Human Resources Research Organization (HumRRO) i

FR-13-25

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Urban-Rural Study

Final Report

Prepared for: U.S. Election Assistance Commission

1201 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 300

Washington, DC 20005

Prepared under: GS-10F-0087J

USEAC-11-D-0020

Authors: Peter F. Ramsberger

Gwenyth M. Van Trieste

Date: April 15, 2013

U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study i

FR-13-25

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Urban-Rural Study

Final Report

Prepared for: U.S. Election Assistance Commission

1201 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 300

Washington, DC 20005

Prepared under: GS-10F-0087J

USEAC-11-D-0020

Authors: Peter F. Ramsberger

Gwenyth M. Van Trieste

Date: April 15, 2013

U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study i

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Urban/Rural Study

Final Report

Table of Contents

Executive Summary......................................................................................................................... i

Background..................................................................................................................................... 1

Methodology................................................................................................................................... 2

Survey Development................................................................................................................... 2

Sample Selection......................................................................................................................... 3

Survey Distribution..................................................................................................................... 5

Electronic Distribution and Follow-Up .................................................................................. 5

Distribution of Paper Surveys................................................................................................. 6

Response Rate............................................................................................................................. 6

Results............................................................................................................................................. 8

Respondent and Jurisdiction Characteristics .............................................................................. 8

Voter Outreach Activities........................................................................................................... 9

Forms of Outreach .................................................................................................................. 9

Partnerships........................................................................................................................... 11

Outreach to Specific Groups................................................................................................. 13

Costs of Outreach and Sources of Funding........................................................................... 14

Ease/Difficulty of Conducting Outreach............................................................................... 17

Personnel................................................................................................................................... 20

Number of Personnel ............................................................................................................ 20

Poll Worker Pay.................................................................................................................... 22

Methods of Poll Worker Recruiting...................................................................................... 24

Ease/Difficulty of Poll Worker Recruiting ........................................................................... 27

Split Shifts............................................................................................................................. 30

Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 32

References..................................................................................................................................... 35

Appendix A. U.S. Election Assistance Commission Urban/Rural Study Questionnaire ........... A-1

Appendix B. Survey Sample Weights ........................................................................................ B-1

Appendix C. EAC Urban/Rural Survey Verbatim Respondent Comments ............................... C-1
ii Final Report

Table of Contents (Continued)

List of Tables

Table 1. Frequencies of Elections Jurisdictions by Region and Urban/Rural Status...................... 4

Table 2. Distribution of Sample for the Strata................................................................................ 5

Table 3. Final Survey Response Rate by Survey Mode and Overall.............................................. 7

Table 4. Expected and Actual Percent of Completed Surveys by Stratum..................................... 7

Table 5. Urban/Rural Status as Reported by LEOs and the Economic Research Service.............. 8

Table 6. Percent of Jurisdictions Allowing Alternate Voting Modes............................................. 9

Table 7. Forms of Outreach Provided and Languages in Which They are Provided ................... 10

Table 8. Percent of LEOs engaged in Outreach Activities by Urban/Rural Status ...................... 11

Table 9. Percent of LEOs Engaged in Outreach Activities by Size of 

Registered Voter Population......................................................................................................... 11

Table 10. Percent of LEOs who Form Partnerships with Organization Types by Urban/Rural 

Status............................................................................................................................................. 12

Table 11. Percent of LEOs who Form Partnerships with Organization Types by Size of 

Registered Voter Population......................................................................................................... 12

Table 12. Percent Partnering in Outreach Activities by Urban/Rural Status................................ 13

Table 13. Percent Focusing on Specific Voter Groups through Outreach Activities in Urban and 

Rural Jurisdictions ........................................................................................................................ 14

Table 14. Cost of Outreach Activities for 2010 Mid-Term Election............................................ 15

Table 15. Cost of Outreach Activities for 2012 General Election................................................ 15

Table 16. Cost of Outreach Activities for 2010 Mid-Term Election by Urban/Rural Status....... 15

Table 17. Cost of Outreach Activities for 2012 General Election by Urban/Rural Status........... 16

Table 18. Cost of Outreach Activities for 2010 Mid-Term Election by Size of Registered Voter 

Population ..................................................................................................................................... 16

Table 19. Cost of Outreach Activities for 2012 General Election by Size of Registered Voter 

Population ..................................................................................................................................... 16

Table 20. Sources of Funding for Outreach Efforts by Urban/Rural Status................................. 17

Table 21. Ease/Difficulty of Voter Outreach Efforts by Urban/Rural Status............................... 17

Table 22. Ease/Difficulty of Voter Outreach Efforts by Size of Registered Voter Population .... 18

Table 23. Ease/Difficulty of Voter Outreach Efforts by Tenure of LEO ..................................... 18

Table 24. Sources of Difficulty in Conducting Voter Outreach ................................................... 19
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study iii

Table 25. Average Ratings of Degree of Problem Posed by Potential Barriers to Voter Outreach 

by Urban/Rural Status1................................................................................................................. 19

Table 26. Average Ratings of Degree of Problem Posed by Potential Barriers to Voter Outreach 

by Size of Registered Voter Population a...................................................................................... 20

Table 27. Average Number of Staff for the 2010 and 2012 General Elections............................ 20

Table 28. Average Number of Staff for the 2010 and 2012 General Elections by Urban/Rural 

Status............................................................................................................................................. 21

Table 29. Average Number of Staff for the 2010 and 2012 General Elections by Size of 

Registered Voter Population......................................................................................................... 21

Table 30. Average Number of Poll Workers/Election Judges for the 2010 and 2012 General 

Elections by Urban/Rural Status and Size of Registered Voter Population ................................. 22

Table 31. Average and Range of Poll Worker Election Day Pay by Urban/Rural Status............ 22

Table 32. Average and Range of Poll Worker Election Day Pay by Size of Registered Voter 

Population ..................................................................................................................................... 23

Table 33. Average and Range of Poll Worker Training Pay by Urban/Rural Status ................... 23

Table 34. Average and Range of Poll Worker Training Pay by Size of Registered Voter 

Population ..................................................................................................................................... 24

Table 35. Percent of LEOs Using Various Recruiting Resources and Degree of Success Achieved 

by Those Using Each .................................................................................................................... 25

Table 36 Percent Using Recruiting Resources by Urban/Rural Status......................................... 25

Table 37 Percent Using Recruiting Resources by Size of Registered Voter Population.............. 26

Table 38. Average Ratings of Recruiting Resource Usefulness by Urban/Rural Status.............. 26

Table 39. Average Ratings of Recruiting Resource Usefulness by Size of Registered Voter 

Population ..................................................................................................................................... 27

Table 40. Difficulty in Recruiting Poll Workers by Urban/Rural Status...................................... 28

Table 41. Difficulty in Recruiting Poll Workers by Size of Registered Voter Population........... 28

Table 42. Sources of Difficulty in Recruiting Poll Workers ........................................................ 29

Table 43. Average Rating of Poll Worker Recruiting Difficulty by Urban/Rural Status............. 29

Table 44. Average Poll Worker Recruiting Difficulty Rating by Size of Registered Voter 

Population ..................................................................................................................................... 30

Table 45. Impact of Offering Split Shifts on Poll Worker Recruiting by Whether Split Shifts are 

Currently Offered.......................................................................................................................... 31

Table 46. Impact of Having Split Shifts by Urban/Rural Status................................................... 31

Table 47. Impact of Having Split Shifts by Size of Registered Voter Population........................ 32

U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study i

Executive Summary

Background

The 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA) created the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

(EAC) and provided mandates for some of the issues that they should seek to address. One of 

these was to examine factors that may differentially have an impact on elections administration 

in urban and rural areas. In May 2010, EAC staff convened a working group made up of Local 

Election Officials (LEOs) from both rural and urban jurisdictions, as well as researchers who 

have examined issues pertinent to this topic. After gaining a common perspective on the 

definition of “urban” and “rural,” the working group members focused on four main areas where 

there could be significant variance in election administration processes based on urban/rural 

setting. These were voter outreach, personnel, polling places, and technology. EAC staff 

examined the input obtained and determined that the two topics that might yield the most salient 

information were voter outreach and personnel. At the same time, it was acknowledged by 

working group members that funding issues were likely to be critical to both of these topics. 

After considering several methods for obtaining input on the issues of interest, EAC decided that 

a survey of LEOs would provide the most comprehensive information. They developed a survey 

that addressed both voter outreach and personnel factors, as well as the resources available for 

each. EAC then contracted with the Human Resources Research Organization (HumRRO) to 

implement the survey and analyze the results.

Methodology

HumRRO reviewed and pilot tested the survey, and worked with EAC to incorporate necessary 

changes. It was then formatted for delivery in both paper-and-pencil and online forms. HumRRO 

also drafted the package required to obtain permission to conduct the survey from the Office of 

Management and Budget. This was granted on August 22, 2012.

EAC provided a database containing contact information for some 4,600 LEOs. Email addresses 

were available for approximately two thirds of the LEOs, and regular mailing addresses for the 

remainder. HumRRO reviewed the database and made updates and additions where possible, as 

well as adding codes that designated each district’s urban/rural status using a 9-tier classification 

system developed by the Economic Research Service (ERS) of the Department of Agriculture. 

Geographic location was also coded, designating each jurisdiction as being in the Northeast, 

Midwest, South, or West. The population was then stratified according to these dimensions, 

yielding 36 strata (4 geographic regions by 9 urban/rural groups). Because the rural portion of 

the strata was relatively small, all cases in this group were selected for inclusion in the sample. A 

random sample of 2,000 cases was then selected from the remainder . The final sample included 

2,352 cases with email addresses and 390 without, for a total of 2,742 cases.

Sample members were sent, either via email or regular mail, a letter from the Chief Operating 

Officer and Acting Executive Director of the EAC explaining the purpose and importance of the 

project. As anticipated given the age of the contact information, a number of the emails were 

returned as undeliverable. In all, 376 cases were moved to the mail portion of the sample for this 
ii Final Report

reason. Several days after the first contact, each sample member was sent either a paper version 

of the survey or an email containing instructions for accessing the instrument and a unique

password to allow them to do so. A reminder email was sent to all sample members 

approximately one week after survey launch thanking those who had already taken part and 

urging participation for those who had not. Similarly, a reminder postcard was sent to those in 

the regular mail portion of the sample approximately one week after the surveys were sent.

Results

Response Rate and Background Information. A total of 874 completed surveys were returned for 

a response rate of 32.25%. Although the percentages in each strata were similar to the 

population, weights were calculated and applied to ensure that the sample accurately reflected 

the population of LEOs in terms of urban/rural status and geographic region. The data revealed 

the following about the sample members and their jurisdictions. 

 The average number of years served as a LEO was 13.1, with a range of less than 1 year 

to 55 years. 

 Overall, 52.7% of respondents were elected to their positions, with the remainder having 

been appointed. 

 Just over 92% of LEOs from jurisdictions classified as rural by the ERS indicated that 

they were, in fact, in rural areas. However, only 7.25% of LEOs from jurisdictions 

classified by the ERS as urban agreed with that designation, with 59.92% indicating rural 

and 33.83% saying a mixture of the two. 

 As expected, there was a wide range of district sizes as indicated by the number of 

registered voters, from less than 10 to 1,900,000. For analytic purposes, the sample was 

divided into three groups based on this variable to represent small (< 5,000 voters, n = 

302), medium (5,001-20,000 voters, n = 271), and large (> 20,000 voters, n = 282) 

jurisdictions. 

 Over 87% of respondents said that they have full responsibility for the administration of 

elections, including voter registration, voting machines, and ballots. Of the remainder, 

65% indicated that some or all of these were shared state and local functions, and 35% 

specified some other arrangement (e.g., shared state, county and local responsibility). 

Voter Outreach. The results regarding voter outreach can be summarized as follows.

 The most frequently cited forms of voter outreach LEOs reported engaging in were paid 

print advertising (70.70%), elections office or county website (70.16%), and participation 

in community events (55.63%). 

 A higher proportion of rural LEOs relied on paid print advertising for voter outreach than 

did those representing urban districts (urban. 68.60%; rural 81.75%), while greater 

proportions of urban LEOs invested in websites (urban 72.81%; rural. 56.93%), social 

media (urban 14.23%; rural 3.68%), and participation in community events (urban 

57.46%; rural 45.99%). 

 Overall, higher percentages of LEOs in large districts used each form of voter outreach 

than did those in medium-sized districts, and greater proportions of LEOs representing 
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study iii

medium-sized districts engaged in each form of voter outreach than did those from small 

districts. 

 When asked if they partnered with other organizations to conduct outreach, 32.19% 

indicated that this was the case, including 34.54% of urban LEOs and 19.85% of rural. 

Approximately 89% of both rural and urban LEOs who formed partnerships did so with 

school-related groups, and about 60% of both groups did so with political parties. Urban 

LEOs were more likely to partner with nonprofits (72.58%) than were rural LEOs 

(48.00%). 

 The most common forms of partnering were participating in community events (urban 

67.49%; rural 40.00%), maintaining a website (urban 37.30%; rural 8.33%), hard copy 

direct mail (urban 20.49%; rural 12.00%), and paid print advertising (urban 24.69%; rural 

24.00%).

 Higher proportions of LEOs from urban jurisdictions indicated that they target outreach 

activities to racial/ethnic minorities (urban 17.79%; rural 6.20%) and foreign language 

speakers (urban 8.90%; rural 1.55%).

 The vast majority of LEOs indicated that they spent $5,000 or less on voter outreach in 

both the 2010 midterm (91.07%) and 2012 general elections (88.39%).

 The majority of LEOs from both urban (69.60%) and rural (64.41%) districts fund 

outreach efforts through local election office budgets.

 There were no differences between LEOs from urban and rural areas or 

large/medium/small districts in terms of their assessments of the difficulty in conducting 

voter outreach. Overall, 44.20% said this was very easy or somewhat easy, followed by 

37.27% neither easy or difficult, and 18.53% somewhat or very difficult.

 Over two thirds of respondents indicated that staff availability and time were a moderate 

to big problem in conducting outreach, with 60% responding similarly with regard to 

cost. Rural LEOs rated travel time and Internet availability as more significant problems 

than did urban LEOs. LEOs representing large districts indicated that staff availability 

and time were a bigger problem than did those from small jurisdictions, while the 

availability of media outlets and Internet reliability were more problematic for LEOS 

from small and medium districts as compared to large.

Personnel. The results regarding elections office and poll worker personnel can be summarized 

as follows:

 The average number of personnel available to LEOs for the 2012 general election was 

3.16 full-time, 4.48 part-time, and 7.42 paid temporary. In addition, 14.66% of 

respondents reported that they borrowed staff from other government 

agencies/departments, with the average number being 5.02 in 2012.

 Taking all types of staff into account, the average number of staff available to LEOs in 

urban and rural districts in 2012 was 22.66 and 6.18, respectively. Corresponding figures 

for large, medium, and small districts were 44.63, 7.58, and 6.98, respectively.

 The average number of poll workers in 2012 was 166.10. The average number of poll 

workers in urban districts (191.61) was significantly higher than in rural districts (33.99). 

Corresponding figures based on number of registered voters in the district was 442.82 in 

large districts, 61.77 in medium sized, and 16.31 in small jurisdictions.
iv Final Report

 Overall, 95.32% of LEOs said that poll workers are paid for their service in their 

jurisdictions, with 68.58% saying they are also paid for training, either apart from or in 

combination with their election-day pay. The average hourly pay amounts reported by 

LEOs in urban and rural, as well as large medium, and small districts were quite similar 

at approximately $9.00 an hour. Overall, LEOs from urban and larger districts reported 

higher one-time stipends than did those from rural and small districts. Training pay 

amounts were similar across jurisdictions with an average one-time stipend of $20-$25 

and an hourly rate of around $9.00.

 The forms of poll worker recruiting used by the largest proportion of respondents were 

word of mouth (89.90%) and responding to volunteer inquiries (68.91%). These were 

also deemed the most successful methods of recruiting. In general, LEOs from urban, 

large, and medium-sized districts reported using more forms of poll worker recruiting 

than did those from rural and small districts.

 Overall, 43.82% of LEOs indicated that poll worker recruiting was very or somewhat 

easy, while 39.47% said it was very or somewhat difficult. No differences were found 

between urban and rural LEOs in their average rating of recruiting difficulty. However 

LEOs from small districts had a lower overall average than those from medium or large 

districts, indicating they rated recruiting as being less difficult.

 The factors that were rated as a moderate or big problem in poll worker recruiting by the 

largest proportion of LEOs were election day hours being too long (47.60%) and the 

requirement for having equal numbers of poll workers from each political party 

(45.40%). Over one third of respondents (36.35%) also felt that volunteers getting time 

off from work was a significant issue.

 No differences were found based on urban/rural status in the degree to which the various 

factors were rated as being problematic in recruiting poll workers. However, LEOs from 

small districts deemed pay, hours, training time, the lack of respect afforded poll workers, 

and a lack of qualified workers as less problematic than did LEOs from medium or large 

districts. LEOs in large districts also indicated that poll workers getting time off from 

work was more of a problem than did LEOs from small districts.

 A higher percentage of LEOs from urban districts (47.68%) said that split shifts are 

available than did those from rural districts (36.22%). A larger proportion of LEOs from 

small districts (65.28%) offer split shifts than those from medium-sized (40.00%) or large 

districts (29.80%).

 Among those who offer split shifts, 68.91% of LEOs agreed that doing so makes 

recruiting poll workers at least somewhat easier. Only 39.37% of LEOs from jurisdictions 

that do not offer split shifts agreed that this would be the case.

Conclusions

The fact that the vast majority of LEOs reporting spending $5,000 or less on voter outreach is 

likely at least partially a function of limits on local election office budgets which are the main 

source for these funds. LEOs from rural areas rely more on traditional forms of outreach such as 

print advertising, while urban LEOs tend to capitalize on a wider array of resources. Although 

relatively small proportions of respondents indicated that it was difficult to conduct outreach, 

over two thirds said that staff availability/time was an obstacle in doing so, and half cited cost as 

an issue.
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study v

The biggest obstacles in poll worker recruiting are the long hours on election day, volunteers 

getting time off from their paying jobs, and the requirement for equal numbers of poll workers 

from each party. No significant differences were found between rural and urban LEOs in their 

assessments in this regard. However, LEOs from smaller districts generally felt it was easier to 

recruit poll workers than did those from medium and large jurisdictions. LEOs from districts that 

offer split shifts were more positive in their assessment of the impact this has on recruiting poll 

workers than were those from jurisdictions that do not offer them.

LEOs offered a variety of suggestions for ways to improve election administration including 

forming partnerships with organizations that already have outreach networks such as Rock the 

Vote, providing food to poll workers on election day, and establishing methods for emphasizing 

the importance of poll workers to the democratic process, such as a National Poll Worker 

Appreciation Day. Overall, the written comments offered by respondents underscored the wide 

variety of circumstances they face and the need to provide recommendations regarding election 

administration that take into account this diversity along with suggestions that will allow 

flexibility in their implementation.

At the conclusion of the Urban/Rural Survey, LEOs were invited to provide contact information 

if they would be interested in participating in more in-depth interviews regarding the topics 

addressed. Nearly 250 individuals complied with this request. Therefore, EAC has the 

opportunity to capitalize on this through the use of online meetings or other technology-based 

forums to gain greater insight into the wide variety of circumstances faced both between and 

within rural and urban jurisdictions in the administration of Federal elections.

U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study 1

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Urban/Rural Study

Final Report

Background

Historically, election researchers have been interested in the effects of voting legislation on 

turnout, the expansion of voter rights, voter enfranchisement, partisan alignment, and other 

voting behavior. Research in this arena was an attempt to understand participation in one of the 

most fundamental democratic processes. While issues of gender, race/ethnicity, language ability, 

and minority discrimination in general have historically been the focus of voting participation 

studies, the question of differences between urban and rural voting behavior has been broadly 

overlooked. Early studies of the effects of urbanization on participation (Milbrath, 1965; Nie, 

Powell, & Prewitt, 1969; Verba & Nie, 1972) were inconclusive about correlations between 

urbanization and participation, contradictory, or they simply assumed there was higher voter 

turnout in urban areas without much supporting evidence (Monroe 1977). 

More recently, while the treatment of urbanization in voting behavior research has been more 

prevalent, this research has focused primarily on partisan alignment. After the election crisis of 

2000, however, scholars have paid more attention to election reform, and with it, issues such as 

ballot design, the relationship between socioeconomic factors and voting equipment, the factors 

explaining how election reform is adopted, and voting errors. With the passage of the 2002 Help 

America Vote Act (HAVA), the issue of urban and rural participation has come under more 

scrutiny. With respect to the urban and rural effects on participation, Creek and Karnes (2009) 

found there were differences in relative costs to becoming HAVA compliant, with rural 

jurisdictions feeling a greater impact due to more restricted resources. They also found that the 

experiences of election administrators were different depending on the state’s centralization of 

election administration and the level of cooperation between state and local officials. Certainly 

with HAVA, there has been an increased interdependence among Federal, state, and local 

governments in determining how Federal elections are administration (Liebschutz & Palazzolo 

2005)

With a growing focus on urbanization, what is becoming clearer is that there are differences in 

urban and rural election officials’ abilities to comply with HAVA. These conclusions are echoed 

in the Pew Center on the States Make Voting Work study of 2008, and to a lesser extent in 

Rachlin’s Making Every Vote Count (2006). The authors of these works note the challenges 

facing urban election officials as being different than those facing rural election officials. For 

example, “Local election officials in jurisdictions with more than a million voters and dedicated 

information technology staff face entirely different challenges in securing, maintaining and 

operating voting technology than their brethren in smaller jurisdictions” (Gronke & CaudellFeagan, 2008, p. 13-14). Election administrators in rural areas, on the other hand, sometimes are 

relatively less equipped in regard to technology expertise, lack places to store voting equipment 

(Gronke & Caudell-Feagan, 2008, p.14), have insufficient personnel, and/or insufficient funds to 

replace equipment (Rachlin 2006).
2 Final Report

In addition to establishing the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), HAVA 241(b) (15) 

also included a requirement that the EAC study matters relevant to administering elections in 

rural and urban areas. Towards that end, in May 2010 EAC convened a working group 

comprising local election officials representing both urban and rural jurisdictions, as well as 

researchers who have examined the differences in election administration in such jurisdictions. 

The group first spent time considering the characteristics that define “rural” and “urban,”

including population density and size. When a common perspective was gained on this 

distinction, the group then went on to discuss four broad areas where there could be significant 

variance in election administration processes and procedures based on such characteristics. These 

were voter outreach, personnel, polling places, and technology.

