46 14,964 38.0 0.29 38 17.2 32 72,008 3Not Available 145 2,046,183 133 27,108 20 44 6.63 20 1 1 

Median Income

< $25,000 298 1,488,479 294 1,440,538 291 24,692 2.41 291 6 2,449 117.0 0.31 117 14.0 105 16,854 15

>=$25,000 to <$30,000 884 5,685,388 876 5,455,490 866 78,404 1.70 863 12 10,733 449.0 0.28 449 18.7 385 58,678 63>=$30,000 to <$35,000 1,372 14,312,622 1,356 13,179,325 1,316 165,933 1.45 1,313 34 19,124 612.0 0.21 612 14.7 564 139,408 98>=$35,000 to <$40,000 1,215 26,144,458 1,204 24,868,484 1,182 251,089 1.12 1,177 37 29,245 461.0 0.20 459 18.0 431 187,167 83>=$40,000 to <$45,000 881 26,227,676 871 24,994,175 862 282,093 1.18 857 23 38,738 256.0 0.21 255 19.0 246 196,066 60>=$45,000 to <$50,000 587 15,037,096 577 14,514,853 578 140,457 0.98 572 15 18,650 150.0 0.17 150 17.7 141 101,085 44>=$50,000 1,180 30,943,728 1,173 29,512,042 1,172 218,271 0.78 1,168 24 14,350 303.0 0.08 302 10.7 299 164,613 95

Not Available 151 2,022,906 137 3,829 23 46 6.91 23 1 1 

High School Education

< 60% 126 951,317 125 931,510 124 16,216 2.05 124 1,108 57.0 0.22 57 10.9 49 11,295 7

>=60% to <70% 661 10,083,603 652 9,719,374 635 154,138 1.78 629 25 29,110 394.0 0.34 393 20.4 350 120,842 48>=70% to <80% 1,646 31,406,406 1,630 29,496,147 1,589 348,449 1.33 1,587 39 29,753 701.0 0.15 701 10.9 634 302,650 1,19>=80% to <90% 3,111 65,275,468 3,074 61,770,600 3,048 563,253 0.96 3,031 72 66,566 991.0 0.16 988 19.1 942 379,795 2,23>=90% 873 12,099,350 870 12,023,973 871 78,883 0.69 870 15 6,752 205.0 0.10 205 17.8 196 49,289 62

Not Available 151 2,046,209 137 27,132 23 46 6.91 23 1 1 

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Overvotes and Undervotes

EAC Election Day SurveyOver and Undervotes 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:05:59 Total Number Percent Total Percent Percent Total 

Election Total Ballots Not Voting Not Voting Overvotes President Overvotes of Undervotes 

Administration Ballots For For President For President For OverVotes of Total Over & For 

Code Name Jurisdictions Counted Cases President Cases (Drop-off) (Drop-off) Cases Exception President Cases Total Ballots Cases Undervotes Cases President Case

Presidential Drop-off Presidential Overvotes 

Political

Battleground States in 2004 

Presidential Election

Yes 3,093 43,980,255 3,028 40,593,153 2,995 405,287 1.03 2,978 88 52,105 457.0 0.23 457 26.0 442 296,572 2,28

No 3,475 77,882,098 3,460 73,375,583 3,295 755,698 1.14 3,286 64 81,184 1891.0 0.15 1,887 13.3 1,729 567,300 2,33

Margin of Victory in 2004 

Presidential Election

< 2.5% 515 10,753,542 508 10,520,129 502 96,163 0.96 499 13 8,551 126 0.15 126 14.5 120 68,864 34

>=2.5% to < 5.0% 476 8,077,591 471 6,840,604 462 48,544 0.78 460 9 5,231 128 0.12 128 11.1 121 49,619 31>=5.0% to < 7.5% 510 9,931,823 506 9,790,598 504 99,084 1.04 503 14 11,315 138 0.17 138 21.8 134 65,838 35>=7.5% to < 10.0 % 429 6,126,475 426 5,948,052 422 54,824 0.99 421 14 5,905 122 0.15 121 17.2 116 46,834 30>=10.0 % 4,492 84,945,042 4,448 80,860,548 4,384 862,325 1.16 4,365 100 102,286 1,832 0.18 1,829 16.5 1,678 632,706 3,28

Red vs Blue Jurisdictions Won By 

in 2004 Presidential Election

Bush > 55% 3,115 47,293,906 3,083 44,578,904 3,029 494,305 1.21 3,016 85 65,421 1,398 0.20 1,397 18.3 1,261 355,770 2,29

Bush 50% to 55% 982 18,343,733 974 17,379,107 963 184,958 1.14 959 25 14,070 270 0.12 270 12.5 257 138,886 67Bush < 50% 136 1,386,188 135 1,318,265 131 12,408 0.96 131 4 700 30 0.09 30 10.6 29 9,073 7

Kerry < 50% 150 3,447,366 149 3,423,694 149 25,550 0.75 149 5 1,477 42 0.09 42 12.5 41 16,474 9

Kerry 50% to 55% 872 16,109,589 860 15,319,622 856 124,181 0.88 850 19 16,104 247 0.16 246 17.0 237 103,087 61Kerry > 55% 1,161 33,249,808 1,152 31,936,516 1,140 319,478 1.07 1,137 12 35,516 359 0.18 357 15.6 344 240,571 85Tied 25 9,842 18 9,741 17 102 1.21 17 1 1 2 0.07 2 9.1 2 11 

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Overvotes and Undervotes

EAC Election Day SurveyOver and Undervotes 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:05:59

Election

Administration

Code Name Jurisdictions

01 Alabama 67

02 Alaska 1

04 Arizona 15

05 Arkansas 7506 California 5808 Colorado 6409 Connecticut 169

10 Delaware 311 District of Columbia 112 Florida 67

13 Georgia 159

15 Hawaii 516 Idaho 44

17 Illinois 110

18 Indiana 92

19 Iowa 9920 Kansas 105

21 Kentucky 12022 Louisiana 64

23 Maine 517

24 Maryland 24

25 Massachusetts 351

26 Michigan 83

27 Minnesota 8728 Mississippi 8229 Missouri 116

30 Montana 56

31 Nebraska 9332 Nevada 1733 New Hampshire 242

34 New Jersey 21

35 New Mexico 3336 New York 5837 North Carolina 100

38 North Dakota 53

39 Ohio 8840 Oklahoma 7741 Oregon 3642 Pennsylvania 6744 Rhode Island 3945 South Carolina 4646 South Dakota 6647 Tennessee 9548 Texas 254

49 Utah 29

50 Vermont 246

51 Virginia 13453 Washington 39

54 West Virginia 5555 Wisconsin 1,91056 Wyoming 2360 American Samoa 166 Guam 172 Puerto Rico 11078 Virgin Islands 1

Total 6,568Maximum 1,910Average 119Minimum 1

Total Number Percent Total Percent Percent Total Percent 

Ballots Not Voting Not Voting Overvotes US Senate Overvotes of Undervotes US Senate 

For For US Senate For US Senate For OverVotes of Total Over & For Undervotes of 

US Senate Cases (Drop-off) (Drop-off) Cases Exception US Senate Cases Total Ballots Cases Undervotes Cases US Senate Cases Total Ballots Cases 

1,751,909 64 27,373 2.42 59 21 66 58 0.00 58 0.2 58 35,178 58 2.33 58 

308,315 1 6,187 1.97 1 330 1 0.10 1 100.0 1

1,932,503 15 105,574 5.18 15 2,936 15 0.14 15 3.9 15 71,475 15 3.51 15 1,040,021 75 19,343 2.21 75 26 1,219 75 0.12 75 4.9 66 23,635 75 2.24 75 

11,808,639 55 611,796 5.07 52 2 17,189 54 0.14 51 3.4 54 491,742 54 3.97 51 

2,107,900 64 40,136 1.87 64 367 14 0.10 14 18.1 14 1,662 14 0.47 14 1,424,726 169 171,082 10.74 169 1 0 169 169 169 170,748 169 10.71 169 7,429,894 67 210,055 2.75 67 839 67 0.01 67 0.4 67 204,174 67 2.67 67 3,222,467 159 94,869 2.86 159 0 159 159 159 94,869 159 2.86 159 

427,492 4 3,711 0.86 4 107 4 0.02 4 0.7 4 14,711 4 3.41 4 503,932 44 108,854 17.76 44 123 28 0.02 28 0.1 28 99,078 28 17.60 28 

4,998,444 96 115,574 2.31 96 7 13,916 94 0.27 94 7.5 92 173,012 95 3.40 95 2,428,233 92 83,909 3.34 921,462,091 97 45,017 3.00 97 1 1,191 97 0.08 97 3.2 92 35,611 97 2.37 97 1,129,857 105 71,432 6.02 105 6 239 66 0.03 66 0.6 63 71,094 97 6.02 97 1,724,362 120 92,505 5.09 1201,848,056 64 108,534 5.55 64 0 64 64 64 108,651 64 5.55 64 2,323,177 24 71,950 3.00 24 50 24 0.00 24 0.1 24 70,980 24 2.96 24 2,706,402 116 59,558 2.15 116 58,330 116 2.11 116 

810,068 17 21,765 2.62 17 54 12 0.01 12 0.6 12 12,968 17 1.56 17 657,049 238 31,148 4.55 238 2

5,790 1 469 7.49 1 0 4 4 1 51 2 0.49 2 

6,702,875 58 745,391 10.01 583,420,245 100 151,175 4.23 100 0 100 100 100 151,175 100 4.23 100 

310,696 53 5,353 1.69 53 136 48 0.04 48 2.8 48 4,753 48 1.55 48 

5,427,452 88 303,415 5.29 88 4,876 69 0.12 69 2.3 69 223,411 77 4.81 77 1,455,330 77 18,974 1.29 77 326 77 0.02 77 1.2 77 26,954 77 1.83 77 1,780,550 36 71,121 3.84 36 2,103 36 0.11 36 2.9 36 69,955 36 3.78 36 

391,188 66 3,742 0.95 66 106 41 0.03 41 3.8 41 2,725 43 0.85 43 

0 254 254

913,845 29 28,200 2.99 29 1,092 22 0.13 22 4.1 22 27,693 24 3.02 24 

314,273 246 48 0.02 245 5 456 246 0.15 245 6.5 244 6,565 246 2.09 245 

2,818,651 39 66,350 2.30 39 1,379 37 0.05 37 2.3 37 59,927 39 2.08 39 2,869,954 1,897 190,622 6.39 1,880 63 176,889 1717 6.11 1717 

0 1,990,372 100.00

30,211 1 1,180 4 1

78,486,597 4,377 5,676,784 6.86 4,351 134 49,100 1,935 0.11 1,931 3.2 1657 2,488,016 3562 3.80 3558 

11,808,639 1,897 1,990,372 100.00 1,880 63 17,189 254 0.27 254 100.0 244 491,742 1717 17.60 1717 

2,242,474 128 162,193 6.90 127 13 1,753 69 0.08 68 7.7 61 88,857 127 3.74 127 

0 1 48 0.02 1 1 0 1 0.00 1 0.1 1 51 2 0.47 2 

U.S. Senatorial Drop-off U.S. Senatorial Overvotes U.S. Senatorial Undervo

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Overvotes and Undervotes

EAC Election Day SurveyOver and Undervotes 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:05:59

Election

Administration

Code Name Jurisdictions

Election Administration

Voting Equipment Used in 2004 

General Election

None / Unknown 908Punch card 260

Lever 394Paper 1,734Optical scan 2,541Electronic 608Multiple Systems 123

Changed Voting Equipment Since 

2000 General Election

Yes 1,753No 4,815

State Wide Voter Registration 

System in Place

Yes 1,335No 5,233

Election Day Registration

Yes 2,823No 3,745

Provisional Ballot Acceptance

In Overall Jurisdiction 1,162In Precinct Only 4,350None 1,056

No Excuse Absentee Balloting

Yes 3,781No 2,787

Early Voting Allowed

Yes 1,701No 4,867

Covered By Section 203, 

Language Minority Requirements

Yes 468

No 6,100

Covered By Section 5 of Voting 

Rights Act

Yes 880No 5,688

Total Number Percent Total Percent Percent Total Percent 

Ballots Not Voting Not Voting Overvotes US Senate Overvotes of Undervotes US Senate 

For For US Senate For US Senate For OverVotes of Total Over & For Undervotes of 

US Senate Cases (Drop-off) (Drop-off) Cases Exception US Senate Cases Total Ballots Cases Undervotes Cases US Senate Cases Total Ballots Cases 

U.S. Senatorial Drop-off U.S. Senatorial Overvotes U.S. Senatorial Undervo

4,837,124 715 2,277,688 32.37 710 23 3,233 73 0.06 73 2.0 64 205,307 638 5.20 638 8,160,186 173 348,741 4.30 172 6 16,968 122 0.24 121 5.4 112 330,276 152 4.08 151 9,135,575 305 993,452 9.81 305 1 0 230 230 226 243,669 245 9.17 245 1,384,461 1,106 55,016 4.29 1,100 39 230 288 0.06 287 4.6 198 36,712 841 3.33 840 

33,045,332 1,589 1,125,428 3.51 1,578 65 24,992 902 0.08 901 2.9 750 1,015,483 1368 3.27 1367 19,329,451 461 823,495 4.12 458 3,166 298 0.02 297 0.5 289 612,472 299 3.60 298 

2,594,468 28 52,964 2.31 28 511 22 0.02 22 1.1 18 44,097 19 2.23 19 

26,799,451 1,434 1,031,159 3.77 1,427 25 16,551 456 0.06 455 2.0 437 874,765 1168 3.42 1167 51,687,146 2,943 4,645,625 8.67 2,924 109 32,549 1,479 0.08 1,476 2.3 1220 1,613,251 2394 4.01 2391 12,740,229 676 605,647 4.70 676 1 3,805 534 0.03 534 0.8 531 490,184 533 4.40 533 65,746,368 3,701 5,071,137 7.45 3,675 133 45,295 1,401 0.08 1,397 2.6 1126 1,997,832 3029 3.65 3025 

4,030,935 2,179 330,624 7.74 2,162 65 123 28 0.02 28 0.1 28 275,967 1745 7.98 1745 

74,455,662 2,198 5,346,160 6.97 2,189 69 48,977 1,907 0.07 1,903 2.3 1629 2,212,049 1817 3.55 1813 38,842,876 1,004 1,491,326 3.87 1,000 40 41,037 945 0.11 941 3.0 929 1,351,392 947 3.54 943 38,141,833 3,037 2,048,551 5.29 3,015 92 7,804 914 0.03 914 1.0 652 1,032,793 2539 3.85 2539 

1,501,888 336 2,136,907 58.80 336 2 259 76 0.03 76 0.2 76 103,831 76 11.95 76 

42,268,719 3,041 1,797,994 4.21 3,020 77 26,870 997 0.07 993 2.0 984 1,567,898 2753 3.77 2749 36,217,878 1,336 3,878,790 10.15 1,331 57 22,230 938 0.08 938 2.6 673 920,118 809 3.80 809 37,689,513 1,180 1,514,758 4.01 1,176 40 25,512 1,321 0.06 1,317 2.0 1045 1,310,517 1100 3.54 1096 40,797,084 3,197 4,162,026 9.64 3,175 94 23,588 614 0.10 614 2.5 612 1,177,499 2462 4.09 2462 23,303,504 149 1,089,591 4.60 146 2 30,635 382 0.10 379 3.5 125 835,919 130 3.73 127 55,183,093 4,228 4,587,193 8.01 4,205 132 18,465 1,553 0.05 1,552 1.3 1532 1,652,097 3432 3.81 3431 13,521,427 361 569,836 4.30 355 21 12,416 601 0.06 600 2.3 347 534,437 347 3.87 346 64,965,170 4,016 5,106,948 7.55 3,996 113 36,684 1,334 0.08 1,331 2.2 1310 1,953,579 3215 3.76 3212 

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Overvotes and Undervotes

EAC Election Day SurveyOver and Undervotes 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:05:59

Election

Administration

Code Name Jurisdictions

Demographics

Region

Northeast 1,710South 1,423Midwest 2,902West 420Territories 113

Urban to Rural

Urban 567

Suburban 871Small Towns 1,710Rural 3,307Not Available - Territories 113

Size of Jurisdiction (VAP)

< 1,000 1,761>=1,000 to <3,500 1,165>=3,500 to <10,000 1,043>=10,000 to <50,000 1,704>=50,000 to <250,000 586>=250,000 to <1,000,000 140>=1,000,000 25Not Available 144

Race and Ethnicity

Predominently NH White 6,264Predominently NH Black 85

Predominently NH Native American 24

Predominently Hispanic 50Not Available 145

Median Income

< $25,000 298>=$25,000 to <$30,000 884>=$30,000 to <$35,000 1,372>=$35,000 to <$40,000 1,215>=$40,000 to <$45,000 881>=$45,000 to <$50,000 587>=$50,000 1,180Not Available 151

High School Education

< 60% 126>=60% to <70% 661>=70% to <80% 1,646>=80% to <90% 3,111>=90% 873Not Available 151

Total Number Percent Total Percent Percent Total Percent 

Ballots Not Voting Not Voting Overvotes US Senate Overvotes of Undervotes US Senate 

For For US Senate For US Senate For OverVotes of Total Over & For Undervotes of 

US Senate Cases (Drop-off) (Drop-off) Cases Exception US Senate Cases Total Ballots Cases Undervotes Cases US Senate Cases Total Ballots Cases 

U.S. Senatorial Drop-off U.S. Senatorial Overvotes U.S. Senatorial Undervo

9,098,923 711 947,669 9.73 710 8 456 415 0.02 414 0.3 413 177,313 415 9.29 414 

24,215,461 750 794,778 3.32 745 47 2,500 878 0.01 878 0.3 615 715,616 624 3.12 624 21,724,317 2,610 878,622 4.07 2,593 77 20,464 415 0.17 415 4.3 405 745,825 2290 3.99 2290 23,417,685 305 1,064,163 4.50 302 2 25,680 227 0.11 224 3.0 224 849,262 233 3.81 230 

30,211 1 1,991,552 98.51 1

27,244,638 373 1,502,958 5.32 371 6 26,442 99 0.12 99 3.1 95 971,393 342 4.35 342 

22,314,125 602 981,444 4.27 600 15 8,505 206 0.04 206 1.3 191 698,885 488 3.71 488 20,398,374 1,114 855,122 4.34 1,107 33 8,585 578 0.05 576 1.7 525 549,051 808 3.17 806 

8,499,249 2,287 345,708 4.33 2,272 80 5,568 1,052 0.07 1,050 2.4 846 268,687 1924 3.68 1922 

30,211 1 1,991,552 98.51 1

526,044 1425 25,000 5.51 1410 52 66 138 0.12 136 4.0 128 21,622 1207 4.74 1205 

1,092,727 842 88,900 8.56 840 16 220 248 0.06 248 1.9 203 78,460 687 8.31 687 2,393,836 618 142,597 6.23 617 23 1,582 378 0.11 378 2.5 311 103,988 489 5.13 489 

12,477,672 1006 585,754 4.89 1002 32 5,781 768 0.06 768 1.5 664 449,018 795 4.32 795 21,055,221 369 994,141 4.75 365 8 7,058 307 0.04 305 1.2 266 660,454 293 3.79 291 23,242,925 89 793,020 3.38 89 1 9,370 77 0.05 77 1.6 70 618,442 75 3.05 75 17,664,923 19 1,055,789 5.64 19 25,023 19 0.15 19 4.3 15 556,030 15 3.89 15 

33,249 9 1,991,583 98.50 9 2 2 1 9.09 1 

73,276,603 4300 3,413,658 4.64 4275 125 39,114 1,846 0.06 1842 2.0 1602 2,224,855 3503 3.68 3499 

1,337,737 43 52,456 3.96 43 6 300 43 0.02 43 0.5 43 54,632 43 3.93 43 

85,914 17 2,871 3.30 16 1 35 8 0.03 8 1.3 7 2,671 10 3.34 10 

3,729,765 7 216,216 5.48 7 9,651 38 0.19 38 4.5 5 205,856 5 5.22 5 

56,578 10 1,991,583 98.50 10 2 2 1 9.09 1 

806,941 159 52,744 7.33 159 15 432 97 0.06 97 1.5 76 30,144 110 5.28 110 

3,199,718 488 135,443 4.50 485 23 1,663 351 0.05 351 1.6 263 116,798 423 3.91 423 8,865,756 889 362,817 4.39 886 32 3,296 500 0.04 500 1.4 406 273,205 748 3.51 748 

18,552,287 865 988,143 5.22 860 20 11,798 397 0.09 395 2.5 353 517,073 707 3.85 705 18,228,672 692 912,831 4.88 687 17 16,194 222 0.09 221 2.9 207 632,092 544 3.92 543 10,040,530 442 411,510 4.00 436 9 8,322 125 0.08 125 2.6 116 334,917 355 3.51 355 18,759,411 830 821,707 4.32 826 16 7,395 243 0.05 242 1.4 236 583,785 674 3.80 673 

33,282 12 1,991,589 98.50 12 2 2 1 9.09 1 

336,333 63 26,503 7.53 63 2 119 46 0.03 46 1.5 21 8,534 26 5.64 26 

7,482,643 392 374,159 5.23 386 31 11,777 330 0.15 329 3.3 258 346,201 332 4.65 331 

18,778,364 1094 983,190 5.18 1092 41 14,406 593 0.08 593 3.1 456 504,535 901 3.34 901 44,838,970 2242 2,035,099 4.49 2225 49 21,165 793 0.06 790 1.7 751 1,404,179 1870 3.75 1867 

6,993,702 574 266,244 3.75 573 9 1,633 173 0.03 173 0.9 171 224,565 432 3.95 432 

56,585 12 1,991,589 98.50 12 2 2 1 9.09 1 

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Overvotes and Undervotes

EAC Election Day SurveyOver and Undervotes 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:05:59

Election

Administration

Code Name Jurisdictions

Political

Battleground States in 2004 

Presidential Election

Yes 3,093No 3,475

Margin of Victory in 2004 

Presidential Election

< 2.5% 515>=2.5% to < 5.0% 476>=5.0% to < 7.5% 510>=7.5% to < 10.0 % 429>=10.0 % 4,492

Red vs Blue Jurisdictions Won By 

in 2004 Presidential Election

Bush > 55% 3,115Bush 50% to 55% 982Bush < 50% 136Kerry < 50% 150Kerry 50% to 55% 872Kerry > 55% 1,161Tied 25

Total Number Percent Total Percent Percent Total Percent 

Ballots Not Voting Not Voting Overvotes US Senate Overvotes of Undervotes US Senate 

For For US Senate For US Senate For OverVotes of Total Over & For Undervotes of 

US Senate Cases (Drop-off) (Drop-off) Cases Exception US Senate Cases Total Ballots Cases Undervotes Cases US Senate Cases Total Ballots Cases 

U.S. Senatorial Drop-off U.S. Senatorial Overvotes U.S. Senatorial Undervo

31,048,325 2750 1,164,573 3.66 2733 92 14,964 426 0.07 426 2.2 409 938,088 2272 3.29 2272 47,438,272 1627 4,512,211 9.19 1618 42 34,136 1,509 0.08 1505 2.2 1248 1,549,928 1290 4.15 1286 

7,307,480 344 364,717 4.86 341 9 2,819 113 0.05 113 1.2 105 244,305 278 4.53 278 4,912,863 320 194,109 4.25 318 10 1,819 111 0.05 111 1.7 105 122,255 272 3.02 272 7,359,512 353 334,778 4.45 352 6 3,369 112 0.06 112 1.6 108 240,503 296 4.08 296 4,412,861 299 185,948 4.22 298 11 1,158 101 0.03 100 1.0 97 168,153 248 4.00 247 

54,455,145 3,044 2,605,387 4.75 3,025 97 39,935 1,496 0.08 1,493 2.5 1240 1,712,661 2461 3.70 2458 30,588,738 2,176 1,215,700 4.03 2,163 73 14,789 1,122 0.05 1,121 1.8 885 911,679 1733 3.35 1732 11,240,315 707 518,758 4.57 703 17 4,187 233 0.04 233 1.4 216 378,339 571 4.00 571 

1,114,145 83 112,274 9.20 83 1 103 30 0.01 30 0.1 29 89,151 69 9.37 69 2,476,702 99 136,073 5.26 99 2 1,212 37 0.07 37 2.3 36 52,932 84 3.75 84 

11,167,231 577 445,792 4.07 571 18 4,707 204 0.06 203 1.7 198 299,122 488 3.42 487 21,860,730 718 1,256,342 5.55 715 22 24,102 307 0.14 305 3.4 291 756,654 610 4.20 608 

5,669 11 290 5.38 11 0 2 2 2 139 7 6.36 7 

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Overvotes and Undervotes

EAC Election Day SurveyOver and Undervotes 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:05:59

Election

Administration

Code Name Jurisdictions

01 Alabama 67

02 Alaska 1

04 Arizona 15

05 Arkansas 7506 California 5808 Colorado 6409 Connecticut 169

10 Delaware 311 District of Columbia 112 Florida 67

13 Georgia 159

15 Hawaii 516 Idaho 44

17 Illinois 110

18 Indiana 92

19 Iowa 9920 Kansas 105

21 Kentucky 12022 Louisiana 64

23 Maine 517

24 Maryland 24

25 Massachusetts 351

26 Michigan 83

27 Minnesota 8728 Mississippi 8229 Missouri 116

30 Montana 56

31 Nebraska 9332 Nevada 1733 New Hampshire 242

34 New Jersey 21

35 New Mexico 3336 New York 5837 North Carolina 100

38 North Dakota 53

39 Ohio 8840 Oklahoma 7741 Oregon 3642 Pennsylvania 6744 Rhode Island 3945 South Carolina 4646 South Dakota 6647 Tennessee 9548 Texas 254

49 Utah 29

50 Vermont 246

51 Virginia 13453 Washington 39

54 West Virginia 5555 Wisconsin 1,91056 Wyoming 2360 American Samoa 166 Guam 172 Puerto Rico 11078 Virgin Islands 1

Total 6,568Maximum 1,910Average 119Minimum 1

Cases = Number of Jurisdictions Repor

Total Number Percent Total Percent Percent Total Percent 

Ballots Not Voting Not Voting Overvotes Congress Overvotes of Undervotes Congress Un

For For Congress For Congress For OverVotes of Total Over & For Undervotes of T

Congress Cases (Drop-off) (Drop-off) Cases Exception Congress Cases Total Ballots Cases Undervotes Cases Congress Cases Total Ballots Cases 

1,638,054 62 74,955 6.72 57 22 39 4 0.08 4 1.4 4 82,928 58 5.49 58 

299,996 1 14,506 4.61 1 268 1 0.09 1 100.0 1

1,869,664 15 168,413 8.26 15 2,883 14 0.14 14 1.8 14 160,760 15 7.89 15 

791,667 46 15,282 2.13 46 9 481 29 0.08 29 3.0 29 20,650 41 2.80 41 

10,265,624 55 2,155,645 17.86 52 2 11,716 50 0.10 47 1.4 50 824,053 54 6.66 51 

2,040,001 64 108,035 5.03 64 79 10 0.02 10 2.4 10 4,364 13 3.97 13 1,428,604 169 166,409 10.43 169 166,117 169 10.41 169 

356,053 3 21,354 5.66 3 21,354 3 5.66 3 221,213 1 8,892 3.86 1 51 1 0.02 1 0.6 1 8,347 1 3.63 1 

5,627,494 65 1,887,267 25.11 65 594 42 0.01 42 0.1 42 507,013 64 6.88 64 2,256,560 159 1,060,776 31.98 159 230,708 159 6.95 159 

428,342 4 2,861 0.66 4 102 4 0.02 4 0.7 4 14,835 4 3.44 4 572,426 44 40,360 6.59 44 843 25 0.15 25 5.3 25 16,292 19 4.40 19 

1,866,709 84 423,172 18.48 841,431,874 96 68,052 4.56 96 1 719 68 0.06 68 1.6 68 54,740 90 3.77 90 1,156,790 105 44,224 3.72 105 5 173 35 0.03 35 0.9 35 43,767 98 3.70 98 1,635,045 120 181,822 10.01 1201,035,862 48 300,018 22.46 48 146,647 52 8.65 52 

710,512 517 44,265 5.86 517

2,228,796 24 166,331 6.94 24 31 9 0.00 9 0.0 9 133,415 24 5.57 24 2,472,146 350 454,838 15.54 350 315,507 349 10.78 349 

4,628,840 83 247,397 5.07 83 124,646 76 3.71 76 2,721,681 87 121,231 4.26 87 121,231 87 4.26 87 1,116,203 82 47,257 4.06 821,749,317 110 187,953 9.70 110

442,929 56 13,167 2.89 56 93 21 0.03 21 1.3 21 9,503 39 2.60 39 764,972 93 27,938 3.52 93 2,785 71 0.37 71 14.7 71 16,631 84 2.13 84 791,430 17 40,403 4.86 17 26 3 0.00 3 0.1 3 32,569 12 5.09 12 652,664 240 35,000 5.13 240 3

3,284,595 21 355,017 9.75 21 1,564 7 0.10 7 1.0 7 353,453 21 9.71 21 

316,192 21 14,600 4.47 21 1 6,537 7 5.05 7 

2,819,282 55 902,794 24.26 553,409,472 100 161,948 4.53 100 161,948 100 4.53 100 

310,814 53 5,235 1.66 53 97 33 0.04 33 2.2 33 4,629 48 1.51 48 

1,418,515 77 55,789 3.78 77 256 45 0.02 45 0.3 45 99,218 77 6.73 77 1,772,306 36 79,365 4.29 36 1,368 32 0.08 32 1.7 32 78,134 36 4.22 36 

402,165 39 38,578 8.75 39 328 35 0.08 35 1.7 35 20,141 39 4.57 39 389,468 66 5,462 1.38 66 129 32 0.05 32 30.8 32 1,151 8 1.51 8 

349 17 0.18 17 1.9 17 241,189 95 9.81 95 

6,836,206 254 673,689 8.98 254 1 1,864 79 0.04 79 0.6 79 386,340 137 6.38 137 

908,531 29 33,514 3.56 29 1,122 19 0.13 19 3.9 19 30,198 24 3.30 24 225,106 231 89,209 28.51 230 2 264 111 0.21 111 7.5 111 6,018 228 2.68 227 

2,548,424 133 664,081 20.67 133 146 22 0.01 22 0.2 22 219,003 134 6.79 134 2,729,995 39 155,006 5.37 39 23,458 28 0.84 28 14.1 28 146,219 38 5.08 38 

721,665 55 47,980 6.23 55 174 16 0.09 16 1.8 16 44,387 38 8.31 38 

2,815,739 1896 220,172 7.33 1879 17 213,754 1818 7.29 1816 

238,677 23 7,112 2.89 23 129 15 0.10 15 3.6 15 3,969 17 2.78 17 

1,959,553 110 30,819 1.55 110 4,042 110 0.20 110 44.9 110 4,960 110 0.25 110 

30,211 1 1,180 4 1

86,338,384 6039 11,669,373 12.04 6013 63 56,173 988 0.12 985 2.1 988 5,077,325 4486 6.27 4480 10,265,624 1896 2,155,645 31.98 1879 22 23,458 111 0.84 111 100.0 111 824,053 1818 10.78 1816 

1,798,716 125 243,111 8.49 125 6 1,812 31 0.11 31 8.1 31 126,933 112 5.22 112 

30,211 1 1,180 0.66 1 1 26 1 0.00 1 0.0 1 1,151 1 0.25 1 

U.S. Congressional Drop-off U.S. Congressional Overvotes U.S. Congressional Undervot

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Overvotes and Undervotes

EAC Election Day SurveyOver and Undervotes 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:05:59

Election

Administration

Code Name Jurisdictions

Election Administration

Voting Equipment Used in 2004 

General Election

None / Unknown 908Punch card 260

Lever 394Paper 1,734Optical scan 2,541Electronic 608Multiple Systems 123

Changed Voting Equipment Since 

2000 General Election

Yes 1,753No 4,815

State Wide Voter Registration 

System in Place

Yes 1,335No 5,233

Election Day Registration

Yes 2,823No 3,745

Provisional Ballot Acceptance

In Overall Jurisdiction 1,162In Precinct Only 4,350None 1,056

No Excuse Absentee Balloting

Yes 3,781No 2,787

Early Voting Allowed

Yes 1,701No 4,867

Covered By Section 203, 

Language Minority Requirements

Yes 468

No 6,100

Covered By Section 5 of Voting 

Rights Act

Yes 880No 5,688

Cases = Number of Jurisdictions Repor

Total Number Percent Total Percent Percent Total Percent 

Ballots Not Voting Not Voting Overvotes Congress Overvotes of Undervotes Congress Un

For For Congress For Congress For OverVotes of Total Over & For Undervotes of T

Congress Cases (Drop-off) (Drop-off) Cases Exception Congress Cases Total Ballots Cases Undervotes Cases Congress Cases Total Ballots Cases 

U.S. Congressional Drop-off U.S. Congressional Overvotes U.S. Congressional Undervot

President, U.S. Senate, and U.S. House of Representatives Drop-Off excluded w

5,193,674 798 312,613 5.70 793 6 4,108 114 0.11 114 2.2 114 258,345 732 4.95 731 5,618,247 177 252,471 4.38 176 2 8,472 91 0.22 90 4.7 91 227,994 123 5.01 122 6,439,348 349 1,334,160 17.17 349 425 4 0.05 4 0.5 4 407,721 286 10.58 286 1,464,574 1724 131,496 8.91 1718 16 522 120 0.35 120 13.5 120 71,554 999 9.77 998 

40,376,414 2378 5,227,053 11.93 2367 39 37,298 597 0.15 596 2.6 597 2,296,236 1862 5.88 1860 19,563,903 501 3,402,886 14.89 498 4,903 39 0.05 38 0.7 39 1,542,632 381 7.10 380 

7,682,224 112 1,008,694 11.68 112 445 23 0.02 23 0.4 23 272,843 103 4.71 103 

26,546,492 1629 5,195,067 16.52 1622 8 10,946 127 0.06 126 0.8 127 2,001,994 1253 6.91 1250 59,791,892 4410 6,474,306 10.06 4391 55 45,227 861 0.16 859 3.3 861 3,075,331 3233 5.92 3230 22,199,846 1259 2,872,348 11.54 1259 1 3,863 113 0.08 113 1.4 113 1,461,445 1045 6.95 1045 64,138,538 4780 8,797,025 12.41 4754 62 52,310 875 0.13 872 2.2 875 3,615,880 3441 6.04 3435 

7,711,699 2807 468,140 5.75 2790 20 972 40 0.14 40 5.0 40 355,246 1941 5.65 1939 

78,626,685 3232 11,201,233 12.78 3223 43 55,201 948 0.12 945 2.1 948 4,722,079 2545 6.33 2541 30,907,990 910 4,582,580 13.24 906 14 41,998 338 0.18 335 3.0 338 1,991,146 833 6.02 829 48,472,533 4077 6,808,703 12.62 4055 46 9,193 482 0.04 482 0.7 482 2,939,067 3389 6.94 3387 

6,957,861 1052 278,090 3.85 1052 3 4,982 168 0.18 168 17.0 168 147,112 264 2.67 264 

40,200,425 3715 5,663,201 12.63 3694 28 45,736 627 0.14 624 2.5 627 2,504,815 2909 6.04 2903 46,137,959 2324 6,006,172 11.79 2319 35 10,437 361 0.07 361 1.3 361 2,572,510 1577 6.52 1577 41,451,444 1541 6,674,553 14.19 1537 21 21,110 618 0.06 615 1.1 618 2,873,489 1355 6.35 1351 44,886,940 4498 4,994,820 10.25 4476 42 35,063 370 0.26 370 5.5 370 2,203,836 3131 6.18 3129 25,887,743 447 4,966,872 16.41 444 4 28,763 184 0.11 181 1.6 184 1,982,362 279 7.02 276 60,450,641 5592 6,702,501 10.23 5569 59 27,410 804 0.13 804 3.2 804 3,094,963 4207 5.88 4204 21,772,674 812 3,473,066 14.41 806 23 9,893 130 0.08 129 1.0 130 1,676,757 601 7.37 600 64,565,710 5227 8,196,307 11.44 5207 40 46,280 858 0.14 856 2.8 858 3,400,568 3885 5.84 3880 

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Overvotes and Undervotes

EAC Election Day SurveyOver and Undervotes 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:05:59

Election

Administration

Code Name Jurisdictions

Demographics

Region

Northeast 1,710South 1,423Midwest 2,902West 420Territories 113

Urban to Rural

Urban 567

Suburban 871Small Towns 1,710Rural 3,307Not Available - Territories 113

Size of Jurisdiction (VAP)

< 1,000 1,761>=1,000 to <3,500 1,165>=3,500 to <10,000 1,043>=10,000 to <50,000 1,704>=50,000 to <250,000 586>=250,000 to <1,000,000 140>=1,000,000 25Not Available 144

Race and Ethnicity

Predominently NH White 6,264Predominently NH Black 85

Predominently NH Native American 24

Predominently Hispanic 50Not Available 145

Median Income

< $25,000 298>=$25,000 to <$30,000 884>=$30,000 to <$35,000 1,372>=$35,000 to <$40,000 1,215>=$40,000 to <$45,000 881>=$45,000 to <$50,000 587>=$50,000 1,180Not Available 151

High School Education

< 60% 126>=60% to <70% 661>=70% to <80% 1,646>=80% to <90% 3,111>=90% 873Not Available 151

Cases = Number of Jurisdictions Repor

Total Number Percent Total Percent Percent Total Percent 

Ballots Not Voting Not Voting Overvotes Congress Overvotes of Undervotes Congress Un

For For Congress For Congress For OverVotes of Total Over & For Undervotes of T

Congress Cases (Drop-off) (Drop-off) Cases Exception Congress Cases Total Ballots Cases Undervotes Cases Congress Cases Total Ballots Cases 

U.S. Congressional Drop-off U.S. Congressional Overvotes U.S. Congressional Undervot

11,995,074 1622 2,086,110 15.04 1621 5 2,156 153 0.10 153 1.2 153 861,236 806 9.76 805 31,841,229 1229 5,367,441 14.95 1224 32 3,985 264 0.02 264 0.4 264 2,303,147 983 6.59 983 17,836,204 2673 1,350,836 7.06 2656 23 3,903 239 0.12 239 4.5 239 580,549 2309 4.49 2307 22,676,113 404 2,832,987 11.40 401 3 42,087 222 0.19 219 3.1 222 1,327,433 278 5.97 275 

1,989,764 111 31,999 1.58 111 4,042 110 0.20 110 44.9 110 4,960 110 0.25 110 

26,198,612 534 5,123,823 16.38 532 1 13,243 54 0.08 54 1.1 54 2,061,934 502 7.43 501 23,915,863 809 4,118,453 14.91 807 6 29,256 79 0.21 79 3.9 79 1,337,963 676 5.74 676 22,603,090 1461 1,682,163 7.26 1454 17 4,935 224 0.05 222 1.0 224 1,140,517 992 6.04 989 11,631,055 3124 712,935 6.11 3109 39 4,697 521 0.09 520 2.4 521 531,951 2206 5.90 2204 

1,989,764 111 31,999 1.58 111 4,042 110 0.20 110 44.9 110 4,960 110 0.25 110 

577,365 1751 64,320 11.12 1736 14 89 55 0.32 54 9.8 55 55,714 1336 11.21 1332 

1,502,245 1160 134,114 8.87 1158 10 337 100 0.23 100 8.3 100 97,252 787 8.96 787 3,742,764 982 316,967 8.16 981 8 1,057 170 0.15 170 4.0 170 215,200 682 7.54 682 

16,947,060 1431 1,345,305 7.65 1427 22 3,759 313 0.09 313 2.0 313 1,014,636 1094 7.14 1094 24,517,131 456 2,077,370 8.04 452 7 8,547 166 0.08 164 1.7 166 1,167,116 366 5.52 364 23,788,846 109 5,043,763 17.74 109 1 16,056 59 0.10 59 1.8 59 1,509,407 93 6.08 93 13,270,041 18 2,655,478 16.67 18 22,286 15 0.16 15 2.2 15 1,013,037 16 7.06 16 

1,992,932 132 32,056 1.58 132 1 4,042 110 0.20 110 44.9 110 4,963 112 0.25 112 

78,272,192 5767 10,597,752 12.21 5742 58 46,697 846 0.12 843 2.1 846 4,514,361 4281 6.26 4275 

1,377,203 69 374,394 22.78 69 4 106 8 0.02 8 0.2 8 105,302 50 6.15 50 

122,765 24 5,912 4.65 23 36 6 0.08 6 3.8 6 4,593 13 4.44 13 

4,549,963 46 659,259 12.66 46 5,292 18 0.12 18 1.3 18 448,106 30 8.95 30 2,016,261 133 32,056 1.58 133 1 4,042 110 0.20 110 44.9 110 4,963 112 0.25 112 1,191,846 274 148,881 12.40 274 6 229 34 0.12 34 3.8 34 47,651 121 8.38 121 4,234,332 798 306,675 7.39 795 13 989 135 0.08 135 1.8 135 253,759 500 7.09 500 

11,170,815 1228 773,203 6.90 1225 18 3,465 251 0.07 251 1.3 251 608,409 895 6.31 895 15,829,284 1101 1,768,738 10.27 1096 9 3,514 201 0.05 200 1.1 201 880,540 811 6.15 809 19,709,032 805 2,574,659 11.75 800 6 9,105 109 0.07 108 1.0 109 1,290,285 617 7.44 615 

9,594,222 555 2,770,377 22.58 549 5 16,720 63 0.22 63 4.3 63 594,306 446 5.37 446 

22,615,873 1142 3,294,782 12.77 1138 5 18,109 85 0.16 84 2.8 85 1,397,411 983 6.23 981 

1,992,980 136 32,058 1.58 136 1 4,042 110 0.20 110 44.9 110 4,964 113 0.25 113 

778,033 114 101,312 12.07 114 286 19 0.12 19 3.7 19 36,358 59 7.27 59 

8,292,294 563 993,803 11.65 557 22 6,321 81 0.11 80 1.2 81 769,217 415 8.93 414 

20,677,376 1469 2,034,154 9.24 1467 15 6,115 225 0.07 225 1.1 225 1,271,516 1055 6.97 1055 44,262,963 2901 7,515,605 14.70 2884 24 27,283 485 0.11 483 2.0 485 2,480,710 2198 5.87 2193 10,311,435 856 992,441 8.82 855 1 12,126 68 0.26 68 5.8 68 514,560 646 5.50 646 

2,016,283 136 32,058 1.58 136 1 4,042 110 0.20 110 44.9 110 4,964 113 0.25 113 

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Overvotes and Undervotes

EAC Election Day SurveyOver and Undervotes 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:05:59

Election

Administration

Code Name Jurisdictions

Political

Battleground States in 2004 

Presidential Election

Yes 3,093No 3,475

Margin of Victory in 2004 

Presidential Election

< 2.5% 515>=2.5% to < 5.0% 476>=5.0% to < 7.5% 510>=7.5% to < 10.0 % 429>=10.0 % 4,492

Red vs Blue Jurisdictions Won By 

in 2004 Presidential Election

Bush > 55% 3,115Bush 50% to 55% 982Bush < 50% 136Kerry < 50% 150Kerry 50% to 55% 872Kerry > 55% 1,161Tied 25

Cases = Number of Jurisdictions Repor

Total Number Percent Total Percent Percent Total Percent 

Ballots Not Voting Not Voting Overvotes Congress Overvotes of Undervotes Congress Un

For For Congress For Congress For OverVotes of Total Over & For Undervotes of T

Congress Cases (Drop-off) (Drop-off) Cases Exception Congress Cases Total Ballots Cases Undervotes Cases Congress Cases Total Ballots Cases 

U.S. Congressional Drop-off U.S. Congressional Overvotes U.S. Congressional Undervot

30,660,529 2870 3,396,156 10.02 2853 31 29,782 242 0.19 242 3.2 242 1,515,004 2335 5.64 2333 55,677,855 3169 8,273,217 13.37 3160 32 26,391 746 0.09 743 1.5 746 3,562,321 2151 6.59 2147 

7,345,052 478 1,257,012 14.73 475 9,192 33 0.37 33 5.9 33 312,594 337 5.60 337 5,877,115 435 429,030 6.89 433 1 2,530 38 0.10 38 1.9 38 279,928 324 5.59 324 5,979,485 483 2,145,845 26.58 482 3 1,348 53 0.03 53 0.6 53 403,891 356 6.09 356 4,322,549 398 273,060 6.03 397 6 492 46 0.02 45 0.4 46 269,056 302 6.66 301 

60,816,606 4117 7,531,991 11.35 4098 52 38,568 707 0.12 705 1.9 707 3,806,646 3050 6.60 3045 36,235,076 2814 3,469,067 9.10 2801 42 14,453 523 0.08 522 1.5 523 2,015,411 2035 6.05 2032 12,785,725 898 2,067,621 14.03 894 4 1,510 91 0.03 91 0.4 91 676,219 647 6.28 647 

1,008,995 128 207,051 17.11 128 65 9 0.01 9 0.2 9 62,160 72 7.90 72 2,418,039 146 282,559 10.55 146 1,042 12 0.08 12 1.6 12 108,647 104 5.20 104 

10,476,132 817 1,887,529 15.45 811 6 11,559 91 0.21 90 3.9 91 610,951 631 6.04 630 21,413,183 1102 3,722,885 15.01 1099 10 23,501 151 0.18 150 2.5 151 1,598,727 880 7.30 878 

9,178 17 662 7.14 17 1 1 0.17 1 5.6 1 250 7 11.45 7 

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Chapter 9 

Voting Equipment Usage 

Table 9 presents data from the Election Day Survey on the type of voting equipment used by 

election jurisdictions during the November 2, 2004, election. The survey asked for a listing of the 

type and manufacturer of voting systems in use; the number of units for each system; software 

versions, if applicable; and whether the voting systems previously had been used in a federal 

election. 

