IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

DREAM DEFENDERS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RON DESANTIS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-67-RH- GRJ

Judge Robert L. Hinkle

KIRK NIELSEN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RON DESANTIS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 4:20-cv-236-RH-MJF

Judge Robert L. Hinkle

EXPERT REPORT OF DANIEL A. SMITH

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 1 of 116
1 

DREAM DEFENDERS, NEW FLORIDA 

MAJORITY EDUCATION FUND, 

ORGANIZE FLORIDA EDUCATION 

FUND, ZEBRA COALITION, ACACIA 

WILLIAMS, BIANCA MARIA BAEZ, 

MURRAY HELLER, PAULINA 

HERNANDEZ MORALES, CELCIO 

EDUARDO ROMERO, and SHEILA 

YOUNG, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

RON DESANTIS, in his official capacity 

as Governor of the State of Florida, 

LAUREL M. LEE, in her official capacity 

as Florida Secretary of State, and 

FLORIDA ELECTIONS CANVASSING 

COMMISSION, KIM 

A. BARTON, in her official capacity as

Supervisor of Elections for ALACHUA

County, NITA CRAWFORD, in her

official capacity as Supervisor of

Elections for BAKER County, MARK

ANDERSEN, in his official capacity as

Supervisor of Elections for BAY

County, TERRY L. VAUGHAN, in his

official capacity as Supervisor of

Elections for BRADFORD County,

LORI SCOTT, in her official capacity

as Supervisor of Elections for

Case No. 1:20-cv-67-RH-GRJ 

Judge Robert L. Hinkle 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

GAINESVILLE DIVISION 

1

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 2 of 116
BREVARD County, PETER 

ANTONACCI, in his official capacity 

as Supervisor of Elections for 

BROWARD County, SHARON 

CHASON, in her official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for CALHOUN 

County, PAUL A. STAMOULIS, in his 

official capacity as Supervisor of 

Elections for CHARLOTTE County, 

SUSAN A. GILL, in her official 

capacity as Supervisor of Elections for 

CITRUS County, CHRIS H. 

CHAMBLESS, in his official capacity 

as Supervisor of Elections for CLAY 

County, JENNIFER J. EDWARDS, in 

her official capacity as Supervisor of 

Elections for COLLIER County, 

ELIZABETH P. HORNE, in her 

official capacity as Supervisor of 

Elections for COLUMBIA County, 

MARK F. NEGLEY, in his official 

capacity as Supervisor of Elections for 

DESOTO County, STARLET 

CANNON, in her official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for DIXIE 

County, MIKE HOGAN, in his official 

capacity as Supervisor of Elections for 

DUVAL County, DAVID H. 

STAFFORD, in his official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for 

ESCAMBIA County, KAITI 

LENHART, in her official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for FLAGLER 

County, HEATHER RILEY, in her 

2

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 3 of 116
official capacity as Supervisor of 

Elections for FRANKLIN County,

SHIRLEY G. KNIGHT, in her official 

capacity as Supervisor of Elections for 

GADSDEN County, CONNIE 

SANCHEZ, in her official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for 

GILCHRIST County, ALETRIS 

FARNAM, in her official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for GLADES 

County, JOHN HANLON, in his 

official capacity as Supervisor of 

Elections for GULF County, LAURA 

HUTTO, in her official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for 

HAMILTON County, DIANE SMITH, 

in her official capacity as Supervisor of 

Elections for HARDEE County, 

BRENDA HOOTS, in her official 

capacity as Supervisor of Elections for 

HENDRY County, SHIRLEY 

ANDERSON, in her official capacity 

as Supervisor of Elections for 

HERNANDO County, PENNY OGG, 

in her official capacity as Supervisor of 

Elections for HIGHLANDS County, 

CRAIG LATIMER, in his official 

capacity as Supervisor of Elections for 

HILLSBOROUGH County, THERISA 

MEADOWS, in her official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for HOLMES 

County, LESLIE ROSSWAY SWAN, 

in her official capacity as Supervisor of 

Elections for INDIAN RIVER County, 

3

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 4 of 116
SYLVIA D. STEPHENS, in her 

official capacity as Supervisor of 

Elections for JACKSON County, 

MARTY BISHOP, in his official 

capacity as Supervisor of Elections for 

JEFFERSON County, TRAVIS HART, 

in his official capacity as Supervisor of 

Elections for LAFAYETTE County, 

ALAN HAYS, in his official capacity 

as Supervisor of Elections for LAKE 

County, TOMMY DOYLE, in his 

official capacity as Supervisor of 

Elections for LEE County, MARK 

EARLEY, in his official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for LEON 