EAC staff examined the input obtained and decided that the two topics that might yield the most 

salient information were voter outreach and personnel. They also acknowledged that a constant 

theme emerging from the discussions of the working group was that of cost. Therefore, they 

decided this should be a particular focus within each area. After considering various options for 

obtaining input on these issues, the decision was made to survey local election officials to gather 

information on current and best practices related to voter outreach and personnel. The results

could be used to identify specific issues that arise in rural and urban jurisdictions, as well as 

processes and procedures that seem to be particularly effective in dealing with such issues. In 

September of 2011, EAC awarded a contract to the Human Resources Research Organization 

(HumRRO) to conduct this study. The remainder of this report details the steps that were 

undertaken to implement the EAC Urban/Rural Study and the results of these efforts. 

Methodology

Survey Development

Based on the input of the urban/rural working group, EAC staff developed a draft survey 

centering on the issues of interest. This instrument was reviewed by individuals experienced in 

survey design and suggested changes were incorporated. The draft instrument was then 

circulated to six local election officials (LEOs) identified by the EAC who were asked to 

complete it and take part in an interview addressing the clarity and comprehensiveness of the 

questions and suggestions for additional content. The outcomes of this process were reviewed by 

the project team, and alterations/additions were made where deemed advisable. The survey was 

formatted for both online and paper-based delivery. The online version was tested by both 

HumRRO and EAC staff to ensure the instructions were clear, the instrument was easily 

accessible and user friendly, and the data were being collected accurately. A copy of the paper 

version of the survey is presented in Appendix A of this report.

Concurrent with survey development, HumRRO completed a draft of the package required by 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This was reviewed by EAC staff, and adjustments were 

made as necessary. When the survey instrument was finalized, EAC arranged for the 

announcement of the data collection in the Federal Register. After the 60-day comment period, 

the package was submitted to OMB. Approval of the information collection was granted on 

August 22, 2012 (OMB Control No. 3265-0017).
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study 3

Sample Selection

EAC staff had previously assembled a database with contact information for some 4,600 LEOs

across the country. Included in this list was the official’s name (where available), mailing 

address, and email address. Unfortunately, nine states refused to provide the EAC with email 

addresses for their local officials, comprising approximately one-third of the population of LEOs. 

Therefore, only standard mail addresses were available in these locations. HumRRO staff 

reviewed this database and, using web searches and other means, updated its contents to the 

extent possible. 

The sample design for the survey attempted to accomplish several goals. The first was to 

distribute the sample sufficiently so that comparisons could be made across different size 

jurisdictions. This ability to make comparisons by size could be especially important to drawing 

conclusions about resource availability within counties to encourage and facilitate voting. The 

second goal was to distribute the sample by region to make the sample truly nationally 

representative.

The Economic Research Service (ERS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture developed a 

system of classifying municipal areas and counties along a continuum of rural-urban status with 

9 values.1Table 1 presents the 9 classifications along with the number of jurisdictions in each. 

Note that in most states, LEOs are assigned at the county level, and can be directly classified 

using the ERS system. The exceptions to this rule are the New England states (i.e., Connecticut, 

Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont), as well as Alaska and 

Wisconsin, where LEOs generally serve at the municipal/town level. In these instances we 

assigned rural/urban codes based on the county in which the town or municipality is located. 

We used this system to categorize each of the districts represented in the existing LEO database 

(N = 4,616). The first step was to divide the sample into group sizes using the 1 through 9 

categorization for counties according to size and urban/rural status. Counties that fell into 

categories 1 through 7 comprised the urban stratum, and counties that fell into categories 8 and 9 

formed the rural stratum. Counties in both of these initial strata were further divided into four 

geographic regions, forming 36 cells.

 

1

http://ers.usda.gov/Data/RuralDefinitions/
4 Final Report

Table 1. Frequencies of Elections Jurisdictions by Region and Urban/Rural Status

Code Geographic Region

Northeast Midwest South West Total

1. Counties in metro areas of 1 million 

population or more

359 106 211 39 715

2. Counties in metro areas of 250,000 to 1 

million population

329 83 160 42 614

3. Counties in metro areas of fewer than 

250,000 population

175 104 180 50 509

4. Urban population of 20,000 or more, 

adjacent to a metro area

178 65 93 30 366

5. Urban population of 20,000 or more, not 

adjacent to a metro area

71 45 32 24 172

6. Urban population of 2,500 to 19,999, 

adjacent to a metro area

240 184 336 59 819

7. Urban population of 2,500 to 19,999, not 

adjacent to a metro area

254 178 163 84 679

8. Completely rural or less than 2,500 urban 

population, adjacent to a metro area

68 75 117 33 293

9. Completely rural or less than 2,500 urban 

population, not adjacent to a metro area

30 224 132 63 449

Total 1,704 1,064 1,424 424 4,616

All counties in the second stratum were sampled, having the effect of drawing in all very rural 

counties. For the first stratum (categories 1 through 7), a sample final size of 400 was desired so 

as to be able to make some specific statements either about urban versus rural or comparisons 

across regions. However, based on our experience with this population, we anticipated a 

response rate of about 20%. Therefore, a sample size of 2,000 election officials for the rural and 

urban counties was desired. The sample size distribution is given in Table 2. Note that the 

sample is distributed proportionately to the size of the stratum for these 36 strata (nine 

urban/rural categories by four regions).
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study 5

Table 2. Distribution of Sample for the Strata

Code Geographic Region

Northeast Midwest South West Total

1. Counties in metro areas of 1 million 

population or more

185 55 109 20 369

2. Counties in metro areas of 250,000 to 1 

million population

170 43 83 22 318

3. Counties in metro areas of fewer than 

250,000 population

90 54 93 26 263

4. Urban population of 20,000 or more, 

adjacent to a metro area

92 34 48 15 189

5. Urban population of 20,000 or more, not 

adjacent to a metro area

37 23 17 12 89

6. Urban population of 2,500 to 19,999, 

adjacent to a metro area

124 95 173 30 422

7. Urban population of 2,500 to 19,999, not 

adjacent to a metro area

131 92 84 43 350

8. Completely rural or less than 2,500 urban 

population, adjacent to a metro area

68 75 117 33 293

9. Completely rural or less than 2,500 urban 

population, not adjacent to a metro area

30 224 132 63 449

Total 927 695 856 264 2,742

The sample was drawn from the entire local election official database (i.e., including those with 

and without electronic contact information). The final sample included 2,352 cases with email 

contact information and 390 without. As detailed below, those cases for which email addresses 

were no longer active were moved to the mail portion of the sample.

The results from this survey are only representative of the survey respondents and cannot be 

statistically generalized to all LEOs. EAC designed this survey to obtain insights into practices 

and problems in rural and urban districts with the additional goals of identifying possible 

solutions and informing efforts at providing guidance and technical assistance to districts. EAC 

expects that the results from this survey will be useful for these purposes.

Survey Distribution

Electronic Distribution and Follow-Up

A letter over the signature of the Chief Operating Officer and Acting Executive Director of the 

EAC was sent to each sample member for whom there was an email address in the database to 

inform them that they would be receiving a survey invitation in the coming days. The letter 

provided background on the purpose and importance of the effort. As we anticipated given the 

age of the information in the local election official database, there were a number of 

nondeliverable notices. In all, 376 such cases were transferred to the portion of the sample that 

was to receive a paper copy of the survey. 
6 Final Report

Approximately one week after the introductory e-mail, a survey invitation was sent via email to 

election officials in the online portion of the sample. Instructions for accessing the survey and a 

unique access password were included, as was information on how to obtain a paper copy of the 

survey. We also attached a pdf version of the instrument, which allowed respondents to preview 

the content of the questionnaire. They were also instructed that, if they preferred, they could print 

out the file, complete the paper-based survey, and return it to the address provided.

Approximately 10 days after the initial email invitation, a follow-up email was sent to all 

election officials, thanking those who had already completed the survey and encouraging nonresponders to complete it at their earliest convenience. All information included in the first 

notification was repeated here. 

The unique password to enter the survey allowed respondents to start and stop the survey at their 

convenience. It also prevented users from completing the survey twice. Contact information was 

included in both the notifications and on the survey instrument itself for respondents who had 

questions about the project and/or were experiencing technical difficulties. Electronic inquiries 

were directed to a project inbox that was accessible to all HumRRO personnel involved in the 

effort. Inquiries received were responded to within hours of receipt.

Distribution of Paper Surveys

That portion of the sample for whom email addresses were not available, along with those 

discovered to have invalid email addresses, were sent a paper copy of the questionnaire. In the 

absence of an actual name, we used an appropriate generic title (e.g., Elections Administrator, 

XXX County) in conducting the paper mailing. As in the electronic distribution, this process was 

started by sending an advance letter signed by the Chief Operating Officer and Acting Executive 

Director of the EAC. Approximately three days later, the survey packet was mailed, including a 

letter from the survey distribution coordinator, a paper version of the questionnaire printed in 

booklet format, a postage-paid business reply envelope, and instructions for accessing the survey 

online along with a password. The cover letter and outside mailing envelope were personalized 

for each election official to include his or her unique identification number, full name (when 

available), and mailing address. The unique identification number was also printed on the survey 

booklet included in the mailing. To ensure that the survey mailing was assembled correctly, 

envelopes were randomly pulled for review. The cover letter, outside mailing envelope, and the 

questionnaire booklet were compared to confirm that all information matched. Once the quality 

assurance check was completed, the survey packets were mailed using first class postage.

Approximately one week after the survey mailing, a reminder postcard was mailed to each 

respondent, thanking those who had already completed the instrument and seeking participation 

from those who had not.

Response Rate

After accounting for undeliverable returns, the overall final response rate was just over 32% (see 

Table 3). This was well above the anticipated response rate of 20%. Table 4 presents the 

expected and actual percentages of respondents by region and jurisdiction size. By geographic 

region, there is overrepresentation of respondents from the Midwest, with a corresponding but 
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study 7

smaller underrepresentation of LEOs from the Northeast and South. Regarding jurisdiction size, 

there is a slight overrepresentation of LEOs from rural areas. A Chi-square goodness of fit test 

was run, and the results suggested that weighting the data would be required to ensure that the 

sample accurately reflected the population of LEOs in terms of urban/rural and geographic 

representation. The sample weights are presented in Appendix B.

Table 3. Final Survey Response Rate by Survey Mode and Overall

Email Regular Mail Total

Initial Sample 2,350 390 2,740

Bad Addresses 376* 30 30

Final Sample 1,974 736 2,710

Number of Responses 484 390 874

Response Rate 24.52% 52.99% 32.25%

*Cases with undeliverable emails were moved to regular mail portion of the sample.

Table 4. Expected and Actual Percent of Completed Surveys by Stratum

Code Geographic Region

Northeast Midwest South West Total

Expected Actual Expected Actual Expected Actual Expected Actual Expected Actual

1 7.8 6.2 2.3 1.8 4.6 4.6 0.84 1.3 15.5 13.8

2 7.1 6.4 1.8 3.2 3.5 3.2 0.91 .69 13.3 13.5

3 3.8 3.5 2.2 2.9 3.9 2.5 1.1 1.5 11.0 10.4

4 3.9 2.9 1.4 1.6 2.0 0.80 0.65 1.0 7.9 6.3

5 1.5 0.46 0.97 1.4 0.69 0.34 0.52 0.46 3.7 2.6

6 5.2 5.4 4.0 4.2 7.3 6.3 1.3 1.3 17.7 17.2

7 5.5 4.7 3.9 3.9 3.5 2.1 1.8 1.1 14.7 11.8

8 1.5 2.8 1.6 2.7 2.5 3.4 0.71 0.80 6.3 9.8

9 0.65 0.80 4.8 7.4 2.9 4.1 1.4 2.2 9.7 14.5

Total 36.9 33.2 23.0 29.2 30.8 27.3 9.2 10.3 99.8 99.9
8 Final Report

Results

The results presented below focus first on the background information so as to provide a picture of

the key characteristics of LEOs and their jurisdictions as captured through the survey instrument. 

In the next section, we summarize the outreach activities conducted by the respondents, and 

examine the data to see if there were differences in this regard between LEOs serving urban and 

rural locations. Next, we examine issues related to personnel, with a specific focus on issues 

regarding poll workers and the extent to which finding enough qualified individuals is a problem. 

We conclude with an overview of the written input provided by respondents.

Respondent and Jurisdiction Characteristics

The average number of years respondents had served as a local election official (all locations) 

was 13.1 (SD = 9.43), with a range from less than 1 year to 55 years.

2 Overall, 52.69% were 

elected to their current position, while 47.31% were appointed. As might be expected, there was 

a great deal of variance in the number of registered voters in the jurisdictions served, with a 

average of 41,353 (SD = 12,092), and a range of less than 10 to 1,900,000. 

Respondents were asked to indicate whether their jurisdiction is primarily rural, urban, or a mix 

of both. These results are shown in Table 5 in conjunction with the urban/rural designation 

gleaned from the ERS. It shows that 731 of the LEOs who responded to the survey were in 

districts classified by the ERS as urban (first row of table). Among these, only 7.25% indicated 

that they were from an urban district, while 59.92% said rural, and 33.83% indicated a mixed 

district containing both rural and urban areas. There was, however, strong agreement on the part 

of those representing areas classified by the ERS as rural (n = 140) with 92.14% saying that their 

jurisdictions are in fact rural. We can only speculate that this disparity arises because of a 

common view of “urban” as referring to downtown, highly developed areas, while the ERS 

definition includes abutting jurisdictions in this category. For the remainder of this report we will 

present urban/rural differences using the ERS designation given that it is based on more 

objective criteria. We will also present results based on the number of registered voters in the 

jurisdiction. For this purpose, we divided the sample into three fairly even categories of small (<

5,000, n = 302), medium (5,001 – 20,000, n = 271) and large (> 20,001, n = 282). 

Table 5. Urban/Rural Status as Reported by LEOs and the ERS

LEO Self Report

ERS Designation

% Indicating Urban

(n = 53)

% Indicating Rural

(n = 567)

% Indicating Mixed

(n = 251)

% Designated Urban (n = 731) 7.25 59.92 33.83

% Designated Rural (n = 140) 0.00 92.14 7.88

Note: Rows may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

Overall, 15.13% of respondents said they are required to provide language assistance under 

Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, with 84.49% of these LEOs representing urban 

 

2

SD signifies standard deviation, a measure of the amount of dispersion that exists in the data. A larger standard 

deviation indicates greater variance in the responses.
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study 9

jurisdictions. Spanish was the most frequently reported required language (87.60% of those 

required to provide such assistance), followed by Asian languages (5.43%), Alaskan/Native 

American languages (3.10%), and Other (10.85%). The most often cited “other” language was 

French, mentioned by eight respondents.

Two final pieces of background information were sought in the survey, each covering 

administrative matters. The first of these questions asked if the respondent’s office has full 

responsibility for all aspects of elections, including registration, voting machines, and ballots. In 

all, 87.43% indicated that this was the case. Of the remaining 12.56%, nearly two-thirds 

(65.00%) said that this responsibility was a shared state and local function, with the remaining 

35.00% indicating that some other arrangement was in place. Among those who entered a written 

explanation of their “other” response, the most frequent comment was that this responsibility is 

shared with other entities at the state, county and/or local levels. In many cases, multiple locallevel offices cooperate in administering elections, including combinations of Town Clerk, 

Registrar of Voters, Tax Assessors/Collectors, and others. (See Appendix C, page C-3, Q5a. for 

full text of “other” responses to this question.)

Finally, LEOs were asked to indicate which forms of alternative voting are allowed in their 

jurisdictions. As can be seen in Table 6, the majority of respondents represented districts in 

which excuse-free absentee voting (55.46%), and early voting (50.96%) are allowed. A much 

smaller percentage (19.89%) allow all vote-by-mail.

Table 6. Percent of Jurisdictions Allowing Alternate Voting Modes

% Allowing

Absentee Voting (excuse required) 42.05

No-excuse Absentee Voting 55.41

Early Voting 50.96

All vote-by-mail 19.89

Note: Approximately 20% of respondents indicated that they allow both absentee voting with and without an excuse. 

These respondents are included in the “no-excuse” category in this table.

Voter Outreach Activities

The next section of the survey focused on voter outreach activities conducted by LEOs. The 

questions asked about types of outreach undertaken, partnerships formed in doing so, outreach to 

specific populations, costs involved, and the ease or difficulty in implementing outreach 

activities. 

Forms of Outreach

The survey listed seven forms of outreach, and LEOs were asked to indicate which they conduct

in their district and whether such efforts are in English only, English and other languages, or 

other languages only. These results are presented in Table 7.
10 Final Report

Table 7. Forms of Outreach Provided and Languages in Which They are Provided

Languages Provided

(Percent of Those Providing)

Percent 

Providing

(n = 860)

English Only English and 

Other 

Languages

Other 

Languages 

Only

Paid Print Advertising (n = 599) 70.70 86.68 12.95 0.37

Paid TV/Radio Advertising (n = 72) 8.64 86.70 12.36 0.94

Elections Office/County Website (n = 581) 70.16 87.44 12.56 0.00

Hard Copy Direct Mail to Voters (n = 252) 30.00 80.61 19.39 0.00

Toll-Free Telephone Line (n = 112) 13.84 79.99 18.62 1.39

Social Media (n = 104) 12.57 92.39 7.61 0.00

Participate in Community Events (n = 454) 55.63 87.71 12.29 0.00

Note: Language percent rows may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

The three forms of outreach conducted by the largest percentage of respondents were paid print 

advertising (70.70%), elections office or county website (70.16%), and participating in 

community events (55.63%). Relatively small but stable percentages of LEOs reported providing 

such outreach in languages other than English, and almost none said they only provide the 

outreach in other languages.

Approximately one out of ten LEOs indicate that their office provides one or more types of voter 

outreach other than those listed in the survey. Most frequently mentioned were free advertising 

via newspaper, radio and/or television. Other types of voter outreach included postings in public 

places in the jurisdiction, postings on local websites, school-based outreach, and voter 

registration drives. (See Appendix C, page C-4, Q7. for the full text of the “other” responses.)

Table 8 shows the types of outreach engaged in by LEOs in urban and rural jurisdictions. Chisquare tests revealed a significantly higher proportion of LEOs representing rural districts relying 

on paid print advertising (68.60% urban; 81.75% rural), while LEOs in urban areas were more 

likely to engage in paid television/radio outreach (9.82% urban; 2.21% rural), websites (72.81% 

urban; 56.93% rural), social media (14.23% urban; 3.68% rural), and participation in community 

events (57.46% urban; 45.99% rural).

A similar breakdown is given by size of jurisdiction in Table 9. In all cases there was a 

progression in which larger jurisdictions were most likely to engage in the form of outreach, 

followed by medium sized, and smaller districts.
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study 11

Table 8. Percent of LEOs engaged in Outreach Activities by Urban/Rural Status

% Rural

(n = 137)

% Urban

(n = 723)

Paid Print Advertising 81.75 68.60

Paid Television/Radio 

Advertising

2.21 9.82

Elections Office/County 

Website

56.93 72.81

Hard Copy Direct Mail to 

Voters

33.09 29.42

Toll-Free Telephone Line 10.22 14.52

Social Media 3.68 14.23

Participate in Community 

Events

45.99 57.46

Table 9. Percent of LEOs Engaged in Outreach Activities by Size of Registered Voter 

Population

% Small

(n = 295)

% Medium

(n = 268)

% Large

(n = 279)

Paid Print Advertising 53.22 78.36 81.36

Paid Television/Radio 

Advertising

2.71 10.49 13.62

Elections Office/County 

Website

45.08 73.13 94.62

Hard Copy Direct Mail to 

Voters

20.00 32.84 39.43

Toll-Free Telephone Line 6.78 12.69 22.58

Social Media 5.76 8.21 24.37

Participate in Community 

Events

32.20 58.21 79.57

Partnerships

Respondents were also asked to indicate if they formed partnerships with third-party or civic 

organizations in conducting voter outreach activities. In all, 32.19% of respondents indicated that 

they did form such partnerships, including 34.54% of LEOs representing urban jurisdictions and 

19.85% of LEOs in rural areas. A similar progression was seen based on number of registered 

voters, with 10.40% of LEOs in small, 37.36% of LEOs in medium, and 50.54% of LEOs in 

large districts forming third-party partnerships.

When asked to indicate the types of organizations with which they formed partnerships, 89.64% 

of LEOs who formed partnerships said they do so with school-related groups, 70.25% with non-
12 Final Report

profit organizations, and 61.59% with political parties. Other organizations mentioned included 

government offices, departments and agencies, including Department of Motor Vehicles, 

Department of Human Services, and Social Services offices. (See Appendix C, page C-8, Q8a. 

for the full text of the “other” types of partnering organizations.)

Table 10 presents the results regarding types of partnerships formed in outreach activities by 

whether the LEO represents a jurisdiction that is classified by the ERS as urban or rural. 

Although the percentages citing school-related organizations and political parties were very 

similar, a significantly higher proportion of LEOs representing urban jurisdictions indicated that 

they formed partnerships with non-profits (72.58%) than did those from rural areas (48.00%).

Table 10. Percent of LEOs who Form Partnerships with Organization Types by Urban/Rural 

Status

% Rural

(N = 26)

% Urban

(n = 248)

School-Related Organizations 88.46 89.52

Non-Profit Organizations 48.00 72.58

Political Parties 60.00 61.69

Table 11 shows, for those LEOs who indicated they partnered with other organizations in 

conducting voter outreach, the percent who did so with schools, non-profits, and political parties

by size of their registered voter populations. Although the proportions partnering with schoolrelated organizations were similar across jurisdiction size, a significantly higher proportion of 

respondents representing large voting districts formed partnerships with non-profits and political 

parties.

Table 11. Percent of LEOs who Form Partnerships with Organization Types by Size of 

Registered Voter Population

% Small

(n = 30)

% Medium

(n = 98)

% Large

(n = 139)

School-Related Organizations 83.33 89.80 90.65

Non-Profit Organizations 56.67 56.57 82.73

Political Parties 43.33 57.14 70.50

An additional voter outreach question asked respondents to indicate the types of activities they 

carry out in conjunction with partnering organizations. These results are shown in Table 12. It 

should be noted that the number of LEOs representing rural districts who partnered with outside 

organizations on outreach activities was small (n = 25); therefore the percentages in the table for 

this group are not particularly meaningful. Having said that, it seems clear that, among those who 

partner with outside organizations in conducting outreach, participating in community events and 

paid print advertising are the most common ways of doing so. No differences were found in 

regard to the types of activities engaged in with partners based on size of jurisdiction. Many of 

those who indicated that they provided some “other” type of outreach with partners cited 
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study 13

activities that fell in the categories specified in the survey. (See Appendix C, page C-10, Q8b. for 

a complete list of “other” responses to this question.)