Applicability and Coverage 

State responses to the five parts of question 13 on voting equipment usage were mixed. Some states 

responded to each part, while others provided a single response that had to be split apart and 

reclassified. Some states provided important information that was not requested—e.g, name of 

voting equipment hardware or ballot tabulation method (e.g., precinct or central-count). Nine states 

did not respond to question 13 at all. 

All information that states provided on voting equipment, including information not requested by the 

survey, was standardized following a format established by National Association of State Election 

Directors (NASED) for qualifying voting systems.1

 Therefore, the tabulated version of question 13 

has nine parts: 

1) Company 6) Voting equipment type 

2) Voting system 7) Ballot tabulation method 

3) Software 8) Previous use at a federal election 

4) Voting equipment hardware 9) Number of units 

5) Voting equipment hardware version 

Only data on voting equipment type is generally complete. For states that did not respond to question 

13, information on equipment type was obtained from media reports or voting equipment summaries 

published by the National Association of Secretaries of State on the Web. In other instances, voting 

equipment type was determined from other information on the survey for voting equipment 

hardware. About 30 states identified voting equipment manufacturers, and about 20 states provided 

information on the number of units and previous use at a federal election. 

The survey results on the different types of voting equipment used by local election jurisdictions are 

presented in chapter 9. Also included in this chapter is information on voting equipment hardware 

and manufacturers. The results on the number of units and ballot tabulation methods are in chapter 

10. The results on voting equipment malfunctions are in chapter 11. 

There are five generic types of voting equipment: (1) punch card, (2) optical scan, (3) electronic, (4) 

lever machine, and (5) paper ballot. A sixth category, “mixed,” is for jurisdictions using more than 

 

1

 Under the Help America Vote Act of 2002, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is responsible for the certification of voting systems. That function was previously carried out by NASED. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voting Equipment Usage, Page 9-2 September 27, 2005 

one type of voting equipment. The punch card category includes DataVote and Votomatic systems.2

Electronic refers to direct recording electronic (DRE) devices utilizing touch screens, push buttons, 

or select wheels for voters to indicate their preferences. 

The following is a comprehensive listing of voting equipment hardware that local election jurisdictions reported were used at the November 2, 2004, general election. The listing is by company. In 

some instances, survey respondents reported the names of voting equipment distributors instead of 

manufacturers. Some of the companies—Automatic Voting Machine Corp. (AVM), for example—

are no longer in business. Because of licensing or other agreements, some voting equipment 

hardware—Optech Eagle, for example—was manufactured or sold by two or more companies. 

Table 9a. Voting Equipment for the November 2004 General Election 

Company Hardware Type 

Airmac Technology Systems, Inc. MR 210 Optical scan 

Automatic Voting Machine Corp. (AVM) AVM Lever 

Predecessor of Sequoia Voting Systems AVM-NP Lever 

AVM-NS Lever 

AVM-POM 40 Lever 

AVM-POM 50 Lever 

AVM-Printomatic Lever 

AVM-RS Lever 

Advanced Voting Solutions (AVS) AVM-NS Lever 

Formerly, Shoup Voting Solutions, Inc. Pre- AVM-RS Lever 

decessor companies include R.F. Shoup Corp. WINscan Optical scan 

WINvote Electronic 

Computing Devices Canada Elex Voting System Electronic 

Danaher Controls ELECTronic 1242 Electronic 

Division of Danaher Corp. Shouptronic 1242 Electronic 

DFM Associates Mark-A-Vote Optical scan 

Diebold Election Systems AccuTouch Electronic 

Predecessor companies include Global Election AccuTouch (Global) Electronic 

Systems Inc. and Data Information Management AccuVote ES-2000 Optical scan 

Systems (DIMS) AccuVote ES-2000 (Global) Optical scan 

AccuVote-OS Optical scan 

AccuVote-OS (Global) Optical scan 

AccuVote-TS Electronic 

AccuVote-TS R6 Electronic 

Global NCS 5 Optical scan 

Table 9a. Voting Equipment 2004 (cont.) 

 

2

 A Votomatic ballot is prescored and printed only with numbered voting positions. A Votomatic ballot is inserted into a frame to 

which an attached booklet identifies candidates or answers to ballot questions for each voting position. A stylus is used to punch out 

prescored chads at voting positions. A Datavote ballot card is printed with a candidate name or answer to a ballot question at each 

voting position. A Datavote ballot card is inserted into a frame with a movable punching device. Voters align the punching device 

with a candidate name or answer to a ballot question, and then press the device to punch out a hole in the card at the appropriate voting position. Because candidate names are printed on the actual Datavote card, a usual election involves multiple cards that a voter 

must cast to complete their ballot. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voting Equipment Usage, Page 9-3 September 27, 2005 

Company Hardware Type 

Data Information Management Systems DataVote Punch Card 

Predecessor of Diebold Inc.

ES&S (Election Systems & Software) BRC P-III Punch card 

Predecessor companies include American Cardamation (CES) Punch card 

Information Systems, Inc. (AIS), Business CES Votomatic Punch card 

Records Corp. (BRC), and Computer Election Dell Ultra Scan Punch card 

Systems (CES) DOC 600 Punch card 

ETP-IV (BRC) (unknown) 

iVotronic Electronic 

Model 100 Optical scan 

Model 115 Optical scan 

Model 115 (AIS) Optical scan 

Model 150 Optical scan 

Model 150 (AIS) Optical scan 

Model 315 Optical scan 

Model 315 (AIS) Optical scan 

Model 550 Optical scan 

Model 550 (AIS) Optical scan 

Model 650 Optical scan 

Optech Optical scan 

Optech 1 (CES) Optical scan 

Optech Eagle Optical scan 

Optech II Optical scan 

Optech II (BRC) Optical scan 

Optech III Optical scan 

Optech III (BRC) Optical scan 

Optech III-P Optical Scan 

Optech III-P (BRC) Optical scan 

Optech III-P Eagle Optical scan 

Optech IV-C Optical scan 

Optech IV-C (BRC) Optical scan 

Optech IV-C 200 Optical scan 

Optech IV-C 200 (BRC) Optical scan 

Optech IV-C 400 Optical scan 

Optech IV-C 400 (BRC) Optical scan 

PBC 2100 Punch card 

PBC 5 Punch card 

PBC 6 Punch card 

PBC III-D Punch card 

PBC III-D (BRC) Punch card 

PC-BT Punch card 

Pollstar Votronic Punch card 

V-200 Electronic 

Votomatic Punch card 

Votomatic (CES) Punch card 

Table 9a. Voting Equipment 2004 (cont.) 

Company Hardware Type 

ES&S (cont.) Votomatic III Punch card 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voting Equipment Usage, Page 9-4 September 27, 2005 

Votronic Electronic 

Votronic I Electronic 

Votronic II Electronic 

Fidlar AccuVote ES-2000 Optical scan 

Predecessor companies include Fidlar Double- AccuVote-OS Optical scan 

Day Inc., Fidlar & Chambers Co. and Govern- DIS Punch card 

mental Business Systems Inc. (GBS) EV 2000 Electronic 

Governmental Data Systems (GDS) ATS MR 200 Optical scan 

Hart InterCivic Inc. Ballot Now Optical scan 

eSlate Electronic 

International Election Systems (IES) Shoup Model 2.5 Lever 

Shoup Model 3.2 Lever 

MicroVote General Corp. Infinity Electronic 

MEMS (unknown) 

MV-464 Electronic 

Peripheral Dynamics Inc. (PDI) PDI 6111 HT Punch card 

R.F. Shoup Corp. Shoup Lever 

Predecessor of Shoup Voting Solutions/AVS Shouptronic 1242 Electronic 

Sequoia Voting Systems AVC Advantage Electronic 

Predecessor companies include Sequoia AVC Edge Electronic 

Pacific Voting Systems, Inc. and Automatic AVM Lever 

Voting Machine Corp. DataVote Punch Card 

Optech Eagle Optical scan 

Optech III-P Optical scan 

Optech III-P Eagle Optical scan 

Optech Insight Optical scan 

Optech IV-C Optical scan 

AVM Printomatic-30 Lever 

Triad Governmental Systems Inc. ELECtab Punch Card 

Unilect Corp. Patriot Electronic 

Votec Corp. Votomatic III-A Punch card 

Votomatic III-P Punch card 

Voting Technologies International (VTI) VoT Ware Electronic 

Webb Systems BCCS 228 Punch card 

BCCS 312 Punch card 

(company unknown) Benton BC-1000 Punch card 

Documation Punch card 

Documentation M-1000 Punch card 

Documentation M-200 Punch card 

Documentation M-600L Punch card 

ETNet Punch card 

Only about half of the survey respondents provided the names of the manufacturers of voting 

systems used at the November 2004 election. The following table identifies the manufacturers and, 

in some instances, the distributors, of voting systems used by local election jurisdictions in 2004 and 

is sorted by the number of jurisdictions covered. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voting Equipment Usage, Page 9-5 September 27, 2005 

Table 9b. 

Voting Equipment Manufacturers, November 2004 General Election 

Voting Equipment Manufacturer Jurisdictions 

ES&S (Election Systems & Software) 1,638 

Diebold Election Systems 1,444 

Danaher Controls 236 

Sequoia Voting Systems (including AVM) 201 

Fidlar 180 

Microvote General Corp. 169 

Advanced Voting Solutions (incl. R.F.Shoup) 44 

IES (International Election Systems) 33 

Hart InterCivic Inc. 25 

Unilect Corp. 25 

Webb Systems 9 

DFM Associates 8 

Triad Governmental Systems Inc. (Triad GSI) 7 

Votec Corp. 3 

AirMac Technologies Inc. 1 

Computing Devices Canada (CDC) 1 

Governmental Data Systems (GDS) 1 

Peripheral Dynamics Inc. (PDI) 1 

Voting Technologies International (VTI) 1 

(Manufacturer not indicated) 3,970 

Historical Context 

Prior to 1980, no one kept track of what kind of voting equipment was used in all jurisdictions in the 

United States. While state laws may provide some parameters for the type of voting equipment that 

is allowed in a state, the final decision has traditionally been left to local election administrators. In 

1979, the Federal Election Commission’s Office of Election Administration (the predecessor to the 

new U.S. Election Assistance Commission [EAC]) contracted with Election Data Services, Inc. to 

conduct regional workshops on a variety of election administration topics, including voting 

equipment. As part of those workshops, Election Data Services began compiling information on the 

type of voting equipment that was used in all jurisdictions. In what became a labor of love (or 

insanity), we continued to keep track of voting equipment usage around the nation. With each 

subsequent general election, we saved an archive of the database, which allowed us to monitor 

change over time. Figures 9.1 and 9.2 show the percentage of counties and percentage of registered 

voters that have used each voting equipment type from 1980 to the present time. A comparison of 

information on the two charts at any point in time provides important insights on election 

administration in this country. For example, while nearly 10 percent of counties in 2004 used paper 

ballots, they amounted to less than one percent of the registered voters. This indicates that very small 

counties are the predominant users of paper ballots. The opposite percentage comparison can be seen 

in punch card and electronic voting machine usage, an indication that these systems are used by the 

larger jurisdictions in the nation. 

Figure 9.1 Voting Equipment 1980–2004, Percent of Counties 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voting Equipment Usage, Page 9-6 September 27, 2005 

Figure 9.2 Voting Equipment 1980–2004, Percent of Registered Voters 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voting Equipment Usage, Page 9-7 September 27, 2005 

For much of this country’s history, voters have used paper ballots. As the country grew and became 

more urbanized, the task of counting paper ballots took longer. With the Industrial Revolution, a 

mechanical way was found to produce instantaneous election results—the lever machine. 

Mechanical lever machines were invented in the 1890s, and their use in elections grew rapidly over 

the next 70 years. Lever machines combined the casting, recording, and counting of votes in one 

apparatus. And it is interesting to note in light of the current controversy over electronic voting that 

for all those 70 years, voters were not receiving, nor were election officials counting, physical 

ballots. 

Precincts then tended to be smaller in size because the high cost of lever machines prevented 

election officials from placing large numbers of these devices in each precinct. By the middle of the 

20th century, the main source of polling place judges—housewives—had begun moving into the 

workforce. As a result of this loss in manpower (or womanpower), election officials looked to 

cutting the overall number of precincts and increasing the size of the remaining polling places. 

Punch card voting systems, first used in 1964, were a popular solution to this problem. Suburban and 

urban communities around the nation soon found that the cost of 10 punch card devices was similar 

to just two lever machines, allowing election officials to create larger precincts. While bigger 

counties began to adopt punch cards, smaller counties needed a solution that would allow them to 

continue to use paper ballots, but tally election results more quickly. This led to the development of 

optical scan devices for voting in the 1970s and 1980s. 

With the advent of computers and the need to replace aging mechanical lever machines, the 1970s 

also saw the introduction of electronic voting systems. Early electronic voting devices looked much 

like lever machines, with push buttons replacing levers on a large panel. Newer DREs, resembling 

ATMs (automatic teller machines), had touch-screen panels and keypads for entering write-in votes. 

Voter preferences went directly into electronic storage, usually without a paper record of the voter’s 

intent. 

Survey Results 

Table 9 presents data on voting equipment usage from question 13 on the Election Day Survey. In 

the table, both the number of registered voters and the count of jurisdictions, using each of six 

different types of voting equipment (including multiple systems), is calculated. Because the EAC 

dataset is incomplete, a seventh category of “Unknown” is also shown. Because the information is so 

wide, the table spans multiple pages. The column headings in Table 9 are as follows: 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voting Equipment Usage, Page 9-8 September 27, 2005 

Table 9 Column Headings. Voting Equipment Usage 

Col. Heading Description 

1 Code State census code 

2 Name Respondent to Election Day Survey 

3 Jurisdiction Number of local election jurisdictions from survey question 22 

4 2004 Total 

Registration 

Number of active and inactive registered voters, number of 

persons who voted on Election Day in six states, and VAP 

data for North Dakota and jurisdictions in Wisconsin that 

do not have voter registration, from col. 4 of table 2 

5 Number of Juris. Using 

 Punch card Equipment 

Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey question 

13 and reported the use of punch cards 

6 % of Juris. Using 

 Punch card Equipment 

Number of jurisdictions using punch cards (col. 5) divided 

by the total number of election jurisdictions (col. 3) 

7 Regis. in Juris. Using 

 Punch card Equipment 

Number of registered voters in jurisdictions that reported 

the use of punch cards 

8 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey question 

1, provided Election Day registration data, or for which 

VAP data was substituted for voter registration data; and 

jurisdictions that responded to question 13 and reported 

the use of punch cards 

9 % of Regis. Using 

 Punch card Equipment 

Number of registered voters in jurisdictions that reported 

the use of punch cards (col. 7) divided by the total number 

of registered voters (col. 3) 

10 Number of Juris. Using 

 Optical Scan Voting 

 Equipment 

Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey question 

13 and reported the use of optical scan equipment 

11 % of Juris. Using 

 Optical Scan Voting 

Equipment 

Number of jurisdictions using optical scan equipment (col. 

10) divided by the total number of election jurisdictions 

(col. 3) 

12 Regis. in Juris. Using 

 Optical Scan Voting 

 Equipment 

Number of registered voters in jurisdictions that reported 

the use of optical scan equipment 

13 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey question 

1, provided Election Day registration data, or for which 

VAP data was substituted for voter registration data; and 

jurisdictions that responded to question 13 and reported 

the use of optical scan equipment 

14 % of Regis. Using 

 Optical Scan Voting 

 Equipment 

Number of registered voters in jurisdictions that reported 

the use of optical scan equipment (col. 12) divided by the 

total number of registered voters (col. 3) 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voting Equipment Usage, Page 9-9 September 27, 2005 

Table 9 Column Headings (cont.) 

Col. Heading Description 

15 Number of Juris. Using 

 Electronic Voting 

Equipment 

Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey question 

13 and reported the use of electronic equipment 

16 % of Juris. Using 

 Electronic Voting 

Equipment 

Number of jurisdictions using electronic equipment (col. 

15) divided by the total number of election jurisdictions 

(col. 3) 

17 Regis. in Juris. Using 

 Electronic Voting 

Equipment 

Number of registered voters in jurisdictions that reported 

the use of electronic equipment 

18 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey question 

1, provided Election Day registration data, or for which 

VAP data was substituted for voter registration data; and 

jurisdictions that responded to question 13 and reported 

the use of electronic equipment 

19 % of Regis. Using 

 Electronic Voting 

 Equipment 

Number of registered voters in jurisdictions that reported 

the use of electronic equipment (col. 17) divided by the 

total number of registered voters (col. 3) 

20 Number of Juris. Using 

 Lever Machine Voting 

Equipment 

Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey question 

13 and reported the use of lever machines 

21 % of Juris. Using 

 Lever Machine Voting 

Equipment 

Number of jurisdictions using lever machines (col. 20) 

divided by the total number of election jurisdictions (col. 

3) 

22 Regis. in Juris. Using 

 Lever Machine Voting 

Equipment 

Number of registered voters in jurisdictions that reported 

the use of lever machines 

23 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey question 

1, provided Election Day registration data, or for which 

VAP data was substituted for voter registration data; and 

jurisdictions that responded to question 13 and reported 

the use of lever machines 

24 % of Regis. Using 

 Lever Machine Voting 

 Equipment 

Number of registered voters in jurisdictions that reported 

the use of lever machines (col. 24) divided by the total 

number of registered voters (col. 3) 

25 Number of Juris. Using 

 Paper Ballots Voting 

Equipment 

Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey question 

13 and reported the use of paper ballots 

26 

() Extra line of space in 

this cell at top % of Juris. Using 

 Paper Ballots Voting 

Equipment 

Number of jurisdictions using paper ballots (col. 25) divided by the total number of election jurisdictions (col. 3) 

27 Regis. in Juris. Using 

 Paper Ballots Voting 

Equipment 

Number of registered voters in jurisdictions that reported 

the use of paper ballots 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voting Equipment Usage, Page 9-10 September 27, 2005 

Table 9 Column Headings (cont.) 

Col. Heading Description 

28 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey question 

1, provided Election Day registration data, or for which 

VAP data was substituted for voter registration data; and 

jurisdictions that responded to question 13 and reported 

the use of paper ballots 

29 % of Regis. Using 

 Paper Ballots Voting 

 Equipment 

Number of registered voters in jurisdictions that reported 

the use of paper ballots (col. 27) divided by the total number of registered voters (col. 3) 

30 Number of Juris. Using 

 Mixed Voting 

 Equipment 

Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey question 

13 and reported the use of two or more types of voting 

equipment 

31 % of Juris. Using 

 Mixed Voting 

Equipment 

Number of jurisdictions using two or more types of voting 

equipment (col. 30) divided by the total number of election

jurisdictions (col. 3) 

32 Regis. in Juris. Using 

 Mixed Voting 

Equipment 

Number of registered voters in jurisdictions that reported 

the use of two or more types of voting equipment 

33 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey question 

1, that provided Election Day registration data, or for 

which VAP data was substituted for voter registration 

data; and jurisdictions that responded to question 13 and 

reported the use of two or more types of voting equipment 

34 % of Regis. Using 

 Mixed Voting 

Equipment 

Number of registered voters in jurisdictions that reported 

the use of two or more types of voting equipment (col. 32) 

divided by the total number of registered voters (col. 3) 

35 Number of Juris., Unknown (Not Reported) 

Number of jurisdictions that responded to parts of survey 

question 13, but not the type of voting equipment used 

36 % of Juris., 

Unknown (Not 

 Reported) 

Number of jurisdictions that responded to parts of survey 

question 13, but not the type of voting equipment used 

(col. 35) divided by the total number of election jurisdictions (col. 3) 

37 Regis. in Juris., 

Unknown (Not 

Reported) 

Number of registered voters in jurisdictions that responded 

to parts of survey question 13, but not the type of voting 

equipment used 

38 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey question 

1, provided Election Day registration data, or for which 

VAP data was substituted for voter registration data; and 

jurisdictions that responded to parts of survey question 13, 

but not the type of voting equipment used 

39 % of Regis., Unknown 

(Not Reported) 

Number of registered voters in jurisdictions that parts of 

survey question 13, but not the type of voting equipment 

used (col. 37) divided by the total number of registered 

voters (col. 3) 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voting Equipment Usage, Page 9-11 September 27, 2005 

Analysis of Survey Results 

The following is our analysis of the data in Table 3 for each of the 18 cross-tabulation factors 

described earlier in this report. A description of each factor follows a general summary and a statelevel summary of the survey data. 

1) Regions 10) Changed Voting Equipment since 2000 

2) Urban to Rural 11) Statewide Voter Registration Database 

3) Size of Jurisdiction 12) Election Day Registration 

4) Race and Ethnicity 13) Provisional Ballot Acceptance 

5) Median Income 14) No Excuse Absentee Balloting 

6) High School Education 15) Early Voting 

7) Section 203 Language Minority Requirements 16) Battleground States 

8) Section 5 Preclearance of Voting Procedures 17) Presidential Margin of Victory 

9) Type of Voting Equipment 18) Red versus Blue Jurisdictions 

This analysis is based only on data that was reported to the EAC on the Election Day Survey. Many 

state responses to a survey question or part of a question did not cover all local election jurisdictions. 

In Table 9 as well as other tables in this report, a jurisdiction was excluded from a statistical 

calculation if its response was missing for one or more of the data items (i.e., columns) used in the 

calculation. A column labeled “Cases” next to each statistical calculation shows the number of 

jurisdictions covered by that calculation. 

Summary 

The EAC dataset shows the following nationwide characteristics of voting equipment usage in the 

2004 general election. (See Table 9c below.) As noted previously, the information is not complete 

for nearly 14 percent of the jurisdictions in the nation, which covers more than four percent of the 

registered voters. 

Table 9c. Voting Equipment Usage, 2004 General Election 

Type of Voting 

Equipment 

Number of 

Jurisdictions 

Percent of 

Jurisdictions 

Registration in 

Jurisdictions Cases 

Percent of 

Registration 

Punch Card 260 4.0 15,691,323 259 9.0 

Optical Scan 2,543 38.7 69,544,126 2,525 39.8 

Electronic 611 9.3 43,571,704 611 25.0 

Lever 394 6.0 21,662,657 390 12.4 

Paper Ballots 1,733 26.4 3,068,977 1,732 1.8 

Mixed Systems 124 1.9 13,367,303 123 7.7 

Unknown 902 13.7 7,726,205 759 4.4 

TOTAL 6,567 100.0 174,632,295 6,399 100.0 

The data in Table 9a is illustrated in the following charts: 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voting Equipment Usage, Page 9-12 September 27, 2005 

Figure 9.3. Voting Equipment Usage, 2004: Jurisdictions 

Number of Jurisdictions

260--4%

2,543--39%

394--6% 611--9%

1,733--26%

124--2%

902--14%

Punch Card Optical Scan Electronic Lever

Paper Ballots Mixed Systems Unknown

Figure 9.4. Voting Equipment Usage, 2004: Registration

Registration in Jurisdictions

15,691,323--

9%

69,544,126--

40%

43,571,704--

25%

21,662,657--

12%

3,068,977--

2%

13,367,303--

8%

7,726,205--

4%

Punch Card Optical Scan Electronic Lever

Paper Ballots Mixed Systems Unknown

Besides being incomplete, one of the most significant differences between the data published by 

Election Data Services and the EAC is the geographic structure used. While Election Data Services 

keeps its database at the jurisdiction level, for the purposes of mapping and publishing Election Data 

Services has traditionally shown data for counties. This has meant that for the New England states, 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voting Equipment Usage, Page 9-13 September 27, 2005 

along with Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, there is a greater existence of “mixed” systems in 

the Election Data Services results, along with a corresponding decrease in the individual voting 

system types. This is because the jurisdiction data is summed to the county level. In these nine states 

voting-equipment purchase decisions have been traditionally made by individual townships. Election 

Data Services has independently verified that for jurisdictions in the nation over one-quarter still use 

paper ballots. 

States 

While local jurisdictions have traditionally made the decision about what kind of voting equipment 

to purchase, more states have begun imposing a mandate that uniform equipment types be used. This 

was not the result of the 2000 Bush v. Gore court decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, but began 

years earlier in several states as a cost-savings strategic decision. The 2004 elections found 12 states 

and territories that had adopted uniform voting-equipment usage. The states and the voting 

equipment type used are: Optical scan—Alaska, Arizona, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Rhode Island; 

electronic—Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, and Nevada; lever machines— New York; and mixed 

systems—District of Columbia and Hawaii. 

Regions 

The Midwest has the largest number of jurisdictions using punch cards, but punch cards account for 

just 18 percent of the registered voters in the region. A plurality of jurisdictions in the Midwest use 

optical scan voting systems. However, the greater percentage of registered voters using optical scan 

systems is in the West, where over 62 percent of the registered voters mark their ballots with a pencil 

or pen. Because of the state of Georgia’s recent adoption of electronic voting, the South has the 

largest usage of electronic voting systems in the country. A plurality of just over 41 percent of the 

registered voters in the South use electronic voting equipment. Lever machines still dominate the 

Northeast where over 55.4 percent of the registered voters in the region use lever devices, which 

were manufactured in the Northeast. Paper ballots are mainly split between the Midwest and the 

Northeast, but in either region they are used by less than 3.5 percent of the registered voters. 

Urban to Rural 

Over 58 percent of the urban jurisdictions in this nation use optical scan voting systems, as do a 

plurality of the suburban and small town communities. A plurality of the rural jurisdictions in the 

nation use paper ballots, closely followed by optical scan systems. Due to the distribution of 

registered voters in rural communities, however, over 60 percent of rural registered voters have their 

ballots counted by optical scan systems. 

Size of Jurisdiction 

The EAC data shows that the larger the size of a jurisdiction the more likely they are to be using 

electronic voting equipment. This has traditionally not been the case, as punch cards were almost 

exclusively used by large jurisdictions in this nation. Paper ballots are mainly concentrated in the 

smaller jurisdictions, with over 61 percent of the 1,761 jurisdictions that have under 1,000 voting age 

population (VAP) using pencil and pens, and presumably counting the ballots by hand. As 

jurisdictions grow in size they move to optical scan systems to ease the counting process. A clear 

majority of the jurisdictions that have between 3,500 and 50,000 VAP use optical scan devices. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voting Equipment Usage, Page 9-14 September 27, 2005 

Race and Ethnicity 

A plurality of the predominantly non-Hispanic White jurisdictions in this nation use optical scan 

technology, closely followed by electronic systems. On the other hand, nearly two-thirds of African 

American voters are casting their votes on electronic systems. Over two-thirds of voters in 

predominantly Native American and Hispanic communities use optical scan devices. 

Median Income 

There appears to be a small relationship between income levels and the use of optical scan systems. 

The lower the income levels in a jurisdiction, the higher likelihood they will be using optical scan 

systems. Electronic machines are used to a greater degree in both the poorest and the wealthiest 

jurisdictions in the nation. 

High School Education 

There does not appear to be a relationship between education levels and type of voting equipment 

used. 

Section 203 Language Minority Requirements 

A majority of the jurisdictions covered by the Section 203 language minority requirements of the 

Voting Rights Act use optical scan voting systems. Due to the smaller size of these jurisdictions, 

however, they represent just a plurality of the registered voters. 

Section 5 Preclearance of Voting Procedures 

A plurality of the jurisdictions and registered voters covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act 

used optical scan devices in 2004, closely followed by electronic voting equipment. 

Type of Voting Equipment 

Not applicable. 

Changed Voting Equipment since 2000 

A plurality of the jurisdictions that changed voting equipment since 2000 went to optical scan 

systems. 

Statewide Voter Registration Database 

No real patterns are discernible in this subcategory. 

Election Day Registration 

A majority of registered voters in jurisdictions that allow Election Day registration are much more 

likely to use optical scan voting equipment. 

Provisional Ballot Acceptance 

No real patterns are discernible in this subcategory. 

No Excuse Absentee Balloting 

No real patterns are discernible in this subcategory. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voting Equipment Usage, Page 9-15 September 27, 2005 

Early Voting 

While a slight majority of registered voters who can utilize early voting procedures are using optical 

scan devices, there is a larger-than-average number that are also on electronic voting systems. 

Electronic voting systems are thought to be easier to manage in an early voting environment because 

they can maintain many different ballot styles in a jurisdiction. This would eliminate the need to 

keep lots of different paper ballots at each early-voting site. 

Battleground States 

No real patterns are discernible in this subcategory, although electronic voting systems were more 

likely to be found in nonbattleground states. 

Presidential Margin of Victory 

No real patterns are discernible in this subcategory. 

Red versus Blue Jurisdictions 

No real patterns are discernible in this subcategory, although lever machines were more likely to be 

used in jurisdictions carried by Kerry than by Bush. On the other hand, jurisdictions using punch 

cards were much more likely to support Bush than Kerry. 
Voting Equipment Usage 

EAC Election Day Survey

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:06:28

Election 2004 Number % of Regis in % of Number % of Regis in % of Number % of Regis in % of 

Administration Total of Juris. Juris. Juris. Regis of Juris. Juris. Juris. Regis of Juris. Juris. Juris. Regis

Code Name Jurisdictions Registration Using Using Using Cases Using Using Using Using Cases Using Using Using Using Cases Using

01 Alabama 67 2,597,629 64 95.5 2,221,414 64 85.5 3 4.5 376,215 3 14.5

02 Alaska 1 472,160 1 100.0 472,160 1 100.0

04 Arizona 15 2,642,120 15 100.0 2,642,120 15 100.0

05 Arkansas 75 1,699,934 7 9.3 280,764 7 16.5 47 62.7 829,822 47 48.8 5 6.7 89,867 5 5.3

06 California 58 16,646,555 12 20.7 774,216 12 4.7 37 63.8 10,980,645 37 66.0 8 13.8 4,118,569 8 24.7

08 Colorado 64 3,101,956 1 1.6 21,900 1 0.7 49 76.6 1,504,027 49 48.5 1 1.6 215,141 1 6.9

09 Connecticut 169 1,831,567

10 Delaware 3 553,917 3 100.0 553,917 3 100.011 District of Columbia 1 383,919

12 Florida 67 10,300,942 50 74.6 4,630,220 50 44.9 15 22.4 5,576,264 15 54.1

13 Georgia 159 4,248,802 159 100.0 4,248,802 159 100.0

15 Hawaii 5 647,23816 Idaho 44 915,637 14 31.8 551,753 14 60.3 14 31.8 293,988 14 32.1

17 Illinois 110 7,195,882 41 37.3 3,914,460 40 54.4 69 62.7 3,281,422 64 45.618 Indiana 92 4,296,602 17 18.5 605,253 17 14.1 31 33.7 1,580,818 31 36.8 43 46.7 2,090,436 43 48.719 Iowa 99 2,226,721 84 84.8 1,978,431 83 88.8 14 14.1 225,295 14 10.120 Kansas 105 1,695,457 81 77.1 1,007,154 81 59.4 3 2.9 612,845 3 36.121 Kentucky 120 2,794,286 1 0.8 475,805 1 17.0 114 95.0 2,268,053 114 81.2

22 Louisiana 64 2,932,142 14 21.9 1,602,769 14 54.7

23 Maine 517 1,026,219 114 22.1 668,361 114 65.124 Maryland 24 3,105,370 24 100.0 3,105,370 24 100.025 Massachusetts 351 4,098,634 274 78.1 3,871,863 274 94.526 Michigan 83 7,164,047 11 13.3 248,605 11 3.5 39 47.0 2,273,618 39 31.7 1 1.2 25,708 1 0.427 Minnesota 87 2,977,496 61 70.1 2,401,604 61 80.728 Mississippi 82 1,469,608 10 12.2 155,492 10 10.6 61 74.4 1,004,212 49 68.3 3 3.7 227,354 3 15.529 Missouri 116 4,194,416 37 31.9 1,602,713 37 38.2 70 60.3 1,779,558 70 42.430 Montana 56 638,474 36 64.3 598,780 36 93.831 Nebraska 93 1,160,193 48 51.6 1,047,745 48 90.332 Nevada 17 1,073,869 17 100.0 1,073,869 17 100.033 New Hampshire 242 950,292 92 38.0 669,100 92 70.434 New Jersey 21 5,011,693 1 4.8 63,528 1 1.3 15 71.4 3,645,764 15 72.7

35 New Mexico 33 505,356

36 New York 58 11,837,06837 North Carolina 100 5,526,981 5 5.0 430,452 5 7.8 44 44.0 2,388,318 44 43.2 38 38.0 2,364,967 38 42.8

38 North Dakota 53 490,179 48 90.6 478,436 48 97.6

39 Ohio 88 7,965,110 7 8.0 1,717,316 7 21.6 1 1.1 33,094 1 0.4

40 Oklahoma 77 2,143,978 77 100.0 2,143,978 77 100.0

41 Oregon 36 2,141,249 36 100.0 2,141,249 36 100.042 Pennsylvania 67 8,366,455 11 16.4 990,366 11 11.8 24 35.8 935,731 24 11.2 8 11.9 2,271,503 8 27.244 Rhode Island 39 707,234 39 100.0 707,234 39 100.045 South Carolina 46 2,318,235 1 2.2 57,612 1 2.5 9 19.6 258,813 9 11.2 36 78.3 2,001,810 36 86.4

46 South Dakota 66 502,261 50 75.8 467,228 50 93.0

47 Tennessee 95 3,748,235 20 21.1 393,135 20 10.5 11 11.6 358,016 11 9.6 48 50.5 2,726,843 48 72.848 Texas 254 13,098,329 9 3.5 781,376 9 6.0 142 55.9 6,051,164 142 46.2 4 1.6 132,930 4 1.0

49 Utah 29 1,278,912 23 79.3 1,257,684 23 98.3 2 6.9 16,103 2 1.3

50 Vermont 246 444,508 68 27.6 292,211 68 65.751 Virginia 134 4,515,675 4 3.0 752,780 4 16.7 34 25.4 997,757 34 22.1 26 19.4 270,161 26 6.0

53 Washington 39 3,508,208 13 33.3 774,622 13 22.1 23 59.0 2,277,991 23 64.9 2 5.1 103,357 2 2.9

54 West Virginia 55 1,168,694 12 21.8 421,626 12 36.1 28 50.9 480,334 28 41.1 2 3.6 101,807 2 8.755 Wisconsin 1,910 4,179,774 554 29.0 2,750,246 554 65.856 Wyoming 23 273,950 5 21.7 35,422 5 12.9 13 56.5 177,424 13 64.8 1 4.3 5,975 1 2.2

60 American Samoa 166 Guam 172 Puerto Rico 110 2,440,13178 Virgin Islands 1 50,731

Total 6,568 177,265,030 260 4.0 15,767,547 259 8.9 2,541 38.7 69,198,628 2,523 39.0 608 9.3 40,068,685 608 22.6Maximum 1,910 16,646,555 41 79.3 3,914,460 40 98.3 554 100.0 10,980,645 554 100.0 159 100.0 5,576,264 159 100.0Average 119 3,344,623 13 19.6 788,377 12 22.5 63 56.6 1,729,965 63 58.7 22 34.1 1,484,025 22 39.8Minimum 1 50,731 1 1.6 21,900 1 0.7 1 0.8 16,103 1 1.3 1 1.1 5,975 1 0.4

Voting Equipment Usage 2004 General Election

Punchcard Voting Equipment (Inc.Datavote) Optical Scan Voting Equipment Electronic Voting Equipment

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Voting Equipment Usage 

EAC Election Day Survey

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:06:28

Election 2004 Number % of Regis in % of Number % of Regis in % of Number % of Regis in % of 

Administration Total of Juris. Juris. Juris. Regis of Juris. Juris. Juris. Regis of Juris. Juris. Juris. Regis

Code Name Jurisdictions Registration Using Using Using Cases Using Using Using Using Cases Using Using Using Using Cases Using

Voting Equipment Usage 2004 General Election

Punchcard Voting Equipment (Inc.Datavote) Optical Scan Voting Equipment Electronic Voting Equipment

Election Administration

Voting Equipment Used in 2004 

General Election

None / Unknown 908 14,484,493Punch card 260 15,767,547 260 100.0 15,767,547 259 100.0

Lever 394 21,662,619Paper 1,734 3,085,167Optical scan 2,541 69,198,628 2,541 100.0 69,198,628 2,523 100.0

Electronic 608 40,068,685 608 100.0 40,068,685 608 100.0

Multiple Systems 123 12,997,891

Changed Voting Equipment Since 

2000 General Election

Yes 1,753 51,149,755 1 0.1 27,633 1 0.1 624 35.6 20,735,348 621 40.5 311 17.7 22,326,704 311 43.6

No 4,815 126,115,275 259 5.4 15,739,914 258 12.5 1,917 39.8 48,463,280 1,902 38.4 297 6.2 17,741,981 297 14.1

State Wide Voter Registration 

System in Place

Yes 1,335 37,384,852 24 1.8 727,843 24 1.9 555 41.6 15,487,523 555 41.4 329 24.6 10,802,866 329 28.9

No 5,233 139,880,178 236 4.5 15,039,704 235 10.8 1,986 38.0 53,711,105 1,968 38.4 279 5.3 29,265,819 279 20.9

Election Day Registration

Yes 2,823 10,323,368 19 0.7 587,175 19 5.7 848 30.0 6,960,723 848 67.4 1 0.0 5,975 1 0.1

No 3,745 166,941,662 241 6.4 15,180,372 240 9.1 1,693 45.2 62,237,905 1,675 37.3 607 16.2 40,062,710 607 24.0

Provisional Ballot Acceptance

In Overall Jurisdiction 1,162 65,077,741 113 9.7 8,444,464 112 13.0 454 39.1 28,469,033 449 43.7 262 22.5 18,674,262 262 28.7

In Precinct Only 4,350 103,336,604 133 3.1 6,771,330 133 6.6 1,758 40.4 36,218,106 1,745 35.0 346 8.0 21,394,423 346 20.7None 1,056 8,850,685 14 1.3 551,753 14 6.2 329 31.2 4,511,489 329 51.0

No Excuse Absentee Balloting

Yes 3,781 64,333,790 73 1.9 3,846,049 73 6.0 1,408 37.2 36,815,566 1,407 57.2 113 3.0 15,899,051 113 24.7

No 2,787 112,931,240 187 6.7 11,921,498 186 10.6 1,133 40.7 32,383,062 1,116 28.7 495 17.8 24,169,634 495 21.4