County, TAMMY JONES, in her 

official capacity as Supervisor of 

Elections for LEVY County, GINA 

MCDOWELL, in her official capacity 

as Supervisor of Elections for 

LIBERTY County, THOMAS 

“TOMMY” R. HARDEE, in his 

official capacity as Supervisor of 

Elections for MADISON County, 

MICHAEL BENNETT, in his official 

capacity as Supervisor of Elections for 

MANATEE County, WESLEY 

WILCOX, in his official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for MARION 

County, VICKI DAVIS, in her official 

capacity as Supervisor of Elections for 

MARTIN County, CHRISTINA 

WHITE, in her official capacity as 

4

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 5 of 116
Supervisor of Elections for MIAMIDADCounty, JOYCE GRIFFIN, in 

her official capacity as Supervisor of 

Elections for MONROE County, 

VICKI P. CANNON, in her official 

capacity as Supervisor of Elections for 

NASSAU County, PAUL A. LUX, in 

his official capacity as Supervisor of 

Elections for OKALOOSA County, 

DIANE HAGAN, in her official 

capacity as Supervisor of Elections for 

OKEECHOBEE County, BILL 

COWLES, in his official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for ORANGE 

County, MARY JANE ARRINGTON, 

in her official capacity as Supervisor of 

Elections for OSCEOLA County, 

WENDY SARTORY LINK, in her 

official capacity as Supervisor of 

Elections for PALM BEACH County, 

BRIAN E. CORLEY, in his official 

capacity as Supervisor of Elections for 

PASCO County, DEBORAH CLARK, 

in her official capacity as Supervisor of 

Elections for PINELLAS County, 

LORI EDWARDS, in her official 

capacity as Supervisor of Elections for 

POLK County, CHARLES 

OVERTURF, in his official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for PUTNAM 

County, TAPPIE A. VILLANE, in her 

official capacity as Supervisor of 

Elections for SANTA ROSA County, 

RON TURNER, in his official capacity

5

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 6 of 116
as Supervisor of Elections for 

SARASOTA County, CHRIS 

ANDERSON, in his official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for 

SEMINOLE County, VICKY OAKES, 

in her official capacity as Supervisor of 

Elections for ST. JOHNS County, 

GERTRUDE WALKER, in her official 

capacity as Supervisor of Elections for 

ST. LUCIE County, WILLIAM KEEN, 

in his official capacity as Supervisor of 

Elections for SUMTER County, 

GLENDA B. WILLIAMS, in her 

official capacity as Supervisor of 

Elections for SUWANNEE County, 

DANA SOUTHERLAND, in her 

official capacity as Supervisor of 

Elections for TAYLOR County, 

DEBORAH K. OSBORNE, in her 

official capacity as Supervisor of 

Elections for UNION County, LISA 

LEWIS, in her official capacity as 

Supervisor of Elections for VOLUSIA 

County, HENRY WELLS, in his 

official capacity as Supervisor of 

Elections for WAKULLA County, 

BOBBY BEASLEY, in his official 

capacity as Supervisor of Elections for 

WALTON County, CAROL F. RUDD, 

in her official capacity as Supervisor of 

Elections for WASHINGTON County, 

CANVASSING BOARD OF ALACHUA 

COUNTY, CANVASSING BOARD OF 

BAKER COUNTY, CANVASSING 

6

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 7 of 116
BOARD of BAY COUNTY, 