Table 12. Percent Partnering in Outreach Activities by Urban/Rural Status

% Rural

(n = 25)

% Urban

(n = 243)

Paid Print Advertising 24.00 24.69

Paid Television/Radio Advertising 0.00 8.20

Elections Office/County Website 8.33 37.30

Hard Copy Direct Mail to Voters 12.00 20.49

Toll-Free Telephone Line 8.33 6.17

Social Media 0.00 8.20

Participate in Community Events 40.00 67.49

LEOs were asked to provide further information about their experiences in partnering with other 

organizations on voter outreach efforts. In all, 43.84% of LEOs who partner on voter outreach 

provided a comment. Nearly half (46.28%) of them mentioned voter registration efforts. Other 

frequently-mentioned topics included outreach involving community or civic organizations 

(42.97%), school-based or student-focused outreach (42.15%), and attendance at community or 

local events (23.97%). Less-frequently reported efforts involved outreach to senior citizens and 

disabled populations, mock elections and demonstrations of voting equipment, media outreach, 

and partnering with political parties. (See Appendix C, page C-11, Q8c. for the verbatim

comments offered about performing voter outreach.)

Outreach to Specific Groups

Respondents were asked if they target their outreach activities to particular groups within their 

constituencies. Over half of LEOs cited students (57.88%) and voters in long-term care facilities 

(51.75%) as subjects of specific outreach, followed by voters with disabilities (49.09%), racial 

ethnic minorities (15.97%), and foreign language speakers (7.75%). These results are presented 

in Table 13 broken out by urban/rural jurisdiction. The data indicate that a significantly higher 

percentage of LEOs in urban districts focus outreach activities on racial and ethnic minorities 

and foreign language speakers than do those in rural areas. This is most likely due to a higher 

concentration of such voters in urban settings.
14 Final Report

Table 13. Percent Focusing on Specific Voter Groups through Outreach Activities in Urban 

and Rural Jurisdictions

% Rural

(n = 129)

% Urban

(n = 697)

Students 51.94 58.96

Racial/Ethnic Minorities 6.20 17.79

Foreign Language Speakers 1.55 8.90

Voters in Long-Term Care Facilities 47.66 52.51

Voters With Disabilities 45.74 49.71

Respondents were given the opportunity to specify groups on which voter outreach efforts are 

focused other than those listed in the survey. A small number of LEOs (3.75%) provided a 

response. Frequently-mentioned focal groups include civic and community organizations, the 

elderly and homebound populations, and military and overseas populations. However, the most 

frequent response was that all voters are focused on equally. (See Appendix C, page C-19, Q9.

for the verbatim comments in this regard.)

Costs of Outreach and Sources of Funding

As mentioned in the introduction to this report, the EAC Urban/Rural working group highlighted 

funding as a factor that has an impact on many aspects of Federal election administration. 

Correspondingly, respondents to this survey were asked to indicate how much their voter 

outreach efforts cost. They were asked to select from 14 ($0 - $1,000 through $200,000 or more) 

cost ranges for the 2010 mid-term elections, and 17 ($0 to $1,000 through $500,001 or more) 

cost ranges for 2012 general elections. Table 14 shows the percentage of LEOs who selected

each of the categories in reference to 2010, while Table 15 shows corresponding figures for

2012. In both cases, the vast majority of LEOs indicated that they spent $5,000 or less (91.07% 

for the 2010 and 88.39% for the 2012 elections). 

For the purposes of further analyses, we collapsed the reporting categories into five groups, 

representing the original four lowest cost ranges and combining those in the $20,000 and above

groups. The results for the 2010 and 2012 elections broken out by urban/rural status are shown in 

Tables 16 and 17, respectively. Although higher percentages of LEOs from urban districts 

reporting spending amounts in the $10,000 and $20,000 ranges, there were no significant 

differences between the urban and rural groups overall in either year. Tables 18 and 19 provide 

parallel results for small/medium/large jurisdictions. As might be expected, there was 

significantly higher proportion of LEOs from large districts in the upper cost ranges.
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study 15

Table 14. Cost of Outreach Activities for 2010 Mid-Term Election

Cost 2010 n % Cost 2010 n %

$0 – 1,000 618 76.72 $50,001 – 60,000 0 0.00

$1,001 – 5,000 116 14.35 $60,001 – 70,000 0 0.00

$5,001 - $10,000 29 3.64 $70,001 – 80,000 0 0.00

$10,001 – 20,000 21 2.60 $80,001 – 90,000 2 0.19

$20,001 – 30,000 5 0.68 $90,001 – 100.000 2 0.24

$30,001 – 40,000 4 0.54 $100,001 – 200,000 6 0.70

$40,001 – 50,000 0 0.00 $200,001 or more 3 0.33

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Table 15. Cost of Outreach Activities for 2012 General Election

Cost 2012 n % Cost 2012 n %

$0 – 1,000 575 71.40 $70,001 – 80,000 2 0.20

$1,001 – 5,000 137 16.99 $80,001 – 90,000 0 0.00

$5,001 - $10,000 29 3.66 $90,000 – 100,000 1 0.12

$10,001 – 20,000 23 2.82 $100,001 – 200,000 8 0.94

$20,001 – 30,000 13 1.67 $200,001 – 300,000 1 0.17

$30,001 – 40,000 7 0.92 $300,001 – 400,000 0 0.00

$40,001 – 50,000 3 0.40 $400,001 – 500,000 1 0.08

$50,001 – 60,000 3 0.37 $500,001 or more 1 0.17

$60,001 – 70,000 1 0.08

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Table 16. Cost of Outreach Activities for 2010 Mid-Term Election by Urban/Rural Status

Cost 2010 % Rural

(n = 129)

% Urban

(n = 678)

$0 – 1,000 79.84 75.96

$1,001 – 5,000 14.73 14.31

$5,001 – $10,000 3.88 3.69

$10,001 – 20,000 0.78 2.95

$20,001 or more 0.78 3.10

Note: Columns may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
16 Final Report

Table 17. Cost of Outreach Activities for 2012 General Election by Urban/Rural Status

Cost 2012 % Rural

(n = 127)

% Urban

(n = 678)

$0 – 1,000 75.59 70.50

$1,001 – 5,000 18.11 16.81

$5,001 – $10,000 3.94 3.54

$10.001 – 20,000 1.57 3.10

$20,000 or more 0.79 6.05

Note: Columns may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

Table 18. Cost of Outreach Activities for 2010 Mid-Term Election by Size of Registered Voter 

Population

Cost 2010 % Small

(n = 280)

% Medium

(n = 250)

% Large

(n = 261)

$0 – 1,000 90.00 76.40 62.07

$1,001 – 5,000 8.57 15.60 19.54

$5,001 – $10,000 1.07 3.20 7.28

$10,001 - 20,000 0.36 3.60 4.21

$20,001 or more 0.00 1.20 6.90

Note: Columns may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

Table 19. Cost of Outreach Activities for 2012 General Election by Size of Registered Voter 

Population

Cost 2012 % Small

(n = 279)

% Medium

(n = 251)

% Large

(n = 259)

$0 – 1,000 88.17 72.11 51.74

$1,001 – 5,000 10.04 18.73 23.17

$5,001 – $10,000 1.43 3.59 6.56

$10,001 – 20,000 0.36 2.39 5.79

$20,001 or more 0.00 3.19 12.74

Note: Columns may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

LEOs were asked to indicate the source(s) of funds for their outreach efforts, and were allowed 

to select all applicable options. These results are shown in Table 20. A majority of respondents in 

both urban and rural districts said that funding came from local election office budgets. A 

slightly higher percentage of LEOs representing rural districts selected county or state budget as 

a source, while LEOs from urban districts were more likely to indicate that some other funding 

arrangement was in place. Of these, more than one-third (35%) noted that their jurisdiction does 

not engage in voter outreach, and about one-quarter indicated that their jurisdiction does not 

spend money on voter outreach. Among LEOs who specified a different funding source than 
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study 17

those listed in the survey, grants/HAVA grants and town/municipal budgets were mentioned 

most often. (See Appendix C, page C-20, Q12. for the verbatim responses to this question.)

Table 20. Sources of Funding for Outreach Efforts by Urban/Rural Status

% Rural % Urban

Local Election Office Budget Only 64.41 69.60

Line Item Appropriation in County or State 

Budget Only

10.79 19.20

Other Source Only 13.25 5.60

Local and County/State 6.93 3.20

Local and Other Source 4.01 1.60

State and Other Source 0.62 0.80

Note: Columns may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

Ease/Difficulty of Conducting Outreach

LEOs were asked to indicate how difficult it was for them to conduct voter outreach efforts. 

Overall, 19.64% said such efforts were very easy, followed by 24.56% somewhat easy, 37.27% 

neither easy or difficult, 11.82% somewhat difficult, and 6.71% very difficult. These results are 

presented in Tables 21 and 22 by urban/rural status and size of registered voter population, 

respectively. Within urban/rural and small/medium/large groups, around 45% of respondents 

indicated that voter outreach was very or somewhat easy, while 14-22% indicated it was 

difficult. There were no significant differences between LEOs based on urban/rural status or size 

of jurisdiction.

Table 21. Ease/Difficulty of Voter Outreach Efforts by Urban/Rural Status

% Rural

(n = 124)

% Urban

(n = 654)

Very Easy 20.16 19.57

Somewhat Easy 27.42 24.01

Neither Easy nor Difficult 38.71 37.00

Somewhat Difficult 9.68 12.23

Very Difficult 4.03 7.19

Note: Columns may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
18 Final Report

Table 22. Ease/Difficulty of Voter Outreach Efforts by Size of Registered Voter Population

% Small

(n = 258)

% Medium

(n = 248)

% Large

(n = 264)

Very Easy 21.32 20.56 18.18

Somewhat Easy 23.64 24.19 24.62

Neither Easy nor Difficult 39.15 37.50 34.85

Somewhat Difficult 7.36 13.31 14.77

Very Difficult 8.53 4.44 7.58

Note: Columns may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

Table 23 presents a breakdown of responses to the item assessing ease of voter outreach by the 

tenure of respondent as a LEO, including all positions held. For this purpose, we divided the 

sample into four groups based on the 25th, 50th,and 75th percentiles of the range of tenure years. 

No significant differences were found between these groups in their assessment of how easy or 

difficult it is to conduct voter outreach efforts.

Table 23. Ease/Difficulty of Voter Outreach Efforts by Tenure of LEO

% 0-6 years

(n = 235)

% 7-12 years

(n = 180)

% 13-19 years

(n = 157)

% 20 or more 

years

(n = 200)

Very Easy 17.87 21.67 16.56 22.50

Somewhat Easy 22.55 22.22 33.12 23.00

Neither Easy nor Difficult 42.13 36.67 35.03 33.50

Somewhat Difficult 11.49 9.44 10.19 15.00

Very Difficult 5.96 10.00 5.10 6.00

Note: Columns may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

The final question regarding voter outreach presented LEOs with a series of potential hurdles in 

conducting such activities and asked that they indicate how much each is a problem for them on 

a 4-point scale (1 = not a problem, 2 = small problem, 3 = moderate problem, 4 = big problem). 

These results are presented in Table 24 for the entire sample. Over two-thirds of respondents 

indicated that staff availability and time were a moderate to big problem, with 60.62% 

responding similarly regarding cost. These were followed by travel distance for in-person contact 

(37.66%), availability of media outlets (34.45%), Internet limitations (27.84%), and variety of 

languages spoken (17.91%).
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study 19

Table 24. Sources of Difficulty in Conducting Voter Outreach

% Not a 

Problem

% Small

Problem

% Moderate 

Problem

% Big 

Problem

Cost (n = 770) 24.32 15.06 30.70 29.92

Staff availability/time (n = 773) 17.55 15.15 29.40 37.91

Availability of Media Outlets

(n = 750)

43.26 22.30 21.33 13.12

Travel distance required for inperson contact (n = 756)36.46 25.87 23.10 14.56

Limitations on Internet access or 

reliability (n = 751)

49.89 22.27 17.49 10.35

Variety of languages spoken

(n = 751)

64.87 17.22 5.47 12.44

Note: Rows may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

To ascertain whether there were difference between LEOs serving in urban and rural areas in 

regard to the types of problems experienced, we calculated the average rating for each group for 

each of the problems listed and ran tests to determine if there were significant differences 

between them (Table 25). Significant differences were found between LEOs representing urban 

and rural districts on two factors; availability of media markets and travel distance required for 

in-person contact. In both cases, LEOs from rural districts rated these factors as more of a 

problem. We also examined difficulty ratings by LEO tenure, and no significant differences were 

detected.

Table 25. Average Ratings of Degree of Problem Posed by Potential Barriers to Voter 

Outreach by Urban/Rural Status1

Rural

(n = 122)

Urban

(n = 648)

Cost 2.53 2.69

Staff availability/time 2.80 2.89

Availability of Media Outletsa2.35 1.98

Travel distance required for in-person contacta2.41 2.11

Limitations on Internet access or reliability 2.04 1.85

Variety of languages spoken 1.69 1.65

Note: Ratings given on a 4-point scale: 1 = Not a problem at all, 2 = A small problem, 3 = A moderate problem, 

4 = A big problem. Therefore, a higher average rating indicates a bigger problem.

a Significant difference between urban and rural jurisdictions, p < .01.

Table 26 presents the average rating of how problematic each factor was for small, medium, and 

large jurisdictions as indicated by the size of the registered voter populations. Cost and staff 

availability/time were deemed bigger problems by LEOs in large districts as compared to small, 

while availability of media outlets and Internet reliability were seen as larger problems by LEOs 

from small and medium districts as compared to large jurisdictions. 
20 Final Report

Table 26. Average Ratings of Degree of Problem Posed by Potential Barriers to Voter 

Outreach by Size of Registered Voter Population a

Small

(n = 245)

Medium

(n = 242)

Large

(n = 260)

Cost 2.49 2.75 2.73

Staff availability/time 2.75 2.90 2.97

Availability of Media Outlets 2.20 2.08 1.87

Travel distance required for in-person contact 2.23 2.18 2.08

Limitations on Internet access or reliability 1.92 2.01 1.74

Variety of languages spoken 1.60 1.70 1.66

Note: Ratings given on a 4-point scale: 1 = Not a problem at all, 2 = A small problem, 3 = A moderate problem, 4 = 

A big problem. Therefore, a higher average rating indicates a bigger problem.

a

Average ratings shown in bold significantly different from one another, p < .01. Average ratings shown in boxes 

significantly different from one another, p < .01.

Personnel

A second set of issues that emerged from EAC’s Urban/Rural working group centered on 

personnel, including the costs associated with finding, retaining, and training the individuals 

needed to effectively administer Federal elections. Therefore, the next series of survey items 

asked specifically about experiences in this regard, both in general and in the last two national 

elections.

Number of Personnel

Table 27 shows the average number of full-time, part-time, and temporary staff, as well as poll 

workers/election judges reported by LEOs for the 2010 and 2012 general elections.

Table 27. Average Number of Staff for the 2010 and 2012 General Elections

2010 2012

Paid Full-Time Staff (n = 824) 3.18 3.16

Paid Part-Time Staff (n = 822) 4.28 4.48

Paid Temporary Staff (n = 818) 6.05 7.42

Poll Workers/Election Judges (n = 806) 160.41 166.10

In addition to the staff shown in Table 27, 14.66% of respondents reported borrowing staff from 

other government departments in 2010, as did 17.07% in 2012. The average number of borrowed 

staff was 4.61 in 2010 and 5.08 in 2012.

Table 28 shows the average number of staff for the two election years by the urban rural status of 

the jurisdictions. As might be expected, LEOs in urban districts employed more staff of each 

type than did those in rural areas.
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study 21

Table 28. Average Number of Staff for the 2010 and 2012 General Elections by Urban/Rural 

Status

Rural Urban

2010

Paid full-time 1.98 3.40

Paid part-time 0.84 4.94

Temporary 0.66 7.07

Borrowed 2.56 4.90

2012

Paid full-time 1.99 3.38

Paid part-time 0.83 5.18

Temporary 0.61 8.71

Borrowed 2.75 5.39

Table 29 presents the results regarding staffing levels for districts based on their size as indicated 

by the number of registered voters. The only notable difference across the two years is the 

increase in temporary workers in larger districts in 2012 as compared to 2010.

Table 29. Average Number of Staff for the 2010 and 2012 General Elections by Size of 

Registered Voter Population

Small Medium Large

 2010

Paid full-time 1.41 2.37 5.95

Paid part-time 1.28 1.10 10.94

Temporary 1.28 1.25 16.34

Borrowed 3.18 2.35 6.32

 2012

Paid full-time 1.40 2.39 5.87

Paid part-time 1.25 1.03 11.59

Temporary 1.33 1.50 20.31

Borrowed 3.00 2.66 6.86

One personnel issue of particular importance raised by the EAC working group was that of 

obtaining and training poll workers. The EAC Urban/Rural Survey contained several questions 

in this regard. Overall, the average number of poll workers per jurisdiction in 2010 was 160.41, 

with a slight increase in this number for the 2012 general election to 166.10. Table 30 presents 

the average number of poll workers in rural/urban and small/medium/large districts for the 2010 

and 2012 elections. As might be expected, urban districts had significantly higher numbers of 

poll workers in each year, and there was a clear progression from small to large districts in the 

number of poll workers employed.
22 Final Report

Table 30. Average Number of Poll Workers/Election Judges for the 2010 and 2012 General 

Elections by Urban/Rural Status and Size of Registered Voter Population

Rural

(n = 131)

Urban

(n = 675)

Poll Workers—2010 34.21 184.98

Poll Workers--2012 33.99 191.61

Small

(N = 287)

Medium

(n = 250)

Large

(n = 257)

Poll Workers--2010 15.58 57.84 426.26

Poll Workers—2012 16.31 61.77 442.82

Poll Worker Pay

Respondents were asked to indicate whether poll workers in their jurisdictions were paid for their 

time on election day. The vast majority of respondents (95.32%) indicated that they were. 

Further, the percentages responding in this way were similar across jurisdiction type (urban

95.59%; rural 93.87%) and size (small 94.61%; medium 93.69%; large 97.45%).

When asked how much poll workers were paid, LEOs were given the option of indicating a onetime amount or an hourly rate. These results are presented in Table 31 by urban/rural status of 

the jurisdiction. No significant differences were found regarding hourly rate. However the 

average one-time stipend for urban poll workers ($115.75) was found to be significantly higher 

than that for rural poll workers ($99.92).

Table 31. Average and Range of Poll Worker Election Day Pay by Urban/Rural Status

One-Time Stipend

Rural

(n = 49)

Urban

(n = 315

Average $99.92 $115.75

Range $15.00 - $200.00 $15.00 - $275.00

Hourly Rate

Rural

(n = 64)

Urban

(n = 304)

Average $8.63 8.98 

Range $6.50 - $12.50 $5.50 - $17.71

Table 32 presents the poll worker pay results by size of jurisdiction in terms of number of 

registered voters. No differences were detected in the hourly rate paid to poll workers in small, 

medium, and large jurisdictions, however the average amount of the one-time stipend paid in 

large districts ($123.33) was significantly higher than medium ($110.63) and small ($87.65)

districts.
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study 23

Table 32. Average and Range of Poll Worker Election Day Pay by Size of Registered Voter 

Population

One-Time Stipend

Small

(n = 52)

Medium

(n = 130)

Large

(n = 179)

Average $87.65 $110.63 $123.33

Range $15.00 - $170.00 $30.00 - $200.00 $60.00 – $275.00

Hourly Rate

Small

(n = 212)

Medium

(n = 88)

Large

(n = 60)

Average $8.93 $8.90 $8.79

Range $6.50 - $17.71 $5.50 - $15.00 $7.00 - $15.00

The final question regarding poll worker pay concerned whether payment was given for training. 

Overall, 68.58% said that payment was provided for training, with 11.24% of these saying that 

the training amount was included in the overall pay addressed in the previous question. The 

amount paid separately for training is presented in Table 33 by urban/rural status of jurisdictions. 

Although the upper range of the one-time training stipend was notably higher in urban districts, 

no significant differences were found in the hourly rate paid.

Table 33. Average and Range of Poll Worker Training Pay by Urban/Rural Status

One-Time Stipend

Rural

(n -= 48)

Urban

(n = 238)

Average $23.36 $21.76

Range $5.00 - $100.00 $5.00 - $60.00

Hourly Rate

Rural

(n = 33)

Urban

(n = 147)

Average $8.83 $8.90

Range $7.25 - $12.29 $5.00 - $15.00

Table 34 presents the poll worker pay results broken out by size of jurisdiction. No significant 

differences were found in average training pay based on size of jurisdiction.
24 Final Report

Table 34. Average and Range of Poll Worker Training Pay by Size of Registered Voter 

Population

One-Time Stipend

Small

(n = 36)

Medium

(n = 115)

Large

(n = 133)

Mean $25.17 $20.53 $22.61

Range $5.00 - $55.00 $5.00 - $100.00 $5.00 - $60.00

Hourly Rate

Small

(n = 83)

Medium

(n = 49)

Large

(n = 44)

Mean $8.92 $8.94 $8.65

Range $7.00 - $15.00 $7.25 - $15.00 $5.00 - $12.00

Methods of Poll Worker Recruiting

Because of the importance of recruiting sufficient, capable poll workers to the smooth 

administration of elections, several questions on the EAC Urban/Rural Survey were devoted to 

this topic. The first presented LEOs with a series of recruiting resources and asked them to 

indicate which they have used. For those used, they were also asked to indicate how successful 

each was in recruiting poll workers. The overall results are presented in Table 35.

The forms of poll worker recruiting used by the largest percentage of LEOs and that were judged 

to have the most success were those requiring the least effort, with 77.22% indicating that word 

of mouth was successful or very successful and 69.58% rating responding to volunteer requests 

in the same manner. The least successful methods included recruiting through local businesses, 

at colleges, and using classified advertisements, which were judged to be not successful by 

27.97%, 34.75%, and 18.79%, respectively. These were also the recruiting techniques used by 

the smallest percentage of LEOs, suggesting that they focus their efforts on recruiting avenues 

that have worked in the past.