Early Voting Allowed

Yes 1,701 73,710,075 85 5.0 3,690,644 85 5.0 845 49.7 37,307,228 844 50.6 315 18.5 21,493,174 315 29.2

No 4,867 103,554,955 175 3.6 12,076,903 174 11.7 1,696 34.8 31,891,400 1,679 30.8 293 6.0 18,575,511 293 17.9

Covered By Section 203, 

Language Minority Requirements

Yes 468 50,756,496 27 5.8 4,613,175 27 9.1 251 53.6 22,390,647 249 44.1 31 6.6 12,116,042 31 23.9

No 6,100 126,508,534 233 3.8 11,154,372 232 8.8 2,290 37.5 46,807,981 2,274 37.0 577 9.5 27,952,643 577 22.1

Covered By Section 5 of Voting 

Rights Act

Yes 880 40,868,855 27 3.1 1,874,506 27 4.6 353 40.1 18,254,084 341 44.7 262 29.8 10,617,913 262 26.0

No 5,688 136,396,175 233 4.1 13,893,041 232 10.2 2,188 38.5 50,944,544 2,182 37.4 346 6.1 29,450,772 346 21.6

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Voting Equipment Usage 

EAC Election Day Survey

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:06:28

Election 2004 Number % of Regis in % of Number % of Regis in % of Number % of Regis in % of 

Administration Total of Juris. Juris. Juris. Regis of Juris. Juris. Juris. Regis of Juris. Juris. Juris. Regis

Code Name Jurisdictions Registration Using Using Using Cases Using Using Using Using Cases Using Using Using Using Cases Using

Voting Equipment Usage 2004 General Election

Punchcard Voting Equipment (Inc.Datavote) Optical Scan Voting Equipment Electronic Voting Equipment

Demographics

Region

Northeast 1,710 34,273,670 11 0.6 990,366 11 2.9 612 35.8 7,208,028 612 21.0 23 1.3 5,917,267 23 17.3

South 1,423 62,606,676 68 4.8 3,273,237 68 5.2 568 39.9 21,839,853 556 34.9 494 34.7 25,647,129 494 41.0

Midwest 2,902 44,048,138 113 3.9 8,088,347 112 18.4 1,135 39.1 19,046,260 1,129 43.2 62 2.1 2,987,378 62 6.8West 420 33,845,684 68 16.2 3,415,597 68 10.1 226 53.8 21,104,487 226 62.4 29 6.9 5,516,911 29 16.3

Territories 113 2,490,862

Urban to Rural

Urban 567 63,441,314 10 1.8 5,195,813 10 8.2 330 58.2 17,979,273 329 28.3 38 6.7 15,868,156 38 25.0

Suburban 871 47,552,530 24 2.8 3,975,627 24 8.4 372 42.7 20,938,869 371 44.0 85 9.8 11,784,936 85 24.8

Small Towns 1,710 44,193,768 99 5.8 4,824,574 99 10.9 706 41.3 18,438,749 699 41.7 289 16.9 10,571,934 289 23.9Rural 3,307 19,586,556 127 3.8 1,771,533 126 9.0 1,133 34.3 11,841,737 1,124 60.5 196 5.9 1,843,659 196 9.4

Not Available - Territories 113 2,490,862

Size of Jurisdiction (VAP)

< 1,000 1,761 895,006 1 0.1 827 1 0.1 209 11.9 137,299 209 15.3 1 0.1 736 1 0.1>=1,000 to <3,500 1,165 2,182,148 3 0.3 7,143 3 0.3 461 39.6 975,345 461 44.7 13 1.1 24,032 13 1.1>=3,500 to <10,000 1,043 5,966,645 35 3.4 226,982 35 3.8 660 63.3 3,906,979 658 65.5 99 9.5 550,974 99 9.2>=10,000 to <50,000 1,704 31,472,681 144 8.5 2,768,910 143 8.8 894 52.5 16,102,523 880 51.2 316 18.5 5,839,638 316 18.6>=50,000 to <250,000 586 48,992,270 62 10.6 5,973,481 62 12.2 261 44.5 21,063,275 259 43.0 129 22.0 10,865,210 129 22.2>=250,000 to <1,000,000 140 51,396,493 13 9.3 3,995,944 13 7.8 50 35.7 17,260,253 50 33.6 42 30.0 15,083,561 42 29.3>=1,000,000 25 33,867,508 2 8.0 2,794,260 2 8.3 6 24.0 9,752,954 6 28.8 8 32.0 7,704,534 8 22.7Not Available 144 2,492,279

Race and Ethnicity

Predominently NH White 6,264 163,662,585 255 4.1 15,677,318 254 9.6 2,469 39.4 63,432,043 2,452 38.8 574 9.2 37,073,907 574 22.7

Predominently NH Black 85 3,098,023 3 3.5 28,140 3 0.9 32 37.6 462,280 31 14.9 33 38.8 1,935,977 33 62.5

Predominently NH Native American 24 231,022 8 33.3 160,842 8 69.6

Predominently Hispanic 50 7,749,995 2 4.0 62,089 2 0.8 31 62.0 5,112,337 31 66.0 1 2.0 1,058,801 1 13.7Not Available 145 2,523,405 1 0.7 31,126 1 1.2

Median Income

< $25,000 298 2,504,552 9 3.0 146,663 9 5.9 97 32.6 1,174,509 94 46.9 51 17.1 609,035 51 24.3>=$25,000 to <$30,000 884 8,917,739 32 3.6 464,409 32 5.2 336 38.0 4,714,613 328 52.9 103 11.7 1,678,692 103 18.8>=$30,000 to <$35,000 1,372 22,970,583 87 6.3 2,554,699 87 11.1 519 37.8 10,417,047 515 45.3 156 11.4 5,448,876 156 23.7>=$35,000 to <$40,000 1,215 40,443,694 59 4.9 3,856,011 59 9.5 443 36.5 13,707,610 442 33.9 136 11.2 8,768,137 136 21.7>=$40,000 to <$45,000 881 37,780,840 34 3.9 2,571,994 33 6.8 297 33.7 15,201,261 295 40.2 70 7.9 7,971,347 70 21.1>=$45,000 to <$50,000 587 21,218,675 24 4.1 4,410,311 24 20.8 235 40.0 9,042,023 235 42.6 35 6.0 3,371,104 35 15.9>=$50,000 1,180 40,936,586 15 1.3 1,763,460 15 4.3 613 51.9 14,941,560 613 36.5 57 4.8 12,221,494 57 29.9

Not Available 151 2,492,361 1 0.7 5 1 0.0

High School Education

< 60% 126 1,817,027 5 4.0 115,008 5 6.3 45 35.7 1,045,034 44 57.5 41 32.5 408,271 41 22.5>=60% to <70% 661 14,944,978 31 4.7 532,902 31 3.6 240 36.3 8,476,106 234 56.7 170 25.7 3,804,544 170 25.5>=70% to <80% 1,646 49,285,773 92 5.6 5,466,980 92 11.1 576 35.0 13,908,277 567 28.2 222 13.5 12,632,128 222 25.6>=80% to <90% 3,111 93,198,279 121 3.9 8,509,648 120 9.1 1,243 40.0 36,753,772 1,241 39.4 164 5.3 21,221,352 164 22.8>=90% 873 15,495,512 11 1.3 1,143,009 11 7.4 435 49.8 8,984,308 435 58.0 11 1.3 2,002,390 11 12.9

Not Available 151 2,523,461 2 1.3 31,131 2 1.2

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Voting Equipment Usage 

EAC Election Day Survey

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:06:28

Election 2004 Number % of Regis in % of Number % of Regis in % of Number % of Regis in % of 

Administration Total of Juris. Juris. Juris. Regis of Juris. Juris. Juris. Regis of Juris. Juris. Juris. Regis

Code Name Jurisdictions Registration Using Using Using Cases Using Using Using Using Cases Using Using Using Using Cases Using

Voting Equipment Usage 2004 General Election

Punchcard Voting Equipment (Inc.Datavote) Optical Scan Voting Equipment Electronic Voting Equipment

Political

Battleground States in 2004 

Presidential Election

Yes 3,093 64,166,639 99 3.2 6,057,912 99 9.4 1,172 37.9 27,294,051 1,171 42.5 66 2.1 9,715,905 66 15.1

No 3,475 113,098,391 161 4.6 9,709,635 160 8.6 1,369 39.4 41,904,577 1,352 37.1 542 15.6 30,352,780 542 26.8

Margin of Victory in 2004 

Presidential Election

< 2.5% 515 15,923,548 18 3.5 1,217,452 17 7.6 181 35.1 6,963,692 180 43.7 28 5.4 1,946,553 28 12.2

>=2.5% to < 5.0% 476 11,133,130 15 3.2 1,232,658 15 11.1 165 34.7 2,717,448 163 24.4 28 5.9 3,261,269 28 29.3>=5.0% to < 7.5% 510 13,830,932 16 3.1 1,110,078 16 8.0 186 36.5 6,074,021 186 43.9 34 6.7 3,246,652 34 23.5>=7.5% to < 10.0 % 429 8,833,490 12 2.8 688,354 12 7.8 162 37.8 3,090,070 161 35.0 20 4.7 1,396,536 20 15.8>=10.0 % 4,492 125,044,988 199 4.4 11,519,005 199 9.2 1,846 41.1 50,352,770 1,832 40.3 498 11.1 30,217,675 498 24.2

Red vs Blue Jurisdictions Won By 

in 2004 Presidential Election

Bush > 55% 3,115 68,178,580 181 5.8 7,275,285 181 10.7 1,306 41.9 30,438,890 1,293 44.6 434 13.9 18,299,892 434 26.8

Bush 50% to 55% 982 26,682,203 31 3.2 2,675,461 31 10.0 365 37.2 10,989,946 365 41.2 66 6.7 3,788,160 66 14.2Bush < 50% 136 2,041,746 6 4.4 263,733 6 12.9 35 25.7 334,073 34 16.4 7 5.1 856,569 7 42.0

Kerry < 50% 150 4,850,492 1 0.7 79,335 1 1.6 48 32.0 2,213,925 48 45.6 3 2.0 148,377 3 3.1Kerry 50% to 55% 872 23,160,396 25 2.9 1,261,687 24 5.4 323 37.0 7,455,340 320 32.2 41 4.7 5,507,850 41 23.8Kerry > 55% 1,161 49,846,628 16 1.4 4,212,046 16 8.5 462 39.8 17,763,711 461 35.6 57 4.9 11,467,837 57 23.0Tied 25 14,032 2 8.0 2,743 2 19.5

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Voting Equipment Usage 

EAC Election Day Survey

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:06:28

Election 2004

Administration Total

Code Name Jurisdictions Registration

01 Alabama 67 2,597,629

02 Alaska 1 472,16004 Arizona 15 2,642,12005 Arkansas 75 1,699,93406 California 58 16,646,55508 Colorado 64 3,101,95609 Connecticut 169 1,831,567

10 Delaware 3 553,917

11 District of Columbia 1 383,91912 Florida 67 10,300,94213 Georgia 159 4,248,802

15 Hawaii 5 647,238

16 Idaho 44 915,63717 Illinois 110 7,195,882

18 Indiana 92 4,296,602

19 Iowa 99 2,226,72120 Kansas 105 1,695,457

21 Kentucky 120 2,794,28622 Louisiana 64 2,932,142

23 Maine 517 1,026,219

24 Maryland 24 3,105,370

25 Massachusetts 351 4,098,634

26 Michigan 83 7,164,047

27 Minnesota 87 2,977,49628 Mississippi 82 1,469,60829 Missouri 116 4,194,416

30 Montana 56 638,474

31 Nebraska 93 1,160,19332 Nevada 17 1,073,86933 New Hampshire 242 950,292

34 New Jersey 21 5,011,693

35 New Mexico 33 505,35636 New York 58 11,837,06837 North Carolina 100 5,526,981

38 North Dakota 53 490,179

39 Ohio 88 7,965,11040 Oklahoma 77 2,143,97841 Oregon 36 2,141,24942 Pennsylvania 67 8,366,45544 Rhode Island 39 707,23445 South Carolina 46 2,318,23546 South Dakota 66 502,26147 Tennessee 95 3,748,23548 Texas 254 13,098,329

49 Utah 29 1,278,912

50 Vermont 246 444,508

51 Virginia 134 4,515,67553 Washington 39 3,508,208

54 West Virginia 55 1,168,69455 Wisconsin 1,910 4,179,774

56 Wyoming 23 273,950

60 American Samoa 166 Guam 172 Puerto Rico 110 2,440,13178 Virgin Islands 1 50,731

Total 6,568 177,265,030Maximum 1,910 16,646,555Average 119 3,344,623Minimum 1 50,731

Voting Equipment Usage 2004 General Election

Cases = N

Number % of Regis in % of Number % of Regis in % of Number % of Regis in % of 

of Juris. Juris. Juris. Regis of Juris. Juris. Juris. Regis of Juris. Juris. Juris. Regis Nu

Using Using Using Cases Using Using Using Using Cases Using Using Using Using Cases Using of J

5 6.7 106,474 5 6.3 9 12.0 71,273 9 4.2 2 2.7 321,734 2 18.9

1 1.7 773,125 1 4.6

7 10.9 11,563 7 0.4 6 9.4 1,349,325 6 43.5

169 100.0 1,831,567 169 100.0

1 100.0 383,919 1 100.02 3.0 94,458 2 0.95 100.0 647,238 4 100.0

16 36.4 69,896 16 7.6

1 1.1 20,095 1 0.51 1.0 22,995 1 1.0

20 19.0 53,839 20 3.2 1 1.0 21,619 1 1.3

1 0.8 15,903 1 0.6 4 3.3 34,525 4 1.2

50 78.1 1,329,373 50 45.3

385 74.5 346,866 385 33.8 

71 20.2 99,947 71 2.4 

2 2.4 22,692 2 0.3 30 36.1 4,593,424 30 64.1

7 8.0 27,951 7 0.9 19 21.8 547,941 19 18.4

8 9.8 82,550 4 5.6

9 7.8 812,145 9 19.4

20 35.7 39,694 20 6.245 48.4 112,448 45 9.7

145 59.9 281,020 145 29.6 

5 23.8 1,302,401 5 26.0

58 100.0 11,837,068 58 100.0

3 3.0 41,289 3 0.7 3 3.0 12,562 3 0.2 7 7.0 289,393 7 5.2

5 9.4 11,743 5 2.4

20 29.9 4,022,724 20 48.1 2 3.0 48,190 2 0.6 2 3.0 97,941 2 1.2

16 24.2 35,033 16 7.0

8 8.4 80,243 8 2.1 8 8.4 189,998 8 5.12 0.8 209,197 2 1.6 88 34.6 341,961 88 2.6 3 1.2 1,317,280 3 10.1 

4 13.8 5,125 4 0.4

177 72.0 151,384 177 34.1 

38 28.4 544,663 38 12.1 30 22.4 1,940,815 30 43.0 

1 2.6 352,238 1 10.0

3 5.5 79,517 3 6.8 10 18.2 85,410 10 7.3

17 0.9 101,657 17 2.4 695 36.4 467,117 694 11.2 

3 13.0 12,211 3 4.5 1 4.3 42,918 1 15.7

394 6.0 21,662,619 390 12.2 1,734 26.4 3,085,167 1,733 1.7 123 1.9 12,997,891 122 7.3 169 100.0 11,837,068 169 100.0 695 74.5 812,145 694 34.1 30 100.0 4,593,424 30 100.0 

21 23.0 1,203,478 21 20.2 86 27.4 154,258 86 9.2 7 19.3 764,581 7 26.1 

1 0.8 12,211 1 0.3 2 3.0 5,125 2 0.2 1 1.0 21,619 1 0.9 

Lever Machine Voting Equipment Paper Ballots Voting Equipment Mixed Voting Equipment 

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Voting Equipment Usage 

EAC Election Day Survey

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:06:28

Election 2004

Administration Total

Code Name Jurisdictions Registration

Voting Equipment Usage 2004 General Election

Election Administration

Voting Equipment Used in 2004 

General Election

None / Unknown 908 14,484,493Punch card 260 15,767,547

Lever 394 21,662,619Paper 1,734 3,085,167Optical scan 2,541 69,198,628Electronic 608 40,068,685Multiple Systems 123 12,997,891

Changed Voting Equipment Since 

2000 General Election

Yes 1,753 51,149,755

No 4,815 126,115,275

State Wide Voter Registration 

System in Place

Yes 1,335 37,384,852

No 5,233 139,880,178

Election Day Registration

Yes 2,823 10,323,368No 3,745 166,941,662

Provisional Ballot Acceptance

In Overall Jurisdiction 1,162 65,077,741In Precinct Only 4,350 103,336,604None 1,056 8,850,685

No Excuse Absentee Balloting

Yes 3,781 64,333,790No 2,787 112,931,240

Early Voting Allowed

Yes 1,701 73,710,075

No 4,867 103,554,955

Covered By Section 203, 

Language Minority Requirements

Yes 468 50,756,496

No 6,100 126,508,534

Covered By Section 5 of Voting 

Rights Act

Yes 880 40,868,855No 5,688 136,396,175

Cases = N

Number % of Regis in % of Number % of Regis in % of Number % of Regis in % of 

of Juris. Juris. Juris. Regis of Juris. Juris. Juris. Regis of Juris. Juris. Juris. Regis Nu

Using Using Using Cases Using Using Using Using Cases Using Using Using Using Cases Using of J

Lever Machine Voting Equipment Paper Ballots Voting Equipment Mixed Voting Equipment 

394 100.0 21,662,619 390 100.0

1,734 100.0 3,085,167 1,733 100.0

123 100.0 12,997,891 122 100.0

42 2.4 452,951 42 0.9 455 26.0 462,719 455 0.9 35 2.0 2,006,317 35 3.9 

352 7.3 21,209,668 348 16.8 1,279 26.6 2,622,448 1,278 2.1 88 1.8 10,991,574 87 8.7 225 16.9 3,279,052 225 8.8 104 7.8 248,341 104 0.7 59 4.4 6,207,047 58 16.6 169 3.2 18,383,567 165 13.1 1,630 31.1 2,836,826 1,629 2.0 64 1.2 6,790,844 64 4.9 

20 0.7 113,868 20 1.1 1,248 44.2 1,192,850 1,247 11.6 20 0.7 590,859 20 5.7 

374 10.0 21,548,751 370 12.9 486 13.0 1,892,317 486 1.1 103 2.8 12,407,032 102 7.4 

78 6.7 5,499,860 78 8.5 202 17.4 300,097 202 0.5 19 1.6 3,183,756 19 4.9 

316 7.3 16,162,759 312 15.6 974 22.4 2,047,594 973 2.0 85 2.0 9,266,194 84 9.0 

558 52.8 737,476 558 8.3 19 1.8 547,941 19 6.2 

74 2.0 1,507,525 74 2.3 1,393 36.8 1,317,270 1,392 2.0 24 0.6 3,570,314 23 5.5 

320 11.5 20,155,094 316 17.8 341 12.2 1,767,897 341 1.6 99 3.6 9,427,577 99 8.3 

25 1.5 551,926 25 0.7 355 20.9 849,325 355 1.2 36 2.1 5,047,088 35 6.8 

369 7.6 21,110,693 365 20.4 1,379 28.3 2,235,842 1,378 2.2 87 1.8 7,950,803 87 7.7 

15 3.2 3,456,411 15 6.8 97 20.7 374,141 97 0.7 8 1.7 3,036,303 8 6.0 

379 6.2 18,206,208 375 14.4 1,637 26.8 2,711,026 1,636 2.1 115 1.9 9,961,588 114 7.9 100 11.4 2,195,885 96 5.4 94 10.7 350,135 94 0.9 35 4.0 3,302,379 35 8.1 294 5.2 19,466,734 294 14.3 1,640 28.8 2,735,032 1,639 2.0 88 1.5 9,695,512 87 7.1 

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Voting Equipment Usage 

EAC Election Day Survey

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:06:28

Election 2004

Administration Total

Code Name Jurisdictions Registration

Voting Equipment Usage 2004 General Election

Demographics

Region

Northeast 1,710 34,273,670South 1,423 62,606,676Midwest 2,902 44,048,138West 420 33,845,684Territories 113 2,490,862

Urban to Rural

Urban 567 63,441,314Suburban 871 47,552,530Small Towns 1,710 44,193,768Rural 3,307 19,586,556Not Available - Territories 113 2,490,862

Size of Jurisdiction (VAP)

< 1,000 1,761 895,006>=1,000 to <3,500 1,165 2,182,148>=3,500 to <10,000 1,043 5,966,645>=10,000 to <50,000 1,704 31,472,681>=50,000 to <250,000 586 48,992,270>=250,000 to <1,000,000 140 51,396,493>=1,000,000 25 33,867,508Not Available 144 2,492,279

Race and Ethnicity

Predominently NH White 6,264 163,662,585Predominently NH Black 85 3,098,023

Predominently NH Native American 24 231,022

Predominently Hispanic 50 7,749,995Not Available 145 2,523,405

Median Income

< $25,000 298 2,504,552>=$25,000 to <$30,000 884 8,917,739>=$30,000 to <$35,000 1,372 22,970,583>=$35,000 to <$40,000 1,215 40,443,694>=$40,000 to <$45,000 881 37,780,840>=$45,000 to <$50,000 587 21,218,675>=$50,000 1,180 40,936,586Not Available 151 2,492,361

High School Education

< 60% 126 1,817,027>=60% to <70% 661 14,944,978>=70% to <80% 1,646 49,285,773>=80% to <90% 3,111 93,198,279>=90% 873 15,495,512Not Available 151 2,523,461

Cases = N

Number % of Regis in % of Number % of Regis in % of Number % of Regis in % of 

of Juris. Juris. Juris. Regis of Juris. Juris. Juris. Regis of Juris. Juris. Juris. Regis Nu

Using Using Using Cases Using Using Using Using Cases Using Using Using Using Cases Using of J

Lever Machine Voting Equipment Paper Ballots Voting Equipment Mixed Voting Equipment 

252 14.7 18,993,760 252 55.4 780 45.6 927,407 780 2.7 2 0.1 97,941 2 0.3 118 8.3 2,489,209 114 4.0 110 7.7 511,206 110 0.8 57 4.0 4,572,122 57 7.3 

21 0.7 167,439 21 0.4 797 27.5 1,520,276 796 3.5 50 1.7 5,162,984 50 11.7 

3 0.7 12,211 3 0.0 47 11.2 126,278 47 0.4 14 3.3 3,164,844 13 9.4 

64 11.3 11,240,397 64 17.7 31 5.5 809,080 31 1.3 17 3.0 6,518,934 17 10.3 

100 11.5 5,290,987 100 11.1 162 18.6 225,664 162 0.5 11 1.3 2,324,729 11 4.9 144 8.4 4,144,075 142 9.4 262 15.3 524,705 262 1.2 53 3.1 3,233,594 53 7.3 

86 2.6 987,160 84 5.0 1,279 38.7 1,525,718 1,278 7.8 42 1.3 920,634 41 4.7 

8 0.5 3,604 8 0.4 1,081 61.4 534,821 1,081 59.8 1 0.1 

42 3.6 73,913 42 3.4 495 42.5 847,878 495 38.9 1 0.1 2,214 1 0.1 82 7.9 435,793 81 7.3 117 11.2 574,709 117 9.6 13 1.2 83,824 13 1.4 

181 10.6 3,314,539 178 10.5 30 1.8 390,131 30 1.2 56 3.3 1,224,175 56 3.9 

62 10.6 5,074,639 62 10.4 38 6.5 3,231,961 38 6.6 16 11.4 6,417,596 16 12.5 1 0.7 736,709 1 1.4 11 7.9 5,038,913 11 9.8 

3 12.0 6,342,535 3 18.7 3 12.0 3,416,804 3 10.1 

10 6.9 919 9 0.0 

379 6.1 21,472,098 378 13.1 1,710 27.3 3,058,990 1,710 1.9 120 1.9 12,472,076 119 7.6 

14 16.5 145,811 11 4.7 3 3.5 525,815 3 17.0

11 45.8 16,248 11 7.0 

1 2.0 44,710 1 0.6 3 6.0 9,010 3 0.1 

10 6.9 919 9 0.0 

26 8.7 337,012 23 13.5 87 29.2 109,819 87 4.4 9 3.0 85,267 8 3.4 43 4.9 828,810 42 9.3 286 32.4 520,788 286 5.8 7 0.8 93,430 7 1.0 59 4.3 1,964,379 59 8.6 379 27.6 655,729 379 2.9 31 2.3 938,397 31 4.1 50 4.1 8,517,735 50 21.1 367 30.2 348,252 367 0.9 30 2.5 1,891,713 30 4.7 39 4.4 2,831,991 39 7.5 266 30.2 241,780 266 0.6 14 1.6 4,457,301 14 11.8 25 4.3 1,569,287 25 7.4 158 26.9 162,972 158 0.8 13 2.2 1,381,215 13 6.5 

152 12.9 5,613,405 152 13.7 178 15.1 1,044,855 178 2.6 19 1.6 4,150,568 19 10.1 

13 8.6 972 12 0.0 

12 9.5 124,101 12 6.8 11 8.7 12,530 11 0.7 9 7.1 82,689 8 4.6 62 9.4 1,181,123 58 7.9 110 16.6 260,290 110 1.7 11 1.7 222,376 11 1.5 83 5.0 7,525,951 83 15.3 437 26.5 626,736 437 1.3 35 2.1 5,380,803 35 10.9 

155 5.0 12,092,256 155 13.0 928 29.8 1,891,014 928 2.0 63 2.0 5,791,564 63 6.2 

82 9.4 739,188 82 4.8 236 27.0 293,651 236 1.9 5 0.6 1,520,459 5 9.8 

12 7.9 946 11 0.0 

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Voting Equipment Usage 

EAC Election Day Survey

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:06:28

Election 2004

Administration Total

Code Name Jurisdictions Registration

Voting Equipment Usage 2004 General Election

Political

Battleground States in 2004 

Presidential Election

Yes 3,093 64,166,639

No 3,475 113,098,391

Margin of Victory in 2004 

Presidential Election

< 2.5% 515 15,923,548

>=2.5% to < 5.0% 476 11,133,130>=5.0% to < 7.5% 510 13,830,932>=7.5% to < 10.0 % 429 8,833,490>=10.0 % 4,492 125,044,988

Red vs Blue Jurisdictions Won By 

in 2004 Presidential Election

Bush > 55% 3,115 68,178,580Bush 50% to 55% 982 26,682,203Bush < 50% 136 2,041,746

Kerry < 50% 150 4,850,492Kerry 50% to 55% 872 23,160,396Kerry > 55% 1,161 49,846,628Tied 25 14,032

Cases = N

Number % of Regis in % of Number % of Regis in % of Number % of Regis in % of 

of Juris. Juris. Juris. Regis of Juris. Juris. Juris. Regis of Juris. Juris. Juris. Regis Nu

Using Using Using Cases Using Using Using Using Cases Using Using Using Using Cases Using of J

Lever Machine Voting Equipment Paper Ballots Voting Equipment Mixed Voting Equipment 

48 1.6 4,356,059 48 6.8 884 28.6 1,804,669 883 2.8 62 2.0 7,357,061 62 11.5 

346 10.0 17,306,560 342 15.3 850 24.5 1,280,498 850 1.1 61 1.8 5,640,830 60 5.0 

42 8.2 2,180,368 42 13.7 163 31.7 187,631 163 1.2 17 3.3 2,878,104 17 18.1 35 7.4 2,049,499 35 18.4 143 30.0 165,539 143 1.5 10 2.1 1,109,540 10 10.0 38 7.5 1,725,756 37 12.5 169 33.1 192,820 169 1.4 6 1.2 969,841 6 7.0 27 6.3 990,468 27 11.2 142 33.1 917,500 142 10.4 10 2.3 802,965 10 9.1 

251 5.6 14,715,610 248 11.8 1,109 24.7 1,615,393 1,109 1.3 79 1.8 7,237,441 79 5.8 141 4.5 4,075,960 140 6.0 652 20.9 1,168,626 652 1.7 56 1.8 3,490,182 56 5.1 

67 6.8 2,187,512 66 8.2 289 29.4 401,282 289 1.5 23 2.3 3,007,090 23 11.3 15 11.0 497,746 15 24.4 49 36.0 43,431 49 2.1 3 2.2 32,003 3 1.6 20 13.3 1,418,150 20 29.2 54 36.0 47,575 54 1.0 4 2.7 922,760 4 19.0 68 7.8 4,135,079 67 17.9 288 33.0 1,022,086 288 4.4 16 1.8 1,905,061 16 8.2 82 7.1 9,347,254 81 18.8 389 33.5 391,956 389 0.8 20 1.7 3,640,795 20 7.3 

1 4.0 918 1 6.5 13 52.0 10,211 12 72.8 

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Chapter 10 

Voting Machines 

Table 10 presents the results of the Election Day Survey on numbers of voting machines and 

methods for tabulating ballots. Information on ballet tabulation methods—i.e., whether ballots are 

counted in each precinct or at a central site—was not requested by the survey, but was included by 

several states in their responses to question 13. For the other states, the appropriate ballot-tabulation 

method was determined from information about the voting equipment hardware. For example, if a 

jurisdiction specified “ES&S Model 100” as the type of voting equipment used, information from 

the manufacturer was used to determine that ES&S Model 100 is a “precinct-based, voter-activated 

paper ballot counter and vote tabulator.”1

The importance of where ballots are counted surfaced after the 2000 Florida debacle when studies, 

including those done by Election Data Services, found that voting systems that required the ballots 

be taken to a central location to be tallied had nearly five times the error rate as the same system that 

allowed the ballots to be counted in the precinct. This is because in-precinct tallying systems allowed 

the voter to feed his ballot into the machine and immediately be notified if he had overvoted an 

office. Since the ballot was kicked out of the tallying system immediately, this allowed a voter to 

correct his ballot and resubmit it. As a result, error rates dropped fivefold for in-precinct tallying 

systems. 

The only voting methods that allow an overvote to occur, and for which in-precinct-tallying systems 

would help prevent, are punch cards, paper ballots, and optical scan ballots. If programmed and set 

up correctly, lever machines and electronic voting systems have safeguards that are designed to 

prevent a voter from invalidating their ballot through an overvote. As noted above, Election Data 

Services attempted to code the tallying process for punch card and optical scan systems as either inprecinct or central count, depending upon the actual model of voting system used, if reported. Since 

in-precinct or central tallying was not asked by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), it 

is impossible to code paper ballot jurisdictions similarly. 

Applicability and Coverage 

Only about 20 states provided information on the number of voting machines in use. The following 

states did not provide any information on the number of units used in a jurisdiction, which made it 

impossible to perform all the calculations initially intended for this chapter: Alabama, Colorado, 

Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, 

North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, 

Washington, and Wisconsin. Information on the process for ballot tabulation is complete for only 

nine states. In the survey follow-up review, state election directors were asked to update the “inprecinct” versus “central-count” information for voting equipment in use, but only a few states 

provided this information. 

 

1

 Election Systems & Software, Product Overview, Model 100 Precinct Ballot Counter (Omaha, Neb.: nd). 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voting Machines, Page 10-2 September 27, 2005 

The lack of information on number of units prevents any calculations from being made showing the 

average number of units per precinct and/or polling place. Misunderstandings about what was asked 

for also caused unusual numbers to be calculated. For example, in Illinois, the state asked the 

counties for the “Number of units of voting equipment (tabulators)” and “has the voting system 

previously been used in a Federal election” while the EAC defined its request for the “number of 

units used in the county (and/or precinct, if available).” The intent of the question for punch card 

systems, and the responses from most states, dealt with the number of actual voting devices used by 

the county, not the number of counters used. If a responding jurisdiction assumed number of 

counters was the question, then the calculation of average number of units per precinct or polling 

place would quite naturally drop below one per precinct. 

On the other hand, for optical scan systems, it is quite possible that jurisdictions looked at the 

tabulators as the number to provide, and therefore, there are far more instances of fewer than one 

device per precinct. Electronic and lever machines do not present this apparent confusion, and 

therefore average number of units per precinct fall into an acceptable and understandable range. This 

chapter was intended to seek to answer the question of whether long lines might have been caused 

by too few polling booths. However, because of the survey confusion, answers are not possible at 

this time. 

Survey Results 

Table 10 presents more detailed data on voting machines from question 13 on the Election Day 

Survey. The table contains several calculations involving the six different types of voting equipment 

(including multiple systems) based on usage by jurisdictions, precincts, and polling places. The 

column headings in Table 10 are as follows: 

Table 10 Column Headings. Voting Machines 

Col. Heading Description 

1 Code State census code 

2 Name Respondent to Election Day Survey 

3 Jurisdiction Number of local election jurisdictions from survey question 22 

4 2004 Total Registration Number of active and inactive registered voters, number of persons who voted on Election Day in six states, and VAP data for 

North Dakota and jurisdictions in Wisconsin that do not have 

voter registration, from col. 4 of table 2 

5 Precincts Number of precincts from survey question 19 

6 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 19 

7 Polling Places Number of polling places from survey question 20 

8 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 20 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voting Machines, Page 10-3 September 27, 2005 

Table 10 Column Headings (cont.) 

Col. Heading Description 

9 Number of Juris. Using 

 Punch card Equipment 

Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey question 13 and 

reported the use of punch cards 

10 Number of Units, 

 Punch card 

Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 13 and reported the number of punch card units 

11 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 13 and reported the use of punch cards and the number of units 

12 

Average # of Units 

per Precinct, Punch 

card 

Number of punch card units (col. 10) divided by the number of 

precincts (col. 5) 

13 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 13 and 19 

14 Average # of Units 

per Polling Place, 

Punch card 

Number of punch card units (col. 10) divided by the number of 

polling places (col. 7) 

15 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 13 and 20 

16 Number of Juris. with 

 In-Precinct Counting, 

Punch card 

Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 13 and reported a precinct ballot tabulation method or other information 

from which the ballot tabulation method could be determined 

17 Number of Juris. with 

 Central Counting, 

Punch card 

Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 13 and reported a central ballot tabulation method or other information 

from which the ballot tabulation method could be determined 

18 Number of Juris. Using 

Optical Scan Equipment 

Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey question 13 and 

reported the use of optical scan equipment 

19 Number of Units, 

Optical Scan 

Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 13 and reported the number of optical scan units 

20 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 13 and reported the use of optical scan equipment and the number of units 

21 Average # of Units 

per Precinct, 

 Optical Scan 

Number of optical scan units (col. 19) divided by the number of 

precincts (col. 5) 

22 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 13 and 19 

23 Average # of Units 

per Polling Place, 

 Optical Scan 

Number of optical scan units (col. 19) divided by the number of 

polling places (col. 7) 

24 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 13 and 20 

25 Number of Juris. with 

 In-Precinct Counting, 

Optical Scan 

Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 13 and reported a precinct ballot tabulation method or other information 

from which the ballot tabulation method could be determined 

26 Number of Juris. with 

 Central Counting, 

Optical Scan 

Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 13 and reported a central ballot tabulation method or other information 

from which the ballot tabulation method could be determined 

27 Number of Juris. Using 

 Electronic Equipment 

Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey question 13 and 

reported the use of electronic voting equipment 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voting Machines, Page 10-4 September 27, 2005 

Table 10 Column Headings (cont.) 

Col. Heading Description 

28 Number of Units, 

 Electronic 

Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 13 and reported the number of units of electronic voting equipment 

29 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey question 13 and 

reported the use of electronic equipment and the number of units 

30 Average # of Units per 

Precinct, Electronic 

Number of units of electronic voting equipment (col. 28) divided 

by the number of precincts (col. 5) 

31 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 13 and 19 

32 Average # of Units per 

Polling Place, Electronic 

Number of units of electronic voting equipment (col. 5) divided by 

the number of polling places (col. 7) 

33 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 13 and 20 

34 Number of Juris. Using 

 Lever Machines 

Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey question 13 and 

reported the use of mechanical lever machines 

35 Number of Units, 

 Lever Machines 

Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 13 and reported the number of lever machines 

36 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey question 13 and 

reported the use of and the number of lever machines 

37 Average # of Units per 

Precinct, Lever 

Number of lever machines (col. 35) divided by the number of precincts (col. 5) 

38 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 13 and 19 

39 Average # of Units per 

Polling Place, Lever 

Number of lever machines (col. 35) divided by the number of 

polling places (col. 7) 

40 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 13 and 20 

41 

Number of Juris. Using 

 Paper ballots 

Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey question 13 and 

reported the use of paper ballots 

42 

Number of Units, 

 Paper ballots 

Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 13 and reported the number of paper ballots 

43 

Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey question 13 and 

reported the use of and the number of paper ballots 

44 

Average # of Units per 

Precinct, Paper Ballots 

Number of paper ballots (col. 42) divided by the number of precincts (col. 5) 

45 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 13 and 19 

46 

Average # of Units per 

Polling Place, Paper 

Number of paper ballots (col. 42) divided by the number of polling places (col. 7) 

47 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 13 and 20 

48 

Number of Juris. Using 

 Mixed equipment 

Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey question 13 and 

reported the use of mixed voting equipment 

49 

Number of Units, 

 Mixed equipment 

Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 13 and reported the number of mixed voting equipment 

50 

Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey question 13 and 

reported the use of and the number of mixed equipment 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voting Machines, Page 10-5 September 27, 2005 

Table 10 Column Headings (cont.) 

Col. Heading Description 

51 Average # of Units per 

Precinct, Mixed 

Number of mixed equipment (col. 49) divided by the number of 

precincts (col. 5) 

52 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 13 and 19 

53 

Average # of Units per 

Polling Place, Mixed 

Number of mixed equipment (col. 49) divided by the number of 

polling places (col. 7) 

54 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 13 and 20 

55 

Number of Juris. Using 

 Unknown equipment 

Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey question 13 and 

reported the use of unknown voting equipment 

56 

Number of Units, 

 Unknown equipment 

Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 13 and reported the number of unknown voting equipment 

57 

Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey question 13 and 

reported the use of and the number of unknown equipment 

58 

Average # of Units per 

Precinct, Unknown 

Number of unknown equipment (col. 56) divided by the number 

of precincts (col. 5) 

59 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 13 and 19 

60 

Average # of Units per 

Polling Place, Unknown 

Number of unknown equipment (col. 56) divided by the number 

of polling places (col. 7) 

61 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 13 and 20 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voting Machines, Page 10-6 September 27, 2005 

Analysis of Survey Results 

The following is our analysis of the data in Table 10 for each of the 18 cross-tabulation factors 

described earlier in this report. A description of each factor follows a general summary and a statelevel summary of the survey data. 

1) Regions 10) Changed Voting Equipment since 2000 

2) Urban to Rural 11) Statewide Voter Registration Database 

3) Size of Jurisdiction 12) Election Day Registration 

4) Race and Ethnicity 13) Provisional Ballot Acceptance 

5) Median Income 14) No Excuse Absentee Balloting 

6) High School Education 15) Early Voting 

7) Section 203 Language Minority Requirements 16) Battleground States 

8) Section 5 Preclearance of Voting Procedures 17) Presidential Margin of Victory 

9) Type of Voting Equipment 18) Red versus Blue Jurisdictions 

This analysis is based only on data that was reported to the EAC on the Election Day Survey. Many 

state responses to a survey question or part of a question did not cover all local election jurisdictions. 

In Table 10 as well as other tables in this report, a jurisdiction was excluded from a statistical 

calculation if its response was missing for one or more of the data items (i.e., columns) used in the 

calculation. A column labeled “Cases” next to each statistical calculation shows the number of 

jurisdictions covered by that calculation. 

Summary 

The lack of complete, or even near complete, data on machines and number of units makes any kind 

of meaningful analysis somewhat questionable. Only one-third of the punch card jurisdictions 

provided any data on number of units, and much of that data was probably incorrectly reported 

anyway. Fewer than half of the optical scan, lever, and electronic system jurisdictions reported the 

number of units used. 

With those limitations in mind, we have calculated that electronic system jurisdictions average three 

devices per precinct and slightly over five devices per polling place. The highest ratio of machines 

per location occurred in the state of Maryland, where between nine and 10 devices were used. 

Due to the high cost of lever machines, they average only 1.5 machines per precinct and slightly 

over three machines per polling place. The maximum number per precinct and polling place 

occurred in North Carolina and Wyoming, with slightly more than three and six per precinct, 

respectively. 

Of the data reported, 90 percent of the punch card jurisdictions in this country utilize a central-count 

tallying process, On the other hand, 61 percent of optical scan jurisdictions use a precinct-based 

tallying process. 

States 

See state information in summary above. 

Regions 

For optical scan usage, only jurisdictions in the West reported more central-count operations. All 

other regions used more precinct-count operations. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voting Machines, Page 10-7 September 27, 2005 

Urban to Rural 

Rural areas of the nation that use optical scan systems are much more likely to use a central-count 

tallying process. Not surprisingly, these are some of the older models of optical scan systems, since 

the rural Midwest is where optical scan devices were first used as an easier way to tally paper 

ballots. 

Size of Jurisdiction 

The larger a jurisdiction the more likely they are to have more electronic or lever machines per 

polling location. The largest jurisdictions average four to six voting machines per polling location, 

but smaller jurisdictions average just two machines per location. 

Race and Ethnicity 

In those jurisdictions using optical scan systems, 62 percent of the predominantly White jurisdictions 

use precinct-based tallying systems. On the other hand 86 percent of the predominantly Hispanic 

jurisdictions using optical scan devices use the central-count tallying process. Predominantly African 

American jurisdictions that use optical scan systems are fairly evenly split between central- and 

precinct-tallying processes. 

Median Income 

In optical scan jurisdictions, the higher the median income of a community the less likely they are to 

use a centrally located tallying process. 

High School Education 

The higher the education levels, the more likely optical scan jurisdictions are using precinct-based 

tallying technology. 

Section 203 Language Minority Requirements 

Optical scan jurisdictions subject to Section 203 minority language requirements of the Voting 

Rights Act are over twice as likely to be operating a central-count tallying system. 

Section 5 Preclearance of Voting Procedures 

Optical scan jurisdictions subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act are more likely to be 

operating a central-count tallying system, while non-Section 5 jurisdictions are twice as likely to be 

tallying their ballots in the precinct. 