CANVASSING BOARD of BRADFORD 

COUNTY, CANVASSING BOARD of 

BREVARD COUNTY, CANVASSING 

BOARD of BROWARD COUNTY, 

CANVASSING BOARD of CALHOUN 

COUNTY, CANVASSING BOARD of 

CHARLOTTE COUNTY, 

CANVASSING BOARD of CITRUS 

COUNTY, CANVASSING BOARD of 

CLAY COUNTY, CANVASSING 

BOARD of COLLIER COUNTY, 

CANVASSING BOARD of COLUMBIA 

COUNTY, CANVASSING BOARD of 

DESOTO COUNTY, CANVASSING 

BOARD of DIXIE COUNTY, 

CANVASSING BOARD of DUVAL 

COUNTY, CANVASSING BOARD of 

ESCAMBIA COUNTY, CANVASSING 

BOARD of FLAGLER COUNTY, 

CANVASSING BOARD of FRANKLIN 

COUNTY, CANVASSING BOARD of 

GADSDEN COUNTY, CANVASSING 

BOARD of GILCHRIST COUNTY, 

CANVASSING BOARD of GLADES 

COUNTY, CANVASSING BOARD of 

GULF COUNTY, CANVASSING 

BOARD of HAMILTON COUNTY, 

CANVASSING BOARD of HARDEE 

COUNTY, CANVASSING BOARD of 

HENDRY COUNTY, CANVASSING 

BOARD of HERNANDO COUNTY, 

CANVASSING BOARD of 

HIGHLANDS COUNTY, 

CANVASSING BOARD of 

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, 

CANVASSING BOARD of HOLMES 

COUNTY, CANVASSING BOARD of 

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, 

CANVASSING BOARD of JACKSON 

7

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 8 of 116
COUNTY, CANVASSING BOARD of 

JEFFERSON COUNTY, CANVASSING 

BOARD of LAFAYETTE COUNTY, 

CANVASSING BOARD of LAKE 

COUNTY, CANVASSING BOARD of 

LEE COUNTY, CANVASSING BOARD 

of LEON COUNTY, CANVASSING 

BOARD of LEVY COUNTY, 

CANVASSING BOARD of LIBERTY 

COUNTY, CANVASSING BOARD of 

MADISON COUNTY, CANVASSING 

BOARD of MANATEE COUNTY, 

CANVASSING BOARD of MARION 

COUNTY, CANVASSING BOARD of 

MARTIN COUNTY, CANVASSING 

BOARD of MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, 

CANVASSING BOARD of MONROE 

COUNTY, CANVASSING BOARD of 

NASSAU COUNTY, CANVASSING 

BOARD of OKALOOSA COUNTY, 

CANVASSING BOARD of 

OKEECHOBEE COUNTY, 

CANVASSING BOARD of ORANGE 

COUNTY, CANVASSING BOARD of 

OSCEOLA COUNTY, CANVASSING 

BOARD of PALM BEACH COUNTY, 

CANVASSING BOARD of PASCO 

COUNTY, CANVASSING BOARD of 

PINELLAS COUNTY, CANVASSING 

BOARD of POLK COUNTY, 

CANVASSING BOARD of PUTNAM 

COUNTY, CANVASSING BOARD of 

SANTA ROSA COUNTY, 

CANVASSING BOARD of SARASOTA 

COUNTY, CANVASSING BOARD of 

SEMINOLE COUNTY, CANVASSING 

BOARD of ST. JOHNS COUNTY, 

CANVASSING BOARD of ST. LUCIE 

COUNTY, CANVASSING BOARD of 

SUMTER COUNTY, CANVASSING 

8

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 9 of 116
BOARD of SUWANNEE COUNTY, 

CANVASSING BOARD of TAYLOR 

COUNTY, CANVASSING BOARD of 

UNION COUNTY, CANVASSING 

BOARD of VOLUSIA COUNTY, 

CANVASSING BOARD of WAKULLA 

COUNTY, CANVASSING BOARD of 

WALTON COUNTY, CANVASSING 

BOARD of WASHINGTON COUNTY, 

Defendants. 

9

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 10 of 116
Expert Report

Daniel A. Smith, Ph.D.∗

May 26, 2020

∗Professor of Political Science, University of Florida. 234 Anderson Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611 (dasmith@ufl.edu).

10

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 11 of 116
1 Purpose of engagement

1 Counsel for the Plaintiffs in Dream Defenders, et al. v. DeSantis, et al., have engaged me

to form expert opinions on several issues related to vote-by-mail ("VBM") ballots cast in Florida.

Specifically, for registered voters who are Black and Hispanic, registered voters who have indicated

that they will need assistance with voting, and the state’s youngest and oldest registered voters, I

have been asked to examine the following:

1. undeliverable VBM ballots for these groups of registered voters;

2. on-time VBM ballots from these groups of voters that were rejected by county canvassing

boards for a missing signature or other errors on the ballot return envelope; and

3. VBM ballots returned by these groups of voters that were received by Supervisors of Elections

after the state’s 7 PM Election Day deadline.