Respondents were given the opportunity to identify other recruiting sources not listed in the 

survey, and approximately 15.90% did so. Nearly a third (29.50%) of these reported that political 

parties are involved in poll worker recruitment. Other frequently mentioned recruiting sources 

were phone calls, advertising through mailings or media, notices on voter registration 

applications, sign-up sheets and postings at polling places, and town and precinct officials. (See 

Appendix C, page C-24, Q21. for the verbatim responses regarding other recruiting resources.)
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study 25

Table 35. Percent of LEOs Using Various Recruiting Resources and Degree of Success 

Achieved by Those Using Each

Recruiting

Resource

% Used Successfulness

(% of those who used resource)

(n = 798) Very

Successful

Successful Somewhat 

Successful

Not 

Successful

Classified Ads (n = 78) 9.78 4.89 22.35 53.97 18.79

Recruiting—Colleges (n = 89) 11.13 8.03 18.26 38.96 34.75

Recruiting—High schools (n = 220) 27.52 27.72 19.14 35.00 18.13

Recruiting—Website (n = 191) 23.98 8.53 23.76 54.57 13.15

Recruiting—Businesses (n = 65) 8.17 7.77 10.89 53.36 27.97

Recruiting—Volunteer organizations

(n = 215)

27.02 15.41 25.20 52.50 6.90

Recruiting—Government agencies

(n = 195)

24.45 14.07 31.71 45.00 9.22

Recruiting—Word of mouth

(n = 716)

89.80 41.10 36.12 21.83 0.95

Responding to Volunteer requests

(n = 550)

68.91 30.89 38.69 28.99 1.44

Note: Successfulness ratings may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

The percentages of LEOs from urban/rural and small/medium/large districts who indicated they 

employed the various poll worker recruiting methods are presented in Tables 36 and 37, 

respectively. In all cases except classified ads, recruiting at local businesses, and word of mouth, 

significantly higher percentages of LEOs representing urban districts indicated that they 

employed the recruiting strategies than did those from rural districts. Similarly, in all cases there 

were differences in the percentages of LEOs representing small, medium, and large jurisdictions 

who used the recruiting resources, with the smaller districts employing them less. In all 

likelihood, these outcomes are related to the earlier results showing the significantly higher 

numbers of poll workers needed in urban and larger districts, thus requiring the need to employ a 

more varied array of recruiting resources.

Table 36 Percent Using Recruiting Resources by Urban/Rural Status

% Rural

(n = 128)

% Urban

(n = 670)

Classified Ads 7.81 10.15

Recruiting—Colleges a 1.56 12.99

Recruiting—High schools a17.97 29.40

Recruiting—Website a4.69 27.65

Recruiting—Businesses 3.88 9.10

Recruiting—Volunteer organizations a15.63 29.25

Recruiting—Government agencies a10.16 27.20

Recruiting—Word of mouth 84.50 90.75

Responding to Volunteer requests a57.03 71.19

a

Significant urban/rural difference, p < .01
26 Final Report

Table 37 Percent Using Recruiting Resources by Size of Registered Voter Population

% Small

(n = 289)

% Medium

(n = 246)

% Large

(n = 248)

Classified Ads a5.19 13.41 12.10

Recruiting—Colleges a1.73 4.47 28.23

Recruiting—High schools a12.11 31.30 42.34

Recruiting—Website a7.61 17.55 49.60

Recruiting—Businesses a2.43 4.88 18.47

Recruiting—Volunteer organizations a11.07 23.58 49.19

Recruiting—Government agencies a10.38 23.58 42.34

Recruiting—Word of mouth a86.16 90.24 93.95

Responding to Volunteer requests a50.87 80.00 80.24

a

Significant difference, p < .01.

Table 38 presents the average successfulness ratings given by LEOs from urban and rural 

jurisdictions for the various forms of poll worker recruiting. Statistical tests revealed no 

significant differences between the averages. Analyses comparing jurisdictions based on the size 

of their registered voter populations (Table 39) also revealed no significant differences.

Table 38. Average Ratings of Recruiting Resource Usefulness by Urban/Rural Status

Rural Urban

Classified ads 2.67

(n = 10)

2.90

(n = 65)

Recruiting—College campuses 3.00

(n = 2)

3.00

(n = 86)

Recruiting—High schools 2.57

(n = 21)

2.42

(n = 190)

Recruiting—Website 3.02

(n = 6)

2.71

(n = 180)

Recruiting—Businesses 2.70

(n = 5)

3.04

(n = 58)

Recruiting—Volunteer organizations 2.59

(n = 18)

2.50

(n = 189)

Recruiting—Government agencies 2.58

(n = 13)

2.49

(n = 176)

Recruiting—Word of mouth 1.84

(n = 98)

1.82

(n = 571)

Responding to volunteers 1.95

(n = 69)

2.02

(n = 452)

Note: Ratings given on a 4-point scale: 1 = Very Successful, 2 = Successful, 3 = Somewhat Successful, 4 = Not 

Successful. Therefore, a lower average rating indicates a greater degree of success using that poll worker recruiting 

resource.
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study 27

Table 39. Average Ratings of Recruiting Resource Usefulness by Size of Registered Voter 

Population

Small Medium Large

Classified ads 2.76

(n = 14)

2.99

(n = 32)

2.78

(n = 29)

Recruiting—College campuses 3.29

(n = 5)

2.88

(n = 11)

3.03

(n = 69)

Recruiting—High schools 2.43

(n = 31)

2.47

(n = 73)

2.42

(n = 104)

Recruiting—Website 2.83

(n = 20)

2.90

(n = 42)

2.65

(n = 122)

Recruiting—Businesses 2.85

(n = 6)

2.88

(n = 11)

3.07

(n = 45)

Recruiting—Volunteer organizations 2.25

(n = 30)

2.70

(n = 54)

2.50

(n = 120)

Recruiting—Government agencies 2.37

(n = 29)

2.50

(n = 55)

2.54

(n = 104)

Recruiting—Word of mouth 1.83

(n = 220)

1.85

(n = 212)

1.79

(n = 227)

Responding to volunteers 1.94

(n = 133)

1.97

(n = 190)

2.09

(n = 192)

Note: Ratings given on a 4-point scale: 1 = Very Successful, 2 = Successful, 3 = Somewhat Successful, 4 = Not 

Successful. Therefore, a lower average rating indicates a greater degree of success using that poll worker recruiting 

resource.

Ease/Difficulty of Poll Worker Recruiting 

LEOs were asked to indicate, in general, how difficult it is for them to recruit poll workers. 

Overall, 15.81% of respondents indicated that recruiting was very easy, followed by 28.01% 

somewhat easy, 16.71% neither easy nor difficult, 32.73% somewhat difficult, and 6.74% very 

difficult. Results by urban/rural status and size of jurisdiction are shown in Tables 40 and 41. 

Significance tests revealed no differences between LEOs from urban and rural districts, for 

whom the average ratings were 2.88 and 2.80, respectively in this regard. However, the average 

difficulty rating for LEOs from small districts (2.57) was significantly lower than the average

ratings of LEOs representing medium sized (3.10) and large (3.01) districts.
28 Final Report

Table 40. Difficulty in Recruiting Poll Workers by Urban/Rural Status

% Rural

(n = 126)

% Urban

(n = 667)

Very Easy 13.49 16.19

Somewhat Easy 34.13 26.84

Neither Easy nor Difficult 16.67 16.79

Somewhat Difficult 30.16 33.28

Very Difficult 5.56 6.90

Note: Columns may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

Table 41. Difficulty in Recruiting Poll Workers by Size of Registered Voter Population

% Small

(n = 287)

% Medium

(n = 243)

% Large

(n = 245)

Very Easy 20.56 10.29 15.10

Somewhat Easy 36.59 23.87 21.63

Neither Easy nor Difficult 13.24 18.52 18.78

Somewhat Difficult 24.04 39.92 36.33

Very Difficult 5.57 7.41 8.16

Note: Columns may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

LEOs were asked to indicate the degree to which various factors present problems in recruiting 

poll workers. These results are presented in Table 42 for the overall sample. The issues indicated 

as at least a moderate problem by the largest proportions of LEOs were election day hours being 

too long (47.60%) and the requirement for having equal numbers of poll workers from each 

political party (45.40%). Over one third of respondents (36.35%) felt that poll workers getting 

time off from work was also a significant issue. On the other hand, low pay and a lack of 

qualified workers were only deemed a problem by about one quarter of respondents, and only 

12.15% felt that training time was an issue.
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study 29

Table 42. Sources of Difficulty in Recruiting Poll Workers

% A Big 

Problem

% A Moderate 

Problem

% A Small 

Problem

% Not a 

Problem at 

all

Payment is too low (n = 782) 7.26 19.53 23.91 49.30

Election day hours too long (n = 783) 19.66 27.94 25.93 26.47

Little respect for poll workers (n = 778) 4.65 8.42 17.05 69.88

Training is too long (n = 772) 1.97 10.18 22.46 65.39

Poll workers cannot get off from work on 

election day (n = 785)

15.11 21.24 29.80 33.85

Requirement for equal numbers of poll 

workers from political parties (n = 783)

17.84 27.56 24.56 30.04

Lack of skilled or qualified workers

(n = 779)

9.45 19.09 30.74 40.73

Note: Rows may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

Approximately 5% of respondents identified problems other than those listed on the survey. The 

age and/or health of poll workers was the most frequently mentioned problem. Other issues 

raised were the bilingual requirements, increased use of technology, and lack of interest. (The 

full text of these responses is provided in Appendix C, page C-28, Q23.)

Table 43 shows the average difficulty ratings given by LEOs representing rural and urban 

jurisdictions for each factor. They are generally quite similar across the various issues, and no 

significant differences were detected between the rural and urban groups.

Table 43. Average Rating of Poll Worker Recruiting Difficulty by Urban/Rural Status

Rural

(n = 126)

Urban

(n = 656)

Payment is too low 1.77 1.86

Election day hours too long 2.30 2.43

Little respect for poll workers 1.38 1.50

Training is too long 1.40 1.50

Poll workers cannot get off from work on 

election day

2.24 2.16

Requirement for equal numbers of poll workers 

from political parties

2.31 2.34

Lack of skilled or qualified workers 1.88 1.99

Note: Ratings given on a 4-point scale: 1 = Not a problem at all, 2 = A small problem, 3 = A moderate problem, 4 = 

A big problem. Therefore, a higher average rating indicates a bigger problem.

Table 44 presents the average difficulty ratings given by LEOs representing small, medium, and 

large jurisdictions. No significant differences were found between respondents from medium and 
30 Final Report

large districts. However, the average rating for LEOs from small districts was significantly lower 

than those from medium and large jurisdictions (meaning they rated it as less of a problem) in 

regard to pay, hours, respect, training time, and a lack of qualified workers. The averages for 

small and large districts were also significantly different regarding volunteers getting time off 

from work.

Table 44. Average Poll Worker Recruiting Difficulty Rating by Size of Registered Voter 

Population

Small

(n = 280)

Medium

(n = 244)

Large

(n = 245)

Payment is too low 1.53 2.06 2.02

Election day hours too long 1.97 2.64 2.68

Little respect for poll workers 1.20 1.65 1.65

Training is too long 1.26 1.61 1.64

Poll workers cannot get off from work on 

election day

2.05 2.19 2.33

Requirement for equal numbers of poll workers 

from political parties

2.29 2.39 2.32

Lack of skilled or qualified workers 1.59 2.14 2.25

Note: Ratings given on a 4-point scale: 1 = Not a problem at all, 2 = A small problem, 3 = A moderate problem, 4 = 

A big problem. Therefore, a higher average rating indicates a bigger problem. Bolded average ratings significantly 

different, p < .01. Average ratings shown in boxes significantly different, p < .01.

Split Shifts

Finally, LEOs were asked to indicate if poll workers are offered split shifts in their jurisdictions. 

Overall, 45.81% indicated that this was the case. A significantly higher percentage of 

respondents from urban districts (47.68%) said their jurisdictions offer this option than did those 

from rural areas (36.22%). Paradoxically, a significantly higher percentage of those from small 

jurisdictions (65.28%) said split shifts were an option offered than did those from medium 

(40.00%) or large (29.80%) districts. 

LEOs in localities that offer split shifts were asked what impact this had on poll worker recruiting. 

Those representing jurisdiction that do not have this option were asked to speculate about its 

potential impact. These results are presented in Table 45. They appear to suggest that those who 

have experience with split shifts assess their value in easing the task of poll worker recruiting much 

more positively than those speculating as to the likely impact. While less than one-third of those 

LEOs representing jurisdictions offering this option indicated that it had no impact on recruiting, 

well over half of those who do not offer the option suggested this would be the result.
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study 31

Table 45. Impact of Offering Split Shifts on Poll Worker Recruiting by Whether Split Shifts 

are Currently Offered

% Make 

Recruiting Much 

Easier

% Make Recruiting 

Somewhat Easier

% No Impact

on Recruiting

Split Shifts Offered (n = 360) 29.05 39.76 31.19

Split Shifts not Offered

(n = 411)

4.67 34.70 60.63

Note: Rows may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

This outcome is mirrored when the results are examined by urban/rural status (Table 46) and size 

of jurisdiction (Table 47). In both cases, significantly higher percentages of LEOs from 

jurisdictions that do not offer split shifts predicted that doing so would have no impact on poll 

worker recruiting than LEOs assessing the actual impact. Within each of these groups, there were 

no significant differences between LEOs representing urban and rural districts. However among 

districts offering split shifts, LEOs from medium-sized districts were somewhat more positive in 

their evaluation of their impact. Among districts not offering this option, LEOs from smaller 

jurisdictions were somewhat more circumspect about their potential impact.

Table 46. Impact of Having Split Shifts by Urban/Rural Status

Split Shifts Offered

% Rural

(n = 46)

% Urban

(n = 314)

Make Recruiting Much Easier 34.78 28.34

Make Recruiting Somewhat Easier 32.61 40.76

No Impact on Recruiting 32.61 30.89

Split Shifts Not Offered

% Rural

(n = 76)

% Urban

(n = 335)

Make Recruiting Much Easier 2.63 5.07

Make Recruiting Somewhat Easier 25.00 37.01

No Impact on Recruiting 72.37 57.91

Note: Columns may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
32 Final Report

Table 47. Impact of Having Split Shifts by Size of Registered Voter Population

Split Shifts Offered

% Small

(n = 185)

% Medium 

(n = 98)

% Large 

(n = 73)

Make Recruiting Much Easier 36.22 25.51 16.44

Make Recruiting Somewhat 

Easier

32.43 49.98 46.58

No Impact on Recruiting 31.35 25.51 36.99

Split Shifts Not Offered

% Small

(n = 98)

Medium

(n = 138)

Large

(n = 166)

Make Recruiting Much Easier 5.10 5.80 3.61

Make Recruiting Somewhat 

Easier

19.39 37.68 39.76

No Impact on Recruiting 75.51 56.52 56.63

Note: Columns may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

Summary and Conclusions

One of the difficulties inherent in attempting to study differences between geographic entities 

such as “rural” and “urban” lies in how those terms are defined and the wide array of differences 

between jurisdictions within each, whatever definition is applied. This was made obvious by the 

disparity between the categorizations that emerged from the application of the Department of 

Agriculture’s Economic Research Service classification scheme and the judgments of the LEOs 

who took part in this survey. It was further evidenced by many of the written comments offered 

by respondents that underscore the variety of situations they face and which prompted several to 

comment that when it comes to administering elections, “one size doesn’t fit all.” And yet, 

despite this wide array of circumstances, there were relatively few large differences between 

LEOs representing urban and rural or large, medium, and small jurisdictions in their responses to 

the EAC Urban/Rural survey.

Perhaps the most surprising result was the lack of variance between urban and rural LEOs in 

terms of costs associated with voter outreach, with the vast majority of both groups reporting 

spending $5,000 or less on such activities. Although it is true that more subtle differences may 

have been masked within the reporting categories, it does seem clear that there is a restricted 

range overall in the amount of money spent reaching out to the voting public in advance of 

elections. This may be explained by the finding that, in large part, these efforts are funded from 

local election office budgets which may simply not accommodate larger expenditures. It was 

clear that there were differences in spending levels by size of jurisdiction, so the urban/rural 

result may also be an artifact of the fact that LEOs from small, urban districts skewed the overall 

urban results downward.

The results regarding types of outreach activities performed indicated that in rural areas there is a 

greater reliance on more traditional avenues such as paid print advertising, while LEOs in urban 
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study 33

districts reported significantly higher rates of use of TV, Internet, and social media. As might be 

expected, larger districts with greater numbers of potential voters employed a wider range of 

outreach methods. Approximately one third of LEOs reported partnering with other 

organizations in conducting outreach, with school-based groups being the most common partners 

overall, and nonprofits being more common in urban and large jurisdictions where there are 

likely to be more nonprofits operating to meet community needs. Approximately one half of 

LEOs indicated that they target students, voters in long-term care facilities, and those with 

disabilities in their outreach efforts. Efforts to specifically reach ethnic/minority groups and 

foreign language speakers were less common overall and much more likely to be cited by LEOs 

representing urban areas. 

Relatively small proportions of LEOs indicated that it was difficult to conduct voter outreach, 

however over two thirds cited staff availability/time as an obstacle, and approximately half said 

that cost was an impediment. For LEOs representing rural areas, a lack of available media 

markets and travel distance required to reach voters were rated as significantly greater problems 

than was the case for their urban counterparts. So although their assessment of the difficulty of 

performing this function is generally upbeat, it appears that there are obstacles that they have to 

overcome to do so.

Differences between urban and rural districts in terms of elections office staffing were in the 

expected direction, with rural jurisdictions often being 1-2 person operations. Across the board, 

and particularly in urban and large districts, there appears to be a strong reliance on part-time, 

temporary, and borrowed staff during the election season. Nearly all LEOs reported that poll 

workers are paid for their election day service. When paid an hourly rate, no differences were 

detected based on urban/rural status or jurisdiction size. However, one-time stipends were found 

to be higher in urban and large districts.

The biggest problems cited in recruiting poll workers centered on the long hours they are 

expected to serve on election day, the difficulties associated with getting time off from work to 

serve, and the requirement that there be equal numbers of poll workers from the two political 

parties. Overall, LEOs from urban and large districts employed a wider range of poll worker 

recruiting methods, a result that may reflect their need to cast a wider net to obtain the necessary 

numbers of volunteers. This may also account for the fact that LEOs representing smaller 

districts rated such factors as pay and hours as less significant problems than did those in 

medium and large jurisdictions. The need for fewer workers makes recruitment a less difficult 

task.

The data suggest that individuals who have experience with split shifts feel they positively affect 

poll worker recruiting. However those who have not instituted this practice are leery of doing so. 

Perhaps because questions regarding split shifts were at the conclusion of the survey, there were 

quite a few comments offered about them in the final open-ended section where respondents 

were invited to offer additional thoughts. Several LEOs suggested that split shifts would be 

problematic given the need to recruit more workers and the difficulties associated with 

scheduling. This may well be another example of one size not fitting all.
34 Final Report

The additional comments offered by respondents to the survey are instructive on two levels. (See 

Appendix C, page C-30, Q25. for the complete comments.) First, several offered suggestions 

based on their experience for innovative ways to address different aspects of the voting 

administration process. These included: forming partnerships with Rock the Vote and the Public 

Interest Research Group to conduct voter outreach and heighten interest in the process, 

conducting curbside voting to assist those who may have difficulty accessing the voting center, 

providing catered food for poll workers, conducting voting demonstrations in schools, and 

establishing a National Poll Worker Day to acknowledge the importance of their work to the 

elections administration process.

Perhaps the most striking aspect of the open-ended responses, however, was that they highlight 

the diversity of circumstances under which LEOs operate. These include an official whose 

district is an island and for whom one form of voter outreach is placing a large sign seen by those 

coming onto the island that highlights an approaching election. Another stated that his/her 

district is considered “frontier,” and covers 7,000 square miles and has 4,500 voters. Others from 

more rural jurisdictions highlighted the fact that their election day volunteers are typically 

retirees, and expressed concern that as their numbers dwindle, recruiting replacements will be a 

major challenge. And still others mentioned that they know most of the people in their 

jurisdiction, so recruiting volunteers is done relatively easily through personal acquaintances.

With the diversity of situations comes a diversity of perspectives. For instance, several 

respondents from rural areas commented that they are forced to comply with requirements 

intended to address issues found in more urban centers, and are ill-staffed to do so. As 

mentioned, there were also strongly held opinions both for and against instituting split shifts for 

poll workers. And while one LEO stated that, “Same-day voter registration is very helpful to 

getting new people to vote,” another commented that, “Same-day voter registration causes the 

biggest headaches for a small staffed town.” 

With this in mind, it seems clear that any attempt to identify and publicize best practices 

regarding the administration of elections in urban and rural areas must take into account the wide 

array of circumstances facing LEOs, even within these two groups. This suggests a menu of 

possible approaches to the various challenges faced, along with ideas for how they can be 

adapted to fit given the possible barriers that might be faced (e.g., cost, staffing) in their 

implementation.

At the conclusion of the Urban/Rural Survey, LEOs were invited to provide contact information 

if they would be interested in participating in more in-depth interviews regarding the topics 

addressed. Nearly 245 individuals complied with this request, representing 28% of respondents. 

EAC has the opportunity to capitalize on this through the use of online meetings or other 

technology-based forums to gain greater insight into best practices and innovative ideas in such 

areas as voter outreach and poll worker recruitment. A discussion group could be created via use 

of a blog or website, or by employing existing networks such as Linkedin. Such forums could 

also provide an avenue for discussions regarding the possibility of cross-jurisdictional efforts in 

these areas that would allow for a pooling of resources in the face of limited resources.
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study 35

References

Creek, H. M. & Karnes, K. A. (2009). Federalism and election law: Implementation issues in 

rural America. Publius, 40 (2):275-295.

Gronke, P., & Caudell-Feagan, M. (2008). Data for democracy: Improving elections through 

metrics and measurement. Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts.

Liebschut, S., & Palazzolo, D. J. (20050. HAVA and the states. Publius, 35 (4), 497-514.

Milbrath, L. W. (1965). Political participation: How and why do people get involved in politics?

Chicago: Rand McNally

Monroe, A. D. (1977). Urbanism and voter turnout: A note on some unexpected findings. 

American Journal of Political Science, 21 (February 1977): 71-78.

Nie, N. H., Bingham Power, G., & Prewitt, K. (1969). Social structure and political participation; 

Development relationships, part I. American Political Science Review, 63 (June): 361-

378.

Rachlin, A. (Ed.) (2006). Making every vote count: Federal election legislation in the states. 

Princeton, NJ: Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

Verba, S., & Nie, N. H. (1972). Participation in America: Political democracy and social 

equality. New York: Harper and Row.