Type of Voting Equipment 

Not Applicable. 

Changed Voting Equipment since 2000 

Jurisdictions that changed their voting system in the last four years and went to the optical scan 

system are more than four times as likely to adopt a precinct-based tallying system. 

Statewide Voter Registration Database 

No real patterns are discernible in this subcategory. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voting Machines, Page 10-8 September 27, 2005 

Election Day Registration 

No real patterns are discernible in this subcategory. 

Provisional Ballot Acceptance 

No real patterns are discernible in this subcategory. 

No Excuse Absentee Balloting 

No real patterns are discernible in this subcategory. 

Early Voting 

No real patterns are discernible in this subcategory. 

Battleground States 

Perhaps anticipating the increased turnout in battleground states, all voting system jurisdictions 

showed a larger number of units per polling location than in nonbattleground states. 

Presidential Margin of Victory 

For both punch card and electronic voting jurisdictions, there appears to be a slight trend toward 

more machines per polling location the closer the margin of victory in the 2004 presidential election. 

Red versus Blue Jurisdictions 

No real patterns are discernible in this subcategory. 
Voting Machines

EAC Election Day SurveyVoting Machines 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:07:31

Election 2004 Number Number Number Number 

Administration Total Polling of Juris. of Per Per In-Precinct Central of Juris. of 

Code Name Jurisdictions Registration Precincts Cases Places Cases Using Units Cases Precinct Cases Polling Pl. Cases Counting Counting Using Units Cases P

01 Alabama 67 2,597,629 2,210 67 2,177 67 64 

02 Alaska 1 472,160 436 1 439 1 1 436 1 

04 Arizona 15 2,642,120 2,110 15 2,002 15 15 2,089 15 

05 Arkansas 75 1,699,934 2,693 75 1,923 75 7 93 4 0.3 7 0.3 7 2 47 167 44 

06 California 58 16,646,555 21,857 55 14,467 52 12 6,916 12 5.8 11 10.5 9 37 5,893 33 

08 Colorado 64 3,101,956 3,370 64 2,318 63 1 1 1 49 

09 Connecticut 169 1,831,567 769 169

10 Delaware 3 553,917 437 3 276 3

11 District of Columbia 1 383,919 142 1 142 1 

12 Florida 67 10,300,942 6,892 67 5,433 67 50 3,456 50 

13 Georgia 159 4,248,802 3,163 159 2,907 15815 Hawaii 5 647,238 353 4 336 4 

16 Idaho 44 915,637 949 44 763 44 14 3,697 14 7.8 14 9.7 14 15 14 30 14 

17 Illinois 110 7,195,882 11,738 110 9,200 110 41 5,131 2 0.8 41 1.0 41 2 39 69 3,969 66 

18 Indiana 92 4,296,602 5,571 92 3,454 84 17 17 16 1 31 19 Iowa 99 2,226,721 1,966 97 1,916 98 84 1,259 81 

20 Kansas 105 1,695,457 3,882 105 2,019 103 81 459 70 

21 Kentucky 120 2,794,286 3,482 120 2,830 120 1 1,320 1 22 Louisiana 64 2,932,142 4,124 64 2,394 6423 Maine 517 1,026,219 601 517 114 24 Maryland 24 3,105,370 1,779 24 1,551 2425 Massachusetts 351 4,098,634 2,177 351 1,458 351 274 2,038 274 26 Michigan 83 7,164,047 5,235 83 3,890 83 11 51 11 0.2 11 0.2 11 39 2,020 39 27 Minnesota 87 2,977,496 4,108 87 61 

28 Mississippi 82 1,469,608 1,707 67 1,670 67 10 923 10 4.2 10 4.4 10 2 6 61 397 47 

29 Missouri 116 4,194,416 5,462 116 3,595 116 37 37 37 70 

30 Montana 56 638,474 856 56 649 56 36 5,803 36 

31 Nebraska 93 1,160,193 1,668 93 1,420 93 48 91 48 

32 Nevada 17 1,073,869 1,585 17 526 17

33 New Hampshire 242 950,292 92

34 New Jersey 21 5,011,693 6,283 21 3,486 21 1 95 1 

35 New Mexico 33 505,356 684 21 612 21

36 New York 58 11,837,068 15,153 56 6,740 5637 North Carolina 100 5,526,981 2,749 100 2,762 100 5 1,453 5 7.2 5 7.2 5 6 44 1,460 44 

38 North Dakota 53 490,179 607 53 542 53 48 

39 Ohio 88 7,965,110 11,366 88 6,602 88 7 15,464 7 6.1 7 11.1 740 Oklahoma 77 2,143,978 2,152 77 2,130 77 77 2,655 77 

41 Oregon 36 2,141,249 1,448 36 36 36 36 84 36 42 Pennsylvania 67 8,366,455 11 2,940 6 24 25 13 44 Rhode Island 39 707,234 577 39 489 39 39 

45 South Carolina 46 2,318,235 2,168 46 1 1 9 

46 South Dakota 66 502,261 827 66 630 66 50 

47 Tennessee 95 3,748,235 2,287 95 2,211 95 20 20 20 11 

48 Texas 254 13,098,329 8,554 254 7,032 250 9 3,013 9 7.0 9 7.7 9 8 142 1,032 131 

49 Utah 29 1,278,912 1,880 29 1,061 29 23 23 23 2 

50 Vermont 246 444,508 277 246 277 246 68 51 Virginia 134 4,515,675 2,294 134 2,367 134 4 3,634 4 12.6 4 12.4 4 5 34 2,184 34 

53 Washington 39 3,508,208 6,664 39 1,498 34 13 13 12 23 

54 West Virginia 55 1,168,694 1,977 55 12 2,140 6 3.5 12 28 28 24 

55 Wisconsin 1,910 4,179,774 3,563 1,253 2,686 1,596 554 56 Wyoming 23 273,950 483 23 345 23 5 367 5 4.1 5 9.0 5 13 177 11 

60 American Samoa 166 Guam 172 Puerto Rico 110 2,440,131 1,676 110 1,554 11078 Virgin Islands 1 50,731 30 1 170 1

Total 6,568 177,265,030 174,252 5,396 113,754 5,180 260 45,822 95 2.3 248 3.5 231 18 68 2,541 37,167 1190 Maximum 1,910 16,646,555 21,857 1,253 14,467 1,596 41 15,464 14 12.6 41 12.4 41 6 39 554 5,893 274 Average 119 3,344,623 3,485 107 2,420 110 13 3,524 7 5.0 13 6.7 13 3 17 63 1,548 49 

Minimum 1 50,731 30 1 36 1 1 51 2 0.2 1 0.2 1 1 6 1 25 1 

Opti

Average # of Units Number of Juris with 

Punchcard Voting Equipment (including Datavote)

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Voting Machines

EAC Election Day SurveyVoting Machines 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:07:31

Election 2004 Number Number Number Number 

Administration Total Polling of Juris. of Per Per In-Precinct Central of Juris. of 

Code Name Jurisdictions Registration Precincts Cases Places Cases Using Units Cases Precinct Cases Polling Pl. Cases Counting Counting Using Units Cases P

Opti

Average # of Units Number of Juris with 

Punchcard Voting Equipment (including Datavote)

Election Administration

Voting Equipment Used in 2004 

General Election

None / Unknown 908 14,484,493 13,552 252 9,699 558

Punch card 260 15,767,547 19,745 248 12,985 231 260 45,822 95 2.3 248 3.5 231 18 68

Lever 394 21,662,619 20,301 199 10,789 365Paper 1,734 3,085,167 5,704 1,573 3,416 1,183

Optical scan 2,541 69,198,628 69,370 2,405 46,265 2,185 2,541 37,167 1190 

Electronic 608 40,068,685 35,273 599 24,219 557

Multiple Systems 123 12,997,891 10,307 120 6,381 101

Changed Voting Equipment Since 

2000 General Election

Yes 1,753 51,149,755 46,241 1,296 31,649 1,269 1 1 1 624 10,641 164 

No 4,815 126,115,275 128,011 4,100 82,105 3,911 259 45,822 95 2.3 247 3.5 230 18 68 1,917 26,526 1026 

State Wide Voter Registration 

System in Place

Yes 1,335 37,384,852 33,575 1,153 20,815 1,133 24 2,191 17 2.3 24 10.4 11 555 10,586 431 

No 5,233 139,880,178 140,677 4,243 92,939 4,047 236 43,631 78 2.3 224 3.4 220 18 68 1,986 26,581 759 

Election Day Registration

Yes 2,823 10,323,368 9,704 1,924 3,794 1,663 19 4,064 19 7.2 19 9.6 19 15 848 207 25 

No 3,745 166,941,662 164,548 3,472 109,960 3,517 241 41,758 76 2.2 229 3.3 212 18 53 1,693 36,960 1165 

Provisional Ballot Acceptance

In Overall Jurisdiction 1,162 65,077,741 65,986 1,080 44,212 1,070 113 16,533 29 1.4 101 2.2 98 10 39 454 14,123 252 

In Precinct Only 4,350 103,336,604 100,295 3,504 66,513 3,902 133 25,592 52 3.4 133 5.1 119 8 14 1,758 23,014 924 None 1,056 8,850,685 7,971 812 3,029 208 14 3,697 14 7.8 14 9.7 14 15 329 30 14 

No Excuse Absentee Balloting

Yes 3,781 64,333,790 70,535 3,106 47,225 2,922 73 12,433 36 2.4 72 4.7 69 6 15 1,408 23,808 480 

No 2,787 112,931,240 103,717 2,290 66,529 2,258 187 33,389 59 2.3 176 3.2 162 12 53 1,133 13,359 710 

Early Voting Allowed

Yes 1,701 73,710,075 69,882 1,683 51,609 1,618 85 17,679 55 4.7 84 7.7 70 8 23 845 24,944 631 

No 4,867 103,554,955 104,370 3,713 62,145 3,562 175 28,143 40 1.8 164 2.6 161 10 45 1,696 12,223 559 

Covered By Section 203, 

Language Minority Requirements

Yes 468 50,756,496 54,051 443 36,098 443 27 15,330 25 2.2 26 3.2 24 2 11 251 10,319 207 

No 6,100 126,508,534 120,201 4,953 77,656 4,737 233 30,492 70 2.4 222 3.7 207 16 57 2,290 26,848 983 

Covered By Section 5 of Voting 

Rights Act

Yes 880 40,868,855 32,976 855 25,680 803 27 8,388 26 7.8 27 8.7 26 10 14 353 6,533 249 

No 5,688 136,396,175 141,276 4,541 88,074 4,377 233 37,434 69 2.0 221 3.1 205 8 54 2,188 30,634 941 

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Voting Machines

EAC Election Day SurveyVoting Machines 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:07:31

Election 2004 Number Number Number Number 

Administration Total Polling of Juris. of Per Per In-Precinct Central of Juris. of 

Code Name Jurisdictions Registration Precincts Cases Places Cases Using Units Cases Precinct Cases Polling Pl. Cases Counting Counting Using Units Cases P

Opti

Average # of Units Number of Juris with 

Punchcard Voting Equipment (including Datavote)

Demographics

Region

Northeast 1,710 34,273,670 25,068 1,230 13,219 882 11 2,940 6 612 2,158 288 

South 1,423 62,606,676 48,810 1,408 37,805 1,302 68 11,256 38 4.5 68 6.7 55 15 14 568 12,699 452 

Midwest 2,902 44,048,138 55,993 2,243 35,954 2,490 113 20,646 20 1.7 113 2.3 112 3 39 1,135 7,798 304 West 420 33,845,684 42,675 404 25,052 395 68 10,980 31 2.2 67 4.5 64 15 226 14,512 146 Territories 113 2,490,862 1,706 111 1,724 111

Urban to Rural

Urban 567 63,441,314 60,394 445 36,556 523 10 16,806 6 2.0 10 3.0 10 5 1 330 8,107 130 

Suburban 871 47,552,530 37,906 639 25,451 715 24 14,853 12 4.0 23 6.7 21 4 3 372 10,235 183 Small Towns 1,710 44,193,768 41,994 1,421 28,085 1,283 99 10,591 35 2.3 89 3.4 79 5 21 706 7,893 298 Rural 3,307 19,586,556 32,252 2,780 21,938 2,548 127 3,572 42 1.2 126 1.7 121 4 43 1,133 10,932 579 Not Available - Territories 113 2,490,862 1,706 111 1,724 111

Size of Jurisdiction (VAP)

< 1,000 1,761 895,006 2,118 1,229 1,350 1,169 1 2 1 209 1 1 

>=1,000 to <3,500 1,165 2,182,148 2,558 893 1,976 850 3 36 2 0.9 3 2.6 2 461 270 73 >=3,500 to <10,000 1,043 5,966,645 8,343 902 5,891 873 35 453 9 0.9 35 1.2 35 1 14 660 2,615 319 >=10,000 to <50,000 1,704 31,472,681 35,443 1,554 25,830 1,508 144 4,113 44 1.1 140 1.5 129 6 39 894 7,750 567 >=50,000 to <250,000 586 48,992,270 41,344 545 28,105 516 62 15,730 30 3.0 56 4.8 51 7 14 261 12,999 188 >=250,000 to <1,000,000 140 51,396,493 44,037 126 27,595 118 13 20,357 7 4.0 12 6.6 12 2 1 50 9,391 37 >=1,000,000 25 33,867,508 38,691 24 21,272 24 2 5,131 2 1.0 2 1.5 2 2 6 4,141 5 

Not Available 144 2,492,279 1,718 123 1,735 122

Race and Ethnicity

Predominently NH White 6,264 163,662,585 161,698 5,125 104,108 4,925 255 45,193 90 2.3 243 3.5 227 18 64 2,469 36,282 1145 Predominently NH Black 85 3,098,023 2,820 80 2,103 69 3 194 3 3.8 3 3.8 3 3 32 166 16 

Predominently NH Native American 24 231,022 313 22 302 19 8 252 4 

Predominently Hispanic 50 7,749,995 7,664 45 5,465 44 2 435 2 2.7 2 39.5 1 1 31 467 25 Not Available 145 2,523,405 1,757 124 1,776 123 1 

Median Income

< $25,000 298 2,504,552 3,893 279 2,875 215 9 459 5 2.0 9 3.0 7 5 97 450 54 

>=$25,000 to <$30,000 884 8,917,739 12,731 819 9,302 697 32 659 10 1.0 32 1.4 30 1 6 336 2,741 191 >=$30,000 to <$35,000 1,372 22,970,583 23,424 1,197 16,639 1,076 87 6,183 33 2.4 83 3.6 76 6 21 519 7,139 309 >=$35,000 to <$40,000 1,215 40,443,694 40,250 1,056 24,419 937 59 8,114 18 1.4 56 1.9 52 2 18 443 9,977 226 >=$40,000 to <$45,000 881 37,780,840 36,644 675 23,887 680 34 12,526 11 4.0 30 6.3 28 2 7 297 5,210 113 >=$45,000 to <$50,000 587 21,218,675 19,189 434 12,206 458 24 11,341 11 2.1 24 3.6 24 5 5 235 4,873 69 >=$50,000 1,180 40,936,586 36,399 810 22,689 993 15 6,540 7 3.9 14 5.8 14 2 6 613 6,777 228 

Not Available 151 2,492,361 1,722 126 1,737 124 1 

High School Education

< 60% 126 1,817,027 2,148 121 1,577 113 5 533 3 2.2 5 11.6 3 2 45 203 34 

>=60% to <70% 661 14,944,978 18,185 616 13,467 563 31 958 9 1.5 31 2.0 30 2 6 240 2,213 143 >=70% to <80% 1,646 49,285,773 51,393 1,411 32,782 1,319 92 12,062 37 1.5 89 2.1 81 7 25 576 6,767 327 >=80% to <90% 3,111 93,198,279 87,644 2,502 56,581 2,410 121 28,605 42 2.9 112 4.7 106 7 30 1,243 23,280 527 >=90% 873 15,495,512 13,121 619 7,569 650 11 3,664 4 3.5 11 5.6 11 2 5 435 4,704 159 Not Available 151 2,523,461 1,761 127 1,778 125 2 

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Voting Machines

EAC Election Day SurveyVoting Machines 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:07:31

Election 2004 Number Number Number Number 

Administration Total Polling of Juris. of Per Per In-Precinct Central of Juris. of 

Code Name Jurisdictions Registration Precincts Cases Places Cases Using Units Cases Precinct Cases Polling Pl. Cases Counting Counting Using Units Cases P

Opti

Average # of Units Number of Juris with 

Punchcard Voting Equipment (including Datavote)

Political

Battleground States in 2004 

Presidential Election

Yes 3,093 64,166,639 59,123 2,113 33,037 2,309 99 20,688 34 2.9 88 5.5 75 2 1,172 9,128 302 

No 3,475 113,098,391 115,129 3,283 80,717 2,871 161 25,134 61 2.0 160 2.7 156 16 68 1,369 28,039 888 

Margin of Victory in 2004 

Presidential Election

< 2.5% 515 15,923,548 13,708 383 8,230 350 18 4,187 7 3.7 16 6.5 14 2 6 181 4,090 72 

>=2.5% to < 5.0% 476 11,133,130 10,126 359 5,981 335 15 6,201 7 5.8 13 10.5 10 3 165 1,709 62 >=5.0% to < 7.5% 510 13,830,932 13,805 416 9,195 388 16 6,775 9 3.8 16 7.3 13 4 186 4,658 77 >=7.5% to < 10.0 % 429 8,833,490 9,114 333 5,538 313 12 1,705 4 2.8 11 3.6 11 2 3 162 1,745 71 >=10.0 % 4,492 125,044,988 125,787 3,788 83,067 3,664 199 26,954 68 1.8 192 2.6 183 14 52 1,846 24,965 908 

Red vs Blue Jurisdictions Won By 

in 2004 Presidential Election

Bush > 55% 3,115 68,178,580 68,994 2,690 49,173 2,617 181 15,111 58 2.0 174 2.8 166 11 46 1,306 17,375 654 

Bush 50% to 55% 982 26,682,203 25,314 760 16,788 700 31 14,478 14 5.1 28 8.9 24 2 8 365 6,165 146 Bush < 50% 136 2,041,746 1,701 106 1,181 79 6 209 3 0.9 6 1.2 6 2 1 35 66 6 

Kerry < 50% 150 4,850,492 4,276 107 3,030 101 1 1 1 48 1,994 19 

Kerry 50% to 55% 872 23,160,396 22,439 683 12,452 656 25 4,272 11 2.8 23 5.2 19 8 323 5,615 140 Kerry > 55% 1,161 49,846,628 49,810 927 29,387 897 16 11,752 9 1.6 16 2.4 15 3 5 462 5,952 225 Tied 25 14,032 12 12 8 8 2 

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Voting Machines

EAC Election Day SurveyVoting Machines 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:07:31

Election

Administration

Code Name Jurisdictions

01 Alabama 67

02 Alaska 104 Arizona 1505 Arkansas 7506 California 5808 Colorado 6409 Connecticut 169

10 Delaware 3

11 District of Columbia 112 Florida 6713 Georgia 159

15 Hawaii 5

16 Idaho 4417 Illinois 110

18 Indiana 92

19 Iowa 9920 Kansas 105

21 Kentucky 12022 Louisiana 64

23 Maine 517

24 Maryland 24

25 Massachusetts 351

26 Michigan 83

27 Minnesota 8728 Mississippi 8229 Missouri 116

30 Montana 56

31 Nebraska 9332 Nevada 1733 New Hampshire 242

34 New Jersey 21

35 New Mexico 3336 New York 5837 North Carolina 100

38 North Dakota 53

39 Ohio 8840 Oklahoma 7741 Oregon 3642 Pennsylvania 6744 Rhode Island 3945 South Carolina 4646 South Dakota 6647 Tennessee 9548 Texas 254

49 Utah 29

50 Vermont 246

51 Virginia 13453 Washington 39

54 West Virginia 5555 Wisconsin 1,910

56 Wyoming 23

60 American Samoa 166 Guam 172 Puerto Rico 11078 Virgin Islands 1

Total 6,568Maximum 1,910Average 119Minimum 1

Number Number Number Number Number Number

of Juris. of Per Per of Juris. of Per Per of Juris. of Per 

Using Units Cases Precinct Cases Polling Pl. Cases Using Units Cases Precinct Cases Polling Pl. Cases Using Units Cases Precinct Cases P

3 3 35 196 5 1.4 5 2.0 5 5 309 5 1.0 5 2.5 5 9 9 8 23,708 8 4.5 8 6.7 81 1 1 7 7 

169

3 898 3 2.1 3 3.3 3

15 30,946 15 7.9 15 10.7 15

159 159 158

16 16 

43 43 41 1 1 114 672 14 3.0 13 2.7 13 1 52 1 2.5 1 2.5 1

3 1,860 3 1.9 3 3.4 3 20 0 20 

114 15,226 114 5.2 114 6.1 114 1 116 1 5.8 1 5.8 1

14 4,515 14 2.5 14 4.2 14 50 4,213 50 1.8 50 3.2 50

385 385

24 17,017 24 9.6 24 11.0 24

71 85 71 1.0 71 

1 76 1 3.5 1 3.6 1 2 68 2 2.5 2 2.7 2

7 7

3 823 3 4.3 3 4.4 3 8 207 4 2.9 4 2.9 4

9 9 

20 622 20 4.9 20 45 45 

17 4,929 17 3.1 17 9.4 17

145

15 7,708 15 1.7 15 3.1 15 5 2,433 5 1.6 5 2.5 5

58 19,357 56 1.3 56 2.9 56

38 9,009 38 7.6 38 7.6 38 3 67 3 3.2 3 3.2 3 3 0 3 

5 5 

1 139 1 3.6 1 7.7 18 1,810 5 20 2,676 7 2 30 1

36 36

16 16 

48 48 48 8 8 8

4 2 2 0.0 4 0.0 4 2 120 1 1.5 2 1.5 2 88 0 88 

4 4 

177 177 

26 723 25 3.3 26 3.2 26 38 1,248 38 2.9 38 2.9 38

2 2 12 525 2 3.7 2 3 93 1 0.8 3 10 10

17 17 17 695 681 

1 37 1 2.8 1 2.8 1 3 69 3 2.7 3 6.3 3

608 120,819 310 3.4 599 5.0 557 394 31,028 177 1.5 199 2.9 196 1734 737 92 0.1 1573 159 30,946 114 9.6 159 11.0 158 169 19,357 56 5.8 56 6.3 56 695 622 71 4.9 681 

22 6,040 15 3.8 23 5.1 23 21 2,216 12 2.3 12 3.2 13 86 122 30 2.9 87 

1 2 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 1 52 1 0.8 1 1.5 1 2 0 1 1.0 3 

Average # of Units

Electronic Voting Equipment Lever Machine Voting Equipment Paper Ballots Voting Equipm

Average # of Units Average 

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Voting Machines

EAC Election Day SurveyVoting Machines 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:07:31

Election

Administration

Code Name Jurisdictions

Election Administration

Voting Equipment Used in 2004 

General Election

None / Unknown 908Punch card 260

Lever 394Paper 1,734Optical scan 2,541Electronic 608Multiple Systems 123

Changed Voting Equipment Since 

2000 General Election

Yes 1,753

No 4,815

State Wide Voter Registration 

System in Place

Yes 1,335

No 5,233

Election Day Registration

Yes 2,823No 3,745

Provisional Ballot Acceptance

In Overall Jurisdiction 1,162In Precinct Only 4,350None 1,056

No Excuse Absentee Balloting

Yes 3,781No 2,787

Early Voting Allowed

Yes 1,701

No 4,867

Covered By Section 203, 

Language Minority Requirements

Yes 468

No 6,100

Covered By Section 5 of Voting 

Rights Act

Yes 880No 5,688

Number Number Number Number Number Number

of Juris. of Per Per of Juris. of Per Per of Juris. of Per 

Using Units Cases Precinct Cases Polling Pl. Cases Using Units Cases Precinct Cases Polling Pl. Cases Using Units Cases Precinct Cases P

Average # of Units

Electronic Voting Equipment Lever Machine Voting Equipment Paper Ballots Voting Equipm

Average # of Units Average 

394 31,028 177 1.5 199 2.9 196

1734 737 92 0.1 1573 

608 120,819 310 3.4 599 5.0 557311 77,741 90 4.2 309 5.8 294 42 120 1 1.4 6 0.7 6 455 3 3 0.0 348 297 43,078 220 2.6 290 4.0 263 352 30,908 176 1.5 193 2.9 190 1279 734 89 0.1 1225 329 21,240 134 2.1 329 3.1 290 225 4,490 54 1.8 56 2.1 53 104 85 71 0.1 104 279 99,579 176 4.0 270 5.7 267 169 26,538 123 1.5 143 3.1 143 1630 652 21 0.1 1469 

1 37 1 2.8 1 2.8 1 20 69 3 0.6 20 1.0 20 1248 1089 

607 120,782 309 3.4 598 5.0 556 374 30,959 174 1.5 179 2.9 176 486 737 92 0.2 484 262 57,153 97 4.0 254 5.3 252 78 7,265 65 2.8 58 4.9 58 202 30 1 0.1 200 346 63,666 213 3.0 345 4.8 305 316 23,763 112 1.3 141 2.5 138 974 707 91 0.2 960 

558 413 

113 75,676 110 4.9 112 7.4 111 74 4,401 57 1.8 74 3.1 74 1393 622 20 0.3 1379 495 45,143 200 2.3 487 3.2 446 320 26,627 120 1.5 125 2.8 122 341 115 72 0.0 194 315 71,884 105 3.9 314 5.3 311 25 710 14 1.1 25 2.1 22 355 622 20 0.3 355 293 48,935 205 2.9 285 4.6 246 369 30,318 163 1.5 174 2.9 174 1379 115 72 0.0 1218 

31 53,256 27 4.5 30 7.3 30 15 5,501 7 1.4 8 2.3 8 97 0 97 

577 67,563 283 2.9 569 4.0 527 379 25,527 170 1.6 191 3.0 188 1637 737 92 0.2 1476 262 13,234 61 1.6 262 2.4 225 100 5,837 95 2.0 96 3.0 96 94 0 89 346 107,585 249 4.0 337 5.8 332 294 25,191 82 1.4 103 2.8 100 1640 737 92 0.1 1484 

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Voting Machines

EAC Election Day SurveyVoting Machines 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:07:31

Election

Administration

Code Name Jurisdictions

Demographics

Region

Northeast 1,710South 1,423Midwest 2,902West 420Territories 113

Urban to Rural

Urban 567Suburban 871Small Towns 1,710Rural 3,307Not Available - Territories 113

Size of Jurisdiction (VAP)

< 1,000 1,761>=1,000 to <3,500 1,165>=3,500 to <10,000 1,043>=10,000 to <50,000 1,704>=50,000 to <250,000 586>=250,000 to <1,000,000 140>=1,000,000 25Not Available 144

Race and Ethnicity

Predominently NH White 6,264Predominently NH Black 85

Predominently NH Native American 24

Predominently Hispanic 50Not Available 145

Median Income

< $25,000 298>=$25,000 to <$30,000 884>=$30,000 to <$35,000 1,372>=$35,000 to <$40,000 1,215>=$40,000 to <$45,000 881>=$45,000 to <$50,000 587>=$50,000 1,180Not Available 151

High School Education

< 60% 126>=60% to <70% 661>=70% to <80% 1,646>=80% to <90% 3,111>=90% 873Not Available 151

Number Number Number Number Number Number

of Juris. of Per Per of Juris. of Per Per of Juris. of Per 

Using Units Cases Precinct Cases Polling Pl. Cases Using Units Cases Precinct Cases Polling Pl. Cases Using Units Cases Precinct Cases P

Average # of Units

Electronic Voting Equipment Lever Machine Voting Equipment Paper Ballots Voting Equipm

Average # of Units Average 

23 9,518 20 2.1 15 3.9 15 252 24,466 68 1.5 61 2.9 61 780 115 72 0.2 633 

494 79,880 245 4.1 494 5.5 455 118 6,373 103 1.9 114 2.9 111 110 0 110 

62 2,747 19 0.7 61 1.0 59 21 120 3 0.7 21 0.9 21 797 0 783 29 28,674 26 3.9 29 6.6 28 3 69 3 2.7 3 6.3 3 47 622 20 1.9 47 38 55,281 29 4.4 36 6.2 36 64 16,498 13 1.4 17 3.3 17 31 10 2 0.0 29 85 29,104 41 3.0 82 4.4 76 100 4,704 17 2.1 17 3.4 16 162 11 6 0.1 145 

289 30,712 137 3.0 287 4.6 261 144 6,949 82 1.6 87 2.3 85 262 24 24 0.1 206 196 5,722 103 2.2 194 2.8 184 86 2,877 65 1.5 78 2.3 78 1279 692 60 0.2 1193 

1 9 1 1.8 1 3.0 1 8 6 6 1081 89 40 0.1 1004 

13 67 5 0.9 13 1.7 13 42 5 1 0.4 8 0.1 8 495 301 42 0.3 432 99 1,934 49 2.3 99 2.7 97 82 591 27 1.6 32 1.8 32 117 310 8 0.3 102 

316 15,872 156 2.5 313 3.2 290 181 5,018 92 1.7 99 2.0 96 30 37 2 0.1 24 129 23,229 62 2.7 126 3.9 111 62 6,674 43 1.4 44 2.1 44

42 42,374 30 3.6 40 5.3 38 16 7,823 11 2.0 7 2.9 7 1 1 

8 37,334 7 5.0 7 8.1 7 3 10,917 3 1.3 3 5.1 3

10 10 

574 110,238 298 3.4 565 4.9 530 379 30,622 167 1.5 189 2.9 186 1710 737 92 0.1 1549 

33 4,673 11 2.8 33 3.8 26 14 406 10 2.2 10 2.8 10

11 11 

1 5,908 1 7.9 1 11.1 1 1 3 0 3 

10 10 

51 3,722 32 4.1 51 4.6 49 26 1,050 20 1.7 22 2.6 21 87 23 3 0.1 87 

103 4,481 42 2.1 103 3.2 95 43 1,986 33 1.8 40 2.6 39 286 520 17 0.4 283 156 9,817 75 2.5 151 3.2 138 59 2,801 45 1.5 49 2.1 48 379 118 5 0.1 365 136 21,787 68 3.3 135 4.7 121 50 11,268 38 1.4 41 4.0 41 367 2 2 0.0 341 

70 26,054 34 3.5 68 5.9 63 39 4,991 25 1.5 27 2.4 27 266 17 16 0.1 230 35 9,906 20 3.3 35 4.9 35 25 1,070 5 1.8 7 2.4 7 158 15 15 0.1 131 57 45,052 39 4.0 56 5.8 56 152 7,862 11 1.7 13 2.6 13 178 42 34 0.0 124 

13 12 

41 2,579 29 4.3 41 4.6 40 12 490 9 1.9 12 3.0 12 11 0 10 

170 12,185 61 3.1 170 4.2 154 62 2,674 49 1.6 55 2.3 54 110 18 1 0.0 108 222 34,346 116 2.9 219 4.8 202 83 12,304 57 1.4 61 3.6 60 437 78 5 0.1 414 164 65,994 97 3.9 158 5.4 150 155 15,322 59 1.7 65 2.6 64 928 603 50 0.2 853 

11 5,715 7 3.2 11 4.2 11 82 238 3 1.3 6 0.8 6 236 38 36 0.2 176 

12 12 

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Voting Machines

EAC Election Day SurveyVoting Machines 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:07:31

Election

Administration

Code Name Jurisdictions

Political

Battleground States in 2004 

Presidential Election

Yes 3,093

No 3,475

Margin of Victory in 2004 

Presidential Election

< 2.5% 515

>=2.5% to < 5.0% 476>=5.0% to < 7.5% 510>=7.5% to < 10.0 % 429>=10.0 % 4,492

Red vs Blue Jurisdictions Won By 

in 2004 Presidential Election

Bush > 55% 3,115Bush 50% to 55% 982Bush < 50% 136

Kerry < 50% 150Kerry 50% to 55% 872Kerry > 55% 1,161Tied 25

Number Number Number Number Number Number

of Juris. of Per Per of Juris. of Per Per of Juris. of Per 

Using Units Cases Precinct Cases Polling Pl. Cases Using Units Cases Precinct Cases Polling Pl. Cases Using Units Cases Precinct Cases P

Average # of Units

Electronic Voting Equipment Lever Machine Voting Equipment Paper Ballots Voting Equipm

Average # of Units Average 

66 39,293 60 6.1 57 9.7 54 48 3,198 16 5.9 28 14.2 25 884 30 1 0.0 723 

542 81,526 250 2.8 542 4.0 503 346 27,830 161 1.4 171 2.6 171 850 707 91 0.3 850 

28 6,982 18 4.9 26 6.1 23 42 2,585 9 1.5 10 2.9 10 163 7 7 0.0 147 28 12,500 17 4.2 26 8.2 24 35 3,007 12 1.9 11 3.2 10 143 60 6 0.3 127 34 13,079 21 4.8 33 7.2 29 38 2,434 13 1.3 15 2.6 14 169 1 1 0.0 155 20 4,868 10 4.9 19 6.8 18 27 1,257 9 1.5 13 2.0 12 142 7 7 0.0 123 

498 83,390 244 3.1 495 4.4 463 251 21,745 134 1.5 150 2.9 150 1109 662 71 0.2 1016 434 50,671 212 2.9 433 4.2 410 141 7,115 100 2.0 110 2.8 110 652 597 20 0.2 601 

66 12,050 38 3.9 62 6.2 55 67 3,453 32 1.3 36 2.0 34 289 63 9 0.1 247 

7 4,057 4 6.4 7 8.7 5 15 458 3 1.2 3 1.7 3 49 2 2 0.0 48 3 114 2 0.9 2 0.7 2 20 2,058 5 1.7 5 3.6 5 54 1 1 0.0 50 

41 21,278 24 4.6 40 7.4 38 68 5,398 17 1.6 19 2.8 18 288 12 11 0.0 262 57 32,649 30 3.5 55 5.0 47 82 12,546 20 1.4 26 3.3 26 389 62 49 0.1 355 

1 13 10 

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Voting Machines

EAC Election Day SurveyVoting Machines 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:07:31

Election

Administration

Code Name Jurisdictions

01 Alabama 67

02 Alaska 104 Arizona 1505 Arkansas 7506 California 5808 Colorado 6409 Connecticut 169

10 Delaware 3

11 District of Columbia 112 Florida 6713 Georgia 159

15 Hawaii 5

16 Idaho 4417 Illinois 110

18 Indiana 92

19 Iowa 9920 Kansas 105

21 Kentucky 12022 Louisiana 64

23 Maine 517

24 Maryland 24

25 Massachusetts 351

26 Michigan 83

27 Minnesota 8728 Mississippi 8229 Missouri 116

30 Montana 56

31 Nebraska 9332 Nevada 1733 New Hampshire 242

34 New Jersey 21

35 New Mexico 3336 New York 5837 North Carolina 100

38 North Dakota 53

39 Ohio 8840 Oklahoma 7741 Oregon 3642 Pennsylvania 6744 Rhode Island 3945 South Carolina 4646 South Dakota 6647 Tennessee 9548 Texas 254

49 Utah 29

50 Vermont 246

51 Virginia 13453 Washington 39

54 West Virginia 5555 Wisconsin 1,910

56 Wyoming 23

60 American Samoa 166 Guam 172 Puerto Rico 11078 Virgin Islands 1

Total 6,568Maximum 1,910Average 119Minimum 1

Cases = Number of Jurisdictions Reporting Subject Matter

Number Number Number Number

of Juris. of Per Per of Juris. of Per Per

Using Units Cases Precinct Cases Polling Pl. Cases Using Units Cases Precinct Cases Polling Pl. Cases

2 2 21 3,747 1 3.4 1 7.6 16 6 61 1 12 116 2 2.3 2 2.4 25 4 41 1 14 99 4 2.2 4 2.2 4

18 18

6 6 6

30 4,189 30 1.2 30 1.8 3019 19

5

33 21 21

7 494 7 3.1 7 3.1 7

80 37,279 68 4.2 80 7.2 80

2 138 18 8 83 131 2 0.2 3 0.3 3 6 16,808 6 7.4 6 9.8 6

1 1 1

30 3,602 30 4.1 30 4.0 30 2 2 2

1 1 1

644 7 7

1 1 1

11

110 110 110

1 1 1

123 12,516 77 1.2 120 2.0 101 908 54,087 74 4.0 252 5.6 234

30 4,189 30 4.1 30 7.6 30 644 37,279 68 7.4 110 9.8 110

7 1,564 9 2.4 7 3.0 6 69 27,043 37 5.8 25 8.5 261 99 1 0.2 1 0.3 1 1 16,808 6 4.2 1 7.2 1

Mixed Voting Equipment Unknown / Not Reported

Average # of Units Average # of Units

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Voting Machines

EAC Election Day SurveyVoting Machines 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:07:31

Election

Administration

Code Name Jurisdictions

Election Administration

Voting Equipment Used in 2004 

General Election

None / Unknown 908Punch card 260

Lever 394Paper 1,734Optical scan 2,541Electronic 608Multiple Systems 123

Changed Voting Equipment Since 

2000 General Election

Yes 1,753

No 4,815

State Wide Voter Registration 

System in Place

Yes 1,335

No 5,233

Election Day Registration

Yes 2,823No 3,745

Provisional Ballot Acceptance

In Overall Jurisdiction 1,162In Precinct Only 4,350None 1,056

No Excuse Absentee Balloting

Yes 3,781No 2,787

Early Voting Allowed

Yes 1,701

No 4,867

Covered By Section 203, 

Language Minority Requirements

Yes 468

No 6,100

Covered By Section 5 of Voting 

Rights Act

Yes 880No 5,688

Cases = Number of Jurisdictions Reporting Subject Matter

Number Number Number Number

of Juris. of Per Per of Juris. of Per Per

Using Units Cases Precinct Cases Polling Pl. Cases Using Units Cases Precinct Cases Polling Pl. Cases

Mixed Voting Equipment Unknown / Not Reported

Average # of Units Average # of Units

908 54,087 74 4.0 252 5.6 234

123 12,516 77 1.2 120 2.0 101

35 1,267 18 0.6 35 1.3 24 285 18,380 8 5.7 20 8.0 1488 11,249 59 1.4 85 2.1 77 623 35,707 66 3.4 232 4.8 22059 4,288 34 0.9 58 1.5 39 39 27 2764 8,228 43 1.5 62 2.4 62 869 54,087 74 4.2 225 6.0 20720 20 1 667 25 7

103 12,516 77 1.3 100 2.0 100 241 54,087 74 4.0 227 5.8 227

19 4,379 9 1.2 17 2.4 17 34 22 2285 8,137 68 1.4 84 1.8 84 738 54,087 74 4.9 101 7.3 10119 19 136 129 11124 4,357 10 1.1 23 2.1 23 696 47 2999 8,159 67 1.3 97 1.9 78 212 54,087 74 4.2 205 6.2 20536 4,488 12 1.1 35 1.6 35 40 16,808 6 5.7 28 7.2 2887 8,028 65 1.3 85 2.2 66 868 37,279 68 3.5 224 5.1 206

8 3,878 3 1.5 8 2.5 8 39 16,808 6 5.7 27 7.2 27

115 8,638 74 1.1 112 1.8 93 869 37,279 68 3.5 225 5.1 207

35 3,751 34 2.3 35 2.7 35 9 16,808 6 7.4 8 9.8 888 8,765 43 1.0 85 1.8 66 899 37,279 68 3.3 244 4.7 226

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Voting Machines

EAC Election Day SurveyVoting Machines 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:07:31

Election

Administration

Code Name Jurisdictions

Demographics

Region

Northeast 1,710South 1,423Midwest 2,902West 420Territories 113

Urban to Rural

Urban 567Suburban 871Small Towns 1,710Rural 3,307Not Available - Territories 113

Size of Jurisdiction (VAP)

< 1,000 1,761>=1,000 to <3,500 1,165>=3,500 to <10,000 1,043>=10,000 to <50,000 1,704>=50,000 to <250,000 586>=250,000 to <1,000,000 140>=1,000,000 25Not Available 144

Race and Ethnicity

Predominently NH White 6,264Predominently NH Black 85

Predominently NH Native American 24

Predominently Hispanic 50Not Available 145

Median Income

< $25,000 298>=$25,000 to <$30,000 884>=$30,000 to <$35,000 1,372>=$35,000 to <$40,000 1,215>=$40,000 to <$45,000 881>=$45,000 to <$50,000 587>=$50,000 1,180Not Available 151

High School Education

< 60% 126>=60% to <70% 661>=70% to <80% 1,646>=80% to <90% 3,111>=90% 873Not Available 151

Cases = Number of Jurisdictions Reporting Subject Matter

Number Number Number Number

of Juris. of Per Per of Juris. of Per Per

Using Units Cases Precinct Cases Polling Pl. Cases Using Units Cases Precinct Cases Polling Pl. Cases

Mixed Voting Equipment Unknown / Not Reported

Average # of Units Average # of Units

2 138 1 30 25 7

57 4,442 45 1.9 57 2.1 57 8 16,808 6 7.4 8 9.8 850 4,189 30 1.0 50 1.7 31 724 37,279 68 4.2 87 6.6 8714 3,747 1 1.0 13 2.0 13 33 21 21

113 111 111

17 5,008 13 1.2 17 1.7 17 77 26,342 6 5.3 12 9.0 1111 951 7 0.5 11 0.9 10 117 14,164 14 5.3 22 8.4 2153 6,118 41 2.1 52 3.5 48 157 12,979 48 3.8 62 5.2 6242 439 16 0.3 40 0.7 26 444 602 6 0.8 45 0.7 29

113 111 111

1 460 19 4

1 1 150 7 7

13 55 4 0.2 13 0.8 7 37 59 1 1.2 6 0.6 556 1,624 41 1.3 55 2.0 47 83 6,680 39 2.8 66 3.5 6638 3,020 26 1.5 37 2.0 33 34 15,976 25 4.1 32 7.0 3211 2,458 4 0.6 11 1.0 11 7 11,446 6 4.6 6 7.0 6

3 5,359 2 1.8 3 3.3 3 3 19,926 3 6.6 3 11.6 3

134 113 111

120 12,265 75 1.2 117 2.0 98 757 50,752 72 4.8 128 7.1 113

3 251 2 1.1 3 1.1 3

5 3 2

12 3,335 2 3.1 8 4.7 8

134 113 111

9 191 7 1.9 8 1.8 8 19 8 57 103 3 1.1 7 1.0 7 77 2,112 8 2.3 26 2.8 19

31 1,456 21 1.8 30 2.7 23 141 3,249 12 3.5 23 3.8 2030 922 15 0.5 29 0.8 21 130 18,840 21 4.4 27 8.3 2514 5,652 8 1.5 14 2.7 12 161 21,142 23 5.4 33 7.5 3213 975 9 1.0 13 1.4 13 97 4,117 5 4.1 10 6.3 1019 3,217 14 1.1 19 1.9 17 146 4,627 5 6.1 12 7.9 12

137 113 111

9 157 6 1.6 8 1.6 8 3 109 1 3.4 2 3.2 2

11 186 6 0.9 11 0.9 11 37 1,146 2 3.7 8 3.9 535 7,367 27 1.7 35 2.7 32 201 14,445 21 4.9 42 6.3 4063 3,791 37 0.8 61 1.4 46 437 35,596 48 4.3 76 7.0 68

5 1,015 1 0.9 5 1.6 4 93 2,791 2 8.8 11 9.8 8

137 113 111

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Voting Machines

EAC Election Day SurveyVoting Machines 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:07:31

Election

Administration

Code Name Jurisdictions

Political

Battleground States in 2004 

Presidential Election

Yes 3,093

No 3,475

Margin of Victory in 2004 

Presidential Election

< 2.5% 515

>=2.5% to < 5.0% 476>=5.0% to < 7.5% 510>=7.5% to < 10.0 % 429>=10.0 % 4,492

Red vs Blue Jurisdictions Won By 

in 2004 Presidential Election

Bush > 55% 3,115Bush 50% to 55% 982Bush < 50% 136

Kerry < 50% 150Kerry 50% to 55% 872Kerry > 55% 1,161Tied 25

Cases = Number of Jurisdictions Reporting Subject Matter

Number Number Number Number

of Juris. of Per Per of Juris. of Per Per

Using Units Cases Precinct Cases Polling Pl. Cases Using Units Cases Precinct Cases Polling Pl. Cases

Mixed Voting Equipment Unknown / Not Reported

Average # of Units Average # of Units

62 4,443 33 0.7 60 1.2 41 762 37,279 68 3.9 108 6.0 10861 8,073 44 2.2 60 2.9 60 146 16,808 6 4.1 144 4.8 12617 1,330 8 0.7 17 1.1 11 66 3,634 2 5.3 4 7.3 310 295 5 0.4 10 0.6 7 80 1,715 5 2.3 15 3.3 10

6 1,387 4 3.4 6 3.6 6 61 2,641 6 4.3 12 5.2 10

10 417 8 0.4 10 1.0 9 56 2,940 2 3.6 7 5.2 479 9,087 52 1.5 77 2.4 68 510 43,157 59 4.8 103 7.4 9656 6,159 40 1.9 54 3.0 49 345 15,182 47 3.8 73 5.4 7123 1,418 15 0.7 23 1.2 17 141 14,814 14 5.7 24 7.8 19

3 32 1 0.4 3 1.7 1 21 104 608 2 1.0 4 1.3 3 20

16 1,482 9 0.9 16 1.7 14 111 7,864 6 3.9 16 5.5 1620 2,817 10 1.0 20 1.6 17 135 16,227 7 5.0 18 9.1 17

9

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Chapter 11 

Voting Equipment Malfunctions 

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) sought information in the Election Day Survey 

about voting equipment malfunctions that occurred at the November 2004 general election. The 

survey asked state election directors to identify by county and precinct, if available, where any of the 

following malfunctions occurred and whether the affected voting machines were returned to service: 

14a. Power failure 

An interruption or failure that renders a voting machine incapable of counting votes for more than 

five minutes during Election Day, absentee, or early voting. 

14b. Broken counter 

A malfunction of a lever voting machine that renders the machine incapable of counting additional 

votes on any votable position. 

14c. Computer failure 

A software, hardware, or firmware malfunction, disablement, or interruption that renders a voting 

machine incapable of presenting the ballot, recording votes, or printing or tabulating results. 

14d. Printer failure 

A malfunction or interruption of the printer hardware, software, or mechanical components constituting the mechanism for creating a printed result of all contests voted (includes printers on 

electronic and mechanical lever voting machines). 

14e. Screen failure 

A malfunction or interruption of the screen display or indicator lights on an electronic voting machine (DRE) that renders the machine incapable of indicating which choices a voter has made or 

which races for which the voter is eligible to vote. 

14f. Fatal damage to machine 

Damage to or destruction of a voting machine that renders the machine incapable of recording 

votes or printing the results of voting. 

14g. Modem failure 

A malfunction or interruption of a modem or the computer hardware or software using a modem to 

transmit election results to a central-counting location that renders the modem incapable of transmitting election results. 

14h. Scanner failure 

A malfunction or interruption of a paper ballot reading device that either renders the device incapable of counting votes or renders the tabulated results inaccurate. 

14i. Ballot encoder/activator failure 

A malfunction or interruption of that piece of a DRE that encodes a smart card or other similar device with the voter’s ballot or with critical demographic data that allows the machine to access the 

proper ballot for the voter. 

14j. Audio ballot failure 

A malfunction or interruption of the hardware, software, or peripherals that renders a DRE incapable of playing an audio version of the ballot. 

14k. Other voting machine malfunctions 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voting Equipment Malfunctions, Page 11-2 September 27, 2005 

Applicability and Coverage 

Question 14 on voting equipment malfunctions had by far the least coverage of any of the survey 

questions. Twenty-one states did not respond to the question or said that information on 

malfunctions was not available. Two states said that no voting equipment malfunctions were 

reported, and 10 states reported only one to six malfunctions statewide. Of 20 states that provided 

detailed county-by-county responses, only eight specified whether the affected machines were 

returned to service and only four identified the precincts in which the malfunctions occurred. 

In all, we have information from only 485 of the 6,567 jurisdictions in the EAC database, or only 

seven percent of the country. Table 14a shows the type of voting equipment used by these 

jurisdictions. Of these 485 jurisdictions, 210 used optical scan systems, 191 used electronic voting 

systems, 36 used lever machines, 11 used punch cards, and four used hand-counted paper ballots. 

Thirteen responses were from jurisdictions using more than one type of voting equipment. 

Figure 11.1 

Jurisdictions with Equipment Malfunctions

Electronic, 191, 

41%

Lever, 36, 8%

Optical Scan, 

210, 45%

Paper ballots, 4, 

1%

Punch Card, 11, 

2% Mixed, 13, 3%

Electronic Lever Optical Scan Paper ballots Punch Card Mixed

Survey Results 

Due to the small number of responses to the question on voting equipment malfunctions, we did not 

create the standard data table that forms the basis for other chapters in this report. Instead, we 

created a table that shows the number of malfunctions reported for each voting equipment type. That 

information is in Table 11a, along with the number of jurisdictions for each equipment type. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voting Equipment Malfunctions, Page 11-3 September 27, 2005 

Table 11a. Reported Voting Equipment Malfunctions by Equipment Type 

Total Number

Malfunctions Electronic Lever

Optical

 Scan 

Paper 

ballots 

Punch

Cards Mixed 

(No. of Jurisdictions) (465) (191) (36) (210) (4) (11) (13) 

14a. Power Failures 219 169 1 39 0 2 8 

14b. Broken Counter 8 1 5 1 1 0 0 

14c. Computer Failure 381 208 1 162 1 3 6 

14d. Printer Failure 489 439 5 42 1 0 2 

14e. Screen Failure 346 320 0 4 0 0 22 

14f. Fatal Damage 32 18 3 7 0 0 4 

14g. Modem Failure 69 5 0 64 0 0 0 

14h. Scanner Failure 566 19 0 541 1 0 5 

14i. Ballot Encoder/ 

 Activator Failure 106 98 1 5 0 0 2 

14j. Audio Ballot 

 Failure 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 

14k. Other Failure 271 71 139 22 0 32 7 

The responses from states to the Election Day Survey clearly show that certain types of equipment 

failures tend to be tied to certain types of equipment. Printer problems tend to be tied to electronic 

voting equipment, while scanner failures are most apt to occur with optical scan systems. Screen and 

power failures were mainly problems of electronic systems. Computer failures occurred in both 

electronic and optical scan systems. 

Although the EAC did not ask the reason for each voting equipment malfunction, except for the 

“Other Failure” category, some states provided that information for all categories. Tables 11b and 

11c list the reasons provided by states for malfunctions affecting electronic and optical scan voting 

equipment. 

Table 11b. Reported Reasons for Electronic Voting Equipment Malfunctions 

Type of Malfunction Reason for Malfunction 

14a. Power Failures Battery, Power Cord 

14b. Broken Counter — 

14c. Computer Failure Export problem, Memory card 

14d. Printer Failure Write-in door jam, Paper jam 

14e. Screen Failure Blank screen, Frozen screen, 

Calibration problem 

14f. Fatal Damage Motherboard 

14g. Modem Failure — 

14h. Scanner Failure Feed problem 

14i. Ballot Encoder/Activator 

 Failure Jam, Incorrect ballot setup 

14j. Audio Ballot Failure — 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Voting Equipment Malfunctions, Page 11-4 September 27, 2005 

Type of Malfunction Reason for Malfunction 

14k. Other Failure Insufficient recycle time between 

voters, Curtain mechanism broken 

Table 11c. Reported Reasons for Optical Scan Voting Equipment Malfunctions 

Type of Malfunction Reason for Malfunction 

14a. Power Failures Battery, Machine unplugged 

14b. Broken Counter Unknown 

14c. Computer Failure Memory pack, Memory card 

14d. Printer Failure Ribbon malfunction, Paper jam 

14e. Screen Failure — 

14f. Fatal Damage — 

14g. Modem Failure Telephone line 

14h. Scanner Failure Ballot jam, Reader head, Channel 

coding problem, Tabulator problem 

14i. Ballot Encoder/Activator 

 Failure — 

14j. Audio Ballot Failure — 

14k. Other Failure Broken Counter, Pointer stuck, 

Underprinted ballots 

For lever machines, reasons for equipment malfunctions included stuck levers, incorrect ballot strips, 

broken curtain mechanisms, and printer failures (e.g., printer unplugged). For punch cards, reasons 

for equipment malfunctions included voter units not recognized (computer failure), data pack 

failures, broken counters, and ballot cards not punched through. 

REFERENCES 

Saltman, Roy. 1978. Effective Use of Computing Technology in Vote-Tallying. Final project report prepared 

by Information Technology Division of Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology, National Bureau 

of Standards, for Clearinghouse on Election Administration, Office of Federal Elections, General 

Accounting Office. Washington, DC: GPO. 
Chapter 12 

Poll Workers 

Table 12 presents data from the Election Day Survey about poll workers. The survey asked about the 

number of poll workers statewide and in each local election jurisdiction, the required number of poll 

workers per precinct or polling place by law or regulation, the number of precincts or polling places 

in jurisdictions that did not have the required number of poll workers, and the number of additional 

poll workers that would have been needed to meet the staffing requirement in each precinct that had 

a deficit of poll workers. Poll workers were defined as persons who (a) verified the identity of a 

voter; (b) assisted the voter with signing the register, affidavits or other documents required to cast a 

ballot; (c) assisted the voter by providing the voter with a ballot or setting up the voting machine for 

the voter; or (d) served other functions dictated by state law on November 2, 2004. The definition 

excludes observers stationed at polling places. 

Applicability and Coverage 

All states have polling places and thus need poll workers. However, Oregon conducts all elections 

by mail, and locates one polling place in each county’s administrative offices, and therefore does not 

have the same staffing requirements as other states that must staff polling places on Election Day. 

Historical Context 

The type of person who was considered to be a “poll worker” has changed over time. In the era of 

machine politics in the United States, poll workers were people selected and paid for by the political 

parties to attend to the passing out of party-printed ballots at the polling place (Sorauf 1954; 

Woodruff 1908). 

Little is mentioned about the poll workers who were responsible for collecting the ballots, though 

that, too, may have been the responsibility of the partisan-organized poll workers. A sort of checks 

and balances evolved, where both parties were responsible for stationing poll workers at every 

polling place to make sure the other side did not steal the election (Oestreicher 1988). During the 

turn of the last century, the Progressive movement initiated reforms designed to clean up the United 

States electoral system. The regulation of poll workers may have been one aspect of this reform 

effort; this was at least true in New Jersey (Lapomarda 1970). It was during this time that the 

modern image of the nonpartisan poll worker evolved. However, as a holdover from the machine 

era, many jurisdictions still require that the political parties nominate or provide lists of poll workers. 

Poll workers must be able to work on Election Day. Most jurisdictions require poll workers to work 

the entire day, while some arrange shifts. Duties range from managing the polling place, recording 

who votes on the registration list, registering voters to vote in states with Election Day registration, 

assisting voters in casting their vote, ensuring the voting equipment works properly, tallying the 

ballots (depending on the voting equipment in use), and transmitting information to the central-count 

location at the end of the day. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Poll Workers, Page 12-2 September 27, 2005 

Most poll workers receive training in the elections process from local election administrators. 

Training for poll workers is documented as early as 1964 in Hamilton County, Ohio, where training 

was deemed necessary to learn how to use new voting machines (Willis 1966). In most cases, poll 

workers are compensated for their training time, but these rates vary greatly across the nation. 

While poll workers are often compensated for their time, being a poll worker is not a career. It is 

largely a voluntary activity. Near the close of the 1800s, one study documented that women served 

as poll workers prior to women’s suffrage (Formisano 1999). Beginning in the late 1960s, as the 

female population went back into the workforce in greater numbers, the reservoir of available poll 

workers begin to dry up. Compensation pay was increased to reflect the scarcer commodity. 

Allowable precinct sizes were increased so that the total number of precincts could decrease to 

correspond with the smaller labor pool. Changing the type of voting equipment used in precincts was 

also an alternative used by election administrators to deal with the difficulty in finding poll workers. 

In modern times, the pool of potential volunteers consists of retired persons and college students. In 

addition, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) has a special mandate under the Help 

America Vote Act of 2002 to encourage to college students to volunteer. 

Survey Results 

Table 12 presents data on poll workers from questions 15–17 on the Election Day Survey. In the 

table, the average number of poll workers is calculated for precincts and polling places. The number 

of precincts with fewer than the required number of poll workers is calculated as a percentage of the 

total number of precincts. The column headings in Table 12 are as follows: 

Column Headings for Table 12. Poll Workers 

Col. Heading Description 

1 Code State census code 

2 Name Respondent to Election Day Survey 

3 Jurisdiction Number of local election jurisdictions from survey question 22 

4 Total Number 

of Precincts 

Number of precincts from survey question 19 

5 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 19 

6 Total Number 

of Polling Places 

Number of polling places from survey question 20 

7 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 20 

8 Total Number 

of Poll Workers 

Number of poll workers from survey question 15 

9 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 15 

10 Average # of Poll 

Workers per Precinct 

Number of poll workers (col. 8) divided by the number 

of precincts (col. 4) 

11 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 15b on poll 

workers and question 19 on precincts 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Poll Workers, Page 12-3 September 27, 2005 

Column Headings for Table 12 (cont.) 

Col. Heading Description 

12 Average # of Poll 

Workers Polling Place 

Number of poll workers (col. 8) divided by the number 

of polling places (col. 6) 

13 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 15 and 20 

14 Number of Precincts 

or Polling Places 

< Req. Poll Workers 

Number of precincts or polling places with fewer than the required number of poll workers from question 17a 

15 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 17a 

16 Percent Precincts 

< Req. Poll Workers 

Number of precincts with fewer than the required number of poll 

workers (col. 14) divided by total number of precincts (col. 4) 

17 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 4 and 17a 

18 Cases > 100% 

Number of cases where the reported number of precincts and 

polling places with fewer than the required number of poll workers (col. 16) is greater than the reported number of precincts (col. 

4) 

19 Percent Polling Places 

< Req. Poll Workers 

Number of polling places with fewer than the required number of 

poll workers (col. 14) divided by total number of polling places 

(col. 6) 

20 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 17a and 20 

21 Cases > 100% Number of cases where the reported number of polling places 

with fewer than the required number of poll workers (col. 14) is 

greater than the number of polling places (col. 6) 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Poll Workers, Page 12-4 September 27, 2005 

Analysis of Survey Results 

The following is our analysis of the data in Table 12 for each of the 18 cross-tabulation factors 

described earlier in this report. A description of each factor follows a general summary and a statelevel summary of the survey data. 

1) Regions 10) Changed Voting Equipment since 2000 

2) Urban to Rural 11) Statewide Voter Registration Database 

3) Size of Jurisdiction 12) Election Day Registration 

4) Race and Ethnicity 13) Provisional Ballot Acceptance 

5) Median Income 14) No Excuse Absentee Balloting 

6) High School Education 15) Early Voting 

7) Section 203 Language Minority Requirements 16) Battleground States 

8) Section 5 Preclearance of Voting Procedures 17) Presidential Margin of Victory 

9) Type of Voting Equipment 18) Red versus Blue Jurisdictions 

This analysis is based only on data that was reported to the EAC on the Election Day Survey. Many 

state responses to a survey question or part of a question did not cover all local election jurisdictions. 

In Table 12 as well as other tables in this report, a jurisdiction was excluded from a statistical 

calculation if its response was missing for one or more of the data items (i.e., columns) used in the 

calculation. A column labeled “Cases” next to each statistical calculation shows the number of 

jurisdictions covered by that calculation. 

Summary 

In the analysis, we construct four measures from the responses to the Election Day Survey: the 

average number of poll workers per precinct, the average number of poll workers per polling place, 

the percentage of precincts reporting an insufficient number of poll workers, and the percentage of 

polling places reporting an insufficient number of poll workers. 

Nationally, jurisdictions reported an average of 7.9 poll workers per polling place and 5.7 poll 

workers per precinct. Jurisdictions reported that 5.8 percent of polling places and 4.0 percent of 

precincts did not have the minimum number of required poll workers. In all, 5,252 precincts or 

polling places of the 113,749 reported polling places or 174,252 reported precincts were said to have 

inadequate staffing. 

Generally, precincts and polling places are the same. An important qualification is that more than 

one precinct may be consolidated into one polling place, and consolidation occurs more often in 

urban jurisdictions, among others. (See polling place analysis in chapter 13 for further description 

and analysis.) 

States have different methods of defining polling places, and how they staff those locations affects 

the measurement of workers per polling place. Oregon, Wisconsin, and Puerto Rico report the 

number of poll workers per polling place in unique ways that confound the analysis: 

• Oregon conducts elections by mail, and locates only one polling place in each county’s 

administrative offices. In many instances, therefore, the count of poll workers represented the 

number of election staff workers within a county office. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Poll Workers, Page 12-5 September 27, 2005 

• Wisconsin administers elections within what they call “wards,” which may have created 

confusion with regard to how to report precincts and polling places on the Election Day 

Survey among jurisdictions within the state. For most jurisdictions, the reported number of 

polling places is much too low, e.g., six in the city of Milwaukee. In some cases, adding 

precincts and polling places appears to provide a reasonable number of polling places, e.g., 

Milwaukee reported 314 precincts. However, this decision rule is not consistent; Burlington 

City reported 34 polling places, 16 precincts, and 47 poll workers, which, if we sum precincts 

and polling places as the correct number of polling locations, would mean there was less than 

one poll worker per polling place. 

• Puerto Rico included party observers in their count of poll workers, contrary to the Election 

Day Survey instructions. 

We report state-level responses for these jurisdictions, but exclude all highly questionable 

jurisdictions within these states or territories in the following tabulations. 

In addition to these administrative practices, we note that jurisdictions vary on how they staff polling 

places on Election Day. Some require that poll workers be present the entire day while other states 

schedule poll workers by shifts. These latter jurisdictions tend to report higher numbers of poll 

workers per polling place than other jurisdictions. In jurisdictions that consolidate precincts into a 

single polling place, some managerial positions may be shared among the consolidated precincts. 

These jurisdictions tend to report fewer poll workers per precinct than other jurisdictions. We do not 

exclude jurisdictions that report using poll workers in shifts or consolidate precincts because the 

information necessary to identify and control for these jurisdictions was not systematically collected 

on the Election Day Survey. 

In all, much care should be taken in interpreting the responses to the Election Day Survey regarding 

poll workers. Definitions of what constitutes a poll worker and a polling place or precinct are not 

consistent across jurisdictions and a few outlier jurisdictions, such as those in Louisiana and Illinois, 

figure prominently in the observed relationships. With this in mind, we present our primary findings. 

Jurisdictions with higher levels of income and education reported higher average numbers of poll 

workers per polling place or precinct and reported lower rates of staffing problems per precinct. 

Staffing problems appeared to be particularly acute for jurisdictions in the lowest income and 

education categories. Small, rural jurisdictions and large, urban jurisdictions tended to report higher 

rates of inadequate poll workers within polling places or precincts. 

Predominantly non-Hispanic Black jurisdictions reported a greater percentage of polling places or 

precincts with inadequate number of poll workers. Predominantly non-Hispanic Native American 

jurisdictions reported the second highest percentage of staffing problems. This appears to be related 

to similar reports on inadequate numbers of poll workers for Section 5 covered jurisdictions, though 

at least some of the observed relationships are attributable to the high percentage of understaffed 

polling places in Louisiana. 

Jurisdictions that anticipated Election Day needs reported higher average numbers of staffing of 

polling places or precincts and fewer instances of not being able to adequately staff polling places or 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Poll Workers, Page 12-6 September 27, 2005 

precincts. For example, jurisdictions in battleground states reported fewer polling places and 

precincts with inadequate staffing, as did jurisdictions that allow Election Day registration. 

Jurisdictions with “no excuse” absentee balloting and those with early voting reported lower rates of 

problems staffing polling places or precincts, perhaps because these alternative modes of voting 

reduced the Election Day burden for these jurisdictions. 

States 

Excluding Oregon, Washington reported the lowest number of poll workers per precinct, 1.5. 

However, Washington also consolidates many precincts and the high rate of absentee voting in the 

state reduces demands on polling places within the state. Washington also reported a middle-range 

average number—6.3—of poll workers per polling place. Washington reported that 7.3 percent of its 

polling places were inadequately staffed. 

The Virgin Islands and Oklahoma reported the lowest average number of poll workers per polling 

place, at 2.6 and 3.0, respectively. The Virgin Islands reported that 41.2 percent of its polling places 

were inadequately staffed, while Oklahoma reported no staffing problems. 

With 64.7 and 44.3 percent, respectively, of their polling places reported to have inadequate staffing, 

Louisiana and Hawaii reported the highest rates of staffing problems. Delaware and Illinois also 

reported a sizable percentage of polling places with inadequate staffing, 28.3 and 18.4 percent, 

respectively. In terms of absolute numbers, Illinois and Louisiana reported that over one thousand 

polling places or precincts had inadequate staffing: 1,693 and 1,550, respectively. Similar patterns 

among states exist when precincts are the unit of analysis. 

Even though Maryland reported 13.4 poll workers per polling place, the state also reported that 7.9 

percent of polling places were inadequately staffed. We note that Maryland operates shifts of poll 

workers, so we do not know if the reported problems are for the entire day or specific shifts. 

Regions 

The U.S. Territories reported the lowest number of poll workers per polling place, 2.6. Within the 

United States, the West reported the lowest average number of poll workers per polling place, 6.6, 

with the Midwest, 6.7, and South, 7.8, reporting slightly higher numbers. The Northeast reported the 

highest average number of poll workers per polling place, 14.0. In terms of average number of poll 

workers per precinct, the U.S. Territories reported the highest average, 14.5; followed by the 

Northeast, 9.1; the South, 6.6; the Midwest, 4.7; and the West, 4.1. 

The South reported the highest rate of inadequate staffing of polling places, at 8.1 percent, followed 

by the Midwest at 6.8 percent and the Northeast at 5.3 percent. The West reported the lowest rate of 

inadequately staffed polling places, at 2.3 percent. When examined from the perspective of 

precincts, the percentages are smaller and the regions retain their relative order. 

Urban to Rural 

The average number of poll workers per polling place was reported as 9.3 for urban and 7.4 for 

suburban jurisdictions, while small towns and rural areas reported lower averages, 6.7 and 5.3, 

respectively. The pattern is similar when precincts are the unit of analysis. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Poll Workers, Page 12-7 September 27, 2005 

Urban jurisdictions also report the highest percentage of inadequate numbers of poll workers, 7.3 

percent, followed by rural jurisdictions at 6.3 percent, small towns at 5.5 percent, and suburban 

jurisdictions at 3.6 percent. When then unit of analysis is precincts, the relative order is essentially 

the same. 

Size of Jurisdiction 

The reported average number of poll workers per polling place generally increases with jurisdiction 

size, from 4.8 for the smallest to 9.1 for the second largest, and dropping slightly to 7.7 for the 

largest jurisdictions. When the unit of analysis is the precinct, the same general pattern is evident. 

The percentage of jurisdictions reporting polling places with inadequate numbers of poll workers 

does not follow a clear pattern. Those jurisdictions with the smallest and largest populations report 

the largest percentages of polling places with inadequate numbers of poll workers, 9.2 and 7.4, 

respectively. Jurisdictions with voting age population (VAP) between 10,000 and 50,000 reported 

the next highest percentage, 6.8. Those in the 1,000-to-3,500 range reported the lowest percentage, 

3.0 percent. The pattern is similar when precincts are the unit of analysis. 

Race and Ethnicity 

Predominantly non-Hispanic Native American jurisdictions reported the lowest average number of 

poll workers per polling place, 5.7, and precinct, 5.5. Predominantly non-Hispanic Black 

jurisdictions reported the highest average of poll workers per polling place, 9.6, and per precinct, 

7.6. 

The high average number of poll workers per precinct for predominantly non-Hispanic Black 

jurisdictions did not translate into better coverage of the polling places. Predominantly non-Hispanic 

Black jurisdictions reported the highest percentage of inadequate numbers of staff, at 16.9 percent 

per polling place, and 12.8 percent per precinct. Predominantly non-Hispanic Native American 

jurisdictions reported the second highest rate of inadequate staffing as a percentage of polling places, 

at 6.3 percent, and 6.2 percent per precinct. White jurisdictions reported percentage of inadequate 

staffing at 6.0 percent per polling place and 4.1 percent per precinct. Predominantly Hispanic 

jurisdictions reported the lowest rate of inadequate staffing, at 1.5 percent for polling places and 1.0 

percent for precincts. 

Median Income 

The reported average number of poll workers per polling place tends to increase with median income 

of the jurisdiction, with 4.9 reported for the lowest category and 9.1 reported for the highest. There is 

a less apparent trend when the unit of analysis is the precinct, with 4.4 reported for the lowest 

category and 6.1 reported for the highest. In both cases, jurisdictions in the $35,000—$40,000 

median income category report high averages, 8.2 and 5.7 percent respectively, for polling places 

and precincts, confounding the direct linear trend. 

The reported percentage of polling places with an inadequate number of poll workers generally 

follows a trend of decreasing percentages as median income within the jurisdictions rises. For the 

lowest income category, the very high rates of 23.5 percent of polling places and 16.1 percent of 

precincts reported inadequate numbers of poll workers. The numbers drop steeply as income rises, 

leveling off near 4 percent among polling places and 2.5 percent for precincts in jurisdictions with 

median income greater than $40,000. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Poll Workers, Page 12-8 September 27, 2005 

High School Education 

The categories of reported average number of poll workers per polling place and precinct rise with 

education, from the lowest category reporting 4.8 and 4.1, respectively, steadily climbing to 7.8 and 

5.6, respectively, for the second highest category, before falling slightly at the highest level of 

education, 7.6 or 4.7, respectively. 

Jurisdictions reporting inadequate numbers of poll workers are highest for the lowest education 

category, 20.8 percent among polling places and 14.2 percent among precincts. They generally 

follow a decreasing trend found across all jurisdictions as education rises, to 2.5 percent for polling 

places and 1.5 percent for precincts among jurisdictions in the highest education category. 

Section 203 Language Minority Requirements 

Jurisdictions covered by Section 203 reported a similar average number of poll workers per polling 

place as other jurisdictions, 7.9 and 7.2 respectively; for precincts, 5.4 and 5.3. Jurisdictions covered 

by Section 203 reported a similar percentage of polling places and precincts with an inadequate 

number of poll workers, 5.7 and 5.9 percent, respectively. 

Section 5 Preclearance of Voting Procedures 

Jurisdictions covered by Section 5 reported the same average number of poll workers per polling 

place, 7.4, as jurisdictions not covered by Section 5, and a slightly higher average number of poll 

workers per precinct than noncovered jurisdictions, 6.1 versus 5.2, respectively. Jurisdictions 

covered by Section 5 reported more than twice as high a percentage of polling places and precincts 

with an inadequate number of poll workers than jurisdictions not covered by Section 5: polling 

places scored 10.4 versus 4.5 percent, and precincts, 8.3 versus 3.1 percent. The relationship is 

primarily due to Louisiana’s high percentage of inadequate poll workers per polling place or 

precinct. 

Type of Voting Equipment 

The reported average number of poll workers per polling place does not vary greatly by type of 

voting equipment, ranging from an average of 6.3 among optical scan jurisdictions to 9.8 among 

electronic jurisdictions. The range and order is similar when the unit of analysis is precincts: an 

average of 4.6 poll workers per precinct is reported for lever jurisdictions and a 7.2 average is 

reported for electronic jurisdictions. 

Among polling places, lever jurisdictions reported the highest percentage of polling places without 

an adequate number of poll workers, 36.0 percent. We note that the outlier state of Louisiana 

primarily uses lever machines. Punch card jurisdictions reported 10.6 percent of polling places with 

an inadequate number of poll workers, followed by 6.8 percent for electronic jurisdictions. Paper 

jurisdictions reported the lowest percentage, 1.8. The order is generally the same when precincts are 

the unit of analysis. 

Changed Voting Equipment since 2000 

Jurisdictions that changed voting equipment reported a higher average number of poll workers per 

polling place, 8.1 versus 7.1 percent, and precinct, 6.1 versus 5.1 percent, than jurisdictions that did 

not change voting systems. Jurisdictions that changed voting equipment reported a slightly lower 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Poll Workers, Page 12-9 September 27, 2005 

percentage of polling places, 4.0 versus 6.5, or precincts, 2.9 versus 4.5, without an adequate number 

of poll workers. 

Statewide Voter Registration Database 

Jurisdictions with a statewide voter registration database reported a lower average number of poll 

workers per polling place than other jurisdictions, 6.8 versus 7.6, and a slightly higher average 

number of poll workers per precinct than other jurisdictions, 5.6 and 5.3, respectively. Jurisdictions 

with a statewide voter registration database reported a much higher percentage of polling places or 

precincts without an adequate number of poll workers than other jurisdictions, 15.1 and 4.2 percent, 

respectively. We note that Louisiana has a statewide voter registration database. 

Election Day Registration 

Jurisdictions with Election Day registration reported a slightly lower average number of poll workers 

per polling place than other jurisdictions, 7.9 versus 7.4, and a higher average number of poll 

workers per precinct than other jurisdictions, 6.0 versus 5.3. Jurisdictions with Election Day 

registration reported a lower percentage than other jurisdictions of polling places, 2.1 versus 5.9 

percent, and precincts, 1.6 versus 4.1 percent, without an adequate number of poll workers. 

However, caution should be taken in making any inferences because as we note, only 67 

jurisdictions with Election Day registration reported the numbers required to calculate adequate 

number of poll workers and number of polling places or precincts. 

Provisional Ballot Acceptance 

Jurisdictions with precinct-only acceptance reported a higher average number of poll workers per 

polling place than other jurisdictions, 7.8 versus 7.0, and a higher average number of poll workers 

per precinct to within-jurisdiction acceptance, 5.7 versus 4.9 (those without provisional ballots 

reported the lowest numbers per polling place, 6.3, and the highest average numbers per precinct, 

7.5). Jurisdictions that accept provisional ballots jurisdictionwide reported a higher percentage of 

polling places and precincts without an adequate number of poll workers, 9.9 and 6.6 percent, 

respectively, than jurisdictions that accept ballots cast only within polling places and precincts, 2.4 

and 1.7 percent, respectively. 

No Excuse Absentee Balloting 

Jurisdictions with “no excuse” absentee balloting reported a slightly lower average number of poll 

workers per polling place and precinct than other jurisdictions, 7.0 versus 7.8 in polling places, and 

4.8 versus 5.9 in precincts. Jurisdictions with “no excuse” absentee balloting reported a slightly 

lower percentage than other jurisdictions of inadequate numbers of staff in polling places, 5.2 versus 

6.4 percent, and precincts, 3.5 versus 4.6 percent. 

Early Voting 

Jurisdictions with early voting reported a slightly lower average of poll workers per polling place 

than other jurisdictions, 7.1 versus 7.8, and a slightly higher per precinct, 5.4 versus 5.3. Compared 

with other jurisdictions, jurisdictions with early voting reported a markedly lower percentage of 

polling places—2.0 versus 10.4 percent—and precincts—1.5 versus 6.7 percent—without an 

adequate number of poll workers. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Poll Workers, Page 12-10 September 27, 2005 

Battleground States 

Jurisdictions within battleground states reported a slightly higher average number of poll workers 

per polling place, 7.6 versus 7.3, than other jurisdictions and a slightly lower average of poll workers 

per precinct than other jurisdictions, 4.9 versus 5.7. Compared with other jurisdictions, jurisdictions 

within battleground states reported a lower percentage of polling places, 2.6 versus 7.4 percent, and 

precincts, 1.6 versus 5.5 percent, without an adequate number of poll workers. 

Presidential Margin of Victory 

According to presidential margin of victory, those jurisdictions in the second closest margin-ofvictory category reported the highest average number of poll workers per polling place and precinct, 

13.3 and 8.7, respectively. All other jurisdictions reported averages around 7 percent per polling 

place and 5 percent per precinct. 

Jurisdictions in the second closest margin-of-victory category also reported the highest percentage of 

polling places without an adequate number of poll workers, 7.4 percent, followed by the jurisdictions 

with the closest margin of victory, at 7.0 percent. When measured in terms of precinct, the order is 

reversed, with the closest margin-of-victory jurisdictions reporting 4.9 percent of polling places with 

inadequate numbers of poll workers, and the second closest margin-of-victory category reporting 4.7 

percent per precinct. All other jurisdictions reported a similar per-precinct average, except for 

jurisdictions in the third closest margin of victory category, which reported the lowest rates of 

inadequate numbers of poll workers, 1.9 and 1.4 percent for polling places and precincts, 

respectively. 

Red versus Blue Jurisdictions 

Jurisdictions won by Kerry by a majority, and those won by Bush by a plurality, reported higher 

average numbers of poll workers per polling place (10.8 where Kerry won 50 to 55 percent of the 

vote, and 8.5 where Kerry won 55 percent of the vote and above). For poll workers per precinct, 

those jurisdictions won by Bush by a plurality reported the highest number of poll workers per 

precinct: 7.5. Jurisdictions won by Bush by a plurality reported the highest percentage of polling 

places and precincts without an adequate number of poll workers, at 18.5 and 14.6 percent, 

respectively. All other jurisdictions reported a similar percentage, slightly below 5.1 percent for 

polling places and 4.2 for precincts. 

REFERENCES

Formisano, Ronald P. 1999. “The ‘Party Period’ Revisited.” The Journal of American History 86(1): 93–120. 

Lapomarda, Vincent A. 1970. “Maurice Joseph Tobin: The Decline of Bossism in Boston.” The New England 

Quarterly 43(3): 355–81. 

Oestreicher, Richard. 1988. “Urban Working-Class Political Behavior and Theories of American Electoral 

Politics, 1870–1940.” The Journal of American History 74(4): 1257–86. 

Sorauf, Frank J. 1954. “Extra-Legal Political Parties in Wisconsin.” The American Political Science Review

48(3): 692–704. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Poll Workers, Page 12-11 September 27, 2005 

Willis, George L. 1966. “Electronic Vote Counting in a Metropolitan Area.” Public Administration Review

26(1): 25–30. 

Woodruff, Clinton Rogers. 1908. “A Review of Municipal Events, 1906–7.” The American Journal of Sociology 13(4): 455–88. 
Poll Workers

EAC Election Day Survey Cases = Number of Jurisdictions Reporting Subject MatterPoll Workers 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:07:50 Total Total Number Percent Percent

Election Total Number of Number of Average # of Average # of of Precincts or Precincts Polling Places

Administration Number of Polling Poll Poll Workers Poll Workers Polling Places < Req Poll Cases < Req Poll Cases

Code Name Jurisdictions Precincts Cases Places Cases Workers Cases Per Precinct Cases Polling Place Cases < Req Poll Workers Cases Workers Cases >100% Workers Cases >100%

01 Alabama 67 2,210 67 2,177 67 14,917 67 6.7 67 6.9 67

02 Alaska 1 436 1 439 1 2,244 1 5.1 1 5.1 1 0 1 1 1

04 Arizona 15 2,110 15 2,002 15 10,908 15 5.2 15 5.4 15 143 15 6.8 15 7.1 15

05 Arkansas 75 2,693 75 1,923 75 10,544 75 3.9 75 5.5 75 54 50 2.9 50 4.3 5006 California 58 21,857 55 14,467 52 99,289 55 4.5 54 6.6 52 107 55 0.5 54 0.7 52

08 Colorado 64 3,370 64 2,318 63 14,681 62 4.4 62 6.4 62 0 63 63 63

09 Connecticut 169 769 169 5,383 169 7.0 169

10 Delaware 3 437 3 276 3 3,442 3 7.9 3 12.5 3 78 3 17.8 3 28.3 3

11 District of Columbia 1 142 1 142 1 1,867 1 13.1 1 13.1 112 Florida 67 6,892 67 5,433 67 61,657 67 8.9 67 11.3 67 141 67 2.0 67 2.6 67

13 Georgia 159 3,163 159 2,907 158 29,422 159 9.3 159 10.1 158

15 Hawaii 5 353 4 336 4 3,237 4 9.2 4 9.6 4 149 4 42.2 4 44.3 416 Idaho 44 949 44 763 44 5,562 44 5.9 44 7.3 44 21 44 2.2 44 2.8 4417 Illinois 110 11,738 110 9,200 110 58,879 110 5.0 110 6.4 110 1,693 110 14.4 110 18.4 11018 Indiana 92 5,571 92 3,454 84 8,572 39 5.4 39 6.4 38

19 Iowa 99 1,966 97 1,916 98 9,609 98 4.8 97 5.0 98 3 98 0.2 97 0.2 9820 Kansas 105 3,882 105 2,019 103 10,421 103 2.7 103 5.1 102 11 103 0.3 103 0.5 102

21 Kentucky 120 3,482 120 2,830 120 14,565 120 4.2 120 5.1 120 29 9 4.0 9 6.3 922 Louisiana 64 4,124 64 2,394 64 16,905 64 4.1 64 7.1 64 1,550 64 37.6 64 64.7 64 22

23 Maine 517 601 517 7,106 516 11.8 516

24 Maryland 24 1,779 24 1,551 24 20,773 24 11.7 24 13.4 24 123 24 6.9 24 7.9 24

25 Massachusetts 351 2,177 351 1,458 351

26 Michigan 83 5,235 83 3,890 83 31,809 83 6.1 83 8.2 83 0 83 83 83

27 Minnesota 87 4,108 8728 Mississippi 82 1,707 67 1,670 6729 Missouri 116 5,462 116 3,595 116 21,940 116 4.0 116 6.1 116 98 116 1.8 116 1 2.7 116 1

30 Montana 56 856 56 649 56 5,244 56 6.1 56 8.1 56 2 56 0.2 56 0.3 5631 Nebraska 93 1,668 93 1,420 93 8,197 93 4.9 93 5.8 93 0 93 93 93

32 Nevada 17 1,585 17 526 17 5,537 17 3.5 17 10.5 17 0 17 17 1733 New Hampshire 242

34 New Jersey 21 6,283 21 3,486 21 57,498 21 9.2 21 16.5 21 188 21 3.0 21 5.4 21

35 New Mexico 33 684 21 612 21 3,759 21 5.5 21 6.1 21 24 18 4.1 18 1 4.6 18 1

36 New York 58 15,153 56 6,740 5637 North Carolina 100 2,749 100 2,762 100 22,276 100 8.1 100 8.1 100 45 100 1.6 100 1.6 10038 North Dakota 53 607 53 542 53 3,227 53 5.3 53 6.0 53 2 53 0.3 53 0.4 5339 Ohio 88 11,366 88 6,602 88 49,030 87 4.4 87 7.6 87 192 86 1.7 86 2.9 8640 Oklahoma 77 2,152 77 2,130 77 6,346 77 2.9 77 3.0 77 0 77 77 77

41 Oregon 36 1,448 36 36 36 1,357 36 0.9 36 37.7 3642 Pennsylvania 67 24,636 50 145 49

44 Rhode Island 39 577 39 489 39 3,462 39 6.0 39 7.1 3945 South Carolina 46 2,168 46 2,986 5 9.2 5

46 South Dakota 66 827 66 630 66 0 66 66 66

47 Tennessee 95 2,287 95 2,211 95 17,907 95 7.8 95 8.1 95 35 94 1.5 94 1.6 94

48 Texas 254 8,554 254 7,032 250 42,078 253 4.9 253 5.9 250 213 254 2.5 254 3.0 250

49 Utah 29 1,880 29 1,061 29 6,114 29 3.3 29 5.8 29 6 29 0.3 29 0.6 29

50 Vermont 246 277 246 277 246 0 15 15 15

51 Virginia 134 2,294 134 2,367 134 19,180 133 8.6 133 8.3 133 0 134 134 13453 Washington 39 6,664 39 1,498 34 9,244 33 1.5 33 6.3 33 109 34 1.7 34 7.3 34

54 West Virginia 55 1,977 55 10,639 50 5.8 50 19 50 1.0 50

55 Wisconsin 1,910 3,563 1,253 2,686 1,596 18,669 1,264 5.2 1,252 8.2 1,25856 Wyoming 23 483 23 345 23 2,339 23 4.8 23 6.8 23 2 23 0.4 23 0.6 2360 American Samoa 166 Guam 172 Puerto Rico 110 1,676 110 1,554 110 62,070 110 37.0 110 39.9 110 0 110 110 11078 Virgin Islands 1 30 1 170 1 435 1 14.5 1 2.6 1 70 1 233.3 1 1 41.2 1

Total 6,568 174,252 5,396 113,754 5,180 845,962 4,641 5.7 4,408 7.9 4,005 5,252 2,289 4.0 2,238 3 5.8 2,182 24Maximum 1,910 21,857 1,253 14,467 1,596 99,289 1,264 37.0 1,252 39.9 1,258 1,693 254 233.3 254 1 64.7 250 22Average 119 3,485 107 2,420 110 18,390 100 6.9 100 9.0 95 138 60 14.5 60 1 10.0 60 8Minimum 1 30 1 36 1 435 1 0.9 1 2.6 1 0 1 0.2 1 1 0.2 1 1

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Poll Workers

EAC Election Day Survey Cases = Number of Jurisdictions Reporting Subject MatterPoll Workers 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:07:50 Total Total Number Percent Percent

Election Total Number of Number of Average # of Average # of of Precincts or Precincts Polling Places

Administration Number of Polling Poll Poll Workers Poll Workers Polling Places < Req Poll Cases < Req Poll Cases

Code Name Jurisdictions Precincts Cases Places Cases Workers Cases Per Precinct Cases Polling Place Cases < Req Poll Workers Cases Workers Cases >100% Workers Cases >100%

Election Administration Poll workers removed from OR and PR because of questionable numbers and from ME, MI, TX, UT, VT, and WA where 0 Poll Workers were reported. 