OMB Control Number 3265-0017

Expiration Date: 8/31/14 A-1

Appendix A

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Urban/Rural Study Questionnaire

OMB Control Number 3265-0017

Expiration Date: 8/31/14 A-3

United States Election Assistance Commission

Urban/Rural Study

Local Election Officials Survey
A-4 OMB Control Number 3265-0017

Expiration Date: 8/31/14

ABOUT THIS SURVEY

The United States Election Assistance Commission (EAC) was created as part of the Help 

America Vote Act (HAVA) to assist State and local election officials with the administration 

of Federal elections. HAVA (b)(15) requires EAC to study “[m]atters particularly relevant to 

voting and administering elections in rural and urban areas.” The purpose of the Survey of 

Rural and Urban Election Administration is to determine the ways in which election officials 

conduct voter outreach, secure personnel, and handle any cost-related challenges 

associated with administering general elections in rural and urban jurisdictions. You will be 

asked questions about your jurisdictions; however, they are for research purposes only and 

are not connected to any enforcement activity on the part of other Federal agencies.

Your input in this study is very important. This survey should take no more than 30 minutes 

to complete. Please respond to all applicable questions. In addition, we ask that if you 

would be willing to participate in an in-depth interview regarding the topic of this survey, 

please indicate this at the end of the survey. 

Over the past two years, EAC conducted two working groups with election 

officials from rural and urban communities and with social science 

researchers. The purpose of the working groups was to gain perspective and 

feedback on how EAC might approach this study. The working group 

members spent their time considering challenges related to administering 

elections in urban and rural areas. The issues they identified included voter 

outreach and personnel (along with costs related to these factors). Voter 

outreach and personnel are examples of areas in which jurisdictions are 

demonstrating creativity and innovation and may present interesting contrasts

when considered in the context of urban and rural election administration. 

These are also areas where cost savings can be realized. Highlighting these 

topics in EAC’s report will provide a greater understanding of how urban and 

rural areas differ on these issues and might help to provide best practices 

information for election officials around the country.
OMB Control Number 3265-0017

Expiration Date: 8/31/14 A-5

Background

1. How long have you served as an election official? (include total experience in all 

jurisdictions)

_______ number of years

1a. Were you elected or appointed to your current position?

 Elected

 Appointed

2. Approximately how many registered voters reside in the jurisdiction you currently serve?

_______ approximate number of registered voters

3. How would you describe your jurisdiction? Is it primarily rural or primarily urban?

 Rural

 Urban

 Both. My jurisdiction includes both rural and urban areas.

4. Is your jurisdiction required to provide language assistance under Section 203 of the Voting 

Rights Act?

 Yes – Go to question 4a

 No – Skip to question 5 

4(a). If yes, for which languages or language groups is your jurisdiction required to 

provide assistance? (Check all that apply)

 Spanish 

 Asian languages 

 Alaskan / Native American languages

 Other (please specify) ____________________

5. Does your office have full/ultimate responsibility for all aspects of elections in your 

jurisdiction (e.g., voter registration, voting machines, ballots, vote counting, etc.)? Please 

note that your office may have full/ultimate responsibility for an election-related activity even 

if it is not actually performed in your office (e.g., computer-related support).

 Yes – Skip to question 6

 No – Go to question 5a
A-6 OMB Control Number 3265-0017

Expiration Date: 8/31/14

5(a). (If no) Is full/ultimate responsibility for all aspects of elections in your 

jurisdiction...

 A state function only 

 A shared state and local function 

 Other (please specify)___________________________________

6. Please indicate whether or not each of the following is allowed in your jurisdiction. 

Yes No

Absentee voting (excuse required)  

No-excuse absentee voting  

Early voting  

All vote-by-mail  

Voter Outreach

The next series of questions is about voter outreach activities. For purposes of this survey, 

please consider voter outreach to be any activity that your office engages in to provide 

information to the voting public. This includes information your office is required to provide and 

responses to information requests from individuals and/or organizations.

7. For each of the following, please indicate whether your office provides this type of outreach 

to the voting public. If your office provides this outreach, please indicate the language(s) in 

which it is provided. 

Type of Outreach

Does your 

office provide 

this type of 

outreach?

If YES, in what languages is the 

outreach provided?

Yes No English 

only

English 

and other 

languages

Other 

languages 

only

Paid print advertising (e.g., newspaper)     

Paid television/radio advertising     

Elections Office/County website     

Hard copy direct mailing to voters (e.g., 

voter’s guide, sample ballot)

    

Toll-free telephone line     

Social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, blogs)     

Participating in community events     

Other (please specify)

________________________________

    
OMB Control Number 3265-0017

Expiration Date: 8/31/14 A-7

8. Does your jurisdiction form partnerships with any third-party or civic organizations on voter 

outreach efforts?

 Yes – Continue to question 8a

 No – Skip to question 9

8a. Please indicate whether your jurisdiction forms partnerships with each of the 

following types of organizations on voter outreach efforts.

Types of Organization(s)

Conduct 

with this 

type of 

organization

Do not 

conduct 

with this 

type of 

organization

School-related organization(s)  

Non-profit organization(s)  

Political parties  

Other (please specify)

___________________________________________  

Other (please specify)

___________________________________________  

8b. For each of the following, please indicate whether your jurisdiction forms 

partnerships with other organizations on this type of voter outreach effort.

Types of Outreach

Conduct with 

other 

organizations

Do not 

conduct with 

other 

organizations

Paid print advertising (e.g., newspaper)  

Paid television/radio advertising  

Elections Office/County website  

Hard copy direct mailing to voters (e.g., voter’s guide, 

sample ballot)  

Toll-free telephone line  

Social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Blogs)  

Participating in community events  

Other (please specify)

_________________________________________  

Other (please specify)

___________________________________________  
A-8 OMB Control Number 3265-0017

Expiration Date: 8/31/14

8c. We are particularly interested in voter outreach efforts that jurisdictions have 

provided in partnership with other organizations. Please provide further information 

about these efforts.

□ No further information

9. For each of the following, please indicate whether your jurisdiction has voter outreach 

initiatives or activities that focus on this group. 

Voter Outreach Focus

Focus 

on this 

group

Do not 

focus on 

this group

Students  

Racial/ethnic minorities  

Foreign language speakers  

Voters in long-term care facilities  

Voters with disabilities  

Other (please specify)

___________________________________________  

Other (please specify)

___________________________________________

 

10. Approximately how much did voter outreach efforts for the 2010 Mid-Term Election cost 

your jurisdiction?

 $0 – 1,000  $50,001 – 60,000

 $1,001 – 5,000  $60,001 – 70,000

 $5,001 – 10,000  $70,001 – 80,000

 $10,001 – 20,000  $80,001 – 90,000

 $20,001 – 30,000  $90,001 –100,000

 $30,001 – 40,000  $100,001 – 200,000

 $40,001 – 50,000  $200,001 or more
OMB Control Number 3265-0017

Expiration Date: 8/31/14 A-9

11. Approximately how much do you estimate voter outreach efforts for the 2012 General 

Election cost your jurisdiction?

 $0 – 1,000  $70,001 – 80,000

 $1,001 – 5,000  $80,001 – 90,000

 $5,001 – 10,000  $90,001 – 100,000

 $10,001 – 20,000  $100,001 – 200,000

 $20,001 – 30,000  $200,001 – 300,000

 $30,001 – 40,000  $300,001 – 400,000

 $40,001 – 50,000  $400,001 – 500,000

 $50,001 – 60,000  $500,001 or more

 $60,001 – 70,000

12. How are your jurisdiction’s voter outreach efforts paid for? (Check all that apply)

 From the local election office budget

 From line item appropriation in the county or state budget

 Other (please specify) ____________________________________________

13. In general, how easy or difficult is it for your jurisdiction to engage in voter outreach for 

general election cycles? 

 Very easy

 Somewhat easy

 Neither easy nor difficult

 Somewhat difficult

 Very difficult

14. How much of a problem is each of the following in engaging in voter outreach for general 

election cycles? 

A big 

problem

A 

moderate 

problem

A small 

problem

Not a 

problem 

at all

Cost    

Staff availability/time    

Availability of media outlets    

Travel distance required for in-person 

contact    

Limitations on Internet access or reliability    

Variety of languages spoken    

Other (please specify)

__________________________________    

Other (please specify)

__________________________________    
A-10 OMB Control Number 3265-0017

Expiration Date: 8/31/14

Personnel

2010

15. Please indicate how many of each of the following types of paid staff you had in 2010.

a. In 2010, approximately how many paid full-time (permanent) staff did you have? 

_______ number of paid full-time (permanent) staff

b. In 2010, approximately how many paid part-time (permanent) staff did you have? 

_______ number of paid part-time (permanent) staff

c. In 2010, approximately how many paid temporary staff did you have (e.g., workers 

who come in around election time to help with administrative tasks such as data 

entry for voter registration, work the customer service hotline, etc.)? Please do NOT 

include poll workers.

_______ number of paid temporary staff 

d. In 2010 did you “borrow” staff from other departments within your local/municipal 

government to supplement your full-time, part-time, and temporary staff?

 Yes (please indicate approximate number of staff) ___________

 No

16. For the 2010 General Election, approximately how many poll workers/election judges did 

your office use? 

_______ number of poll workers/election judges

2012

17. Please indicate how many of each of the following types of paid staff you had in 2012.

a. In 2012, approximately how many paid full-time (permanent) staff did you have? 

_______ number of paid full-time (permanent) staff

b. In 2012, approximately how many paid part-time (permanent) staff did you have? 

_______ number of paid part-time (permanent) staff
OMB Control Number 3265-0017

Expiration Date: 8/31/14 A-11

c. In 2012, approximately how many paid temporary staff did you have (e.g., workers 

who come in around election time to help with administrative tasks such as data 

entry for voter registration, work the customer service hotline, etc.)? Please do NOT 

include poll workers.

_______ number of paid temporary staff 

d. In 2012 did you “borrow” staff from other departments within your local/municipal 

government to supplement your full-time, part-time, and temporary staff?

 Yes (please indicate approximate number of staff) ___________

 No

18. For the 2012 General Election, approximately how many poll workers/election judges did 

your office use?

_______ number of poll workers/election judges

NOTE: For Questions 19 and 20, “poll workers” does NOT include Chief, Assistant Chief, 

Judges of Elections, Captains, or Supervisors; only poll workers.

19. Are your poll workers paid for their work on Election Day?

 Yes – Continue to question 19a

 No – Skip to question 20

19a. How much are your poll workers paid for their work on Election Day? 

 

 One-time set stipend of $____________

 Hourly rate in the amount of $_____________ per hour

20. Are your poll workers paid for training?

 Yes – Continue to question 20a

 No – Skip to question 21

20a. How much are your poll workers paid for training?

 

 One-time set stipend of $___________

 Hourly rate in the amount of $_____________ per hour

 Payment in question 19a includes training pay
A-12 OMB Control Number 3265-0017

Expiration Date: 8/31/14

21. Please indicate which recruiting sources you use to obtain poll workers for General 

Elections. For each source used, please indicate how successful the source has been for 

you in obtaining poll workers.

Recruiting Source

Do you use 

this 

source?

If YES (you use this source), rate 

successfulness

YES NO Very 

Successful

Successful Somewhat 

Successful

Not 

Successful

Classified ads      

Recruiting at college campuses      

Recruiting at high schools      

Recruiting through website      

Recruiting through local 

businesses      

Recruiting through volunteer 

organizations      

Recruiting through other 

government 

agencies/departments

     

Recruiting through word of 

mouth (e.g., current poll 

workers encourage 

friends/coworkers to volunteer)

     

Responding to requests from 

individuals or groups regarding 

becoming poll workers

     

Other (please specify)

________________________

     

Other (please specify)

________________________

     

22. In general, how easy or difficult is it for your jurisdiction to obtain a sufficient number of 

poll workers for general election cycles?

 Very easy 

 Somewhat easy

 Neither easy nor difficult

 Somewhat difficult

 Very difficult
OMB Control Number 3265-0017

Expiration Date: 8/31/14 A-13

23. For each of the following, please indicate how much of a problem it presents in obtaining 

a sufficient number of poll workers for general election cycles?

A big 

problem

A 

moderate 

problem

A small 

problem

Not a 

problem 

at all

Payment is too low    

Election Day work hours are too long    

Little respect for poll workers    

Training is too long/takes too much time    

Potential poll workers cannot get off from 

work to serve    

Requirement for equal numbers of poll 

workers from different political parties    

Lack skilled or qualified workers    

Other (please specify)

__________________________________    

Other (please specify)

__________________________________    

24. Does your jurisdiction offer split shifts for poll workers on Election Day? That is, can poll 

workers sign up to work less than a full day at the polls on Election Day?

 Yes – Go to question 24a

 No – Go to question 24b

24a. (If split shifts are offered) What impact does the ability to offer split shifts have on 

your recruiting poll workers?

 Makes it much easier to recruit poll workers.

 Makes it somewhat easier to recruit poll workers.

 Has no impact.

24b. (If split shifts are not offered) What impact would the ability to offer split shifts have 

on your recruiting poll workers?

 Would make it much easier to recruit poll workers.

 Would make it somewhat easier to recruit poll workers.

 Would have no impact.
A-14 OMB Control Number 3265-0017

Expiration Date: 8/31/14

Please continue to the next page → → →

25. Please provide any additional comments you may have about administering elections in 

urban and rural jurisdictions. In particular, we are interested in any ideas and/or 

experience you have regarding voter outreach and personnel that you feel had a 

positive impact on your ability to administer general elections.

□ No additional comments

Thank you for participating in this survey.

EAC is planning to conduct in-depth follow-up interviews regarding the topics addressed in 

this survey. If you would be willing to take part in an in-person interview concerning the 

same topic, check this box □ and provide your contact information below. Please note 

that your contact information will be separated from the answers you have provided 

in the survey and will be used only to contact you for a follow-up interview.

Name:_______________________________________________________________

Phone: ____________________________

E-mail: ____________________________

Instructions for Returning the Survey

After you have completed the survey, please place the questionnaire in the postage-paid 

envelope provided and return it in the mail to:

HumRRO

P.O. Box 6640

Lawrenceville, NJ 08648

If you prefer, you may fax the completed survey to HumRRO at (703) 549-9025. Please be 

sure to fax both sides of each page, including the front cover page.
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study B-1

Appendix B

Survey Sample Weights

U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study B-1

The following weights were applied to the data in order to bring the sample percentages in line 

with the population in terms of urban/rural classification and geographic region.

Metro Counties Northeast Midwest South West

1. Counties in metro areas of 1 million 

population or more 1.25877 1.254387 0.998776 0.671301

2. Counties in metro areas of 250,000 to 1 

million population 1.112381 0.561262 1.081951 1.32539

3. Counties in metro areas of fewer than 

250,000 population 1.068863 0.78766 1.549157 0.728236

NonMetro Counties

4. Urban population of 20,000 or more, 

adjacent to a metro area 1.348111 0.879085 2.515536 0.631138

5. Urban population of 20,000 or more, not 

adjacent to a metro area 3.36081 0.71003 2.019642 1.136049

6. Urban population of 2,500 to 19,999, 

adjacent to a metro area 0.96685 0.94159 1.156704 1.015559

7. Urban population of 2,500 to 19,999, 

not adjacent to a metro area 1.172993 0.991258 1.714592 1.590468

8. Completely rural or less than 2,500 

urban population, adjacent to a metro 

area 0.515009 0.591692 0.738432 0.89261

9. Completely rural or less than 2,500 

urban population, not adjacent to a 

metro area 0.811463 0.6525 0.694252 0.627816

U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study C-1

Appendix C

EAC Urban/Rural Survey

Verbatim Respondent Comments

U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study C-3

VERBATIM COMMENTS

Q4a. If yes, for which other languages or language groups is your jurisdiction required to provide 

assistance? – Other (specify) [Source Variable: Other Language Assistance Required-Specified]

Few LEOs indicated that their jurisdiction was required to provide assistance in languages other than the 

prelisted ones – Spanish, Asian languages, and Alaskan/Native American languages. French was the only 

other language specified by LEOs. -

All as necessary

As required

French (9x)

Language assistance has never been needed.

No one ever asks for this!

Not specified

Q5a. (If no) Is full/ultimate responsibility for all aspects of elections in your jurisdiction...? – Other 

(specify) [Source variable: Entity Fully Responsible for Elections-Specified]

While most LEOs report that their office has full/ultimate responsibility for all aspects of elections in their 

jurisdiction, some report that this responsibility is shared with other entities at the state, county and/or 

local levels. In many cases, multiple local-level offices cooperate in administering elections, including 

combinations of Town Clerk, Registrar of Voters, Tax Assessors/Collectors, and others. 

Administered at municipal level; very de-centralized. However, county & state also involved.

All local, the tax assessor is the voter registrar, my office is responsible for the election.

Between the County Clerk's office (me) and the Tax Collector's office.

City clerk and registrar of voters

County and local

County and local function

County clerk and voter registrar share local functions.

County election commission

County Recorder handles voter registration and early voting

It is shared between the County Clerk, CBEC and the Election Coordinator

R.O.V.'s

Registrar of Voters responsibility

Registrar of voters/moderator

Separate local VR office

Separate voter registrar and election official offices
C-4 Final Report

Shared between 2 offices

Shared county and local function

Shared county/municipal

Shared state and local function. And county probate office-machines, oversees election 

process. Our office registers, updates, posts votes, etc.

Shared State-County-Local. County prepares ballot and coordinates with local clerks, as well 

as compiling the canvass. Locals are responsible for voter registration, precincts and precinct 

workers.

Shared town clerk & registrar of voters

Shared Town Clerk/Registrar of Voters

Shared w/ registrars of voters

Shared with County Recorder's Office

Shared with municipality

Shared with Selectmen and Supervisors of the Checklist

Shared with Superintendent of Elections

Shared with voter registrar

Tax Assessor/Collector is Voter Registrar

Town clerk absentee ballots

Treasurer's office

Twps

Voter Registrar

Voter registrar currently hiring a joint elec admin

Voter registration is handled by the tax assessor/collector office

Voter registration is in Tax Asses/Coll office

Voter Registration is responsibility of Tax Office

Voter registrar & clerk

We handle all aspects re: absentee ballots, certification of candidates, appropriate paperwork 

with Secretary of State's office re: list of offices to be filled, cert. of ballots, & legal notices 

Q7. For each of the following, please indicate whether your office provides this type of outreach to 

the voting public – Other (specify). [Source variable: Other Type of Outreach Provided-Specified]

Approximately one in ten LEOs indicate that their office provides one or more types of voter outreach 

other than those listed in the survey. Most frequently mentioned is free advertising via newspaper, radio 

and/or television, Other types of voter outreach include postings in public places in the jurisdiction, 

postings on local websites, school-based outreach, and voter registration drives.
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study C-5

Cable access

Cable ATAV announcements

Cable TV-local access

Channel 5 (local) free broadcasting

City website

Community display boards, free radio chat

County public access television

Election Legal Notice

Email and non-paid print

Flyers on voting centers

Free advertising in newspaper

Free local TV free newspaper and radio

Public service announcements

Free paper/radio advertising

Free print advertising

Free radio public service announcements

Free radio/newspaper ads

Go to local schools register youth, do presentations, questions/answers and provide voter 

guides.

Voter guides are always available at my office.

Go to nursing homes and hospital.

Handouts to public

Hard copy posted in five public places in town

High school & college

High school government classes

High school outreach

High school senior registration drive

High school voter registration drives

Legal warrants, marquis sign posting

Local access TV

Local cable

Local High School outreach and voter registration drive. and

Local newspapers at no charge, local cable at no charge, announcements at select board 

meetings which are televised on local cable

Local TV channel (no charge)
C-6 Final Report

Mailing to all 18 year olds

Media interviews, guest speaking, open house

Most done by state elections office

Municipal clerks may provide addt'l. outreach

N/A

Newsletter

Newspaper (2x)

Newspaper articles (2x)

Newspaper not paid

None (2x)

Notices in town office & post offices

Outreach to residential facilities: university, residential care facilities, jails, etc.

Participate in voter registration drives

Physical notices at town office

Posted information material

Posted warrant-online website

Posters and signs around town

Posters/notices at polling place

Posting of all voting ballots, warrants, times & locations of polling places at town office 

building, town hall & voting times and placed on board at entrance to island

Posting on town hall

Posting sample ballots in public places

Postings in businesses

Postings in public buildings

Postings throughout town.

Precinct info cards for new voters and precinct changes

Provide election materials for other events.

Public forums when requested

Public notice posting 

Public service ads

Public service announcement, press releases

Publicize in local newspaper

Radio public service announcements

Registering at schools
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study C-7

Registrations forms are in libraries, post offices, banks, schools, town/village clerks offices, 

senior living centers, nursing homes, etc. within the county

Roadside sign & town website

School government class

Schools, colleges, service orgs

Sign outside of office

Speaker at meetings (e.g. Rotary Club)

Speeches/ information sessions

State and Federal postings in town office

Student countywide voter registration drive

Swearing in new deputy registrars at various functions

The Registrar of Voters in our town handles the actual election and hiring of workers, etc.

The state provides all of the above

Town clerk website

Town election webpage

Town email notifications

Town newsletter (2x)

Town notices

Town website (2x)

Town website and town column in local newspaper

Town/local website

Trainings for voters and candidates as requested by the public

TV local channel for information

Unpaid newspaper ads, unpaid tv/radio ads (local, public), post signs throughout community

Unpaid radio

Unpaid radio-interviews & PR

Unpaid TV/radio advertising

Voter reg. forms to town clerks, post offices

Voter registration drive at senior high school

Voter registration drives at business locations, 'fresh markets', high schools, colleges.

Voting in schools

Voting system public demonstrations

VR drives in high schools and naturalization ceremonies

We do direct mail to individuals items upon request but prefer to email (voter lists,etc)

Website
C-8 Final Report

WI statutes require publication of election notices

Working on social media

Yards signs at office with Info

Q8a Please indicate whether your jurisdiction forms partnerships with each of the following types 

of organizations on voter outreach efforts. – Other (specify)

Approximately one third of LEOs report partnering with other organizations on voter outreach efforts. 

While approximately 20% to 30% of jurisdictions partner with school-related organizations, non-profit 

organizations, and political parties, some report other types of partnerships. Government offices, 

departments and agencies are most frequently reported as other outreach partners, including Department 

of Motor Vehicles, Department of Human Services, Social Services offices and others. A variety of 

community-based organizations and those with a minority-group focus also partner with LEOs on voter 

outreach efforts.

[Source variable: Other #1 Type of Partner Organization-Specified]

Attend annual caucus

Chamber of Commerce

Civic associations

Clubs in the community

Community TV

Community based organizations - language

Contract with Democratic Party

Dept of Human Services

Dept of Motor Vehicles

Dept of Revenue-DMV

Fairs, etc.