Voting Equipment Used in 2004 

General Election

None / Unknown 908 13,552 252 9,699 558 54,335 133 4.7 133 7.2 111 258 215 1.9 215 2 2.8 215 1

Punch card 260 19,745 248 12,985 231 93,220 234 4.7 225 6.9 212 1,313 226 7.0 217 10.6 204

Lever 394 20,301 199 10,789 365 38,222 319 4.6 138 7.0 304 1,163 130 22.5 118 36.0 115 19

Paper 1,734 5,704 1,573 3,416 1,183 26,116 1,308 5.1 1,299 6.7 912 41 251 1.0 250 1.8 240Optical scan 2,541 69,370 2,405 46,265 2,185 284,965 1,855 4.8 1,829 6.3 1,690 1,178 1,120 2.1 1,099 1 2.9 1,071 1

Electronic 608 35,273 599 24,219 557 231,296 544 7.2 538 9.8 530 1,136 251 4.6 245 6.8 243 3

Multiple Systems 123 10,307 120 6,381 101 54,381 102 5.8 100 8.5 100 163 96 1.8 94 2.7 94

Changed Voting Equipment Since 

2000 General Election

Yes 1,753 46,241 1,296 31,649 1,269 250,173 1,207 6.1 1,163 8.1 1,046 1,041 334 2.9 333 4.0 330 2

No 4,815 128,011 4,100 82,105 3,911 532,362 3,288 5.1 3,099 7.1 2,813 4,211 1,955 4.5 1,905 3 6.5 1,852 22

State Wide Voter Registration 

System in Place

Yes 1,335 33,575 1,153 20,815 1,133 143,512 772 5.6 603 6.9 716 1,992 390 10.6 390 1 15.1 340 23

No 5,233 140,677 4,243 92,939 4,047 639,023 3,723 5.3 3,659 7.6 3,143 3,260 1,899 2.9 1,848 2 4.2 1,842 1

Election Day Registration

Yes 2,823 9,704 1,924 3,794 1,663 33,676 1,847 6.0 1,835 7.9 1,325 23 67 1.6 67 2.1 67

No 3,745 164,548 3,472 109,960 3,517 748,859 2,648 5.4 2,427 7.4 2,534 5,229 2,222 4.0 2,171 3 5.8 2,115 24

Provisional Ballot Acceptance

In Overall Jurisdiction 1,162 65,986 1,080 44,212 1,070 336,578 840 4.9 789 7.0 786 4,077 630 6.6 580 1 9.9 578 23In Precinct Only 4,350 100,295 3,504 66,513 3,902 429,627 3,041 5.7 2,859 7.8 2,975 1,082 1,451 1.7 1,450 1 2.4 1,396 1None 1,056 7,971 812 3,029 208 16,330 614 7.5 614 6.3 98 93 208 2.9 208 1 3.1 208

No Excuse Absentee Balloting

Yes 3,781 70,535 3,106 47,225 2,922 332,571 2,795 4.8 2,781 7.0 2,269 2,315 1,095 3.5 1,093 1 5.2 1,091 23

No 2,787 103,717 2,290 66,529 2,258 449,964 1,700 5.9 1,481 7.8 1,590 2,937 1,194 4.5 1,145 2 6.4 1,091 1

Early Voting Allowed

Yes 1,701 69,882 1,683 51,609 1,618 376,926 1,428 5.4 1,426 7.1 1,370 971 1,257 1.5 1,255 1 2.0 1,199 1

No 4,867 104,370 3,713 62,145 3,562 405,609 3,067 5.3 2,836 7.8 2,489 4,281 1,032 6.7 983 2 10.3 983 23

Covered By Section 203, 

Language Minority Requirements

Yes 468 54,051 443 36,098 443 269,780 413 5.4 405 7.9 407 1,920 421 3.8 420 1 5.7 414 2No 6,100 120,201 4,953 77,656 4,737 512,755 4,082 5.4 3,857 7.2 3,452 3,332 1,868 4.1 1,818 2 5.8 1,768 22

Covered By Section 5 of Voting 

Rights Act

Yes 880 32,976 855 25,680 803 180,258 743 6.1 743 7.4 733 1,974 515 8.3 515 10.4 511 22

No 5,688 141,276 4,541 88,074 4,377 602,277 3,752 5.2 3,519 7.5 3,126 3,278 1,774 3.0 1,723 3 4.5 1,671 2

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Poll Workers

EAC Election Day Survey Cases = Number of Jurisdictions Reporting Subject MatterPoll Workers 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:07:50 Total Total Number Percent Percent

Election Total Number of Number of Average # of Average # of of Precincts or Precincts Polling Places

Administration Number of Polling Poll Poll Workers Poll Workers Polling Places < Req Poll Cases < Req Poll Cases

Code Name Jurisdictions Precincts Cases Places Cases Workers Cases Per Precinct Cases Polling Place Cases < Req Poll Workers Cases Workers Cases >100% Workers Cases >100%

Demographics

Region

Northeast 1,710 25,068 1,230 13,219 882 98,085 795 9.1 576 14.0 229 333 85 3.0 36 5.3 36South 1,423 48,810 1,408 37,805 1,302 295,504 1,293 6.6 1,293 7.8 1,234 2,287 926 6.4 926 8.1 872 22Midwest 2,902 55,993 2,243 35,954 2,490 220,353 2,046 4.7 2,033 6.7 2,038 1,999 808 4.7 807 1 6.7 807 1West 420 42,675 404 25,052 395 168,158 360 4.1 359 6.6 357 563 359 1.4 358 1 2.3 356 1Territories 113 1,706 111 1,724 111 435 1 14.5 1 2.6 1 70 111 4.1 111 1 4.1 111

Urban to Rural

Urban 567 60,394 445 36,556 523 306,044 368 6.4 321 9.4 358 2,112 107 4.8 105 7.3 104Suburban 871 37,906 639 25,451 715 179,523 557 5.2 472 7.4 501 768 179 2.4 169 3.6 164 1Small Towns 1,710 41,994 1,421 28,085 1,283 184,288 1,198 5.0 1,123 6.7 977 1,184 617 3.8 590 5.5 565 5Rural 3,307 32,252 2,780 21,938 2,548 112,245 2,371 4.2 2,345 5.3 2,022 1,118 1,275 4.8 1,263 2 6.3 1,238 18Not Available - Territories 113 1,706 111 1,724 111 435 1 14.5 1 2.6 1 70 111 4.1 111 1 4.1 111

Size of Jurisdiction (VAP)

< 1,000 1,761 2,118 1,229 1,350 1,169 6,579 1,082 3.3 1,068 4.8 812 11 40 8.4 39 9.2 39

>=1,000 to <3,500 1,165 2,558 893 1,976 850 12,133 735 5.7 700 6.3 565 34 210 2.1 210 3.0 210>=3,500 to <10,000 1,043 8,343 902 5,891 873 31,797 737 4.7 685 5.6 665 187 466 3.4 463 4.4 450 5>=10,000 to <50,000 1,704 35,443 1,554 25,830 1,508 140,541 1,323 4.7 1,226 5.7 1,251 1,243 947 5.4 925 2 6.8 892 17>=50,000 to <250,000 586 41,344 545 28,105 516 196,277 467 5.7 439 7.6 435 1,262 386 4.0 368 5.7 360 2>=250,000 to <1,000,000 140 44,037 126 27,595 118 246,146 117 6.1 110 9.1 108 1,028 108 2.8 101 4.3 99>=1,000,000 25 38,691 24 21,272 24 148,578 21 4.9 21 7.8 21 1,417 21 4.7 21 7.4 21Not Available 144 1,718 123 1,735 122 484 13 11.5 13 2.6 2 70 111 4.1 111 1 4.1 111

Race and Ethnicity

Predominently NH White 6,264 161,698 5,125 104,108 4,925 718,654 4,368 5.3 4,137 7.4 3,749 4,905 2,094 4.1 2,043 2 6.0 1,989 20

Predominently NH Black 85 2,820 80 2,103 69 15,915 52 7.6 51 9.6 51 182 26 12.6 26 16.9 26 4

Predominently NH Native American 24 313 22 302 19 1,392 16 5.5 16 5.7 13 17 14 6.2 14 6.3 14

Predominently Hispanic 50 7,664 45 5,465 44 45,946 45 6.0 44 8.3 43 78 43 1.0 43 1.5 41Not Available 145 1,757 124 1,776 123 628 14 7.8 14 2.8 3 70 112 4.0 112 1 4.0 112

Median Income

< $25,000 298 3,893 279 2,875 215 14,717 241 4.4 240 4.9 178 377 123 16.1 123 1 23.5 109 7>=$25,000 to <$30,000 884 12,731 819 9,302 697 52,958 740 4.7 737 5.6 607 794 459 8.8 458 11.8 438 10>=$30,000 to <$35,000 1,372 23,424 1,197 16,639 1,076 106,519 1,054 5.0 1,022 6.3 895 660 678 3.1 653 4.2 639 4>=$35,000 to <$40,000 1,215 40,250 1,056 24,419 937 148,397 873 5.1 860 6.8 740 1,723 444 6.7 434 9.3 432 2>=$40,000 to <$45,000 881 36,644 675 23,887 680 176,158 553 5.7 531 8.2 481 547 223 1.9 214 1 2.9 210 1>=$45,000 to <$50,000 587 19,189 434 12,206 458 91,423 343 4.9 325 7.6 311 419 111 2.6 109 4.0 108>=$50,000 1,180 36,399 810 22,689 993 191,863 675 6.1 531 9.2 643 662 140 2.4 136 3.8 135Not Available 151 1,722 126 1,737 124 500 16 10.9 16 2.6 4 70 111 4.1 111 1 4.1 111

High School Education

< 60% 126 2,148 121 1,577 113 7,649 103 4.1 103 4.8 96 183 60 14.2 60 20.8 55 3>=60% to <70% 661 18,185 616 13,467 563 90,909 554 5.5 551 7.0 513 711 326 5.1 326 7.1 315 10>=70% to <80% 1,646 51,393 1,411 32,782 1,319 218,590 1,263 5.2 1,224 7.0 1,091 2,235 746 6.1 726 1 8.8 696 8>=80% to <90% 3,111 87,644 2,502 56,581 2,410 411,176 2,107 5.6 1,992 7.9 1,781 1,900 951 2.8 920 1 4.0 910 3>=90% 873 13,121 619 7,569 650 53,567 451 4.7 375 7.6 373 153 94 1.5 94 2.5 94Not Available 151 1,761 127 1,778 125 644 17 7.6 17 2.8 5 70 112 4.0 112 1 4.0 112

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Poll Workers

EAC Election Day Survey Cases = Number of Jurisdictions Reporting Subject MatterPoll Workers 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:07:50 Total Total Number Percent Percent

Election Total Number of Number of Average # of Average # of of Precincts or Precincts Polling Places

Administration Number of Polling Poll Poll Workers Poll Workers Polling Places < Req Poll Cases < Req Poll Cases

Code Name Jurisdictions Precincts Cases Places Cases Workers Cases Per Precinct Cases Polling Place Cases < Req Poll Workers Cases Workers Cases >100% Workers Cases >100%

Political

Battleground States in 2004 

Presidential Election

Yes 3,093 59,123 2,113 33,037 2,309 282,662 2,038 4.9 1,975 7.6 1,932 928 746 1.6 696 2 2.6 647 2

No 3,475 115,129 3,283 80,717 2,871 499,873 2,457 5.7 2,287 7.3 1,927 4,324 1,543 5.5 1,542 1 7.4 1,535 22

Margin of Victory in 2004 

Presidential Election

< 2.5% 515 13,708 383 8,230 350 59,491 333 5.8 298 7.7 254 429 97 4.7 92 6.7 90 3>=2.5% to < 5.0% 476 10,126 359 5,981 335 72,536 307 8.6 279 13.1 231 390 99 5.3 93 8.4 89>=5.0% to < 7.5% 510 13,805 416 9,195 388 60,013 354 5.3 332 7.0 287 145 107 1.4 107 1.9 101 1>=7.5% to < 10.0 % 429 9,114 333 5,538 313 40,024 275 4.8 258 7.5 225 202 102 2.6 99 4.4 95 1>=10.0 % 4,492 125,787 3,788 83,067 3,664 550,008 3,219 5.1 3,089 7.1 2,855 4,016 1,773 4.3 1,736 2 6.1 1,696 19

Red vs Blue Jurisdictions Won By 

in 2004 Presidential Election

Bush > 55% 3,115 68,994 2,690 49,173 2,617 315,045 2,486 5.0 2,424 6.5 2,277 1,880 1,553 3.5 1,519 2 4.8 1,484 15

Bush 50% to 55% 982 25,314 760 16,788 700 112,551 669 5.1 630 6.9 546 658 260 3.4 252 4.7 241 4Bush < 50% 136 1,701 106 1,181 79 8,449 92 7.4 81 8.6 54 140 16 14.1 15 17.9 15Kerry < 50% 150 4,276 107 3,030 101 16,330 100 5.5 83 6.4 70 134 20 5.1 19 6.0 20 2Kerry 50% to 55% 872 22,439 683 12,452 656 117,045 539 6.7 491 10.7 426 457 154 2.9 150 4.9 142 1Kerry > 55% 1,161 49,810 927 29,387 897 212,602 596 5.5 541 8.2 479 1,913 175 5.3 172 8.3 169 2

Tied 25 12 12 8 8 78 12 6.5 11 4.7 6

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Chapter 13 

Polling Places 

Table 13 presents data from the Election Day Survey on precincts and polling places. The survey 

asked what constitutes a local election jurisdiction—e.g., county, parish, township, or city—and then 

asked for the number of local jurisdictions that provided information for the survey. The survey also 

asked for the number of precincts and polling places in each election jurisdiction. 

The term “precincts” in most states refers to the geographic area that covers a territory where voters 

would cast a unique ballot. Some states call these geographic areas voting districts, or wards, or 

beats. Precincts are usually built using registered voter records so that the precinct size stays under a 

limited size generally dictated by state law. The polling place is typically the specific building or 

location that voters go to each Election Day to cast their ballot. A polling place may serve several 

area precincts, but a single precinct usually only has a single polling place within it. In most areas of 

the country, there tends to be a one-to-one relationship between precincts and polling places, but this 

may not always be true. 

Applicability and Coverage 

Oregon conducts elections entirely by mail. However, provisions are made for voters to cast ballots 

at county election administrative offices, which is the number the state provided as its number of 

polling places. All other states had Election Day polling places for the 2004 election. 

The Election Day Survey unveiled some differences in how states treated precincts versus polling 

places. While most states reported data for both precincts and polling places, a handful of states 

reported data for only one item. For example, the state of Connecticut provided information only for 

polling places, not for precincts. On the other hand, the states of Georgia, Maine, Minnesota, South 

Carolina, and West Virginia only provided the number of precincts in each jurisdiction, but provided 

no information on the number of polling places. 

Historical Context 

Throughout United States history, voters have gathered at polling places on Election Day to 

determine the collective future course of the country. The method of voting has changed over time, 

from voters publicly stating their choice on county courthouse steps, to casting colorful party-printed 

ballots for all to see in ballot boxes, to the various methods of casting a ballot in secret. More 

recently, Oregon has done away with the polling place altogether, opting to run its federal elections 

entirely by mail, though the state still opens county administrative offices for people to vote inperson. Jurisdictions in other states also have begun reviewing the option of conducting their 

elections entirely by mail, but in most instances this has been for smaller, local elections. Following 

the 2004 elections, more jurisdictions in Washington State have moved to all mail elections. 

An issue regarding election administration of polling places is the efficient distribution of resources 

to ensure a fair and accurate election that provides satisfactory service to the voters. The issue is not 

a new one. For example, the expansion of women’s suffrage prompted several states to provide 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Polling Places, Page 13-2 September 27, 2005 

resources to increase the number of poll workers per polling place in anticipation of a greater volume 

of voters (West 1921). 

In 1968, the Office of the Mayor of New York conducted a pilot study to test the efficacy of drawing 

voting precincts by computer to reduce lines at the polls, equalize voting delays, and reduce the cost 

of conducting elections (Savas 1971). The study ultimately recommended that blocks within the city 

be split in order to equalize registration among voting precincts and thereby more efficiently 

distribute resources, which netted a savings to the city of $2 million (Savas, Lipton, and Burkholz 

1972). This representative study was publicly published in an academic journal, and we are certain 

that states and localities have conducted similar internal studies of their election administration. 

Over the past two decades, Election Data Services has collected the number of precincts for each 

election. The nationwide numbers going back to 1980 are in Table 13a. The number of precincts in 

the United States has gradually grown with the growth in population and registration. There has 

traditionally been a larger increase in the year immediately after redistricting takes place, as election 

administrators adjust precinct boundaries that need to be split apart due to new district boundaries. 

The year 2004 marked a significant drop in the overall number of precincts, possibly due to the 

higher costs of new voting equipment. The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) survey total 

of 174,252 precincts for 2004 is lower than it should be due to lack of data from the states of 

Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania, but it does include Puerto Rico, which is not in the 

Election Data Services dataset. 

Table 13a. Number of Precincts Nationwide, 1980–2004 

Election Year 

Number of 

Precincts 

2004 185,994 

2002 189,900 

2000 184,850 

1998 185,444 

1996 180,834 

 1994 181,497 

1992 177,691 

1990 177,101 

1988 178,034 

1986 176,326 

1980 167,037 

A secondary source of the number of precincts in selected states is available through the national 

census of the population. Beginning with the 1980 census, the Bureau of the Census implemented a 

voluntary program (PL 94-171) whereby states could obtain population counts for geographic areas 

that roughly approximated precincts. This allows states to align their voting precinct boundaries with 

census geography to facilitate the merging of census and election data for redistricting purposes. 

There were rough approximations because the bureau guidelines dictated that the states had to use 

whole census blocks to build what they called the “voting tabulation districts (or VTDs)”. Some 

states merged precincts together to form “mega” VTDs as a way of getting around the whole block 

requirement. These VTDs roughly approximated the precincts used in the general election two years 

before the census (i.e., the 1978 elections, the 1988 elections, and the 1998 elections). VTDs are not 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Polling Places, Page 13-3 September 27, 2005 

updated following the election or redistricting, nor are they maintained by the Census Bureau. In 

advance of the 2000 census, all states except California, Florida, Kentucky, Montana, North Dakota, 

Ohio, Oregon, and Wisconsin participated in this program, and among the territories, only Puerto 

Rico participated. Within the United States, a total of 127,605 VTDs were reported to the Bureau of 

the Census in preparation for the 2000 census. Puerto Rico reported 1,714 VTDs. 

The number of voting precincts is not static. Population and registration changes often necessitate 

the splitting or merging of existing precincts. After a redistricting, precincts that are split by a new 

district boundary often need to be reconfigured to ensure the uniformity of the ballot throughout the 

precinct. However, some states do not change their precinct boundaries following redistricting, and 

instead have what they call “split precincts,” which are divided by some upper level of political or 

legal geography (i.e., state legislative boundaries, city boundaries, etc.). Poll workers in split 

precincts must correctly identify which part of the precinct a voter resides within, so that they are 

provided their correct ballot configuration. Voters receiving incorrect ballots are among the 

problems reported in the 2004 election. 

Survey Results 

Table 13 presents data on precincts and polling places from questions 19 and 20 on the Election Day 

Survey. In the table, the average numbers of precincts per polling place and polling places per 

precinct are calculated as well as the average total registration and voting age population (VAP) per 

precinct and polling place. The column headings in Table 13 are as follows: 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Polling Places, Page 13-4 September 27, 2005 

Column Headings for Table 13. Polling Places 

 Col. Heading Description 

1 Code State census code 

2 Name Respondent to Election Day Survey 

3 Jurisdiction Number of local election jurisdictions from survey question 22 

4 Total Number 

of Precincts 

Number of precincts from survey question 19 

5 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 19 

6 Total Number 

of Polling Places 

Number of polling places from survey question 20 

7 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 20 

8 Average # of Precincts 

in a Polling Place 

Number of precincts (col. 4) divided by the number 

of polling places (col. 6) 

9 Average # of Polling 

Places in a Precinct 

Number of polling places (col. 6) divided by the number 

of precincts (col. 4) 

10 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 19 and 20 

11 Total 

Registration 

Number of active and inactive registered voters, number of persons who voted on Election Day in six states, and VAP data for 

North Dakota and jurisdictions in Wisconsin that do not have 

voter registration, from col. 4 of table 2 

12 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey question 1, provided Election Day registration data, or for which VAP data was 

substituted for voter registration data 

13 Average Registration 

per Precinct 

Number of registered voters (col. 11) divided by the number 

of precincts (col. 4) 

14 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey questions 1 and 

19, provided Election Day registration data, or for which VAP 

data was substituted for voter registration data 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Polling Places, Page 13-5 September 27, 2005 

Column Headings for Table 13 (cont.) 

Col. Heading Description 

15 Voting Age Population Estimated November 2004 VAP 

16 Cases Number of jurisdictions for which 2004 VAP was constructed 

17 Average Voting Age 

Population per Precinct 

Estimated VAP (col. 15) divided by the number of precincts (col. 

4) 

18 Cases Number of jurisdictions for which November 2004 VAP estimates were compiled and that responded to question 19 

19 Average Registration 

per Polling Place 

Number of registered voters (col. 11) divided by the number 

of polling places (col. 6) 

20 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to survey questions 1 and 

20, provided Election Day registration data, or for which VAP 

data was substituted for voter registration data 

21 Average Voting Age 

Population per Polling 

Place 

Estimated VAP (col. 15) divided by the number 

of polling places (col. 6) 

22 Cases Number of jurisdictions for which November 2004 VAP estimates were compiled and that responded to question 6 

Analysis of Survey Results 

The following is our analysis of the data in Table 13 for each of the 18 cross-tabulation factors 

described earlier in this report. A description of each factor follows a general summary and a statelevel summary of the survey data. 

1) Regions 10) Changed Voting Equipment since 2000 

2) Urban to Rural 11) Statewide Voter Registration Database 

3) Size of Jurisdiction 12) Election Day Registration 

4) Race and Ethnicity 13) Provisional Ballot Acceptance 

5) Median Income 14) No Excuse Absentee Balloting 

6) High School Education 15) Early Voting 

7) Section 203 Language Minority Requirements 16) Battleground States 

8) Section 5 Preclearance of Voting Procedures 17) Presidential Margin of Victory 

9) Type of Voting Equipment 18) Red versus Blue Jurisdictions 

This analysis is based only on data that was reported to the EAC on the Election Day Survey. Many 

state responses to a survey question or part of a question did not cover all local election jurisdictions. 

In Table 13 as well as other tables in this report, a jurisdiction was excluded from a statistical 

calculation if its response was missing for one or more of the data items (i.e., columns) used in the 

calculation. A column labeled “Cases” next to each statistical calculation shows the number of 

jurisdictions covered by that calculation. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Polling Places, Page 13-6 September 27, 2005 

Summary 

The number of voting precincts and the number of polling places are often not the same within a 

jurisdiction. There are several reasons for this. In a number of jurisdictions, the county courthouse is 

also designated as a polling place. In addition, some jurisdictions added in their early voting sites as 

additional polling places in their reported data. Finally, some jurisdictions said they just had polling 

places and not precincts and some appeared to be confused by the terminology that was foreign to 

their state. In all, 383 jurisdictions reported a number of polling places larger than their number of 

precincts. Sometimes, two or more voting precincts will be consolidated, or share the same polling 

place. Jurisdictions reporting more precincts than polling places totaled 1,576, from which we might 

infer that at least this many consolidated polling places existed in the 2004 elections. 

There are two ways to express the ratio of polling places and precincts, with either number used in 

the numerator or the denominator. Here, we discuss the ratio of the average number of precincts in a 

polling place and provide the other ratio for completeness. There is evidence that the ratio of 

precincts to polling places is related to the urban and rural character of the state, the socioeconomic 

characteristics of the jurisdiction, and the factors related to the Election Day experience, such as 

Election Day registration. 

In urban areas precinct consolidation is easier, and perhaps necessary, due to limited availability of 

suitable locations for polling places in dense population areas. We find higher reported ratios of 

precincts to polling places in urban areas, and by a consequence states and regions with larger urban 

populations. Other tabulations associated with urban/rural character, such as vote for presidential 

winner, report similar relationships. 

Income and education of a jurisdiction are also related, with higher reported ratios of precincts to 

polling places at higher levels of education and income. This is not simply a consequence of the 

urban/rural character of the jurisdiction. 

For some states, pressures are relieved in Election Day polling places through other methods of 

voting. Oregon, which conducts its election entirely by mail, needs one polling place per county. 

States with Election Day registration also consolidate fewer precincts than those without, perhaps to 

aid in the processing of voters at the polls on Election Day. 

The best determinant of the distribution of polling places among voters is to divide the number of 

registered voters that are serviced by the number of voting precincts and polling places that service 

them. The polling places per registration will be the primary measure used in this analysis, although 

additional measures for precincts and dividing both precincts and polling places by VAP are 

provided. 

Excluding Oregon, the strongest reported relationship between average registration per polling place 

is found in the population size of the jurisdiction. Jurisdictions of smaller size report a smaller 

number of registered voters per polling place. This size of the jurisdiction is related to the observed 

relationships explored in other tabulations, such as the urban/rural character of the jurisdiction, the 

region the jurisdiction is located in, the type of equipment used, and the presidential winner of the 

jurisdiction. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Polling Places, Page 13-7 September 27, 2005 

There is also a relationship between income and education, with lower reported average registration 

per jurisdiction for lower levels of income and education. Here, it is useful to compare the 

jurisdiction’s average registration per polling place with the average citizen voting age population 

(CVAP) per polling place, since persons of lower income and education tend to participate at lower 

rates. This is partially responsible for the relationship between income and education since, for 

example, among education categories the reported ratio of the average registration to the average 

CVAP per polling place is 73 percent for the lowest education category and 90 percent for the 

highest category. But this is not a complete explanation of income and education disparities since 

average CVAP per polling place rises with education categories, like registration (but not with the 

same rate of increase). 

Finally, there is a relationship between service demands in polling places and average registration 

per polling place, as those jurisdictions with Election Day registration have lower registration per 

polling place than other jurisdictions and those with early voting report higher average registration 

per polling place. 

States 

Excluding Oregon, Washington reported the highest ratio of voting precincts to polling places, 

4.18:1, but this may correspond to the state having the highest rate of absentee ballots used. [See 

chapter 5.] Nevada reported a similar high ratio, 3.01:1, but it also reported a large proportion of 

early voting. In these states, fewer demands are placed on polling places on Election Day. New York 

also reported a high ratio, 2.25:1, due primarily to consolidation of precincts in and around New 

York City. Most other states reported an average ratio of between one and two voting precincts per 

polling place, with nearly all clustered around one. 

Excluding Oregon, states generally range from slightly under 1,000 to slightly over 2,000 reported 

registered voters per polling place. Massachusetts reported the highest average, 2,811, and Wyoming 

reported the smallest average, 794. 

Regions 

The ratio of precincts to polling palaces by region is strongly affected by the states with high ratios 

mentioned above. The Northeast and West reported the highest ratios, 1.97:1 and 1.65:1, 

respectively, and the Midwest and South reported the smallest ratios, 1.43:1 and 1.18:1, respectively. 

The average registration per polling place among regions is highest for the Northeast at 1,747 and 

lowest for the Midwest at 1,125. 

Urban to Rural 

The distribution of the ratio of polling palaces to precincts is related to the size of the jurisdiction. 

There is a near linear decrease in the reported ratio of precincts to polling places from urban to rural 

jurisdictions, from 1.62 for urban to 1.30 for rural jurisdictions. The average registration per polling 

place is also strongly related to the size of the jurisdiction. Rural areas reported almost half of the 

average registration per polling place than urban and suburban jurisdictions, 809 versus 1,587. 

Size of Jurisdiction 

Similar to the urban/rural tabulation, there is a near linear decrease in the reported ratio of precincts 

to polling places from larger to smaller jurisdictions, ranging from 1.82:1 for the largest population 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Polling Places, Page 13-8 September 27, 2005 

jurisdictions to 1.25:1 for the second smallest. The smallest jurisdictions deviate from the trend, with 

a reported 1.62 precincts per polling place. The reported average registration per polling place is 

even more strongly related to the population size of the jurisdiction than to the urban/rural character. 

Jurisdictions with less than 1,000 VAP reported an average registration per polling place of 461, 

while those with 50,000 and greater reported an average registration per polling place slightly higher 

than 1,500. 

Race and Ethnicity 

Among racial and ethnicity categories, the reported ratio of precincts to polling places is highest for 

predominantly Non-Hispanic White jurisdictions, 1.47:1. Predominantly Hispanic jurisdictions 

reported the next highest ratio, 1.35:1, followed by predominantly Non-Hispanic Black, 1.20:1, and 

predominantly Non-Hispanic Native American, 1.03:1. This relationship remains among racial and 

ethnicity categories when the states of Nevada, Oregon, and Washington are removed from the 

tabulation. 

Among race and ethnicity categories, all but predominantly Non-Hispanic Native American 

jurisdictions reported an average registration per polling place slightly above 1,300. Predominantly 

Non-Hispanic Native American jurisdictions reported an average of 749, which may reflect the rural 

character of reservations. 

Median Income 

Among income categories, the reported ratio of precincts to polling places for jurisdictions rises as 

income increases, from 1.15:1 for the lowest income category of under $25,000 until reaching 

$35,000, where the ratio remains relatively constant around 1.5:1. Among income categories, the 

reported average registration per polling place increases from 692 for the lowest category to around 

1,500 at $35,000 and above. 

High School Education 

Among education categories, the reported ratio of precincts to polling places for jurisdictions rises 

nearly linearly as education rises, from 1.11:1 to 1.66:1. Among education categories, the reported 

average registration per polling place increases from 915 for the lowest education category to 1,771 

for the highest category. 

Section 203 Language Minority Requirements 

In comparing Section 203 covered jurisdictions with other jurisdictions, the ratio of precincts to 

polling places is similar, 1.48:1 and 1.43:1, respectively. Registration per polling place is nearly 

equal, too, at 1,348 and 1,408, respectively. 

Section 5 Pre-clearance of Voting Procedures 

Among Section 5 covered jurisdictions, the ratio of precincts to polling places is lower than among 

noncovered jurisdictions, 1.19:1 and 1.52:1, respectively. Among Section 5 covered jurisdictions, 

the average registration per polling place is higher than other jurisdictions, 1,483 and 1,361, 

respectively. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Polling Places, Page 13-9 September 27, 2005 

Type of Voting Equipment 

Among categories of voting equipment, the reported ratio of precincts to polling places is fairly 

equal at 1.4:1 across jurisdictions, except for those that use lever machines, which reported a ratio of 

2.01:1. This relationship is primarily driven by the use of lever machines in New York City, which 

has a high number of consolidated precincts. 

Among categories of voting equipment, the reported average registration per polling place is lowest 

for jurisdictions that use paper, at 671. This is primarily a consequence of the higher usage of paper 

ballots in smaller population jurisdictions. The next lowest is punch card jurisdictions at 1,094. The 

highest average is reported by jurisdictions that use multiple systems, at 1,936, followed by lever, at 

1,549, and electronic machine jurisdictions, at 1,470. 

Changed Voting Equipment since 2000 

Jurisdictions that changed voting equipment reported a slightly lower ratio of precincts to polling 

places than other jurisdictions, 1.37:1 and 1.48:1, respectively. Among those jurisdictions that 

changed voting equipment, the reported average registration per polling place is higher than those 

that did not, 1,475 and 1,355, respectively. 

Statewide Voter Registration Database 

Among jurisdictions with a statewide voter registration database, the reported ratio of precincts to 

polling places is lower than those jurisdictions without, 1.26:1 and 1.49:1, respectively. Among 

those jurisdictions with a statewide voter registration database, the reported average registration per 

polling place is slightly higher than those without, 1,485 and 1,367, respectively. 

Election Day Registration 

Among jurisdictions with Election Day registration, the reported ratio of precincts to polling places 

is very similar to those jurisdictions without, 1.49:1 and 1.45:1, respectively. Among those 

jurisdictions with Election Day registration, the reported average registration per polling place is also 

very similar to those that do not register on Election Day, at 1,355 and 1,389, respectively. 

Provisional Ballot Acceptance 

Among jurisdictions according to the method of accepting provisional ballots, the reported ratio of 

precincts to polling places is similar across jurisdictions for which provisional ballots are accepted 

jurisdiction-wide and in-precinct, 1.46:1 and 1.45:1, respectively. Those that do not have provisional 

ballots, which tend to be those with Election Day registration, reported a lower ratio, 1.08:1. 

Among jurisdictions according to the method of accepting provisional ballots, the reported average 

registration per polling place is notably lower in jurisdictions for which provisional ballots are 

accepted jurisdiction-wide vs. in-precinct jurisdictions, 1,274 and 1,468, respectively. This would 

seem to indicate that communities that accept provisional ballots jurisdiction-wide purposely keep 

their precinct sizes low to accommodate the potential of other voters showing up to vote. Those that 

do not have provisional ballots, which tend to be those with Election Day registration, reported a 

lower average registration per polling place: 1,286. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Polling Places, Page 13-10 September 27, 2005 

No Excuse Absentee Balloting 

Among jurisdictions with no excuse absentee balloting, the reported ratio of precincts to polling 

places is similar to those jurisdictions without, 1.47:1 and 1.43:1, respectively. Among jurisdictions 

with no excuse absentee balloting, the reported average registration per polling place is lower than in 

those jurisdictions without, at 1,318 and 1,438. 

Early Voting 

Among jurisdictions with early voting, the reported ratio of precincts to polling places is lower than 

those jurisdictions without, 1.30:1 and 1.57:1, respectively. Among jurisdictions with early voting, 

the reported average registration per polling place is very similar to other jurisdictions, 1,384 and 

1,392, respectively. 

Battleground States 

Among jurisdictions in battleground states, the reported ratio of precincts to polling places is higher 

than other nonbattleground jurisdictions, 1.62:1 and 1.38:1, respectively. Among jurisdictions in 

battleground states, the reported average registration per polling place is higher than those 

jurisdictions not in battleground states, 1,525 and 1,332, respectively. 

Presidential Margin of Victory 

Among jurisdictions tabulated by presidential margin of victory, the reported ratio of precincts to 

polling places follows no clear pattern, varying between 1.43:1 and 1.58:1. Among jurisdictions 

tabulated by presidential margin of victory, there is a clear linear pattern: the reported average 

registration per polling place is highest for the closest margin, 1,650, then declines to 1,546 for 

second closest margin, and is between 1,390 and 1,344 for the remaining jurisdictions. 

Red versus Blue Jurisdictions 

Among jurisdictions tabulated by presidential winner, the reported ratio of precincts to polling places 

is lower in jurisdictions won by Bush than by Kerry, ranging between 1.28:1 and 1.40:1 for 

jurisdictions won by Bush and 1.47:1 and 1.53:1 for Kerry. Part of the reason for this relationship is 

the concentration of Kerry supporters in urban areas where there is greater precinct consolidation. 

Among jurisdictions tabulated by presidential winner, the reported average registration per polling 

place is lower in jurisdictions won by Bush than by Kerry, ranging between 1,269 and 1,466 for 

jurisdictions won by Bush and 1,450 and 1,637 for Kerry. This is related to the concentration of 

Bush supporters in small population jurisdictions that tend to have lower registration per polling 

place. 

REFERENCES 

Savas, E. S. 1971. “A Computer-Based System for Forming Efficient Election Districts.” Operations Research 19(1): 135–55. 

Savas, E. S., Harry Lipton, Leonora Burkholz. 1972. “Implementation of an OR Approach for Forming Efficient Election Districts.” Operations Research 20(1): 46–8. 

West, Victor J. 1921. “Legislation Respecting Elections.” The American Political Science Review 16(3): 460–

65. 
Polling Places

EAC Election Day Survey CasePolling Places 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:08:14 Total Average # Average # Average Average 

Election Total Number of of Precincts of Polling Registration Voting Age 

Administration Number of Polling In A Polling Places In Total Per Voting Age Population per 

Code Name Jurisdictions Precincts Cases Places Cases Place A Precinct Cases Registration Cases Precinct Cases Population Cases Precinct Case

01 Alabama 67 2,210 67 2,177 67 1.02 0.99 67 2,597,629 67 1,175.4 67 3,425,821 67 1,550.1 602 Alaska 1 436 1 439 1 0.99 1.01 1 472,160 1 1,082.9 1 470,027 1 1,078.0 04 Arizona 15 2,110 15 2,002 15 1.05 0.95 15 2,642,120 15 1,252.2 15 4,194,390 15 1,987.9 105 Arkansas 75 2,693 75 1,923 75 1.40 0.71 75 1,699,934 75 631.2 75 2,069,560 75 768.5 706 California 58 21,857 55 14,467 52 1.45 0.69 52 16,646,555 58 754.0 55 26,647,955 58 1,204.9 508 Colorado 64 3,370 64 2,318 63 1.45 0.69 63 3,101,956 64 920.5 64 3,456,263 64 1,025.6 609 Connecticut 169 769 169 1,831,567 169 2,684,372 169 10 Delaware 3 437 3 276 3 1.58 0.63 3 553,917 3 1,267.5 3 629,009 3 1,439.4 11 District of Columbia 1 142 1 142 1 1.00 1.00 1 383,919 1 2,703.7 1 451,039 1 3,176.3 12 Florida 67 6,892 67 5,433 67 1.27 0.79 67 10,300,942 67 1,494.6 67 13,441,568 67 1,950.3 613 Georgia 159 3,163 159 2,907 158 1.08 0.92 158 4,248,802 159 1,343.3 159 6,534,852 159 2,066.0 1515 Hawaii 5 353 4 336 4 1.05 0.95 4 647,238 4 1,833.5 4 980,154 5 2,776.3 16 Idaho 44 949 44 763 44 1.24 0.80 44 915,637 44 964.8 44 1,025,457 44 1,080.6 417 Illinois 110 11,738 110 9,200 110 1.28 0.78 110 7,195,882 104 633.6 104 9,518,482 110 810.9 1118 Indiana 92 5,571 92 3,454 84 1.28 0.78 84 4,296,602 92 771.2 92 4,635,665 92 832.1 919 Iowa 99 1,966 97 1,916 98 1.04 0.96 97 2,226,721 98 1,124.9 97 2,274,174 99 1,143.9 920 Kansas 105 3,882 105 2,019 103 1.91 0.52 103 1,695,457 105 436.7 105 2,049,512 105 528.0 1021 Kentucky 120 3,482 120 2,830 120 1.23 0.81 120 2,794,286 120 802.5 120 3,157,197 120 906.7 1222 Louisiana 64 4,124 64 2,394 64 1.72 0.58 64 2,932,142 64 711.0 64 3,358,452 64 814.4 623 Maine 517 601 517 1,026,219 517 1,707.5 517 1,037,050 506 1,757.7 5024 Maryland 24 1,779 24 1,551 24 1.15 0.87 24 3,105,370 24 1,745.6 24 4,200,854 24 2,361.4 225 Massachusetts 351 2,177 351 1,458 351 1.49 0.67 351 4,098,634 351 1,882.7 351 4,956,454 351 2,276.7 3526 Michigan 83 5,235 83 3,890 83 1.35 0.74 83 7,164,047 83 1,368.5 83 7,616,344 83 1,454.9 827 Minnesota 87 4,108 87 2,977,496 87 724.8 87 3,872,349 87 942.6 828 Mississippi 82 1,707 67 1,670 67 1.02 0.98 67 1,469,608 66 877.9 66 2,139,817 82 1,070.7 629 Missouri 116 5,462 116 3,595 116 1.52 0.66 116 4,194,416 116 767.9 116 4,344,660 116 795.4 1130 Montana 56 856 56 649 56 1.32 0.76 56 638,474 56 745.9 56 715,495 56 835.9 531 Nebraska 93 1,668 93 1,420 93 1.17 0.85 93 1,160,193 93 695.6 93 1,316,475 93 789.3 932 Nevada 17 1,585 17 526 17 3.01 0.33 17 1,073,869 17 677.5 17 1,737,781 17 1,096.4 133 New Hampshire 242 950,292 241 1,000,557 23934 New Jersey 21 6,283 21 3,486 21 1.80 0.55 21 5,011,693 21 797.7 21 6,573,010 21 1,046.2 235 New Mexico 33 684 21 612 21 1.12 0.89 21 505,356 20 745.4 20 1,402,999 33 939.6 236 New York 58 15,153 56 6,740 56 2.25 0.44 56 11,837,068 58 725.5 56 14,790,540 58 916.6 537 North Carolina 100 2,749 100 2,762 100 1.00 1.00 100 5,526,981 100 2,010.5 100 6,414,796 100 2,333.5 1038 North Dakota 53 607 53 542 53 1.12 0.89 53 490,179 53 807.5 53 490,179 53 807.5 539 Ohio 88 11,366 88 6,602 88 1.72 0.58 88 7,965,110 88 700.8 88 8,680,792 88 763.8 840 Oklahoma 77 2,152 77 2,130 77 1.01 0.99 77 2,143,978 77 996.3 77 2,664,520 77 1,238.2 741 Oregon 36 1,448 36 36 36 40.22 0.02 36 2,141,249 36 1,478.8 36 2,766,936 36 1,910.9 342 Pennsylvania 67 8,366,455 67 9,615,172 6744 Rhode Island 39 577 39 489 39 1.18 0.85 39 707,234 39 1,225.7 39 842,911 39 1,460.9 345 South Carolina 46 2,168 46 2,318,235 46 1,069.3 46 3,174,262 46 1,464.1 446 South Dakota 66 827 66 630 66 1.31 0.76 66 502,261 66 607.3 66 576,196 66 696.7 647 Tennessee 95 2,287 95 2,211 95 1.03 0.97 95 3,748,235 95 1,638.9 95 4,516,679 95 1,974.9 948 Texas 254 8,554 254 7,032 250 1.19 0.84 250 13,098,329 254 1,531.3 254 16,263,861 254 1,901.3 2549 Utah 29 1,880 29 1,061 29 1.77 0.56 29 1,278,912 29 680.3 29 1,645,366 29 875.2 250 Vermont 246 277 246 277 246 1.00 1.00 246 444,508 246 1,604.7 246 487,977 246 1,761.6 2451 Virginia 134 2,294 134 2,367 134 0.97 1.03 134 4,515,675 134 1,968.5 134 5,695,220 134 2,482.7 1353 Washington 39 6,664 39 1,498 34 4.18 0.24 34 3,508,208 39 526.4 39 4,732,158 39 710.1 354 West Virginia 55 1,977 55 1,168,694 55 591.1 55 1,430,254 55 723.4 555 Wisconsin 1,910 3,563 1,253 2,686 1,596 1.58 0.63 1,247 4,179,774 1,894 929.5 1,252 4,188,206 1,894 928.4 1,2556 Wyoming 23 483 23 345 23 1.40 0.71 23 273,950 23 567.2 23 386,170 23 799.5 260 American Samoa 166 Guam 172 Puerto Rico 110 1,676 110 1,554 110 1.08 0.93 110 2,440,131 110 1,455.9 110 78 Virgin Islands 1 30 1 170 1 0.18 5.67 1 50,731 1 1,691.0 1 

Total 6,568 174,252 5,396 113,754 5,180 1.45 0.69 4,661 177,265,030 6,512 944.7 5,387 221,279,989 6,425 1,186.9 5,27Maximum 1,910 21,857 1,253 14,467 1,596 40.22 5.67 1,247 16,646,555 1,894 2,703.7 1,252 26,647,955 1,894 3,176.3 1,25Average 119 3,485 107 2,420 110 2.22 0.87 101 3,344,623 122 1,108.9 107 4,338,823 125 1,338.7 10Minimum 1 30 1 36 1 0.18 0.02 1 50,731 1 436.7 1 386,170 1 528.0 

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Polling Places

EAC Election Day Survey CasePolling Places 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:08:14 Total Average # Average # Average Average 

Election Total Number of of Precincts of Polling Registration Voting Age 

Administration Number of Polling In A Polling Places In Total Per Voting Age Population per 

Code Name Jurisdictions Precincts Cases Places Cases Place A Precinct Cases Registration Cases Precinct Cases Population Cases Precinct Case

Election Administration

Voting Equipment Used in 2004 

General Election

None / Unknown 908 13,552 252 9,699 558 1.46 0.69 229 14,484,493 877 1,006.2 251 14,612,312 775 1,096.4 13Punch card 260 19,745 248 12,985 231 1.45 0.69 231 15,767,547 259 749.4 247 19,552,003 260 930.5 24Lever 394 20,301 199 10,789 365 2.01 0.50 196 21,662,619 390 737.2 199 26,918,948 394 919.1 19Paper 1,734 5,704 1,573 3,416 1,183 1.44 0.69 1,169 3,085,167 1,733 481.7 1,572 3,308,339 1,724 517.1 1,56Optical scan 2,541 69,370 2,405 46,265 2,185 1.36 0.74 2,179 69,198,628 2,523 977.3 2,399 88,323,954 2,541 1,237.9 2,40Electronic 608 35,273 599 24,219 557 1.37 0.73 556 40,068,685 608 1,071.1 599 52,761,316 608 1,425.4 59Multiple Systems 123 10,307 120 6,381 101 1.47 0.68 101 12,997,891 122 1,251.6 120 15,803,117 123 1,521.0 12

Changed Voting Equipment Since 

2000 General Election

Yes 1,753 46,241 1,296 31,649 1,269 1.37 0.73 1,093 51,149,755 1,746 1,060.8 1,293 69,121,688 1,747 1,440.4 1,29No 4,815 128,011 4,100 82,105 3,911 1.48 0.68 3,568 126,115,275 4,766 902.8 4,094 152,158,301 4,678 1,094.1 3,97

State Wide Voter Registration 

System in Place

Yes 1,335 33,575 1,153 20,815 1,133 1.26 0.79 964 37,384,852 1,321 1,059.1 1,152 48,152,870 1,335 1,331.6 1,15No 5,233 140,677 4,243 92,939 4,047 1.49 0.67 3,697 139,880,178 5,191 917.3 4,235 173,127,119 5,090 1,152.0 4,12

Election Day Registration

Yes 2,823 9,704 1,924 3,794 1,663 1.49 0.67 1,314 10,323,368 2,806 876.4 1,923 11,509,789 2,793 993.4 1,91No 3,745 164,548 3,472 109,960 3,517 1.45 0.69 3,347 166,941,662 3,706 948.8 3,464 209,770,200 3,632 1,198.5 3,36

Provisional Ballot Acceptance

In Overall Jurisdiction 1,162 65,986 1,080 44,212 1,070 1.46 0.68 1,070 65,077,741 1,143 862.0 1,073 88,988,159 1,162 1,186.6 1,08In Precinct Only 4,350 100,295 3,504 66,513 3,902 1.45 0.69 3,383 103,336,604 4,316 995.2 3,502 124,866,238 4,334 1,197.1 3,50None 1,056 7,971 812 3,029 208 1.08 0.93 208 8,850,685 1,053 991.1 812 7,425,592 929 1,027.3 69

No Excuse Absentee Balloting

Yes 3,781 70,535 3,106 47,225 2,922 1.47 0.68 2,572 64,333,790 3,750 897.3 3,104 85,693,320 3,754 1,187.0 3,09No 2,787 103,717 2,290 66,529 2,258 1.43 0.70 2,089 112,931,240 2,762 977.1 2,283 135,586,669 2,671 1,186.9 2,17

Early Voting Allowed

Yes 1,701 69,882 1,683 51,609 1,618 1.30 0.77 1,617 73,710,075 1,686 1,052.3 1,682 99,654,623 1,701 1,410.3 1,68No 4,867 104,370 3,713 62,145 3,562 1.57 0.64 3,044 103,554,955 4,826 872.4 3,705 121,625,366 4,724 1,034.9 3,59

Covered By Section 203, 

Language Minority Requirements

Yes 468 54,051 443 36,098 443 1.48 0.68 436 50,756,496 453 911.4 442 72,670,065 468 1,294.3 44No 6,100 120,201 4,953 77,656 4,737 1.43 0.70 4,225 126,508,534 6,059 959.8 4,945 148,609,924 5,957 1,137.9 4,83

Covered By Section 5 of Voting 

Rights Act

Yes 880 32,976 855 25,680 803 1.19 0.84 803 40,868,855 864 1,235.5 854 56,030,484 879 1,680.1 85No 5,688 141,276 4,541 88,074 4,377 1.52 0.66 3,858 136,396,175 5,648 876.7 4,533 165,249,505 5,546 1,070.4 4,41

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Polling Places

EAC Election Day Survey CasePolling Places 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:08:14 Total Average # Average # Average Average 

Election Total Number of of Precincts of Polling Registration Voting Age 

Administration Number of Polling In A Polling Places In Total Per Voting Age Population per 

Code Name Jurisdictions Precincts Cases Places Cases Place A Precinct Cases Registration Cases Precinct Cases Population Cases Precinct Case

Demographics

Region

Northeast 1,710 25,068 1,230 13,219 882 1.97 0.51 713 34,273,670 1,709 888.9 1,230 41,988,043 1,696 1,108.9 1,21South 1,423 48,810 1,408 37,805 1,302 1.18 0.85 1,302 62,606,676 1,407 1,283.5 1,407 79,567,761 1,423 1,623.8 1,40Midwest 2,902 55,993 2,243 35,954 2,490 1.43 0.70 2,140 44,048,138 2,879 776.2 2,236 49,563,034 2,886 869.0 2,24West 420 42,675 404 25,052 395 1.65 0.60 395 33,845,684 406 789.3 403 50,161,151 420 1,150.3 40Territories 113 1,706 111 1,724 111 0.99 1.01 111 2,490,862 111 1,460.1 111 

Urban to Rural

Urban 567 60,394 445 36,556 523 1.62 0.62 434 63,441,314 566 975.4 444 82,075,044 567 1,270.1 44Suburban 871 37,906 639 25,451 715 1.45 0.69 585 47,552,530 868 1,120.7 638 59,268,529 870 1,389.3 63Small Towns 1,710 41,994 1,421 28,085 1,283 1.37 0.73 1,177 44,193,768 1,690 992.1 1,419 56,213,989 1,700 1,255.1 1,42Rural 3,307 32,252 2,780 21,938 2,548 1.30 0.77 2,354 19,586,556 3,277 592.0 2,775 23,722,427 3,288 704.3 2,76Not Available - Territories 113 1,706 111 1,724 111 0.99 1.01 111 2,490,862 111 1,460.1 111 

Size of Jurisdiction (VAP)

< 1,000 1,761 2,118 1,229 1,350 1,169 1.62 0.62 959 895,006 1,757 298.2 1,229 899,315 1,759 300.5 1,22>=1,000 to <3,500 1,165 2,558 893 1,976 850 1.26 0.80 719 2,182,148 1,164 659.9 893 2,267,899 1,165 684.0 89>=3,500 to <10,000 1,043 8,343 902 5,891 873 1.26 0.79 800 5,966,645 1,037 629.9 901 6,692,594 1,043 702.6 90>=10,000 to <50,000 1,704 35,443 1,554 25,830 1,508 1.23 0.81 1,422 31,472,681 1,681 825.6 1,549 38,463,619 1,704 988.5 1,55>=50,000 to <250,000 586 41,344 545 28,105 516 1.38 0.73 507 48,992,270 582 1,114.4 543 60,558,039 586 1,361.3 54>=250,000 to <1,000,000 140 44,037 126 27,595 118 1.50 0.67 118 51,396,493 139 1,054.4 126 63,995,785 140 1,315.1 12>=1,000,000 25 38,691 24 21,272 24 1.82 0.55 24 33,867,508 25 847.9 24 48,402,590 25 1,222.6 2Not Available 144 1,718 123 1,735 122 0.99 1.01 112 2,492,279 127 1,451.5 122 148 3 

Race and Ethnicity

Predominently NH White 6,264 161,698 5,125 104,108 4,925 1.47 0.68 4,418 163,662,585 6,234 934.3 5,118 204,258,977 6,262 1,162.6 5,12Predominently NH Black 85 2,820 80 2,103 69 1.20 0.83 68 3,098,023 81 1,094.1 80 4,061,404 85 1,413.9 8Predominently NH Native American 24 313 22 302 19 1.03 0.97 19 231,022 24 727.6 22 268,560 24 847.5 2Predominently Hispanic 50 7,664 45 5,465 44 1.35 0.74 43 7,749,995 45 1,006.2 44 12,658,812 50 1,632.1 4Not Available 145 1,757 124 1,776 123 0.99 1.01 113 2,523,405 128 1,437.0 123 32,236 4 822.8 

Median Income

< $25,000 298 3,893 279 2,875 215 1.15 0.87 212 2,504,552 287 632.6 278 3,079,342 298 742.1 27>=$25,000 to <$30,000 884 12,731 819 9,302 697 1.22 0.82 671 8,917,739 871 689.3 817 11,220,765 884 842.2 81>=$30,000 to <$35,000 1,372 23,424 1,197 16,639 1,076 1.28 0.78 1,019 22,970,583 1,366 856.4 1,195 28,691,481 1,372 1,068.5 1,19>=$35,000 to <$40,000 1,215 40,250 1,056 24,419 937 1.54 0.65 883 40,443,694 1,213 930.6 1,056 50,829,468 1,215 1,168.6 1,05>=$40,000 to <$45,000 881 36,644 675 23,887 680 1.47 0.68 598 37,780,840 877 997.5 672 49,717,211 881 1,303.3 67>=$45,000 to <$50,000 587 19,189 434 12,206 458 1.55 0.65 394 21,218,675 587 1,024.3 434 27,092,115 587 1,307.4 43>=$50,000 1,180 36,399 810 22,689 993 1.57 0.64 770 40,936,586 1,178 1,020.8 810 50,649,351 1,179 1,271.0 81Not Available 151 1,722 126 1,737 124 0.99 1.01 114 2,492,361 133 1,448.1 125 256 9 6.0 

High School Education

< 60% 126 2,148 121 1,577 113 1.11 0.90 113 1,817,027 124 845.8 121 2,401,104 126 1,114.0 12>=60% to <70% 661 18,185 616 13,467 563 1.28 0.78 551 14,944,978 648 805.8 615 22,653,549 661 1,203.6 61>=70% to <80% 1,646 51,393 1,411 32,782 1,319 1.49 0.67 1,225 49,285,773 1,631 905.2 1,406 64,350,042 1,646 1,178.2 1,41>=80% to <90% 3,111 87,644 2,502 56,581 2,410 1.46 0.69 2,124 93,198,279 3,105 967.8 2,500 113,912,781 3,111 1,179.7 2,50>=90% 873 13,121 619 7,569 650 1.66 0.60 533 15,495,512 871 1,088.0 619 17,930,226 872 1,259.5 61Not Available 151 1,761 127 1,778 125 0.99 1.01 115 2,523,461 133 1,433.7 126 32,287 9 746.8 

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Polling Places

EAC Election Day Survey CasePolling Places 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:08:14 Total Average # Average # Average Average 

Election Total Number of of Precincts of Polling Registration Voting Age 

Administration Number of Polling In A Polling Places In Total Per Voting Age Population per 

Code Name Jurisdictions Precincts Cases Places Cases Place A Precinct Cases Registration Cases Precinct Cases Population Cases Precinct Case

Political

Battleground States in 2004 

Presidential Election

Yes 3,093 59,123 2,113 33,037 2,309 1.62 0.62 1,959 64,166,639 3,062 912.9 2,111 76,824,163 3,074 1,091.7 2,11No 3,475 115,129 3,283 80,717 2,871 1.38 0.73 2,702 113,098,391 3,450 961.1 3,276 144,455,826 3,351 1,236.6 3,16

Margin of Victory in 2004 

Presidential Election

< 2.5% 515 13,708 383 8,230 350 1.45 0.69 289 15,923,548 513 1,067.2 381 19,185,454 515 1,279.7 38>=2.5% to < 5.0% 476 10,126 359 5,981 335 1.57 0.64 277 11,133,130 472 940.5 358 14,781,804 471 1,197.6 35>=5.0% to < 7.5% 510 13,805 416 9,195 388 1.42 0.70 337 13,830,932 508 958.8 416 17,701,432 508 1,226.2 41>=7.5% to < 10.0 % 429 9,114 333 5,538 313 1.60 0.63 276 8,833,490 428 877.9 333 10,292,117 428 1,019.4 33>=10.0 % 4,492 125,787 3,788 83,067 3,664 1.44 0.69 3,365 125,044,988 4,463 928.1 3,783 159,310,466 4,486 1,183.8 3,78

Red vs Blue Jurisdictions Won By 

in 2004 Presidential Election

Bush > 55% 3,115 68,994 2,690 49,173 2,617 1.32 0.76 2,445 68,178,580 3,094 944.0 2,686 86,412,155 3,112 1,192.2 2,68Bush 50% to 55% 982 25,314 760 16,788 700 1.40 0.71 613 26,682,203 979 982.8 760 32,877,232 977 1,209.2 75Bush < 50% 136 1,701 106 1,181 79 1.28 0.78 62 2,041,746 135 1,042.6 105 2,380,942 132 1,183.4 10Kerry < 50% 150 4,276 107 3,030 101 1.40 0.71 73 4,850,492 150 1,038.4 107 5,883,881 150 1,259.2 10Kerry 50% to 55% 872 22,439 683 12,452 656 1.66 0.60 558 23,160,396 866 941.8 681 29,466,232 872 1,172.0 68Kerry > 55% 1,161 49,810 927 29,387 897 1.64 0.61 793 49,846,628 1,154 898.7 926 64,245,074 1,159 1,169.0 92Tied 25 12 12 8 8 1.00 1.00 6 14,032 21 716.5 11 14,267 21 695.5 1

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Chapter 14 

Disability 

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s (EAC) final area of inquiry on the Election Day Survey 

was disability issues surrounding precincts and polling places. Besides establishing base numbers of 

precincts and polling places, the EAC sought information on three different types of disability 

related to voting systems and polling locations. Question 21 on the survey asked for the number of 

polling places: (1) that could be accessed by a voter who uses a wheelchair, 2) where a visually 

impaired voter could cast a private ballot, and 3) where a physically disabled voter could cast a 

ballot on an accessible voting system. 

Applicability and Coverage 

As noted earlier in chapter 13 on polling places, the Election Day Survey unveiled some differences 

in how states treated precincts versus polling places. While most states reported data for both 

precincts and polling places, a handful of states reported data for only one item. For example, the 

state of Connecticut provided information only for polling places, not for precincts. On the other 

hand, the states of Georgia, Maine, Minnesota, South Carolina, and West Virginia only provided the 

number of precincts in each jurisdiction, but provided no information on the number of polling 

places. Because of the different ways in which states responded to question 21, we have calculated 

all data for our analysis for both precincts and polling places. 

The most significant issue in this chapter is the overall lack of data. Only 26 of the 55 states and 

territories provided information on disability in response to question 21. While a greater number of 

polling places were reported to be wheelchair-accessible (question 21a), the much smaller numbers 

of polling places reported to be available to the visually impaired (question 21b) or physically 

disabled (question 21c) may have resulted from how the survey questions were worded. Some states 

reported that they interpreted the last two questions as seeking information on the voting equipment 

in use and its accessibility, rather than the physical configuration of the polling place. 

Historical Context 

Federal laws on voting assistance to persons with physical and sensory disabilities extend back at 

least 40 years to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Under Section 208 of the Act, voters requiring 

assistance to vote by reason of blindness, disability, or inability to read or write were entitled to 

assistance by a person of the voter’s choice. The next major piece of legislation focused on the 

accessibility of polling places and voter registration facilities. The Voting Accessibility for the 

Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1985 (P.L. 98–435) required election jurisdictions to ensure that all 

polling places for federal elections were accessible to elderly and handicapped voters, and required 

jurisdictions to provide a reasonable number of accessible permanent registration facilities, unless 

alternatives such as registration by mail were available. States also were required to make 

registration and voting aids such as large-type instructions and information by telecommunications 

devices for the deaf (TDDs) available to disabled voters and to report the number of accessible and 

inaccessible polling places to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Until then, states had 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Disability, Page 14-2 September 27, 2005 

generally relied on procedures such as absentee voting to serve the elderly and persons with 

disabilities, although by 1984, 22 states had laws on polling place accessibility. 

Discrimination against individuals with disabilities in voting, as well as housing, education, 

employment, transportation, public accommodations, and other areas was mentioned in the preamble 

to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (P.L. 101–336), enacted in 1990. Regulations 

promulgated by the U.S. Department of Justice applied the “ADA Standards for Accessible Design” 

(28 CFR Part 36) to polling places. The ADA standards addressed issues such as parking, passenger 

drop-off areas, sidewalks and walkways, and building entrances and corridors for voters using 

wheelchairs or other mobility devices as well as voters who are blind or have low vision. 

One of the basic purposes of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), also known as 

“Motor Voter,” was to increase historically low registration rates among minorities and persons with 

disabilities by requiring government offices providing services to persons with disabilities to provide 

all program applicants with voter registration forms and assist persons with the completion of the 

forms and transmittal to voter registration authorities. The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), 

enacted 10 years later, required that voting systems used in federal elections meet requirements on 

accessibility for individuals with disabilities, including nonvisual accessibility for the blind and 

visually impaired. HAVA provided funds to states to replace problem-plagued punch card and 

mechanical lever voting machines, generally not accessible to disabled voters, and required 

jurisdictions to provide at least one direct recording electronic (DRE) voting system or other voting 

system equipped for individuals with disabilities at each polling place. HAVA also provided funding 

for improvements to make polling places accessible to individuals with disabilities and to provide 

disabled voters with the same opportunities for access and participation, including privacy and 

independence, as for other voters. 

Survey Results 

Table 14 presents data on polling place accessibility from question 21 of the Election Day Survey. In 

the table, the numbers of accessible polling places are calculated as percentages of the total number 

of polling places. The column headings in Table 14 are as follows: 

Table 14 Column Headings. Disability 

Col. Heading Description 

1 Code State census code 

2 Name Respondent to Election Day Survey 

3 Jurisdiction Number of local election jurisdictions from survey question 22 

4 Total Number 

of Precincts 

Number of precincts from survey question 19 

5 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 19 

6 Total Number 

of Polling Places 

Number of polling places from survey question 20 

7 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 20 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Disability, Page 14-3 September 27, 2005 

Table 14 Column Headings (cont.) 

Col. Heading Description 

8 Number of Polling 

Places Accessible, 

Wheelchair 

Number of polling places accessible by wheelchair from survey 

question 21a 

9 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 21a 

10 Percent of Precincts 

Accessible, Wheelchair 

Number of polling places accessible by wheelchair (col. 8) divided by number of precincts (col. 4) 

11 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 4 and 21a 

12 Percent of Polling 

Places Accessible, 

 Wheelchair 

Number of polling places accessible by wheelchair (col. 8) 

divided by number of polling places (col. 6) 

13 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 6 and 21a 

14 Number of Polling 

Places Accessible, 

Visually Impaired 

Number of polling places where the visually impaired can cast a 

private ballot from survey question 21b 

15 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 21b 

16 Percent of Precincts 

Accessible, Visually Impaired 

Number of polling places where the visually impaired can cast a 

private ballot (col. 14) divided by number of precincts (col. 4) 

 

17 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 4 and 21b 

18 Percent of Polling 

Places Accessible, 

Visually Impaired 

Number of polling places where the visually impaired can cast a 

private ballot (col. 14) divided by the number of polling places 

(col. 6) 

19 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 6 and 21b 

20 # of Polling Places 

Accessible, Physically 

Disabled 

Number of polling places with an accessible voting system for 

physically disabled voters from survey question 21b 

21 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to question 21b 

22 

Percent of Precincts 

Accessible, 

Physically Disabled 

Number of polling places with an accessible voting system for 

physically disabled voters (col. 20) divided by the number of 

precincts (col. 4) 

23 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 4 and 21c 

24 Percent of Polling 

Places Accessible, 

Physically Disabled 

Number of polling places with an accessible voting system for 

physically disabled voters (col. 20) divided by the number of 

polling places (col. 6) 

25 Cases Number of jurisdictions that responded to questions 6 and 21c 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Disability, Page 14-4 September 27, 2005 

Analysis of Survey Results 

The following is our analysis of the data in Table 14 for each of the 18 cross-tabulation factors 

described earlier in this report. A description of each factor follows a general summary and a statelevel summary of the survey data. 

1) Regions 10) Changed Voting Equipment since 2000 

2) Urban to Rural 11) Statewide Voter Registration Database 

3) Size of Jurisdiction 12) Election Day Registration 

4) Race and Ethnicity 13) Provisional Ballot Acceptance 

5) Median Income 14) No Excuse Absentee Balloting 

6) High School Education 15) Early Voting 

7) Section 203 Language Minority Requirements 16) Battleground States 

8) Section 5 Preclearance of Voting Procedures 17) Presidential Margin of Victory 

9) Type of Voting Equipment 18) Red versus Blue Jurisdictions 

This analysis is based only on data that was reported to the EAC on the Election Day Survey. Many 

state responses to a survey question or part of a question did not cover all local election jurisdictions. 

In Table 14 as well as other tables in this report, a jurisdiction was excluded from a statistical 

calculation if its response was missing for one or more of the data items (i.e., columns) used in the 

calculation. A column labeled “Cases” next to each statistical calculation shows the number of 

jurisdictions covered by that calculation. 

Summary 

Overall, 92.4 percent of the polling places and 71.7 percent of the precincts in this nation were 

reported to be wheelchair-accessible. However, this information reflects data from only half of the 

nation’s election jurisdictions. Fewer than a quarter of the precincts and polling places were reported 

by the states as being locations where a visually impaired voter could cast a ballot in private. A 

physically disabled voter could cast a ballot on an accessible voting system in only about half the 

precincts and slightly more than 70 percent of the polling places. 

States 

Most of the states that reported accessibility information claimed that nearly all polling places were 

wheelchair-accessible. Twenty-three of the 26 states that responded said that more than 90 percent of 

their polling places would allow a voter using a wheelchair to cast a ballot. Most of the other states 

reported that more than 80 percent of their polling locations were accessible. Virginia reported the 

lowest percentage, but it was most likely because not all the jurisdictions responded to the survey. 

Regions 

All four regions of the nation reported that more than 90 percent of polling places were wheelchairaccessible. Of the jurisdictions that reported, those in the West had the highest percentage of 

accessible polling places, at over 99 percent. The South had the lowest percentage, yet 91.8 percent 

of polling places were wheelchair-accessible. 

Urban to Rural 

Suburban locations reported the highest percentage of accessible polling places, at over 98 percent. 

Rural jurisdictions reported the lowest accessible rate, but that was only 92.2 percent. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Disability, Page 14-5 September 27, 2005 

Size of Jurisdictions 

The smallest jurisdictions reported the lowest percentage of accessible polling places—about 90 

percent of polling locations could accommodate wheelchairs. As jurisdictions got larger in size, their 

accessibility scores improved. 

Race and Ethnicity 

Predominantly African American jurisdictions in this nation reported that only 81 percent of their 

polling locations were accessible, while predominantly Non-Hispanic White jurisdictions reported 

94 percent accessible sites. Predominantly Hispanic jurisdictions reported that nearly all polling 

places were accessible. 

Median Income 

The poorest jurisdictions reported the lowest accessibility of polling places. While accessibility rates 

rose as income levels increased, they peaked at the upper middle class jurisdictions and then 

declined slightly in the highest income jurisdictions. 

High School Education 

Education levels in jurisdictions did not appear to have an impact on whether polling locations were 

accessible. 

Section 203 Language Minority Requirements 

Surprisingly, jurisdictions that are covered by the language minority provisions of the Voting Rights 

Act had a much higher rate of accessibility than jurisdictions that were not covered. 

Section 5 Preclearance of Voting Procedures 

Whether or not the jurisdiction was covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act correlated to very 

small differences in accessibility. 

Type of Voting Equipment 

The only difference in wheelchair accessibility is in paper ballot jurisdictions, which average only 91 

percent accessible, compared to the mid-90s for all other types of voting equipment. For the visually 

impaired question, only 41 percent of optical scan jurisdictions reported their polling places were 

accessible. But because this score is so much lower than other types of equipment jurisdictions, it is 

very possible that the low score reflected the nature of optical scan equipment, which is more 

difficult to use for visually impaired voters. 

Changed Voting Equipment since 2000 

Jurisdictions that have changed their voting equipment in the past four years report a slightly higher 

rate of accessibility in their polling locations than those jurisdictions that have not changed 

equipment. 

Statewide Voter Registration Database 

Jurisdictions in states with a statewide voter registration system in place for the 2004 election 

actually reported a higher rate of accessibility than states that did not have a statewide registration 

system. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 2 Survey Results

Disability, Page 14-6 September 27, 2005 

Election Day Registration 

Jurisdictions that had Election Day registration had a slightly higher rate of accessible polling places 

than nonelection day registration jurisdictions. 

Provisional Ballot Acceptance 

Jurisdictions that accept provisional ballots from anywhere in the jurisdiction had a slightly higher 

rate of accessibility than jurisdictions that required voters to cast provisional ballots in their home 

precincts. 

No Excuse Absentee Balloting 

Jurisdictions that allowed no excuse absentee balloting had a higher rate of accessibility than 

jurisdictions that did not. 

Early Voting 

Jurisdictions that allowed early voting had a slightly higher accessibility rating than jurisdictions that 

did not allow early voting. 

Battleground States 

There was no real difference in accessibility between jurisdictions in battleground or 

nonbattleground states. 

Presidential Margin of Victory 

There was no real difference in accessibility between those jurisdictions that reported different 

margins of victory than in other jurisdictions. [This statement is vague; what does “different margins 

of victory” mean?] 

Red versus Blue Jurisdictions 

Jurisdictions that were carried by Senator Kerry in the 2004 presidential election had slightly higher 

rates of accessibility than jurisdictions won by President Bush. 

REFERENCES

Kimberling, William C. 1988. “Access for All.” The FEC Journal of Election Administration 15(Autumn). 

U.S. Department of Justice. Civil Rights Division. Disability Rights Section. 2004. ADA Checklist for Polling 

Places. February. 
Disability

EAC Election Day Survey CasDisability 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:08:37

Total Number of Percent of Number of Percent of Number of 

Election Total Number of Polling Percent of Polling Polling Percent of Polling Polling 

Administration Number of Polling Places Precincts Places Places Precincts Places Places 

Code Name Jurisdictions Precincts Cases Places Cases Accessible Cases Accessible Cases Accessible Cases Accessible Cases Accessible Cases Accessible Cases Accessible 

01 Alabama 67 2,210 67 2,177 67

02 Alaska 1 436 1 439 104 Arizona 15 2,110 15 2,002 15 1,994 15 94.5 15 99.6 15 6 3 0.5 3 0.5 3 6 05 Arkansas 75 2,693 75 1,923 75 1,652 73 62.5 73 87.9 7306 California 58 21,857 55 14,467 52 3,555 1 72.6 1 99.3 1 17 1 0.3 1 0.5 1 3,555 

08 Colorado 64 3,370 64 2,318 63

09 Connecticut 169 769 169 769 169 100.0 169 0 769 10 Delaware 3 437 3 276 3 242 3 55.4 3 87.7 3 0 276 

11 District of Columbia 1 142 1 142 1

12 Florida 67 6,892 67 5,433 67 5,399 67 78.3 67 99.4 67 2,938 17 73.6 17 100.0 17 5,360 13 Georgia 159 3,163 159 2,907 158

15 Hawaii 5 353 4 336 4

16 Idaho 44 949 44 763 44 748 44 78.8 44 98.0 44 0 756 

17 Illinois 110 11,738 110 9,200 110 8,639 109 74.1 109 94.3 109

18 Indiana 92 5,571 92 3,454 8419 Iowa 99 1,966 97 1,916 98 1,766 96 90.5 95 94.4 96 102 6 98.1 6 101.0 6 1,051 20 Kansas 105 3,882 105 2,019 103 1,764 90 51.9 90 103.4 89 274 17 29.7 17 49.3 17 98 

21 Kentucky 120 3,482 120 2,830 12022 Louisiana 64 4,124 64 2,394 64

23 Maine 517 601 51724 Maryland 24 1,779 24 1,551 24 1,437 24 80.8 24 92.6 24 1,325 23 90.6 23 100.0 23 1,551 25 Massachusetts 351 2,177 351 1,458 351 1,458 351 67.0 351 100.0 351

26 Michigan 83 5,235 83 3,890 83 3,799 83 72.6 83 97.7 83 0 3,890 27 Minnesota 87 4,108 87

28 Mississippi 82 1,707 67 1,670 67 1,310 61 83.8 61 85.5 61 747 26 98.4 26 96.8 26 1,004 29 Missouri 116 5,462 116 3,595 116 3,094 110 58.0 110 88.9 110

30 Montana 56 856 56 649 56 608 54 72.8 54 95.1 54 144 17 71.6 17 99.3 17 277 

31 Nebraska 93 1,668 93 1,420 93 1,401 93 84.0 93 98.7 93 032 Nevada 17 1,585 17 526 1733 New Hampshire 24234 New Jersey 21 6,283 21 3,486 21 3,235 21 51.5 21 92.8 21 658 5 56.1 5 100.0 5 3,235 35 New Mexico 33 684 21 612 2136 New York 58 15,153 56 6,740 56 4,008 

37 North Carolina 100 2,749 100 2,762 100 2,546 99 93.0 99 92.5 99 2,750 100 100.0 100 99.6 100 2,750 38 North Dakota 53 607 53 542 53

39 Ohio 88 11,366 88 6,602 88 6,157 

40 Oklahoma 77 2,152 77 2,130 77 1,947 77 90.5 77 91.4 77 0 0

41 Oregon 36 1,448 36 36 36 36 36 2.5 36 100.0 36 36 36 2.5 36 100.0 36 36 

42 Pennsylvania 6744 Rhode Island 39 577 39 489 39 577 39 100.0 39 118.0 39 577 39 100.0 39 118.0 39 577 45 South Carolina 46 2,168 4646 South Dakota 66 827 66 630 66 630 66 76.2 66 100.0 66 0 0

47 Tennessee 95 2,287 95 2,211 95 1,659 91 86.0 91 89.5 91 542 28 97.7 28 96.3 28 1,383 

48 Texas 254 8,554 254 7,032 250 6,849 246 82.8 246 98.9 246 2,929 59 76.6 59 99.0 59 3,035 

49 Utah 29 1,880 29 1,061 29 1,052 29 56.0 29 99.2 29 0 0

50 Vermont 246 277 246 277 246 0 0 0

51 Virginia 134 2,294 134 2,367 134 493 44 38.9 44 37.8 44 877 46 102.8 46 100.0 46 2,367 

53 Washington 39 6,664 39 1,498 34

54 West Virginia 55 1,977 5555 Wisconsin 1,910 3,563 1,253 2,686 1,596 2,093 1,245 58.8 1,235 93.3 1,240 056 Wyoming 23 483 23 345 23 364 23 75.4 23 105.5 23 24 4 24.0 4 32.0 4 220 60 American Samoa 166 Guam 172 Puerto Rico 110 1,676 110 1,554 110 1,554 110 92.7 110 100.0 110 1,554 110 92.7 110 100.0 110 1,554 

78 Virgin Islands 1 30 1 170 1

Total 6,568 174,252 5,396 113,754 5,180 62,670 3,569 70.9 3,389 94.0 3,563 15,500 537 23.9 537 30.4 537 43,915 Maximum 1,910 21,857 1,253 14,467 1,596 8,639 1,245 100.0 1,235 118.0 1,240 2,938 110 102.8 110 118.0 110 6,157 Average 119 3,485 107 2,420 110 2,021 118 71.8 116 94.7 118 574 31 65.6 31 81.9 31 1,626 Minimum 1 30 1 36 1 0 1 2.5 1 37.8 1 0 1 0.3 1 0.5 1 0 

Wheel Chair Accessability Visually Impaired Accessibility 

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Disability

EAC Election Day Survey CasDisability 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:08:37

Total Number of Percent of Number of Percent of Number of 

Election Total Number of Polling Percent of Polling Polling Percent of Polling Polling 

Administration Number of Polling Places Precincts Places Places Precincts Places Places 

Code Name Jurisdictions Precincts Cases Places Cases Accessible Cases Accessible Cases Accessible Cases Accessible Cases Accessible Cases Accessible Cases Accessible 

Wheel Chair Accessability Visually Impaired Accessibility 

Election Administration

Voting Equipment Used in 2004 

General Election

None / Unknown 908 13,552 252 9,699 558 3,298 129 82.3 129 100.0 124 3,261 116 82.6 116 100.0 116 8,168 

Punch card 260 19,745 248 12,985 231 9,121 184 69.3 184 92.1 184 458 16 96.6 16 100.2 16 2,950 Lever 394 20,301 199 10,789 365 2,275 230 61.5 61 93.9 230 112 10 73.2 10 76.7 10 6,357 Paper 1,734 5,704 1,573 3,416 1,183 2,800 969 61.7 961 91.1 969 215 37 83.7 37 102.9 37 294 

Optical scan 2,541 69,370 2,405 46,265 2,185 31,582 1,814 74.7 1,812 96.4 1,813 3,312 198 30.1 198 41.7 198 12,452 Electronic 608 35,273 599 24,219 557 10,016 176 67.3 175 93.4 176 6,821 127 76.2 127 95.7 127 9,702 Multiple Systems 123 10,307 120 6,381 101 3,578 67 67.1 67 88.3 67 1,321 33 80.4 33 96.2 33 3,992 

Changed Voting Equipment Since 

2000 General Election

Yes 1,753 46,241 1,296 31,649 1,269 17,683 814 71.9 773 96.3 810 7,037 98 47.6 98 65.7 98 13,213 

No 4,815 128,011 4,100 82,105 3,911 44,987 2,755 71.3 2,616 94.0 2,753 8,463 439 72.7 439 86.3 439 30,702 

State Wide Voter Registration 

System in Place

Yes 1,335 33,575 1,153 20,815 1,133 10,839 764 77.8 595 97.2 764 6 3 0.5 3 0.5 3 4,941 

No 5,233 140,677 4,243 92,939 4,047 51,831 2,805 70.3 2,794 94.1 2,799 15,494 534 61.3 534 79.9 534 38,974 

Election Day Registration

Yes 2,823 9,704 1,924 3,794 1,663 3,205 1,312 64.2 1,302 95.6 1,307 24 4 24.0 4 32.0 4 976 

No 3,745 164,548 3,472 109,960 3,517 59,465 2,257 71.9 2,087 94.6 2,256 15,476 533 58.8 533 75.7 533 42,939 

Provisional Ballot Acceptance

In Overall Jurisdiction 1,162 65,986 1,080 44,212 1,070 21,730 428 72.0 428 95.3 428 4,711 202 38.4 202 50.5 202 8,751 In Precinct Only 4,350 100,295 3,504 66,513 3,902 38,638 2,987 70.3 2,807 94.0 2,981 9,235 225 74.0 225 95.8 225 32,854 None 1,056 7,971 812 3,029 208 2,302 154 87.7 154 99.4 154 1,554 110 92.7 110 100.0 110 2,310 

No Excuse Absentee Balloting

Yes 3,781 70,535 3,106 47,225 2,922 25,867 1,999 75.3 1,988 97.3 1,993 6,255 165 44.3 165 55.4 165 14,073 No 2,787 103,717 2,290 66,529 2,258 36,803 1,570 68.9 1,401 92.8 1,570 9,245 372 75.0 372 100.1 372 29,842 

Early Voting Allowed

Yes 1,701 69,882 1,683 51,609 1,618 30,851 976 78.6 975 96.8 975 9,726 252 52.6 252 65.6 252 18,491 

No 4,867 104,370 3,713 62,145 3,562 31,819 2,593 65.6 2,414 92.7 2,588 5,774 285 72.6 285 101.1 285 25,424 

Covered By Section 203, 

Language Minority Requirements

Yes 468 54,051 443 36,098 443 20,483 339 72.6 332 97.0 339 5,517 77 41.0 77 54.0 77 11,650 

No 6,100 120,201 4,953 77,656 4,737 42,187 3,230 70.9 3,057 93.5 3,224 9,983 460 77.0 460 96.9 460 32,265 

Covered By Section 5 of Voting 

Rights Act

Yes 880 32,976 855 25,680 803 15,556 412 79.4 412 92.9 412 5,896 175 45.9 175 55.4 175 11,339 No 5,688 141,276 4,541 88,074 4,377 47,114 3,157 69.1 2,977 95.2 3,151 9,604 362 70.8 362 97.2 362 32,576 

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Disability

EAC Election Day Survey CasDisability 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:08:37

Total Number of Percent of Number of Percent of Number of 

Election Total Number of Polling Percent of Polling Polling Percent of Polling Polling 

Administration Number of Polling Places Precincts Places Places Precincts Places Places 

Code Name Jurisdictions Precincts Cases Places Cases Accessible Cases Accessible Cases Accessible Cases Accessible Cases Accessible Cases Accessible Cases Accessible 

Wheel Chair Accessability Visually Impaired Accessibility 

Demographics

Region

Northeast 1,710 25,068 1,230 13,219 882 6,039 580 58.3 411 97.4 580 1,235 44 70.6 44 107.7 44 8,589 South 1,423 48,810 1,408 37,805 1,302 23,534 785 79.3 785 91.8 785 12,108 299 85.3 299 99.3 299 17,726 Midwest 2,902 55,993 2,243 35,954 2,490 23,186 1,892 68.9 1,881 95.0 1,886 376 23 36.6 23 57.2 23 11,196 West 420 42,675 404 25,052 395 8,357 202 66.3 202 99.2 202 227 61 2.9 61 4.6 61 4,850 Territories 113 1,706 111 1,724 111 1,554 110 92.7 110 100.0 110 1,554 110 92.7 110 100.0 110 1,554 

Urban to Rural

Urban 567 60,394 445 36,556 523 21,701 421 63.3 376 94.5 421 5,200 48 43.9 48 59.8 48 17,575 