Hispanic Institute at university

Hospital

Human Services Agency

Indian Tribes, Pueblos and Nations

Language minority outreach groups

Language speaking groups

League of Women Voters (4x)

Local civic organizations

Local Dept of Social Services

Local municipalities
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study C-9

Local radio stations

Lyons Club

NAACP

Non-partisan community organizations

Other local government

Portuguese & Spanish organizations

Public library

Local event 

Senior center (2x)

Senior centers/nursing homes

Senior citizen groups

State

Tribal

Universities

Veterans of Foreign War

We have booths at the local fair & anywhere that asks us to set up

We instruct political parties on what is acceptable

[Source variable: Other #2 Type of Partner Organization-Specified]

Accessibility

Organizations

Advocates for voters with disabilities

Business women’s club

Church and community-based groups

Contract with Republican Party

Dept of Family Services

Federal court-naturalization ceremonies

Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

Hospitals, Jails

Joint advertising with surrounding towns

Kiwanis

Local Dept of Revenue -license office

Local newspaper

Nursing homes

Senior citizen groups
C-10 Final Report

Social Services

Town hall

Women's empowerment

Q8b For each of the following, please indicate whether your jurisdiction forms partnerships with 

other organizations on this type of voter outreach effort. – Other (specify) 

Much of the voter outreach provided by LEOs in partnership with other organizations falls in the 

categories specified in the survey. However, a small number of LEOs mentioned other types of outreach, 

including free TV or radio, voter registration drives, and school-based outreach.

[Source variable: Other #1 Type of Partner Outreach Provided-Specified]

Attend annual Caucus

Civic clubs etc.

Elections and voter registration at schools

Free radio/TV time

Hard copy posted in 5 public places in town

High schools

Local cable gives free time for ads

Local radio-live election night results & PSA

News releases to another state 30 miles from our county

Newspaper no paid

Offering transportation

Personal appearances

Portuguese and Spanish media

Provided DVD to public cable to promote new photo ID law

Local event

Senior centers

Travel to schools

Voter registration drive (3x)

Voter registration drives at school

Working with government teachers

[Source variable: Other #2 Type of Partner Outreach Provided-Specified]

Cooperation with League of Women Voters

Guest speaking, observer panel
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study C-11

Joint advertising with surrounding towns

Local newspaper-informational articles

Women's empowerment

Q8c We are particularly interested in voter outreach efforts that jurisdictions have 

provided in partnership with other organizations. Please provide further 

information about these efforts. [Source variable: Further Information About 

Outreach Partnerships-Code1 through –Code6]

LEOs were asked to provide further information about their experiences in partnering with other 

organizations on voter outreach efforts. Approximately 44% of LEOs who partner on voter 

outreach provided a comment. Nearly half (46%) of them mentioned voter registration efforts. 

Other frequently-mentioned topics include outreach involving community or civic organizations 

(43%), school-based or student-focused outreach (42%), and attendance at community or local 

events (24%). Less-frequently reported efforts involve outreach to senior citizens and disabled 

populations, mock elections and demonstrations of voting equipment, media outreach, and 

partnering with political parties.

Any facility with disabled people like nursing homes, group homes, etc. Go to high schools 

and colleges to register voters. And also local Ruritan clubs.

As clerk, I have meet with the high schools civics classes to encourage voter registration, 

student judges, etc. Also work with the political parties to present election information at 

their meetings and with the senior citizen meal centers to encourage participation in the 

elections.

At local forums we provide voter registration and absentee ballot requests.

Chamber of Commerce provides e-mail blast to their members of Early Voting locations and 

dates. Local school system allows flyers to be sent home with students announcing advance 

voting dates/locations/times.

Civic organization. University family life center. Various churches in the city. High school. 

Veterans of Foreign Wars. Women's Forum. Black Arts Heritage Festival. Fourth of July 

Hispanic Arts Festival. Community college. Nursing homes. Disability Resource Center.

Apartment Complexes

Community law fair-voter registration and demo of voting device and mock ballots. Health 

fairs-voter registration. Civic organizations-voter registration & education. Community 

special events-voter registration & education. Schools-tours of our facility, voter education, 

voter registration. Assisted living & nursing home facilities-voter registration and absentee 

voting education. Disabled community-voter registration & voting device demo.

Conducted about 50 meetings with civic clubs, college students at the local university, and 

other community groups to tell them about voting procedures, absentee voting, and photo 

I.D.'s needed for voting in person.
C-12 Final Report

Conducted citizen information meetings with League of Women Voters. Partnered with a 

nonpartisan organization whose major goal is to organize and mobilize grassroot 

organizations such as neighborhood associations.

County Advisory Committee, LULAC - League of United Latin American Citizens, county 

fair, high school career day

County nursing home residents

Dem & Rep Party Chairs submit list to County Clerk for judges and poll workers

Each of the organizations gather the audience for the voter outreach efforts, whether by mail, 

phone, newspaper, etc.

Fair booth

Fairs or local community events

Have conducted mock elections at all grade levels (elementary, middle school, high school). 

Have gone to high schools and conducted Homecoming Queen and Sadies elections for the

students using the voting machines.

High schools, senior citizens agency, disabilities & special needs, nursing home

Hispanic Chamber-Cinco De Mayo Festivals. Hispanic Institute-Class presentations on 

voting, community events sponsored by the college. Nations Association-various community 

activities like toy give-aways at Christmas, food baskets for Thanksgiving, etc. Martin Luther 

King Jr. Celebrations

I speak at functions to which I am invited to speak. I also make myself available at the 

County 4-H fair to answer questions.

I speak at Rotary clubs, Democratic party and Republican party meetings, high schools, 

community events, and any other organizations that ask.

I volunteer to hold a mock election and provide historic information on the election process to 

promote voting to the youth.

If an organization contacts us to help with Voter Registration at an event they are having we 

send someone to help.

Just with schools registering voters

League of Women Voters debates, registration information, signage

League of Women Voters, Bar Association (lawyers), events for disabled community (Blind 

Expo, Disability fairs etc), churches, sororities and service clubs, naturalization ceremonies, 

PSAs on local access TV, public interest TV and radio shows
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study C-13

League of Women Voters-voter registration and information providers. Auditors Office-goes 

on local talk radio and do public service TV spots when requested. Library Systemdisseminates sample ballots and voter information, maps and ballot initiative 

questions/explanations.

A few surrounding towns put an advertisement in the local newspaper announcing absentee 

voting dates and times.

Local college effort to register new voters. State agencies register voters.

Mainly help with voter registration and mock elections

Met with various community organizations to swear in deputy registrars. Assisted us with 

increased voter participation. Participants of Student Government Day which educates future 

voters.

Mock elections. Meeting w/Boy and Girl Scouts

Much of our attention has been focused on recruitment of bilingual election officials, but we 

also attend a number of community events hosted by Spanish language groups.

My office partners with local high schools to reach out to young voters. We explain our 

voting process and help them get registered. We also provide assistance with voter 

registration drives conducted by our deputy voter registrars.

NAACP 3rd Party Registration Training. Public schools (elementery, high). Area college

voter information. Voting machine demo. Mock elections. League of Women Voters. 

Political parties.

Organizations: Republican Party reps and Democratic Party reps. Pollwatchers.

Our involvement has largely been with the League of Women Voters local branch. There are 

some student organizations at the university that we work with on a more random basis.

Our office publishes an informational sheet on how to conduct a voter registration session 

which we give to Student Groups and the League of Women Voters when they conduct voter 

registration drives to ensure that voter registration forms are filled out correctly.

Outreach to health care facilities

Partnered with area transit to provide transportation during early voting

Partnered with local libraries and post offices to educate public of new photo id laws that 

went into effect 1/1/12. Regularly speak to all civic groups and senior citizen groups.

Partnering with city’s agency for homeless

Please contact the Registrar of Voters of our town for further information.

Political parties. Community events, Cities and towns. Political activists etc,
C-14 Final Report

Present registration procedures and forms at naturalization ceremonies bimonthly

Press releases, info signage at poll sites, town clerks offices and the county office building, 

communications with high school participation in government staff

Provide training for conduct of voter drives w/3rd party orgs. Upfront training of this type 

keeps our problems to a minimum.

Registrars of voters have a compiled list of people interested in having any upcoming 

vote/election be emailed a reminder of such to them.

School voter registration

Schools are a point of contact. We want to encourage the seniors to get involved. They assist 

as election day 'pages' also (at the polls).

Send each graduating high school senior a graduation card with a voter registration form and 

info on how to receive a ballot when away to college. Disability advisory committee to search 

for better ways to serve our disabled voters. Assists the League of Women Voters with voter 

registration drives and candidate forums.

Senior Citizen Center asked me to talk about elections, political party has asked me to talk 

about elections.

Set-up voting booths and boxes for local schools mock elections. Town website with voting 

information.

Simply that DHS provides voter registration applications

Social science class at a local high school requested a registration drive

Speaking engagements with civic groups.

The election office provides registration forms to non profit organizations and political 

parties who are trying to promote Voter Registration for upcoming elections or during 

community events. Upon request the Administrator speaks to organizations during organized 

meetings to educate on the election process and requirements to run for an elected position.

The extent of outreach is primarily based upon their request for information and that which 

we are required by law to provide.

The Town and City Clerk's Association developed a PSA to be aired on local radio stations. 

Local community college students recorded it for free. Stations aired it for free.

The Chamber of Commerce and Business Women’s Club put on Candidates Forums that is 

televised on the local radio station. Different groups do voter registration drives.

The office has worked with schools on MOTV initiatives, registering students in school, 

participating in election seminars for students, etc. We do serve and reference & partner with 

the League of Women Voters.
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study C-15

The Registrar of Voters office has worked in partnership with the League of Women Voters 

and the local PTO and school district.

The Secretary of State coordinates and pays for all state & federal election outreach

Training of individuals and organizations on how to register voters. Election information 

sheet to media and general public candidate information packets

Twp Ass'n Session & League of Women Voters

Typically an organization will invite us to their meeting/event to discuss current election 

information they believe their members would be interested in

Upon request verbal or written by any Tribe, Nation or Pueblo our office will conduct voter 

registration drives at a location of their choice, we provide voter registrations, personnel and 

a computer to be able to enter information as it is received.

Visit high school to register any voters.

Voter outreach is often done in partnership with other canvassing authorities or the state 

election offices

Voter outreach with civic groups and help conduct the mock elections with the schools in our 

county.

Voter registration drives at local colleges. Election training at local jurisdictions/local 

organizations.

Voter Registration drives, speaking before groups in regard to various functions of the Board, 

demonstrations of the optical voting system

Voter registration drives, voter registration tables at community events, participation 

whenever and wherever asked by another organization

Voter registration drives. Voter training with sample materials (sample ballots, etc). Training 

with local township officers to better help with elections.

Voter Registration, voter education, voter awareness

We conduct the high school student body elections

We do not ask organizations to distribute our materials for us. We do partner with 

organizations to conduct outreach AT the organization for membership and guests where we 

DO distribute materials ourselves. We often do public speaking with organization 

memberships (Rotary, League of Women Voters, Kiwanis Club, Center for Peace and Justice, 

Community Lawyers Group, etc.) and work with these organizations to inform them of our 

'Team Up for Democracy' Poll worker program. We will take any free radio and television we 

get (no longer can government afford to pay the outrageous prices for paid print or 

television/radio time). We have formed an Observer Panel that consists of members of 

organizations who observe activities and provide the Department feedback on all aspects of 

the election. We work with the League of Women Voters to conduct a MOCK election for 
C-16 Final Report

students, in 2012 we worked with high-schools and colleges for our first youth poster contest 

(A.I.M. to Vote! means Art Inspires Me to Vote!), and have begun to partner with S.C.O.R.E. 

(South County Out-Reach Efforts) to share election information for broader dissemination. 

Each year, work with local Congressman on new citizenship registration drive.

We do voter registration drives at senior functions that are sponsored by the area hospitals as 

well as senior functions sponsored by religious organizations. We also participate in 

community events such as women's expos.

We go to high school & local junior college to register voters and answer questions. We go to 

festivals during election years. We have registrations available at the court houses, library and 

political headquarters - where we regularly pick up. We have gone to the nursing home to 

assist in filling out forms.

We have a Disability Access Committee that works with the disabled community and many 

associated agencies.

We have a Field Registrar in one outlying area of the county.

We have a local school that we try to get together with once a year before elections to help 

the students register to vote.

We have also reached out to Retired Teachers Assoc. for possibility of recruiting poll 

workers.

We have had a booth at the local County Fair when introducing new voting equipment. The 

Elections Department and Recorder have gone to local civic organization meetings to try and 

gather more names for potential election workers and to speak about the local elections. We 

have also gone 'live' on the local radio station to discuss upcoming elections and to try and 

increase voter turnout.

We have parternered with the city public library to bring instructional information by setting 

up a voting machine and letting non-English speaking organizations become familiar with the 

voting process.

We have partnered with other gov't agencies for paid advertising and voter pamphlet 

information

We have partnered with the high schools to provide a history of voting class, as well as a 

hands on demonstration of our voting machines. We have designed a program where students 

can campaign for and then vote for their favorite cookie. This gives them experience with 

filing out the ballot and inserting it into the optical scan. We also offer voter registration 

forms to those students who are or will soon be 18 years old. Since starting this program 10 

years ago, our % of 18 - 26 year old registered voters has doubled.

We have partnership with the school system providing voter registration drive for teenage 

kids. And, also with local churches and civic organizations in providing voter education.

We have provided voting machines for school student body elections and conduct voter 

registration drives at schools.
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study C-17

We help do demonstrations on how to vote using voting machines

We hold voter registration sessions at the high school, at the event at the beach during the 

summer, at the Health and Wellness Fair, at the Women's Empowerment Meetings. etc. 

Anytime there is an event in the city we set up a voter registration booth and provide 

information in English and Spanish.

We meet with school superintendents & principals to recruit precinct election officials.

We often call the community event and ask if we can attend to offer voter registration.

We participated in the National Voter Registration Day 2012. If we are asked to work at a 

registration booth for a nonprofit organization, we will normally agree to - particularly if it is 

a school event. We do not participate in partisan or 'issue' driven events, but offer registration 

materials to all groups.

We participate by having a voter registration booth at the local summer festivals in all the 

towns in the county.

We partner with community organizations, the League of Women Voters, political parties, 

other governmental agencies, our school board and non-profit organizations

We partner with Portuguese newspapers, TV and organizations including Spanish churches to 

get the information out and recruit poll workers

We partnered with the local school system to reach out to the high school seniors to educate 

them on the voting process, and to all the high school students by way of a mock election 

conducted on the county's voting system using the same processes as at the polls on election 

day. This seemed to do more to reach out to the community than anything else we had tried 

because the students talked about it for us to everyone!

We post links to Rock the Vote and CalPIRG online voter registration tools. Participated in 

CalPIRG voter registration events, and National Voter Registration Day. Participated in new 

citizen registrations at swearing in ceremonies. We work closely with our local university and 

all of our high schools doing voter outreach on campuses, registering voters and recruiting 

poll workers. We have an active outreach program with our residential care facilities and 

coordinate voter registration and voting efforts with them. We work closely with all of our 

political parties on coordinating voter registration. We have participated in county fairs, 

parades, community events to promote voter engagement. We also have a great program we 

coordinate where early voting is conducted during the 29 days before an election including 

the weekend before the election. We also have an active Voting Accessibility Advisory 

Group we work with to provide outreach and services for voters with disabilities and voters 

who speak a language other than English. Most of our language services have been for 

Spanish speaking voters, but we may add Tagalog and Chinese in the near future if data 

supports the need for these language services.

We provide sample ballots and registrations to political parties and candidates. We placed 

information in the utility bill about voter ID laws and election dates.

We provide voter registration forms, pamphlets, and custom voter registration or election 

materials. We also will attend community events for voter registration drives.
C-18 Final Report

We provided additional opportunities for voters to obtain free voter identification, check 

voter registration status and apply for absentee ballots on the three Saturdays immediately 

preceeding voter registration deadline for the general election. These services were submitted 

and precleared by the US DOJ.

We set up with voter registrations at the local fair & festivals. We also have voter guides, 

absentee applications, candidate guides, and various other items.

We use the newspaper, election website and radio to get information to the voters.

We work with are town clerk offices to put ads collectively in a local newspaper.

We work with civic organizations to obtain poll workers for our precincts

We work with Native Vote coordinators, local GOTV coordinators for the Tribes as well as 

for empowerment groups for voters with disabilities, Hispanic community leaders, City and 

Town Clerks, and a variety of non-profits to be present at their events, demonstrate voting 

equipment, and conduct voter education presentations. We have a Community Network group 

which meets monthly and has a designated page on our website.

We work with the League of Women voters to provide registration services at new citizen 

naturalization ceremonies. We also conduct school elections at high schools and sometimes 

mock elections at the middle school leve.

We work with the local high school, branch university, and community action agency to 

participate in job fairs, voter registration drives, etc. The local radio stations and newspaper

work with us to provide PSA's regarding voter registration deadlines, absentee ballot 

application deadlines, procedures, etc.

We work with the county bar association with the 'So you are 18' program and the League of 

Women voters assists with voter registration in the county.

When contacted, our office has provided civic organizations with the necessary information 

required to conduct successful voter registration drives.

When organizations notify our office of events they are sponsoring, we set up tables/booths 

with information on becoming a registered voter and voting practices as well as dates of 

upcoming elections, voter registration deadlines and absentee/early voting dates, times and 

procedures. We have also been to speakers at our local Rotary Clubs, party meetings.

When requested for information from other organizations we help out by providing the 

information requested. The hospital obtained information for anyone going into the hospital 

prior to election day. Election judges go out to nursing homes and assisted living facilities 

prior to election day to help voters vote absentee.

When Voter ID was on track for implementation in Pennsylvania, I held more than a dozen 

public forums and partnered with groups like the League of Women Voters, Area Agency on 

Aging and AARP for some of them to provide the information. While the attendance was 

mixed, I was fortunate to get coverage from four TV stations, a radio station and a trio of 

local newspapers that got the word out to many of our voters.
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study C-19

Work closely with League of Women Voters and other election-related non-profits ,as well as 

working with the political parties.

Work with local high schools, go to service groups

Work with local schools to conduct voter registration drive

Work with political parties to have voter reg at annual town fair. Go yearly to high school to 

register new voters.

Q9 For each of the following, please indicate whether your jurisdiction has voter outreach 

initiatives or activities that focus on this group – Other (specify) 

LEOs were asked to specify groups on which voter outreach efforts are focused other than those listed in 

the survey – students, racial/ethnic minorities, foreign language speakers, voter in long-term care 

facilities, and voters with disabilities. A small number of LEOs (4%) provided a response. Frequentlymentioned focal groups include civic and community organizations, the elderly and homebound 

populations, and military and overseas populations. However, the most frequent response was that all 

voters are focused on equally.

[Source variable: Other #1 Voter Outreach Focus-Specified]

Available upon request to any group

Civic organizations

Civic organizations upon request

Civic organizations-Rotary & Kiwanis

Community groups

Elderly

Focus on all that are interested

Home bound voters

Indian tribes, pueblos, nations

Jails

Military and overseas voters

Military personnel

Military/overseas

Municipal clerks, esp. urban, provide much of above outreach focus

N/A

New citizens

Nursing home facilities that meet state requirements

Our outreach is to all voters regardless of their differences
C-20 Final Report

Our town works with all groups equally

Shut ins

This is a small community, and friends and neighbors & the human resources committee are 

active in helping anyone who wants to vote vote

Treat all voters equally

Various festivals

Voters in jail

Voting information

Brochures printed for general distribution

We assist wherever we are asked

We do not have voter outreach

When requested

[Source variable: Other #2 Voter Outreach Focus-Specified]

Apartment Complexes

Churches

Clubs & associations

Community organizations

Have ADA specs in place for those needing assistance

Hospitals

New citiizens

Voter education program available and conducted by request for all above-mentioned groups

Q12. How are your jurisdiction’s voter outreach efforts paid for? Other (specify) [Source variable: 

Other Source-Outreach Costs Paid From-Specified]

When asked how voter outreach efforts in their jurisdiction are paid for, fewer than two in ten LEOs 

(14%) specified a source other than the local election office budget or a line item appropriation in the 

county or state budget. More than one-third of those LEOs (35%) noted that their jurisdiction does not 

engage in voter outreach and one-quarter (25%) indicated that their jurisdiction does not spend money on 

voter outreach. Among LEOs who specify a funding source, grants/HAVA grants and town/municipal 

budgets were mentioned most often.

Administration budget

By school or city in school and city elections

By school staff

Chapter 19 (state funds)

Clerk does any outreach efforts
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study C-21

Did not do outreach

Divided between entities on the ballot

Do not do voter outreach

Do not have

Do not have outreach

Do not pay

Do not pay for this

Do not spend money

Do only free outreach

Does not apply

Don't pay

Done by voter registration for free

Each participating subdivision

Federal funds

Federal grant and election office budget

Federal grant funds

Forfeited filing fees

Free public service ads in local newspaper and local radio station

Free speaking engagements by Clerk

From line item appropriation in town budget

Grants (3x)

Grant opportunities, if any

Grants, HAVA

Handouts from state election office

HAVA

HAVA funds

HAVA funds when available

HAVA grant

HAVA grant funds (2x)

In our small community voter outreach is mostly done through local organizations churches 

and schools

Just me at my regular pay

Line appropriation in the city budget

Local and state funding

Many hours of the secretary are voluntary
C-22 Final Report

Most everything we do is free of costs and much of the staff time is volunteer or paid for 

through already existing compensations

N/A (4x)

N/A - free

No cost other than time

No costs $0

No expenditures made

No funding for outreach

No outreach

No outreach efforts

No outreach paid for

None (2x)

None used

Not applicable (2x)

Not budgeted - unfunded

Nothing is spent on voter outreach

Office expenses

Office workers hold voter registrations

Our employees get paid hrly so if they drive to the center they are on the clock. We don't 

spend on materials

Our municipality

Personal

Personal time/gas/mileage

Previously through grant award

Shared costs with local units.

SOS brochures

Special elections are billed to the district with the measure or candidate on the ballot

Stamps

State election board

Taxes

The local paper and radio station do not charge us.

The organization is responsible for cost

The organizations carry the costs involved

Town budget (2x)

Town clerk budget
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study C-23

Town committees (Rep & Dem)

Town

Travel

Volunteer time

Volunteer basis

Voter organizations

Voter registration at high schools

We did not spend money

We do not have outreach

We do not have voter outreach

We don't have anything that costs money for outreach efforts

We try to take advantage of free outreach

Q14 How much of a problem is each of the following in engaging in voter outreach for general 

election cycles? Other (specify)

LEOs were asked to rate various issues in terms of how much a problem each posed to voter outreach 

efforts. In addition, LEOs were asked to specify and rate other issues affecting voter outreach. While most 

LEOs commented that their office did not engage in voter outreach, a few identified issues including lack 

of interest and logistic issues particular to their jurisdiction.

[Source variable: Other #1 Problem Engaging in Voter Outreach-Specified]

Do not do outreach

Lack of community interest or 'buy in' to continuing efforts

No county newspaper

Not applicable

Our town is located mostly in a farming community with most of our voters living in the rural 

part of our county. Our newspaper is issued weekly so outreach efforts are somewhat 

difficult.

Physical distance between the islands of our county

Support of county officials

This office employs two people, we are limited on time and work

This is part of ROV job

Voter outreach not applicable

We do not engage in voter outreach

We have a few voters who are deaf
C-24 Final Report

[Source variable: Other #2 Problem Engaging in Voter Outreach-Specified]

Do not do outreach

Few voters who are blind

This is part of ROV job

Q21 Please indicate which recruiting sources you use to obtain poll workers for General Elections. 

Other (specify)

LEOs were asked to indicate which sources they use to recruit poll workers, and to identify other 

recruiting sources not listed in the survey. Approximately 16% of LEOs identified another source. Nearly 

30% reported that political parties are involved in poll worker recruitment. Other frequently-mentioned 

recruiting sources are phone calls, advertising through mailings or media, notices on voter registration 

applications, sign-up sheets and postings at polling places, and town and precinct officials.

[Source variable: Other #1 Pollworker Recruiting Source Used-Specified]

Ad in newspaper

Advertising campaign

All vote by mail state

BCA recruits workers

By Telephone

Call

Call individuals

Call my list

Calling people

Caucus

Caucus election nominations (Rep & Dem)

Caucus list

Caucuses

Census Blurb

Committee members from each party get to pick workers. We have no say.

Contact past poll workers from large database of previous workers

County does not recruit or use poll workers. Done at the municipal level in Wisconsin

County fair

Dem party gets workers

Democrat chair

Direct mail with voter notification cards
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study C-25

DMV

During elections post 'Poll workers Needed’

Each precinct captains party

Elected at town meeting

Elected justices of the peace

Executive committees (2x)

Facebook

For volunteer organizations, most use our 'Team Up for Democracy' program to collect funds 

for organization

From a list of justices of the peace and others who have worked before

Going through voter registration and calling people.

I am a County Clerk

Indicated on voter registration applications

Justices of the Peace

Let the parties find them

List of experienced poll clerks

Local parties

Local party committees

Local political parties

Mailings (2x)

Media - radio & print

Media community service advertising

New registered voter

Newspaper articles

No polls. All vote-by-mail

Notice on back of our registration cards.

Notices posted in office

Office recruitment

On application

On registration form

Other town employees

Partisan caucus

Party appointments

Party central committee

Party chairman
C-26 Final Report

Party chairpersons

Party chairs

Party precinct caucuses

Party selection

Past poll workers

Past workers (2x)

Personal knowledge

Personally call

Phone

Phone calls

Political parties (4x)

Political parties are to supply our office with persons interested in becoming an Election 

Judge

Political parties give me a list

Political parties submit

Political party nominations

Political party recruitment

Posters at poll worker tables on Election Day

Posting sign in office

Precinct caucus

Precinct committee men and women select poll workers

Precinct committee persons

Precinct committeemen

Precinct committeemen appoint

Previously worked

Elections

Publish notice of election worker training in local newspaper and on local radio

Questionnaire included with annual street list form

Recruit by asking interested individuals to sign sheets at precincts on Election Day

Recruited through sample ballot

Recruiting at polls on election day

Recruiting through political parties for balance at polls

Rely on political parties for recommendations

Republican and Democratic Chairpersons selections

Request for election workers on the annual census
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study C-27

Request on voter registration card

ROV pick

Sample book

Scrambling 2 wks prior to election recruiting friends and family to take the place of dropouts

Sec. of State office

Sign-up sheets at the polls on Election Day

Staff

The parties (Rep/Dem)

Through party apparatus

Town committees

Town Democratic Committee

Town email

Town news

Town newsletter

Town political committees

Town Rep/Dem Committee

Township/city officials

Voter applications

Voter cards

Voter information card

Voter registration applications

Voter registration card

Voter registration card application for serving as judge

Walk-ins wanting to help

We are a County so we do not hold the elections. We only print ballots and supply all the 

supplies the municipalities need to hold the elections.

We ask the people personally

We call them

We contact the workers

We do not recruit the poll workers. The party chairpeople do.

We have a group of volunteers who regularly work our elections.

We make phone calls

We submit articles to our local papers asking for poll workers, not in the classified ads.

We use current county employees
C-28 Final Report

We used trained individuals for the issuance of presidential ballots, and pre-election absentee 

ballot preparation

[Source variable: Other #2 Pollworker Recruiting Source Used-Specified]

At election office counter

Celebrity poll workers or recruitment messages

Central committee recommendations

Committee people

Do not employ poll workers

Elected officials

I go through my voter list and make phone calls. I also have a list I use and update every 2 

yrs.

Mail all voters voter registration card with attachment recruiting Election Day workers

Posters at polls

Posters in municipal offices

Precinct captains recruit

Precinct committeeman

Recruit in-house

Rep party gets workers

Republican chair

ROV pick

Signs placed in public buildings

Town Republican Committee

Voter list

Voter's guide

Workers indicate on their voter registration card interest in helping with elections

Q23 For each of the following, please indicate how much of a problem it presents in obtaining a 

sufficient number of poll workers for general election cycles. Other (specify) 

LEOs were asked to rate various issues in terms of how much a problem each posed in obtaining a 

sufficient number of poll workers. In addition, LEOs were asked to specify and rate other issues affecting 

poll worker recruitment. Approximately 5% of LEOs identified problems other than those listed on the 

survey. The age and/or health of poll workers was the most frequently-mentioned problem. Other issues 

raised were the bilingual requirements, increased use of technology, and lack of interest.

[Source variable: Other #1 Problem in Obtaining Pollworkers-Specified]
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study C-29

Again, you would need to ask municipal clerks these questions. Counties do not hire poll 

workers.

Age

Age of poll workers (2x)

Aging workers becoming ill and having to back out after selection

All vote by mail state

Apathy

Bilingual requirements

Bilingual

Complicated technology

Cost of travel for training & poll sites

Counters

County party chair is difficult to work with

Don't want to come in after working a full-time job

Fear

Fear of technology

Gender balance

Hearing & visual impairments

Hired but don’t show up

Lack of bilingual workers

Lack of interest

Lack of interest in being a poll worker.

Language requirements

Largely elderly population

Most young people have full time jobs and older ones want to retire and not do it anymore.

Need to 'promote' to lead poll worker from internal poll worker list

No interest

Only older people apply

Small labor pool in area

This problem is primarily the job of the Registrar of Voters of our town.

Too many elections within the calendar year

Too dependent on retirees

Too many election laws

Transportation

We do not need that many
C-30 Final Report

We don't have polling places

We have had same poll workers for over 30 yrs

Workers age 18-30

Workers cannot switch parties for two years before election

[Source variable: Other #2 Problem in Obtaining Pollworkers-Specified]

Bilingual workers in certain areas

Health of poll workers

Interest in a single specific position (i.e. not interested in working as poll inspector)

Our most loyal officers are leaving because they are not comfortable with electronic 

pollbooks

Rural areas of county

Technology skills

Workers age 50+

Workers comfortable with technology

Q25 Please provide any additional comments you may have about administering elections in 

urban and rural jurisdictions. In particular, we are interested in any ideas and/or 

experience you have regarding voter outreach and personnel that you feel had a positive 

impact on your ability to administer general elections. [Source variable: PE25]

At the conclusion of the survey, LEOs were asked to provide additional comments, ideas, and experiences 

related to administering elections, with particular emphasis on voter outreach and personnel issues. Some 

LEOs who completed the survey on paper wrote notes in the margins next to other survey questions. 

These notes were entered as comments to this survey item and appear below in bracketed italics [ ]. 

Nearly one-quarter (23%) of LEOs provided a comment. Of those who commented, approximately 13% 

indicated that they do not hire poll workers and/or that elections in their jurisdiction are done entirely by 

mail. One-third of LEOs commented on poll worker recruitment and training. Poll worker pay or voter 

outreach were the topic of approximately one quarter of LEO comments. Many of the comments did not 

fit easily into broad, general categories. The richness of detail provided by many LEOs are best 

appreciated by a review of the individual comments.

(1) We are going to try E-Poll books next election. (2) We did a survey of polling locations 

looking at ADA issues and simple access issues that affect everyone. (3) We put pre-election 

information in a local free distribution 'Shopper's News' with a wide distribution. We have 

not way of quantifying it's success.

[At Q16 & Q18 noted, 'N/A. We are the county. Townships provide poll workers.' Q19 

through Q24b N/A.]

[At Q16 & Q18, note to contact Registars of Voters'. At Q19a & Q20a, hourly rate ranges 

from $11 to $13.]
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study C-31

[At Q16 & Q18, noted 'local clerks hire poll workers.' At Q19 noted 'N/A' & left Q19-Q24b 

blank]

[At Q16 & Q18, noted that number was election judges only. Noted N/A for Q19 through 

Q24b]

[At Q16, noted '25 judges & 25 counters. We manually count.'] Long hours are hard on 

elderly poll workers. Split shifts would mean finding more workers and, in a small rural 

community, that is not easy.

[At Q18 & Q20, noted 'This is not a responsibility of my office.' For Q19 through Q24b, 

noted 'N/A; responsibility of individual municipalities; not county.']

[At Q19a, indicated that poll workers are paid $8.00/hr plus $25.00 one-time stipend to come 

in and count after polls close.]

[At Q19a, noted a 3-tier pay scale for stipend. At Q24 noted that split shifts are offered for 

clerks only.]

[At Q20a noted '$25 for gen mtg. $20 for equipment. Equipment is hands-on training using 

expresspal & DRE open/closing - only those assigned to these areas attend.' At Q24 noted 

'We don't encourage it, but do on occasion do this.']

[At Q22 noted 'Each year varies. Some years have too many, other years everyone has other 

commitments.' At Q24a noted 'Has no impact but workers are fresher when time to count. We 

do not have machines.]

[At Q6, noted 'County - vote in twp/city']

[At Q7 noted, 'for state elections the Commonwealth of MA send out voter into booklets.']

[For Q16 & Q18 noted that this is 'done at local level.' At Q20, noted 'Some yes/some no.' At 

Q20a, noted 'all different depending on location.' At Q24, noted 'Some yes.']

[For Q18 and Q20, noted 'N/A-hired by local clerks'] Reaching out to high schools to 

educate/recruit poll workers/register voters has been successful. With more staff time & 

larger budget, this office would like to expand outreach to other demographic targets.

[For Q19 through Q24b, noted that this is done at the township level.]

[For Q19a & Q20a, noted hourly rate is minimum wage.]

[Hourly rate in Q19a & Q20a is 'minimum wage.' In Q24a, noted 'Not enough workers for 

split shift'] Elections are very difficult time to find workers, as everyone has jobs. It would be 

best if Federal and State law was mail ballot. This survey is confusing. Not sure what you 

mean by 'outreach.'

[Hourly rate in Q19a & Q20a ranges from $8.00 to $9.00]

[Hourly rate in Q19a is 'minimum wage']
C-32 Final Report

[In Q16 & Q18 noted '7 poll workers per shift' but didn't indicate how many shifts.]

[In Q16 & Q18, noted 'Selectmen's Office'.' In Q19a, stipend is $150 for warden, $130 for 

clerk, and $100 for inspectors.]

[In Q16 & Q18, noted that they are countywide numbers. In Q19a, noted that hourly rate 

'varies by precinct, $8-$12/hr.' In Q20a, noted 'unknown, varies by jurisdiction.' In Q24, 

noted, 'some jurisdictions do offer-some work the whole day.'] I am a county jurisdiction, so 

it is hard to answer some of the questions that seem to be based more at a township or city 

level.

[In Q19, noted 'They are paid by the local municipalities. Amount varies.' In Q20, noted 'This 

is up to local boards.' In Q21, noted 'This is done by local clerks.' The rest of the survey is 

blank.]

[In Q19a & Q20a, hourly rate ranges from $8.00 to $12.00] Remember, I am answering 

these questions as a county clerk and not a local clerk (township/city).

[In Q19a, noted that 'hourly rate differs by job description']

[In Q19a, one-time stipend is $100 for primary and $150 for general election] The needs of a 

BOE to be effective are of very low priority to County Administration

[In Q19a, rate ranges from $7 to $12/hr]

[In Q19a, stipend ranges from $70 to $85]

[In Q19a, stipend ranges from $75.00-$80.00]

[In Q19a, stipend ranges from $98 for clerk to $125 for inspector. In Q22, noted 'Somewhat 

easy' except for 'Somewhat difficult in Avenal and finding bilingual'.]

[In Q20a noted, 'varies/paid by local units.']

[In Q20a, mileage is also reimbursed at $0.37 per mile]

[In Q22, noted that it is 'Somewhat easy’ to obtain poll workers, but 'Somewhat difficult' to 

obtain a Spanish interpreter.]

[In Q24b, noted 'A negative impact.']

[Left Q16 & Q18 blank, noted 'Local level only'. At Q20a, noted that stipend varies from city 

to township.]

[Noted 'Does not apply' for Q10 through Q14.]

[Noted 'N/A' for number of poll workers in Q16 & Q18]

[Noted 'N/A' for Q10 through Q14] (2x)

[Noted N/A for Q16, Q18, Q19a, Q20a.]
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study C-33

[Noted N/A for Q9 through Q14.]

[Noted that Q16 & Q18 are county-wide numbers. Q19a and Q20a hourly rates range from 

$8 to $10.]

[On Q15 & Q18, noted 'Does not apply. These come from the probate judges' office. On 

Q17d, noted 'We did utilize volunteers heavily.' On Q20a through Q24b, noted 'Check 

w/probate office.']

[On Q20a, noted reimbursement for mileage]

[Q19a & Q20a hourly rate ranges from $10-$12] Voters in entire state need to be better 

educated regarding how CT is different from other states. For example, closed vs. open 

primaries and the need to re-register if moving from one town to another. We are notified by 

DMV that someone has moved to another town so we remove them. They move back and we 

don't know, so they can't vote.

[Q19a & Q20a hourly rates are minimum wage.] (2x)

[Q19a and Q20a rate ranges from $8.00 to $8.50]

[Q19a hourly rate is minimum wage.] (2x)

[Q19a hourly rate ranges from $8.25 to $9.25]

[Q19a rate ranges from $8.00 to $10.00. Counters (8pm to early morning hrs) get $10.00]

[Q19a response is an average of $200, $175, or $130 stipends.]

[Q19a stipend is average of $193.75 for wardens, $142.50 for clerks, $116.00 for inspectors, 

and $137.75 for others.]

[Q19a stipend ranges from $100 to $150]

[Q19a stipend ranges from $102 for judge to $110 for presiding judge.]

[Q19a stipend ranges from $80 to $90]

[Q19a stipend ranges from $80-$100]

[Q19a stipend ranges from $82.00 to $85.00]

[Q20a stipend ranges from $20 to $25]

1.) We offer 'Curbside Voting' at our Polling site for those who are unable to leave their cars 

due to injury, mobility limitations or other conditions. This is a very successful and welcome 

addition in our community. 2.)Members of our community offer to shuttle voters who cannot 

drive to the Polling Site.
C-34 Final Report

As a note: This survey was completed on behalf of our County Recorder who is out of the 

office today.

As county clerk we do not send out ballots or provide election materials to voters or provide 

poll workers. We train and certify poll workers every 2 years. We advertise the elections.

As I am new in this position, I do intend to change/improve on what has been done 

historically. I'm working on a website for our office and will be recruiting poll workers and 

doing more outreach to the community, including assisted living facilities.

At the county level, I do not have poll workers. Each township has their own. The biggest 

problem we have is because we are so small, we wear numerous hats and the election laws 

and processes change so much, we can't keep up! It is the most stressful time of the year for 

our 2-person office. We do county clerk, register of deeds, circuit and district courts, payroll, 

paying bills, etc. Elections just about pushed me over the edge.

At this time we have a pool of available workers. At times we have struggled with getting 

Spanish speaking workers but at this time that seems to be covered.

Be advised Oregon doesn't have polling places except for the elections office itself. So the 

answers regarding poll workers were based on the staff we use in our office at election time.

Being a small rural town, we have not residents that don't speak English. We put our posters 

up in French also because we have French-speaking residents but they also speak English. 

We have special voting equipment to be used by disabled but have no disabled that have 

wanted to use it. We go to schools that request it for their students. We also go to nursing 

homes and long term care facilities to enable anyone who wants to vote.

Biggest problem in hiring poll workers is to have equal Dems and Reps. This is a Republican 

County and it is almost impossible to find Dems to work.

Certainly the type of election will impact our ability to get people involved from voting to 

serving in the polls. Presidential General elections bring out the most interest and support, 

primaries the least. I believe our student poll worker program has been extremely successful 

in helping us fill our polls and developing civic minded young people who are going to 

register and vote in the future. June elections are hard to recruit student workers because of 

finals and busy end of year school schedules. November general elections are much more 

successful. Online voter registration has had a huge impact on increasing our voter 

registration numbers. Partnerships with PIRG and Rock the Vote have also been very 

positive. Finding ways to make voting and serving in the polls cool and exciting are key to 

increasing civic engagement. We have had celebrities serve in the polls or do public service 

announcements and we have seen a direct increase in participation. Getting more rock stars, 

movie stars, sports stars, delivering messages about voting and serving in the polls through 

twitter, Facebook, PSAs, or incorporated into tv/movie scripts would go a long way. Rock the 

Vote is amazing at doing this and have had a huge impact on the younger voter. The more we 

do to educate voters about voting options, accessibility of voting, ways to register, and ease 

of voting (it's not a test!) the more people will get engaged. We also need to simplify voting 

materials. The League of Women Voters does a great Easy Reader Voter Guide that makes 

navigating through the propositions and issues much easier than the State Voter Guide. 

However, there have been some wonderful improvements to the State Voter Guide to make it 

more usable as well.
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study C-35

City and Township Clerks hire poll workers. We are a County Clerk's office. Questions 19 

through 24 are not applicable. We do not hire poll workers.

Combined response of Town Clerk and Registrar of Voters

Each year there are new requirements. It is hard to keep staff up to date on new regulations. 

As a small county we were not required to have Spanish ballots. What we have done is 

sample ballot in Spanish this last year. The Spanish sample ballots were in our office and set 

to each polling location and posted. We will continue to so Spanish sample ballots but plan 

on having them on our web page also. We do not have any Spanish groups or newsletters in 

our county so have not found a better way to provide this information.

Elections personnel are not respected as professionals who work year-round, not just Election 

Day, therefore support is low, and pay is low. It is difficult to keep trained staff. Additionally, 

people don't understand the complexity of the job and once they become involved and realize, 

they resign from serving as assistants or poll workers.

Enjoy administering the elections. It is a challenge to find poll workers. The long day, low 

pay and increasing technology are sometimes challenging as most of our workers are retired. 

Most young people cannot get off work.

Feed the election workers. The pay is low so offering a nice meal makes up for it.

For my position as Registrar I get paid $585.00 per year. Our town is putting my position into 

town office. Will be difficult to train new position on CVR. Our election bureau needs more 

basic training available for new clerks.

For the most part, election workers are very dedicated & take the responsibility very 

seriously. Many have said they enjoy the work and look at it as doing their civic duty. I do 

not believe that a split shift would make it easier at all. Poll workers travel several miles and I 

feel they wouldn't be interested in 1/2 the hours. It would be difficult to find 44 additional 

workers for the split shift.

Funding is the number one issue with outreach and currently it is done on a volunteer bases 

and with very limited staff. Our in house staff is dedicated to English and Spanish outreach, 

however additional financial support would be more than helpful for our county. Our biggest 

outreach effort is with our local non-profit organizations.

Generally precinct workers are elderly. Somewhat afraid of change and electronics. Need to 

recruit younger workers. Local schools by law are to be closed on election day. Teachers 

recruited to work then the school system schedules them for in-service training and they 

cannot work the election.

Hard enough to find enough poll workers without having to deal with split shifts

Have a comfortable site with good lighting. I feed my workers well with catered meals. Four 

hour shifts. I also plan my ballot clerks as to the expected turnout i.e. more check-in clerks 

for high use elections so there is less stress per clerk.
C-36 Final Report

Having a split shift for election day would make it easier to get judges but would cause a 

whole new set of problems.

Having an Election Administrator would allow for our small jurisdiction and the other entities 

holding elections to have a trained and knowledgeable individual to focus on elections. This 

would help with better voter education and outreach. As the District and County Clerk, this 

office does not have the time and resources to do better outreach.

Having sample ballots on the web site help greatly. When people call we can just refer them 

to our site or we mail when needed.

I am a county. Most questions pertain to local township & city govt. County election is 

responsible for training election workers, programming election software and I publish 

appropriate notices although publishing is responsibility of locals, but it's less expensive to 

publish as a group.

I am a newly-elected county clerk so I have not completed an election yet. I do however 

believe in educating the public whenever possible & to try recruiting younger generation to 

get involved in working - plan on going to schools/colleges.

I am interested in looking at vote centers (if Commissioners could provide us with the needed 

equipment). I am REALLY interested in looking at all-mail elections.

I am the County Clerk, therefore do not have to find and hire the poll workers. Your survey is 

intended for municipal clerks.

I apologize for not responding sooner. I assumed the survey was going to include detailed 

statistics; I should have opened it & responded sooner!

I assigned two individuals from my staff to do our voter outreach programs several years ago. 

They were charged with recruiting individuals to act as 'patriots' representing the office at 

various events in the community. They received the proper training, and interned with staff 

members until they were proficient enough to do events on their own. This gave us the ability 

to be in a number of places at the same time. With the vast amount of community events we 

have in this state, having the additional workers gave us a much larger footprint in the 

community. I also allowed staff to become members of our local Public Relations 

Association. This helped provide the staff members with invaluable contacts for events and 

the media, how to reach out to capture the interest of the public, how to present their 

information so it would have a stronger more lasting impact and how to be creative in 

planning events.

I believe that urban problems prompt legislation that is unnecessary or cumbersome in the 

rural jurisdictions.

I believe that voter registration drives are very important, however, I also believe a lot of 

information may be put on a county website or in the news media that may educate voters and 

help keep the public informed on election matters. I also believe that it is essential to have the 

correct number of personnel in order to get the job of elections done correctly and efficiently.