Suburban 871 37,906 639 25,451 715 13,466 548 79.0 474 98.4 545 4,019 56 63.1 56 75.2 56 9,887 Small Towns 1,710 41,994 1,421 28,085 1,283 12,410 735 78.0 688 93.0 734 3,155 154 79.5 154 98.1 154 10,421 Rural 3,307 32,252 2,780 21,938 2,548 13,539 1,755 71.7 1,741 92.2 1,753 1,572 169 61.1 169 91.2 169 4,478 Not Available - Territories 113 1,706 111 1,724 111 1,554 110 92.7 110 100.0 110 1,554 110 92.7 110 100.0 110 1,554 

Size of Jurisdiction (VAP)

< 1,000 1,761 2,118 1,229 1,350 1,169 899 829 52.6 818 90.5 827 14 6 82.4 6 93.3 6 20 

>=1,000 to <3,500 1,165 2,558 893 1,976 850 1,319 601 73.5 566 89.7 598 116 28 67.1 28 99.1 28 196 >=3,500 to <10,000 1,043 8,343 902 5,891 873 4,012 651 72.6 602 92.3 650 567 76 75.6 76 98.8 76 1,372 >=10,000 to <50,000 1,704 35,443 1,554 25,830 1,508 14,222 985 76.1 909 91.4 985 2,894 190 85.3 190 99.6 190 8,046 >=50,000 to <250,000 586 41,344 545 28,105 516 14,659 310 76.3 301 96.1 310 3,646 95 76.7 95 97.1 95 12,186 >=250,000 to <1,000,000 140 44,037 126 27,595 118 14,579 71 65.4 71 95.7 71 4,063 25 69.3 25 93.5 25 12,923 >=1,000,000 25 38,691 24 21,272 24 11,425 11 68.2 11 96.9 11 2,646 7 27.0 7 36.4 7 7,618 Not Available 144 1,718 123 1,735 122 1,555 111 92.7 111 100.0 111 1,554 110 92.7 110 100.0 110 1,554 

Race and Ethnicity

Predominently NH White 6,264 161,698 5,125 104,108 4,925 54,823 3,376 70.8 3,198 94.3 3,370 12,048 395 69.3 395 89.3 395 36,467 

Predominently NH Black 85 2,820 80 2,103 69 892 32 71.8 31 81.2 32 587 20 94.7 20 96.2 20 961 

Predominently NH Native American 24 313 22 302 19 172 14 87.8 14 94.5 14 41 1 100.0 1 97.6 1 41 

Predominently Hispanic 50 7,664 45 5,465 44 5,228 36 73.1 35 99.3 36 1,270 11 19.0 11 26.3 11 4,892 Not Available 145 1,757 124 1,776 123 1,555 111 92.7 111 100.0 111 1,554 110 92.7 110 100.0 110 1,554 

Median Income

< $25,000 298 3,893 279 2,875 215 1,175 115 82.6 114 89.7 115 195 18 83.7 18 92.0 18 288 

>=$25,000 to <$30,000 884 12,731 819 9,302 697 5,169 473 75.9 471 88.3 473 1,239 85 89.1 85 98.1 85 2,239 >=$30,000 to <$35,000 1,372 23,424 1,197 16,639 1,076 9,858 719 75.9 713 94.2 718 2,181 119 76.8 119 97.4 119 5,423 >=$35,000 to <$40,000 1,215 40,250 1,056 24,419 937 13,828 612 76.1 609 94.1 610 2,967 84 71.0 84 97.3 84 8,702 >=$40,000 to <$45,000 881 36,644 675 23,887 680 13,292 427 71.2 414 97.4 425 3,589 46 36.6 46 50.3 46 14,700 >=$45,000 to <$50,000 587 19,189 434 12,206 458 7,367 307 63.6 291 95.3 307 1,056 17 43.9 17 50.5 17 3,516 >=$50,000 1,180 36,399 810 22,689 993 10,424 803 63.3 664 95.1 802 2,719 58 69.8 58 91.1 58 7,493 Not Available 151 1,722 126 1,737 124 1,557 113 92.7 113 100.0 113 1,554 110 92.7 110 100.0 110 1,554 

High School Education

< 60% 126 2,148 121 1,577 113 693 56 86.2 56 91.8 56 151 15 83.4 15 89.9 15 356 >=60% to <70% 661 18,185 616 13,467 563 8,411 319 75.1 316 93.5 319 2,202 95 29.9 95 38.2 95 6,837 >=70% to <80% 1,646 51,393 1,411 32,782 1,319 18,172 860 70.8 842 92.1 859 4,589 147 76.3 147 98.0 147 9,566 >=80% to <90% 3,111 87,644 2,502 56,581 2,410 29,352 1,715 69.8 1,632 96.3 1,711 6,146 149 63.3 149 85.1 149 23,538 >=90% 873 13,121 619 7,569 650 4,485 506 71.4 430 95.4 505 858 21 57.7 21 75.9 21 2,064 Not Available 151 1,761 127 1,778 125 1,557 113 92.7 113 100.0 113 1,554 110 92.7 110 100.0 110 1,554 

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
Disability

EAC Election Day Survey CasDisability 2004 General Election

Updated: 09/19/2005 13:08:37

Total Number of Percent of Number of Percent of Number of 

Election Total Number of Polling Percent of Polling Polling Percent of Polling Polling 

Administration Number of Polling Places Precincts Places Places Precincts Places Places 

Code Name Jurisdictions Precincts Cases Places Cases Accessible Cases Accessible Cases Accessible Cases Accessible Cases Accessible Cases Accessible Cases Accessible 

Wheel Chair Accessability Visually Impaired Accessibility 

Political

Battleground States in 2004 

Presidential Election

Yes 3,093 59,123 2,113 33,037 2,309 19,833 1,725 68.0 1,714 95.2 1,720 3,082 62 46.1 62 73.2 62 16,500 

No 3,475 115,129 3,283 80,717 2,871 42,837 1,844 73.2 1,675 94.4 1,843 12,418 475 62.9 475 76.1 475 27,415 

Margin of Victory in 2004 

Presidential Election

< 2.5% 515 13,708 383 8,230 350 4,300 257 72.6 227 95.1 257 1,348 21 70.1 21 99.9 21 4,563 

>=2.5% to < 5.0% 476 10,126 359 5,981 335 2,912 228 75.3 206 95.7 228 758 25 88.2 25 100.3 25 2,892 >=5.0% to < 7.5% 510 13,805 416 9,195 388 3,764 279 70.3 257 91.5 279 1,576 26 73.9 26 100.4 26 3,853 >=7.5% to < 10.0 % 429 9,114 333 5,538 313 2,924 225 59.1 211 91.9 225 599 17 77.3 17 100.2 17 2,428 >=10.0 % 4,492 125,787 3,788 83,067 3,664 47,210 2,464 71.6 2,373 94.8 2,458 9,665 338 50.7 338 65.7 338 28,624 

Red vs Blue Jurisdictions Won By 

in 2004 Presidential Election

Bush > 55% 3,115 68,994 2,690 49,173 2,617 27,680 1,743 76.9 1,717 94.6 1,740 5,109 261 64.5 261 77.0 261 14,344 

Bush 50% to 55% 982 25,314 760 16,788 700 8,391 502 68.7 471 93.6 501 3,030 48 71.3 48 100.2 48 7,162 Bush < 50% 136 1,701 106 1,181 79 756 55 78.7 45 91.7 55 361 2 80.4 2 99.4 2 589 Kerry < 50% 150 4,276 107 3,030 101 1,117 68 81.4 52 97.6 68 31 3 103.3 3 103.3 3 1,398 Kerry 50% to 55% 872 22,439 683 12,452 656 6,221 460 63.6 416 92.9 459 2,059 47 76.6 47 100.4 47 7,273 Kerry > 55% 1,161 49,810 927 29,387 897 16,945 625 65.7 573 95.4 624 3,356 66 35.6 66 48.9 66 11,594 Tied 25 12 12 8 8 6 6 100.0 5 100.0 6 0 1 

Election Data Services, Inc. Confidential 9/22/05 
PART 3 

RECOMMENDATIONS ON 

FUTURE DATA COLLECTION 

As we processed and analyzed the survey results, we developed a number of recommendations on 

the collection of data on future Election Day Surveys. These consist of general recommendations as 

well as recommendations pertaining to specific tables and categories of election information. 

General Recommendations 

1. Survey timeline. The late distribution of the 2004 Election Day Survey resulted 

from delays in the creation of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, as well as 

the time necessary to get the survey instrument accepted through the Paperwork Reduction Act requirements. We recommend that the EAC distribute the final 2006 

Election Data Survey no later than eight weeks before the November election to allow enough time for state election directors to make data requests of local election 

administrators and for local administrations to set up the systems needed to collect 

the requested data. 

Late responses by state election directors were also a problem as some surveys were 

received more than three months after the deadline. We also recommend that the 

EAC make sure that deadlines are reasonable and then take steps to encourage state 

election directors to submit responses by those deadlines. 

2. Survey format. Although 2004 Election Day Survey was distributed as a Microsoft 

Excel spreadsheet, states were free to adjust the format of the spreadsheet as well as 

to submit documents in other formats. The variety of formats that were used resulted 

in a very costly and time consuming effort to standardize the survey responses for 

analysis. 

We recommend that the EAC incorporate into the design of the 2006 Election Day 

Survey fill-able cells and other techniques to obtain election data in a more uniform 

format to reduce the amount of data processing. A more uniform format would also 

provide greater assurances that the survey responses were tabulated accurately. 

A password-protected Internet survey could be designed to reduce the amount of 

processing required for survey responses. By creating an internet-based survey, we 

could produce quality assurance reports in real time, which will help state election 

directors identify data entry errors as the data was submitted. 

3. Statistics in elections. Back in 1978, the Principal Investigator this project was a 

subcontractor on a project for the Office of Election Administration of the Federal 

Election Commission (FEC) devoted to studying the use of statistics in elections. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 3

Recommendations, page 2 September 27, 2005 

For some reason the results of that study were never published. We recommend that 

the EAC revive the intent behind the earlier study and undertake a research effort to 

document the importance of statistics and audits in the elections process. This study 

could form the basis of that future work. 

4. Uniform election information. It is clear that different states and localities keep 

track of different statistics that use different words to describe them. In other states, 

the excuse is given that their state law doesn’t require the information so they don’t 

collect it. This study has clearly pointed out that there needs to be some uniformity 

in information on the elections process. We recommend that the EAC use whatever 

influence it has to ensure that uniformity. 

To further the goal of having uniform information on the elections process, we also 

recommend that the EAC convene a meeting of all state election directors to discuss 

the results of this report. 

5. Precinct-level data. Despite the difficulties in gathering the county and jurisdiction 

level data for this report, the gross level of the data made meaningful analysis of 

some of the information impossible. Demographic analysis was impaired due to the 

lack of large enough concentrations of different characteristics. Studying the malfunctions of different voting equipment and their impacts on different groups is 

impossible when data is at the jurisdiction level. Therefore, we recommend that the 

EAC undertake the creation of a uniform precinct level database of election information for the country. Collecting basic registration, turnout and election returns 

will actually cut down in the data being requested via a survey, since much of the 

basic information is available as the results are being certified. 

6. Database files of election results (vote tallying software). One of the difficulties 

in gathering precinct level information involves the wide variety of formats of 

printed reports produced by vote tallying software. Keypunching of this information 

means that each county’s information has to be analyzed and potentially formatted 

separately before a single number is entered. As part of the NIST development of 

voting equipment standards, we recommend that the EAC ensure that all vote tallying software be required to produce a database file of the election results and basic 

information outlined in this report. The EAC and NIST should outline the minimum 

geographic identifiers that should be in the database files, as well as the basic information. The basic information would include, among other items, both overvote 

and undervote counts for each office and contest on the ballot. 

7. Election Day Survey Follow-up Review. Due to the time pressures of getting this 

initial report produced for the EAC and Congress, data holes and errors still exist in 

the information that forms the basis of this report. In June 2005 we proposed that the 

EAC fund a continuation of this project to work with the states to find and correct 

errors and fill in missing information. The proposal was accepted, and in early July, 

jurisdiction-level spreadsheets with data from the survey were sent to state election 

directors for review. Responses were received from 26 states by the July 15, 2005, 

deadline that was established for the follow-up review. These responses were imported to the survey database to update the final version of the Election Day Survey 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 3

Recommendations, page 3 September 27, 2005 

Report. To improve survey coverage rates, the EAC could extend the follow-up review period to collect spreadsheets from the 29 state non-respondents and make 

further updates to the Election Day Survey Report. New census population estimates 

that will be released later this summer could also be incorporated into an updated 

version of the Election Day Survey Report. 

8. Election audits. In the accounting field, audits of data are a regular part of their 

business. The state of New Mexico has an auditing team that compiles and certifies 

all of their official election results. We recommend that the EAC produce a document or pamphlet that outlines various steps that state and local governments could 

undertake to ensure they have the proper data for each election. This auditing process should start at the precinct level on Election Day, and flow all the way to the 

state. 

Summary of Recommendations in Part 2 

The following recommendations were presented in part 2 of the report and are summarized below: 

9. Population data. Recommendations on population data in Chapter 1 were as follows: 

9.1. That the EAC request information on voter eligibility requirements in the 

states and any changes to state law since the last federal election to better 

measure the eligible population. 

9.2. That the EAC request jurisdictions to provide estimates of eligible and ineligible persons. For example, some states use lists of felons to purge their 

registration rolls. Some states may have information on the number of overseas eligible citizens from sources such as tax records. 

9.3. That the EAC work with U.S. Census Bureau to obtain population and voting age population estimates and projections that will correspond with the 

general election calendar for counties and townships in Michigan, Wisconsin, and the six New England states. This will provide a uniform base from 

which an election analysis can be preformed. 

In past years, the Census Bureau produced state-level projections of voting 

age populations prior to the November general elections. This dataset was 

dropped in 2002. The EAC should encourage Congress and the Census Bureau to re-instate the program so that state and local governments would 

have benchmark data by which to compare their own information. 

9.4. Because the territories of Guam, American Samoa and the Virgin Islands 

are now covered by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), the Census Bureau should be encouraged to include those jurisdictions in their population 

estimates program so that post-decennial census population and voting age 

population data would be available. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 3

Recommendations, page 4 September 27, 2005 

10. Voter registration. Recommendations on voter registration data in Chapter 2 were 

as follows: 

10.1. That the EAC ask states and local election jurisdictions to keep counts of 

both “active” and “inactive” registrants and to report both numbers, plus the 

“total number of registered voters” to the EAC. 

The differences in how states and localities report registration counts has a 

significant impact on any study of voting. Whether a jurisdiction uses only 

“active” voters or chooses to combine “inactive” and “active” voters has a 

huge bearing on how the jurisdiction is perceived to carry out it’s registration responsibilities. When compared to voting age population estimates, 

registration rates can vary wildly dependent upon how a state reports its 

registration numbers. 

10.2. That the EAC also collect the number of persons who registered to vote on 

Election Day for those jurisdictions in states with Election Day registration. 

10.3. That the EAC create a table of the eligibility requirements for both voter 

registration and for voting in each state. These requirements would produce 

variables for further analysis. 

10.4. That the EAC investigate the rules and procedures used in each state under 

which a registered voter is moved from “active” to “inactive” status. Data 

on the number of voters who are removed from a voter registration file, as 

well as the number of voters that were transferred to another jurisdiction 

could also be collected. 

11. Voter turnout. Recommendations on voter turnout data in Chapters 3 and 4 were as 

follows: 

11.1. That the EAC collect information on the different deadlines used by states 

for close of registration, and use that information to further investigate their 

impact on turn-out rates. 

11.2. That the EAC use its influence to get all states and local governments to 

compile a true voter turnout number for each election. 

Despite the EAC's efforts over the past year, the American people still doesn't know the total number of persons who showed up and participated in the 

2004 election. A handful of states and local jurisdictions still don't collect 

an actual turnout number, instead believing the incorrect assumption that 

one just needs to tally up the number of votes received by all candidates for 

the highest office. This study, once again, points out the fallacy of such a 

belief. 

11.3. That the EAC on future surveys make it clear to states and local jurisdictions when component questions are part of the whole election process and 

should sum to 100 percent. Clearer instructions and more timely informa-
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 3

Recommendations, page 5 September 27, 2005 

tion should be conveyed to the states and jurisdictions so that counts on the 

various methods of voting can be kept separately. 

11.4. That the EAC consider merging the UOCAVA (Military and Overseas Absentee Ballot) survey into the Election Day survey. 

11.5. That the EAC should collect actual election results for all offices at the precinct level to facilitate determining the accuracy of data compiled via 

survey instruments. This tends to be a standard report released by all jurisdictions in the country, and therefore, is available on a quick turn-around 

once the returns have been certified. 

12. Absentee ballots. Recommendations on absentee ballots in Chapter 5 were as follows: 

12.1. That the EAC combine UOCAVA questionnaire with the Election Day Survey. We believe that most jurisdictions disregarded the Election Day Survey 

instructions to separate military and overseas absentee statistics from other 

absentee statistics and provided statistics on all absentee voters. Combining 

the two surveys would reduce confusion. 

12.2. That the EAC collect additional information on how absentee ballots are requested, returned and counted. For example, some states allow permanent 

absentee balloting, which may be related to increased rates of absentee ballot requests. Some states permit voters with absentees to return absentee 

ballots to the polling place on Election Day, and in some cases these ballots 

may not have been counted as a returned absentee ballot. 

12.3. That the EAC clarify the absentee ballot definition, particularly for the case 

of Oregon, which runs its elections by mail. 

12.4. That the EAC ask all states keep counts of absentee returns separate from 

results cast at the polling place. However, absentee results need to be available at the smallest geographic level (preferable by precinct), so that full 

demographic analysis can take place. Reporting absentee returns at only the 

county level or at a ballot style level muddles any meaningful analysis possible. 

13. Provisional ballots (Chapter 6). Recommendations on provisional ballots were as 

follows: 

13.1. That the EAC collect separate statistics on challenged and provisional ballots 

13.2. That the EAC collect state and jurisdictional rules and statistics regarding 

how ballots cast by first time voters without identification are processed on 

Election Day 

13.3. That the EAC collect statistics on the number of first time voters who do 

not provide identification, how many vote a provisional or challenged ballot, and how many of these types of ballots are counted 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 3

Recommendations, page 6 September 27, 2005 

13.4. That the EAC collect information on the procedures used to ascertain the 

validity of a provisional ballot—for example, what is the timing of the verification process 

13.5. That the EAC collect information regarding how jurisdictions notify individuals concerning the disposition of their provisional ballot. 

14. Drop-off, overvotes, and undervotes. Recommendations on drop-off and overvotes and undervotes in Chapters 7 and 8 were as follows: 

14.1. That the EAC gather actual election results to better understand how patterns of electoral competition factor into drop-off. 

Many who study and opine about civic engagement in the United States focus on participation in elections as the most fundamental act of civic 

engagement. Yet little data has been collected regarding voters’ overall voting experience and the decisions they face as they work their way down the 

ballot. 

14.2. That the EAC establish a clearinghouse for the collection of sample ballots 

or images of actual ballot images used within jurisdictions. Documenting 

and observing the appearance of actual ballots, coupled with actual election 

results and turnout data, will aid understanding of the various factors that 

ultimately lead to voter choices to participate in elections appearing on a 

ballot. 

14.3. That the EAC encourage all state and local election officials to produce 

separate counts of overvotes and undervotes, for at least their own internal 

review of the election. 

A number of jurisdictions did not provide overvotes and undervotes, and a 

full-scale audit of election results should incorporate the study of both all 

overvotes and all undervotes. Too many times vendors have told election 

officials that providing such information only confuses the process. But the 

data help form the heart of determining whether or not problems exist in a 

given election. 

15. Voting equipment. Recommendations on voting equipment in Chapters 9, 10 and 

11 were as follows: 

15.1. That the EAC collect information on who provides on-going support of the 

voting system to the jurisdictions. In many instances, this will be the same 

as the manufacturer of who sold them the equipment. This may assist in filling out the blank information received by the EAC for half the nation on 

who is the manufacturer. 

15.2. That the EAC should seek more detailed information on voting equipment 

devices and manufacturers from all jurisdictions. The use of generic voting 

equipment type categories by some states prevents a complete picture of the 

voting equipment market in the United States. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 3

Recommendations, page 7 September 27, 2005 

The growing use of multiple voting systems in the same jurisdiction has the 

potential to prevent a meaningful analysis of future voting, such as has been 

conducted in this report, unless jurisdictions keep election returns, over and 

under votes, and turn-out information separate for each of the different types 

of voting equipment in use. This has the potential of requiring jurisdictions 

to keep different tallies for each precinct for the machines in use. The EAC 

should investigate this growing trend and work with state and local election 

officials to arrive at a satisfactory solution to the problem. 

15.3. That the EAC collect information on where ballots are tallied, be they at the 

precinct or at a central county location. This would allow a more complete 

analysis to be done on whether drop-off or overvotes are less likely to occur 

when the voters are present and have an opportunity to correct voting mistakes. 

15.4. That the EAC collect information on the number of polling booths or actual 

voting devices that are used at election time. Confusion over question wording in the 2004 survey prevents proper analysis from being conducted on 

one potential cause of the long lines in various states. 

15.5. That the EAC institute a more extensive program designed to investigate 

reported voting equipment problems. During the late 1970s, the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) sent investigator Roy 

Saltman to a number of jurisdictions around the country that had problems 

with punch card voting systems. His very detailed reports provided background information, an unbiased description of the problems encountered, 

reasons on why the problems occurred, and descriptions of solutions instituted. With the wide ranging rumors and reports of voting equipment 

problems that came out of the 2004 elections, there is a lack of full information to substantiate or dispel the rumors. 

16. Poll workers. Recommendations on poll workers in Chapter 12 were as follows: 

16.1. That the EAC change how the number of poll workers is collected. 

States vary with regards to requiring poll workers to work all day or in 

shifts. This administrative procedure by itself would be valuable information to collect. However, in calculating number of poll workers per polling 

place or precinct, a comparable metric needs to be formulated across jurisdictions, such as the average number within polling places during the day. 

Similarly, the number of polling places or precincts with staffing concerns 

should be considered in terms of inadequate coverage of a shift or for the 

entire day. 

16.2. That the EAC collect information about poll worker training and special 

skills required of poll workers, such as: (a) How are poll workers trained? Is 

training mandatory? And how many hours is a typical training class? (b) Is 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 3

Recommendations, page 8 September 27, 2005 

multilingual training provided for poll workers in Section 203 covered jurisdictions? And (c) are they compensated for their time and at what rate? 

17. Polling places. Recommendations on polling places in Chapter 13 were as follows: 

17.1. That the EAC collect the number of early voting and Election Day polling 

places. With the increasing popularity of early voting, the distinction between early voting and Election Day precincts will need to be carefully 

defined and the growth or decline of polling places will need to be monitored. 

17.2. That the EAC begin asking about the existence of vote centers, how many 

precincts they cover, and determine whether returns and other data are consolidated in how they are reported or are able to be kept separate for the 

individual precincts. The advent in the past year of the concept of vote centers, or locations where voters can come from multiple precincts, is a new 

development in election administration and something that merits study. 

17.3. That the EAC collect information on criteria for establishing precincts. For 

example, what does each state law require as a maximum or minimum size 

for a voting precinct? This information would be useful to identify standards and best practices among jurisdictions. 

17.4. That the EAC collect information on the number of consolidated polling 

places, i.e., polling places servicing more than one voting precinct, and collect procedures for the establishment of consolidated polling places. 

Consolidated polling places were identified as one potential cause of voter 

confusion that might lead to the casting of an invalid provisional ballot. 

17.5. That the EAC collect information on individual voting precincts and polling 

places, e.g., the number of registered voters and the number of votes cast in 

each voting precinct and polling place. 

A populous jurisdiction may have several hundred voting precincts within 

its boundaries, and jurisdiction averages may mask significant variation 

across voting precincts and polling places. If the unit of analysis was the 

precinct or polling place, additional characteristic may be collected, such as 

ease of access of polling places, recent changes to precincts boundaries, and 

polling place location. 

17.6. That the EAC collect information on “split precincts” in the states that use 

them. Split precincts or polling places were identified as one potential cause 

of voter confusion that might lead to the casting of an invalid provisional 

ballot. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Part 3

Recommendations, page 9 September 27, 2005 

18. Disability: Recommendations on polling place accessibility in Chapter 14 were as 

follows: 

18.1. That the EAC clarify the wording of questions about accessible polling locations so that it is clear the information being sought relates to the physical 

polling site and not the type of equipment used. 
Appendix A 

Survey Instrument 
UNITED STATES ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

ELECTION DAY DATA SURVEY 

The following form and its attachments should be completed on-line or in electronic format. 

Completed forms should be returned to the United States Election Assistance Commission 

via email to surveyresponse@eac.gov on or before the sixtieth day following the federal 

election.

Please complete all of the fields below. Specific instructions relative to certain fields are 

found at the end of this form. If your question or concern is not answered in the instructions 

section of this form, please contact Brian Hancock at 202-566-3100. 

RESPONDANT INFORMATION: 

Name of the responding State: Date response is submitted: 

Name of responding official: Title of responding official: 

Address of responding official: Email Address: 

Phone Number: Fax Number: 

VOTER REGISTRATION: 

Please respond to the following questions on the attached spreadsheet or in 

similar format that can be imported to a spreadsheet or database file such as a

comma separated values (.csv) format.

1a. Total number of registered voters 

(active) by county/local election jurisdiction

1b. Total number of registered voters 

(inactive) by county/local election jurisdiction 

ELECTION RESULTS: 

Please respond to the following questions on the attached spreadsheet or in 

similar format that can be imported to a spreadsheet or database file such as a

comma separated values (.csv) format. 

2a. Total number of ballots counted statewide2b. Total number of ballots counted by 

county/local election jurisdiction 

3a. Total number of ballots cast in polling 

places (state-wide) on election day (for 

Oregon – by mail) 

3b. Total number of ballots cast on election 

day by county/local election jurisdiction

4a. Total number of requested absentee 

ballots 

4b. Total number of requested absentee 

ballots by county/local election jurisdiction

5a. Total number of absentee ballots 

returned 

5b. Total number of absentee ballots 

returned by county/local election jurisdiction 
6a. Total number of absentee ballots counted 6b. Total number of absentee ballots counted 

by county/local election jurisdiction 

6c. Total number of absentee ballots that 

were not counted 

6d. Identify the five most common reasons 

that absentee ballots were rejected 

7a. Does your state conduct early voting? 7b. Total number of early voting ballots 

counted 

7c. Total number of early voting ballots 

counted by county/local election jurisdiction 

8a. Total number of provisional ballots cast 8b. Total number of provisional ballots cast 

by county/local election jurisdiction 

9a. Total number of provisional ballots 

counted 

9b. Total number of provisional ballots 

counted by county/local election jurisdiction 

9c. Identify the five most common reasons 

that provisional ballots were rejected 

10. Total number of undervotes reported in 

each federal contest by county/local election 

jurisdiction 

11. Total number of overvotes reported in 

each federal contest by county/local election 

jurisdiction 

12. Total number of votes cast for all 

candidates in each federal contest by 

county/local election jurisdiction 

VOTING EQUIPMENT: 

Please respond to the following questions by attaching a file in any of the 

following formats: .doc, .txt, or .csv. 

13. Provide a listing of the types of voting equipment in use in each county of the State 

including the type of voting system, manufacturer, number of units used in each county/local 

election jurisdiction, the software version (if applicable), and an indication as to whether the 

voting system has or has not previously been used in a Federal election in that jurisdiction. 

14. Identify by county and precinct, if available, where any of the following voting machine 

malfunctions occurred. Please identify if the voting machine was returned to service in the 

November 2, 2004 election. 

14a. Power failure 14b. Broken counter 

14c. Computer failure 14d. Printer failure 

14e. Screen failure 14f. Fatal damage to machine 

14g. Modem failure 14h. Scanner failure 

14i. Ballot encoder/activator failure 14j. Audio ballot failure 

14k. Other (please specify) 

POLL WORKERS: 

Please respond to the following questions on the attached spreadsheet or in a 

similar format that can be imported to a spreadsheet or database file such as a 

comma separated values (.csv) format. 

15a. Total number of poll workers who 

served in the State on November 2, 2004 

15b. Total number of poll workers who 

served in each county/local election 

jurisdiction on November 2, 2004 

16. What is the required number of poll workers per precinct/polling place as established by 

law or regulation? 

17a. By county/local election jurisdiction, 

how many precincts/polling places did not 

have the required number of poll workers? 

17b. In any county/local election jurisdiction 

where a deficit of poll workers existed, 

identify the number of additional poll 

workers needed to meet the requirement. 
VOTING JURISDICTIONS: 

Please respond to the following questions on the attached spreadsheet or in a 

similar format that can be imported to a spreadsheet or database file such as a 

comma separated values (.csv) format.

18. Identify what constitutes a local election jurisdiction in your State (e.g. county, parish, 

township, city). 

19. Total number of precincts by county/local election jurisdiction 

20. Total number of polling places by county/local election jurisdiction 

21a. Total number of polling places by 

county/local election jurisdiction that can be 

accessed by a voter who uses a wheelchair 

21b. Total number of polling places by 

county/local election jurisdiction where a 

visually impaired voter can cast a private 

ballot 

21c. Total number of polling places where a 

physically disabled voter can cast a ballot on 

an accessible voting system. 

SOURCES OF INFORMATION: 

Please respond to the following questions by attaching a file in any of the 

following formats: .doc, .txt, or .csv.

22. Total number of local election jurisdictions that provided information for purposes of 

responding to this survey 

23. Provide the name and contact information for each local election jurisdiction official that 

provided information for purposes of responding to this survey. 

24. Identify any other sources of information used to respond to this survey other than those 

provided in response to questions 22 and 23. 

Instructions: 

Please answer every question. Do not leave any questions blank. The appropriate answer 

may be “0”, “none”, or “N/A”. This survey seeks information on both a State and local 

election jurisdiction level. 

A spreadsheet has been attached for your convenience in responding to the majority of the 

questions, above. However, States may provide the same information in a similar format 

through any .csv formatted file. Please add additional columns where necessary to report 

additional Congressional or Senatorial district information and to accommodate all 

counties/local election jurisdictions in the State. 

Definitions: 

The following are specific instructions and definitions for your use in completing the 

numbered questions in the form, above: 

1. Provide by county/local jurisdiction, only, the number of registered voters. If your 

state differentiates between active and inactive voters, place each number in the respective 

column on the attached spreadsheet. If your state does not differentiate, place results in the 

“active” column. 
2. The number provided in response to this question should include all ballots that were 

counted during election day, absentee, early voting or late counting for the November 2, 2004 

election (e.g., paper, electronic, military, absentee, and provisional ballots) 

3. The number provided in response to this question should include all ballots cast and 

counted during election day voting (at the polls). This number does not include the number 

of absentee or early voting ballots counted. 

4a. – 6d. Absentee voting is defined as voting prior to election day which requires that 

the voter meet qualifications other than those generally required to register to vote. The 

numbers provided in response to questions 4a. – 6b. should not include ballots requested by 

military and overseas voters. The number should reflect only those non-military and 

overseas absentee ballots that were requested, returned, cast and counted, respectively. 

6e. Identify the most common reasons for rejecting an absentee ballot. The response to 

this question can be provided in any electronic format. 

7. “Early voting” is defined as any voting that occurred prior to November 2, 2004 for 

which there were no eligibility requirements. For example, the voter did not have to attest 

that he/she would be absent from the voting jurisdiction on the day of the election. 

8. The number provided in response to this question should include the total number of 

ballots cast in the State’s program for contingent or provisional ballots that complies with 

section 302(a) of the Help America Vote Act. 

9a. The number provided in response to this question should include the total number of 

ballots identified in response to question 8 that were verified as having been cast by eligible 

voters and were counted in the November 2, 2004 election. 

9b. The number provided in response to this question should include the total number of 

ballots identified in response to question 8 that were not verified as having been cast by 

eligible voters and which were not counted in the November 2, 2004 election. 

9c. Identify the most common reasons for rejecting a provisional ballot. The response to 

this question can be provided in any electronic format. 

10. An “undervote” occurs at any time when a voter makes less than that allowed 

number of selections in a single race/contest or when a voter votes on less than all of the 

races/contests for which he/she is eligible to vote. 

11. An “overvote” occurs when a voter makes more than the permitted number of 

selections in a single race/contest or when a voter makes a selection in a race/contest on 

which he/she was not eligible to vote. 

12. Report all votes cast for all candidates in the presidential, senatorial and 

congressional contests, respectively. If response to this question is made using the sample 

spreadsheet, columns must be added so that each senatorial and congressional contest is 

reported separately. 

13. Respond to question 13 by identifying in an electronic document (.doc, .txt. or .csv 

format) the county and/or precinct, the type of voting system (i.e., punch card, lever, optical 

scan or direct record electronic (DRE)), the manufacturer of the equipment used, and the 

number of units in use in the county (and/or precinct, if available), the software version (if 

applicable) and an indication as to whether this technology was used in a Federal election in 

that jurisdiction prior to November 2, 2004. 

14. The answer to this question should identify the location (county or precinct, if 

available) and number of occurrences of each type of machine malfunction that occurred on 

November 2, 2004 or during any absentee or early voting period for the November 2, 2004 

election. 

14a. “Power failure” means any interruption or failure of the power system of the voting 

system that would render the voting machine incapable of counting votes for more than 5 

minutes during election day, absentee or early voting. 

14b. “Broken counter” means with reference to a lever voting system the malfunction of 

the counting mechanism that renders the voting system incapable of counting additional 

votes on any votable position on the machine. 
14c. “Computer failure” means any malfunction, disablement or interruption of the 

software, hardware or firmware that makes up the voting unit such that the unit is 

incapable of presenting the ballot, recording votes or printing and/or tabulating results. 

14d. “Printer failure” means any malfunction or interruption of the printer hardware, 

software or mechanical components that constitute the mechanism for creating a printed 

result of all races voted on a single or on multiple voting machines. Printer failures shall 

include printers on both electronic and mechanical or lever voting machines. 

14e. “Screen failure” means with reference to a DRE a malfunction or interruption of the 

screen display or indicator lights such that the DRE cannot accurately indicate to the voter 

which choices have been made or which races on which the voter is eligible to vote. 

14f. “Fatal damage to a machine” means the damage or destruction of a voting machine 

that renders it incapable of functioning to record votes or print results of voting. 

14g. “Modem failure” means the malfunction or interruption of modem or the computer 

hardware or software using the modem to transmit results to a central counting location 

such that the modem is rendered incapable of transmitting results. 

14h. “Scanner failure” is the malfunction or interruption of a paper ballot reading device 

that renders it incapable of counting votes or renders the result tabulated by the reader 

inaccurate. 

14i. “Ballot encoder/activator failure” with reference to a DRE means the malfunction or 

interruption of that piece of electronic equipment that encodes a smart card or other similar 

device with the voter’s ballot or critical demographic data that allows the voting system to 

access the proper ballot for the individual voter. 

14j. “Audio ballot failure” with reference to a DRE means any malfunction or interruption 

of the hardware, software or peripherals that renders the voting machine incapable of 

playing an audio version of the ballot. 

14k. “Other” refers to any voting machine malfunction that does not fall within the 

categories established in 14a – 14i. 

15. The answer to this question should include the number of persons who served in all 

polling places in the State as poll workers, election judges, wardens, commissioners or other 

similar term that refers to the person or persons who verify the identity of a voter; assist the 

voter with signing the register, affidavits or other documents required to cast a ballot; assist 

the voter by providing the voter with a ballot or setting up the voting machine for the voter; 

and serving other functions as dictated by state law. The answer to this question shall 

include the head poll worker for each precinct. The response to this question shall not 

include observers stationed at the polling place. 

16. In responding to this question, please provide any prescribed minimum number of 

poll workers needed to serve in a precinct/polling place on election day. 

17. In response to this question, the State shall identify the county and precinct, if 

available, where less than a full complement of poll workers was present on election day and 

the number of poll workers that it was short by county or local election jurisdiction. 

18. Identify in any electronic format what constitutes a local election jurisdiction in your 

State (e.g., county, parish, township, city) 

19. “Precinct” is that geographic area to which voters are assigned. 

20. “Polling place” is that physical structure where residents of a precinct go to cast their 

votes on election day. A polling place includes any structure that houses one or more 

precincts. 

21a. Identify the total number of polling places that are accessible to persons using 

wheelchairs. 

21b. Identify the total number of polling places where voting equipment is used such that 

a visually disabled voter can cast a private ballot (e.g., a DRE with audio ballot capability or 

paper ballots printed in Braille). 

21c. Identify the total number of polling places where voting equipment is used that is 

accessible to a physically disabled voter (e.g., a touch screen DRE which can be handed to the 
voter, a voting machine which can be lowered to allow access to voter using a wheelchair, 

other paper ballots or voting systems that are accessible to voters with physical disabilities). 

23. In response to this question, the State shall identify name, address, phone number 

and email address (if available) of the local election officials or jurisdictions responsible for 

conducting elections in a specified geographic area that have provided data to assist the 

State in responding to this survey. 

24. All other sources of data shall include information obtained from a state-wide voter 

registration database or any other public or non-public source. 
Appendix B 

Election Glossary 

Here are definitions or descriptions of election terms, abbreviations, and acronyms in the 2004 

Election Day Survey Report: 

Absentee Ballot Ballot requested by application of a registered voter who expects to be absent 

from the polls on Election Day 

Active Voter Not inactive (see Inactive Voter) 

Ballots Cast Number of ballots cast and processed at a precinct, including an absentee precinct, and not necessarily equal to the number of ballots counted. 

Ballots Counted Number of ballots counted for a precinct at the close of the polls. 

Central Count Processing or counting of ballots on automatic tabulating equipment at a single location, and usually in reference to punch card and optically scanned 

(marksense) ballots. 

CVAP Citizen Voting Age Population. Persons in an election jurisdiction who are 

age 18 or older and who are U.S. citizens. 

Datavote Datavote ballot card. A punch card ballot that is printed with a candidate 

name or answer to a ballot question at each voting position. A Datavote ballot 

card is inserted into a frame with a movable device for punching out chads at 

voting positions. (See Votomatic.) 

Deadwood Duplicate names, erroneous or obsolete address information, and names of 

deceased and ineligible persons listed as active voters on voter registration 

rolls. 

DRE Direct Recording Electronic. A voting system that records votes by means of 

a ballot display provided with mechanical or electro-optical components 

actuated by the voter and where voting data is stored in a removable memory 

component. In this report, DRE is referred to as an “electronic” voting system. 

Drop-Off The difference between the number of ballots counted and the total number of 

votes for all candidates in a specified contest. Drop-off is a combination of 

undervotes and overvotes, and is also referred to as the “residual vote.”

Early Voting Ballot cast by a voter at a designated polling site prior to Election Day. Also 

referred to as “early in-person voting” or “on-site absentee voting.” 

EAC U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

EDR Election Day Registration 

FVAP Federal Voting Assistance Program, Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense 

General Election An election in which voters, regardless of party affiliation, select candidates 

for public office or vote on ballot issues. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Appendix B

Glossary, Page B–2 September 27, 2005 

HAVA Help America Vote Act of 2002 (Public Law 107–252) 

Highest 

Office Turnout 

An alternate measure of voter turnout consisting of the total number of votes 

cast for all the candidates for the office on the ballot that received the highest 

number of votes. (See Voter Turnout and Maximum Vote Turnout.) 

Inactive Voter A voter whose name or residence address is no longer current and who has 

not attempted to reregister, has not voted, or appeared to vote at the address of 

record. 

Lever Machine Mechanical Lever Voting Machine. A voting system that records votes by 

mechanical lever-actuated controls into a counting mechanism that tallies the 

votes without a physical ballot. 

Marksense See Optical Scan 

Maximum 

Vote Turnout 

An alternate measure for comparing voter turnout statistics among jurisdictions when not all jurisdictions report actual voter turnout. Maximum vote 

turnout is the greater of: (a) actual voter turnout or (b) highest office turnout—the total number of votes cast for all the candidates for the office on the 

ballot that received the highest number of votes. (See Voter Turnout and 

Highest Office Turnout.) 

NVRA National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (Public Law 103–31) 

Optical Scan A system of recording votes by marks in voting response fields on ballot cards 

that are read by an optical scanner or similar sensor. Also referred to as “marksense” voting systems. 

Overvotes Votes for more choices than are permitted in a contest 

Paper Ballot Paper ballot voting system. A system of recording votes on paper ballot cards 

that are counted and tabulated manually. 

Polling Place A facility staffed by poll workers and equipped with voting equipment at 

which persons residing in a precinct cast ballots in person on Election Day. 

Precinct An administrative division of a county or municipality consisting of a contiguous geographic area defined by a map to which voters have been assigned 

by their residence addresses for voting at an election. 

Precinct Count Processing or counting of ballots on automatic tabulating equipment at the 

same location at which the ballots were cast (precinct). 

Provisional Ballot A ballot issued when a voter’s eligibility has not yet been determined. 

Punch Card Punch card voting system. A system where votes are recorded by punches in 

voting response fields on a ballot card. 

Residual Vote See Drop-Off 

Undervotes Votes for fewer choices than are permitted in a contest, including the choice 

to not vote for any candidate in a contest or any response to a ballot question. 

UOCAVA Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (Public Law ___) 

VAP Voting Age Population. Persons in an election jurisdiction who are age 18 or 

older. 
Election Data Services, Inc. 

2004 Election Day Survey Report, Appendix B

Glossary, Page B–3 September 27, 2005 

Voter Turnout Number of persons who participated in an election, including persons who 

appeared to vote as well as persons who actually voted. Voter turnout is not 

necessarily the same as ballots cast. (See also Maximum Vote Turnout and 

Highest Office Turnout.)

Voting Machine A device that records every vote cast on a candidate or ballot measure and 

that internally or externally totals all votes cast on that device, including a 

device into which a ballot may be inserted so that votes may be indicated by 

punching the ballot. 

Votomatic Votomatic ballot card. A punch card ballot that is prescored and printed only 

with numbered voting positions. A Votomatic ballot card is inserted into a 

frame to which a booklet identifying candidates or answers to ballot questions 

has been attached. Chads are punched out at voting positions with a stylus. 

VTD Voting Tabulation District. A term used by the U.S. Census Bureau to refer to 

a voting precinct. (See Precinct.)