I believe that voter registration drives are very important, however, I also believe a lot of 

information may be put on a county website or in the news media that may educate voters and 
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study C-37

help keep the public informed on election matters. I also believe that it is essential to have the 

correct number of personnel in order to get the job of elections done correctly and efficiently.

I did not answer any questions related to poll workers because my jurisdiction is all-mail 

voting. Your survey does not structure its questions for that type of voting environment.

I don't have enough help. It is just me, the County Clerk, and my Deputy Clerk in my office.

I go to any extreme for anyone who wants to vote. I'll deliver registration card directly to 

their home in person. I would like to see if a poll watcher attends our poll to identify their self 

with first and last name or provide ID of who they are. I had a problem with someone 

showing up at my poll and refusing to identify herself as to whom she was. She just walked 

right in accusing myself and my clerks that she had been hired by the Secretary of State 

which was false and she was in a hurry to leave the poll. All I know is she is involved with a 

Republican Tea Party. This took place Nov 6 2012 Presidential Election.

I have found in a rural setting is we have mostly retired people who are available to work but 

not truly capable. They are intimidated by computers and the strict election laws that must be 

followed. Everyone here works. I have had over 20 cancel on me the night before an election. 

I have trained people at their kitchen tables at 10PM the night before because I was desperate 

to find someone last minute. Getting workers is a huge problem.

I have had requests to move to a split shift for working the election day but scheduling would 

be a nightmare because my judges have situations that occur without notice and I would have 

to find replacements.

I know most of the people in the County, so I have been able to fill the positions. Because 

many of my precinct workers are older, and I fear that they will retire when I retire and that 

will make it harder for the next secretary to solicit future precinct officials.

I live in a small town. Very few people vote during primary elections. I am here all day - on 

average - & other workers take one 2-3 hour shift. Then I get more to help count at night. My 

workers are justices of the peace & one of my friends. The JP are elected officials.

I think if emphasis was applied to all mail in voting, with limited voter sites on Election Day 

we would experience a higher voter turn-out and it would make our task of finding voting 

locations and judges much better.

I think petitioners and candidates should be banned from their activities on election day - no 

petitions for them to 'hawk' at voters to try to get to sign. Also re: candidates, people have 

heard enough prior to the election. I have heard complaints from voters that they don't like 

them there on election day, even if all they can do is shake hands.

I think there has been too much of a push for absentee voting by the candidates/political 

parties. The parties (especially the Democratic party) go door to door to solicit votes and 

some voters actually felt that they were expected to vote absentee. There is substantially more 

cost involved to the county governments who have to pay postage for mailing (and return of) 

ballots, plus cost of envelopes for mailing ballots out.
C-38 Final Report

I train 5 poll workers to do early vote and machines so that on election day everything is 

under control. One or two people do provisional ballots to help keep order and staff is always 

in place to handle any and all questions.

I work very closely with the city and township clerks who actually administer election day 

processes, keeping in mind that not every method works in every community. They also work 

well together and share ideas with each other.

The State needs to address the political way election judges are selected. As far as voter 

outreach I do not know how to deal with voter apathy.

In 2012 I visited the County's two main retirement homes to offer absentee vote application 

assistance and had a good response and reduced needing to process applications with 

mistakes

In 2012, we implemented Vote Centers in our county. This was very well received and helped 

alleviate many problems faced on Election Day, such as long lines and changing polling 

locations. Since we have a mixture of urban and rural locations, we used a mixed model 

Voter Center approach with Ballot on Demand printers and increased number of touch 

screens in urban locations and pre-printed ballots and fewer touch screens in rural locations. 

The plan worked very well and was well received by both the voters and the political parties.

In this state, elections are administered locally with some responsibilities also given to the 

county clerk. As a county clerk I do not hire poll workers, absentee ballots etc. I do prepare 

the ballots, buy the precinct materials and publish the election notices as well as collect all of 

the results on election night.

In the past, we have successfully used a high school student poll worker program. Students, 

voters, and poll workers loved it. It was a challenge to administer. The Secretary of State's 

Office provides an interactive website that will provide voters with the location of their 

polling place, driving directions, sample ballots, district assignments, absentee tracking 

information and more. We advertise this site as much as we possibly can. We print voting 

information brochures and distribute them to many civic and special interest groups. We have 

voter educations that are available to citizens by request.

In the rural setting, voting centers seem to be a good idea for the future --Cost savings, 

convenient, and would be easier for office workers to go by and check on polling locations.

It is all volunteer - small towns - hard getting younger people as they need to work.

It is hard to find workers and even harder to train them. I would offer split shifts but I don't 

have enough workers.

It is hard to recruit younger election judges and the older judges are set in their ways and not 

always willing to make changes in their election day routine as instructed. It is a long day for 

the Judges but if we were to split it up we would need twice as many and would need to 

monitor who's coming and who's going and who didn't show up

It is somewhat harder to find poll workers who live in rural areas. Using high school and 

college students has been good and has given students a prospective to voting they did not 
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study C-39

know. Also using retired school teachers for poll workers has been an excellent device for 

recruiting very capable and responsible poll workers.

It would save small rural counties a lot of money to eliminate the requirement of working 2 

Saturdays before the primary and general. We have very little if any traffic.

Last question about split shifts might make it easier to obtain poll workers, but then you 

would have to find twice as many and then coordinate shifts. So not a real great solution.

Like going to the schools and inform the students but need something to get schools and 

teachers more motivated.

Majority of county poll workers are retired. In our economy, most individuals have a full time 

occupation. With the unemployment rate in the county, people who are unemployed don't 

have the knowledge to want to be a pollworker, and are more than likely not registered to 

vote. I believe if we have maybe (opinion) a couple of locations or to limit work (poll

worker) costs and close polls at a reasonable time, which would limit costs or may absentee 

only (early vote) by mail and only hire an absentee team would limit costs.

Majority of poll workers are over 70 years of age. 13 hours at the polls is a long day. Most 

younger people have children or are in school and cannot work full hours.

Many of the questions on this survey are geared to large, less integrated communities. We 

had close to 80% voter turnout for the 2012 presidential election. Getting the word out on an 

island with a big sign coming onto the island for the use of the town, the fire department, and 

community association is how we start our outreach. Our town office staff is only three 

people who are not available full-time - but we also have three selectmen - and all have a 

strong sense of integrity about serving the island's people. Staff and elected officials come in 

any time if needed. Additionally, neighbors and the Human Resources Committee assist 

when needed.

Many poll workers are advanced in years. I am concerned about replacing this generation of 

workers since most adults work full-time jobs and aren't available on election day. [Hourly 

rate in Q19a and Q20a is $7.50, $8.00, or $8.50]

Most of these questions need to be directed toward Municipal Clerks, not County Clerks. I 

don't mean to be uncooperative but I can't really answer for 36 different municipalities of 

varying sizes.

My main comment is 'One size does not fit all'. What works for the larger cities is not needed 

in the rural areas. We spend a lot of money to comply with regulations that are not an issue in 

our area. I may have a total of 1 - 20 absentee voters on the Saturday we are open prior to an 

election. Requiring me to be open for 4 weeks prior or even one additional day would be a 

huge expense to my county that is not needed. One handicap accessible machine at the 

courthouse would be more than adequate. One in every polling place is a waste of tax payers 

money.

Need more funding from someplace.

None
C-40 Final Report

Offering split shifts has helped however most of our poll workers would prefer to work the 

AM shift. I have found that word of mouth is the best way to find qualified poll workers. It is 

quite difficult to let a poll worker know that they can no longer complete the work. Training 

can sometimes be cumbersome.

This is a Vote by Mail state. Poll workers are not used.

Our area churches are very good to post our flyers on their bulletin boards. We get a lot of 

our poll workers from church organizations and civic groups of age groups that are retirees. 

However, it seems people are not retiring as early these days and it is becoming more difficult 

to attract younger, healthier individuals who can put in a very long (14 hour +) day for less 

than minimum wage.

Our biggest problem is all the extra CVR requested information that is unnecessary for a 

small rural area.

Our County has been vote by mail for 18 years. We have not had polling place in all those 

years. We only have a half time permanent employee for elections. We only hire temporary 

staff for feeding and opening envelopes.

Our county is a 'Medium Sized' county, therefore we have some of the problems of big 

counties and some of the problems for small counties. While uniformity seems great, it can 

create havoc since one size does not fit all.

Our county is blessed with a lot of individuals that take the election process very seriously. It 

is a pleasure to work with these people. We rarely get turned down if we ask one of them to 

work. It is a privilege to work with them. For outreach we just use the phone and call the 

individual. We are a small county - population 1537 with average age of 48 years. Thank you.

Our county is considered frontier, not even rural. We have 7,000 square miles and only 4500 

voters. We have nine polling places plus the Clerk's office for early voting. We have a large 

percentage of early and absentee voters.

Our county is very rural and the pool of potential poll workers is small. Most people have to 

work well up into their 70s and do not have an interest when they retire. The ones that are 

interested are not technology-savvy enough to work the equipment.

Our election poll workers and judges are becoming an aging population. Most of them are in 

their later 60's and over many of whom are in their 70's. Folks who do work do not wish to 

take vacation time to work the elections as the pay is not enough.

Our election workers are older people. I am not sure that we will be able to replace them as 

they retire from serving.

Our older judges don't like the machines/computerization and younger ones are hard to find 

because they have jobs or need to take care of kids.

Our outreach to schools and nursing homes is passive. My office makes sure to contact 

schools to be sure they have voter registration application available and we contact nursing 

home before each election to offer assistance if needed. Your questions do not allow for the 

degree of outreach that is done to be quantified.
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study C-41

Our success is due in part to the fact that the personnel in the election office have been on the 

job for several years and can handle problems that someone who is new to the department 

would have a problem. The Election Supervisor has had her position 30+ years, which also 

helps to have successful elections.

Our tech support for voting machines, sign-in pollbooks (Android tables, etc) is provided by 

our other elected officials in our county. We get 1 person from the other offices, as possible, 

who remain on county-paid time during their normal hours. We then pay their before & after 

hours of election day. We have trained these individuals and repeatedly use the same people 

to learn new equipment, then help teach election judges. This has proven to be a very reliable 

& cost effective source of manpower.

Our town is very small and rural (population 261) and the population is aging rapidly. I'm 

worried that it will be difficult to recruit the next generation of poll workers because of 

demographics and declining civic participation.

Partnered with the local Boys and Girls Club. The Board of Directors manned a call center on 

Election Day. They answered the general questions, what time polls open/close, am I 

registered to vote, where do I vote. In exchange for manning the phones the Election 

Commission made a $1,000 payment to the club to aid in some of their endeavors.

Pay for poll workers varies based on responsibility. Your system only allowed me to enter 

one amount.

Please be advised that this correspondence was sent to the County Clerk and I was recently 

appointed Elections Administrator for the county

Poll workers are paid mileage to attend training; the election judge is paid mileage to return 

ballots and other election supplies. In our rural area, voter outreach is by publishing notices in 

the legal paper. Split shifts would be a bigger problem--for training and for getting enough 

capable people to work. Central counting of the ballots at the Courthouse has been a 

tremendous help. That has cut costs and helped to find willing poll workers.

Poll workers are usually elderly because they are the ones at home. People who work don't 

want to be out all night counting ballots. This is not a problem now because we have a 

machine.

Regarding pay: Reimbursement from the state does not pay election works enough. Our 

county had pick up the tab and upped the pay in order to attract people to work the elections. 

Regarding outreach: Because we are a mostly rural community word of mouth works well 

and this year I was able to post it on Facebook and got a great response and influx of voters to 

the polls. Kept it real basic and just posted that it was indeed 'election day'.

Respect your help. I have great respect for my poll workers. Hence, they respect me and do 

the job to the best of their ability. They feel important and helpful. Of course, they like the 

pay but I believe most work the polls because they want to help out in the community.

Same day voter registration is very helpful to getting new people to vote.

Same-day voter registrations cause the biggest headaches for a small staffed town.
C-42 Final Report

Since I am a county clerk, I do not get involved with poll workers at the municipal level. 

Since I could not skip these questions, I answered them with as little information as possible.

SOTS does outreach. Municipality puts on election. ROV staff (elected) appoints what staff it 

needs to address workload. (register voters, obtain poll workers etc). TC prepares ballots, 

supports process, administers absentee process.

Split shifts are popular, but we tend to lose the second shift personnel, who don't show up. 

And we need them the most. Introducing more technology at the poll site and additional 

language assistance complicates the whole recruitment process.

Split shifts would make it easier to recruit some but we would need more and that would pose 

another problem.

State workers should be encouraged to work at polls and get their regular full pay. No income 

tax on $ earned as poll workers. Not required to pay for overtime to workers from other 

county offices.

The answers to your survey are from a small town with a town clerk & 2 registrars. We do 

everything with exception of election days, when poll workers are hired. As far as voter 

outreach, we average 75% turnout in all major elections.

The Department has initiated two programs that greatly assist in recruiting poll workers. 

'Team Up for Democracy' is a poll worker program that many non-profits see as a way of 

earning funds for their organization. They can have as many from their organization as they 

want, they can have split shifts, they can organize it to suit the number they have as long as 

they keep within our minimum and agree to the pay. The County's Board of Supervisors has 

blessed a 'County Employee Election Official' program where employees of the county can 

work for the elections department as poll workers, field inspectors, couriers, or in the 

Department on election day and the Department pays their salary and the Elections 

Department covers any overtime or stipend they make. Both programs, in addition to our 

successful Student Poll Worker program, have been very key in making it easy for us to meet 

our needs with poll workers. We might add that, due to this partnership, we have also been 

able to expand community education - when a non-profit worker/volunteer or another county 

employee works on election day, they actually learn something about voting and this leads to 

a higher level of participation. When a young student works at the polls, their parent(s) most 

likely are affected.

The elections are run by the Municipalities. The County Office does not run the elections so 

does not use poll workers.

The hours are way too long for warden, town clerk, and registrar of voters.

The majority of our election workers are older and do it mostly out of loyalty to the party, the 

process or the community. I would like to have a more diversified group but the younger 

voters who would work are employed full time. I have used high school students and the 

main problem with them is they become bored with inactivity between voters

The Republican elections commissioner does not believe in voter outreach. He does 

everything possible to make it difficult for people to register to vote. I believe that the move 
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study C-43

by the state to have the DMV office electronically transmit voter reg forms will help 

tremendously. Our county legislature cut our staff and salaries by 15% two years ago. There 

is no commitment to our Board of Elections by elected officials.

The Supervisors of the Checklist have taken on the responsibility of recruiting poll workers, 

and they also produce the tally sheets that we use for hand-counting ballots.

The Town Clerk's offices played a much larger role, which is now being done by the 

Registrar of Voters office. Our office does register voters, but primarily are involved in the 

public function of educating voters as to process, notify the Secretary of State's office as to 

qualification of voter, certification of results after election, and the entire absentee ballot 

process.

There needs to be a National Poll Worker Day. Poll Workers understand that their work is 

considered 'volunteer' although they receive a small stipend. I have worked in two different 

counties. There is a huge difference in recruitment of Election Workers between the two 

counties, due primarily to size. In larger counties more incentives needs to be granted to those 

who assist with elections. Federal recognition is a beginning.

There's the quadrennial problem of everyone being interested in Presidential elections, but 

then interest drops off in other years. We don't have many problems in Presidential years but 

our state has elections EVERY year, and it's hard to get people engaged during the off years. 

This in turn is frustrating for election workers at all levels, because we work so hard to make 

it happen yet there is so much apathy.

This is a very rural area, with most of the voters out of town. The cost of maintenance on the 

voting machines is high, training enough poll workers is a problem due to the small 

population and distance to travel. The pool of workers to choose from is limited, some are too 

old and intimidated by the voting machines, some workers are at home with small children 

and don't have day care available, those in the age group that can work, usually have another 

job and take time off from that to work the polls. Since we are rural, we have 13 precincts, 4 

of which are in the small town. All others are miles away, so have to close the polls and 

return to the courthouse with the ballots, supplies, etc, some are more than an hour away. 

When those arrive here, we then start counting those precincts, this year we had 10 extra 

hired for election night and we were still here until 8 a.m. the next day and we are a very 

small county.

This survey is for twp and city clerks, not for county clerks.

This survey seemed to me directed at the municipal level more than the County Level. 

County Level does not deal with recruiting poll workers, we are the 'administrative part'. The 

County publishes all of the election notices in the local newspapers, makes sure the election 

materials are available and delivered to the municipalities, we hold election trainings for the 

municipality poll workers and instruct them on election issues. I am not sure how this survey 

portrays an accurate picture of the County Level regarding the Elections.

This year we received a HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT accessibility grant; we used those 

funds to hire a temporary Accessibility Coordinator to perform voter registration within a 4 

county region. It also brought attention to our positive efforts in the past and identified areas 

where we could improve in the future.
C-44 Final Report

Time Time Time with absentee voting, mailing, tracking, computer filing - box up for 

election, taking to election - 4 people just to open and put in machine takes a ton of time only 

1.5 person that work full-time. Long days and nights. Plus all other duties of a town office.

Training closer to election day is essential for remembering details. Wardens and deputy 

wardens need training for several years before they feel confident.

Understaffed! Underpaid!

Utilizing split shifts for poll workers is not popular for retirement age poll workers however 

quality versus quantity improves the accuracy of checklist documentation. Finding workers in 

the 30, 40, 50 year old age range is extremely difficult due to hourly pay versus working their 

regular job and people with families have other more pressing obligations.

Vote by mail only! Have in house voters scan their own ballot! This protects the voter ballot 

cast even more!

Vote by mail would get a higher participation.

Voter outreach for an election official is necessarily neutral and is therefore limited to 

educating voters concerning when, where, and how. Laws even limit the extent to which an 

election official can explain questions on the ballot. Parties and candidates bear the lion's 

share of the responsibility for voter turnout. Sadly, neither candidates nor political parties 

appear to be very focused about voter turnout. The major focus has been and continues to be 

voter registration, an honorable goal by itself. However, there are far more registered voters 

who do not vote than there are persons not yet registered to vote. In 2012, we added fewer 

than 2,000 to the voter rolls. In 2012, over 33,000 registered voters did not vote! Simple 

logic tells us that candidates and political parties could gain significantly if they focused their 

energies on getting registered voters to vote! Voter apathy is a major problem and the blame 

for that lies at the feet of political parties and candidates who are unable to generate any 

excitement or motivation for voters to vote. Quit blaming election officials for this problem -

we are already doing everything we can legally do and remain neutral.

Voter outreach made a big difference in preparing our voters for bringing the correct form of 

required ID for the November General.

We also contact the local party chairs to ask people in each party to work.

We are a small county, so most things aren't issues. It is hard for a small county to hold 

elections because of costs.

We are a small town and elections are pretty easy.

We are a very small community. Putting up posters at the voting place and the local diner 

seems to suffice.

We are a very small county and I have had excellent poll workers that are dedicated to their 

jobs. All residents in our county know each other so the election process at the polls goes 

very smoothly.

We are a vote by mail state - no poll workers
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Urban/Rural Study C-45

We are all vote-by-mail. No polling places. We found that by conducting all mail ballot 

elections the voter turnout went up. We have no newspaper, no media coverage (radio-local) 

cell phone and internet connection spotty. On election night I use a central count crew of 4. 

We count votes in open view of the public. We have a high voter confidence in the integrity 

of the election process.

We are an all vote by mail state. We have no polls so there is no need for poll workers.

We are in a rural area and have 16 precincts and 11 polling locations. Since we are spread out 

it is hard to combine more precincts to have less poll locations because where do you draw 

the line - we have approx 75% perm mail-in in our county and it would greatly benefit if the 

state would allow us to do all mail-in for all elections.

We are not interested in providing split shifts for poll workers, as it decreases the consistency 

and would provide for too much confusion.

We conduct elections by mail and do not have poll sites or poll workers.

We did extensive free advertising (PSA's) on cable TV and local newspapers. Our Council on 

Aging van was used to take poll workers to training sessions and to bring elderly voters to the 

polls. Voter turnout was awesome and there were no problems at the polls. E-mail was used 

extensively to assist overseas voters and college-age absentee voters.

We do not have enough staff to handle the added work during election time. We do not have 

the needed staff because of lack of money.

We don't have money in budget for extra staff, administering an election is hard with just one 

person running the election. The fact that committee members from each area pick poll

workers is hard they usually use the same people that we have problems with it would be 

much better if we chose the workers

We encourage poll workers (who are all election judges) to self-recruit. They often bring new 

workers to our attention. We focus on recently retired teachers who have great tech skills are 

'customer service' oriented and are young enough to handle the hours and issues of election 

day.

We happen to have a great town (rural) and have high voter participation.

We have a very civic minded community. Most of the time we have more people ask to serve 

than positions to fill. We have people who will volunteer and don't care about being paid.

We have no fault absentee in this State and we strongly promote that. We have a central poll 

within the city limits and six rural polls to accommodate our voters that would have to travel.

We have no problems with elections even not being online. The only problem I see we would 

like to change is it's a very long day with not many people showing up. We are lucky to have 

20 people vote. That's a big show for us.

We really don't think the idea of the split shift for poll workers would work in our area. Small 

counties & large counties cannot be run the same! It is very different when you have a large 
C-46 Final Report

staff & one person does one job! In a small County such as ours 2 people do it all. We HATE 

the idea of voting on the last weekend before the election. By this time our minds & bodies 

are over worked & we still have to set the polling locations up. We need time to complete our 

jobs. It doesn't matter when you set the last day of early voting the people will wait until the 

last day to vote.

We sent a mailer before the General Election letting voters know of the option to sign up as a 

permanent mail-in voter (PMIV). The response was very positive, likely due to the large 

number of employees who work odd hours/split shifts. Not only did it directly offer the voter 

the option to vote by mail, it eased the offices election load by having more people vote early.

We think split shifts would be confusing. 2nd shift would not know what happened on 1st 

shift. May be harder to get twice as many poll workers.

We utilize the vote center concept; the accessibility for voting before election day has been an 

increasingly popular option with voters; we establish satellite locations in small towns in the 

county, long-term care facilities, college campus, and community centers for a few hours to a 

full day depending on the size and voter concentration.

When I go into schools, it is as a volunteer on my day off. We are a paper town. Getting 

enough people to come in at 8pm to count is difficult.

Would be interested in using all county staff as election judges instead of required political 

party appointments. The majority of staff personnel are people oriented and technologically 

competent.

Your questions about other languages really do not apply to us in a very rural community. We 

are not an urban area with multi-cultural backgrounds. We are just country folks.