I also have been asked to examine whether there is variation across the state’s 67 counties for these

groups of registered voters concerning undeliverable VBM ballots, VBM ballots that are returned

late, and VBM ballots that are rejected for a missing signature on, or another error with, the return

envelope.

2 On these matters, I have been asked to form opinions on how Florida’s current VBM system

may create burdens on these groups of voters. In particular, I have been asked to formulate opinions

on how possible reforms to the state’s VBM system—such as including pre-paid postage on ballot

return envelopes, eliminating unnecessary documentation requirements to secure a VBM ballot or

to "cure" one with a deficiency, changing the deadline for the return receipt of VBM ballots to a

postmark date on the return envelope, and allowing groups to assist vulnerable voters who might

need assistance procuring or returning their VBM ballot—could reduce the burdens of voting by

mail on these groups of registered voters.

11

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 12 of 116
3 I am well-versed on this topic, my methods are reliable and appropriate in the discipline of

political science, and I have written extensively about mail voting in Florida over the past decade.

My opinions result from applying social science methods to address questions concerning burdens

registered voters wanting to cast a VBM ballot in Florida face in light of, but also irrespective of,

the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and concerns over in-person voting.

2 Summary of findings

4 In any given General Election in Florida over the past decade, millions of registered voters

have cast ballots by mail. Yet in each election, tens-of-thousands of mail ballots requested by

registered voters are returned as undeliverable to election officials, are returned by registered voters

to election officials but are never counted because they arrive after the state’s 7 PM Election Day

deadline, or are rejected by county canvassing boards for a problem with the voter’s certificate on

the VBM ballot return envelope.

5 Communities of color (specifically Black and Hispanic registered voters), those in need of

assistance to vote, and young and old registered voters to be less likely to be able to vote a VBM

ballot or have their mail ballot counted. I find that a disproportionate number of Florida registered

voters who never received their VBM ballot, whose VBM ballot was returned late to the election

office, or whose on-time VBM ballot was rejected by their county canvassing board are Black and

Hispanic registered voters, registered voters who indicate that they need assistance with voting,

and young and old registered voters.

6 Furthermore, my analysis shows the rates of rejections for racial and ethnic minorities and

voters in need of assistance vary across Florida’s 67 counties, making the success of voting a valid

VBM ballot subject to a voter’s county of registration. Florida’s procedures for mailing VBM

ballots to registered voters, the current Election Day deadline for receipt of mail-in ballots, and

the rejection of VBM ballots for signature or other errors on returned VBM ballot envelopes, place

12

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 13 of 116
burdens on these groups of registered voters and vary by the county of a voter’s registration.

7 In light of the COVID-19 pandemic and the likely increase in the use of VBM ballots in the

August 2020 and November 2020 elections, if Florida makes no changes to its current system of

vote-by-mail ballots, communities of color, those in need of assistance with voting, and the youngest

and oldest voters will face additional burdens in having their vote count.

3 Qualifications

8 I am Professor and Chair, Department of Political Science, at the University of Florida. I

received my doctorate in Political Science from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1994. I am

also President of ElectionSmith based in Gainesville, FL, which specializes in empirical research on

electoral processes in the American states.

9 For over 25 years, I have conducted research on electoral politics in the American states,

focusing on the effect of political institutions on political behavior. I have written extensively on

election administration in the American states, including the effects of changes of election laws and

rules on voter participation and turnout. I have published more than 80 articles and book chapters,

including many that have appeared in the discipline’s top peer-reviewed journals. My research has

been cited over 3,000 times by academics. In addition, I have published two academic books on

electoral politics in the American states and am the coauthor of a leading college textbook, State

and Local Politics: Institutions and Reform, which includes several discussions of state voting laws,

election administration, and voter participation and turnout, including in Florida. I have taught

an array of undergraduate and graduate courses focusing on American political institutions, voting

and election administration, and political behavior in the American states, including Florida.

10 I have testified before the U.S. Senate and state legislatures, including Florida, on voting

and election issues. A former Senior Fulbright Scholar, I have received numerous grants and awards

13

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 14 of 116
for my work on campaigns and elections, including from the U.S. Department of State and the

American Political Science Association ("APSA"). I am a past-President of the State Politics and

Policy Section of the APSA. In 2010, I was the lead author of the “Direct Democracy Scholars”

amicus brief in Doe v. Reed, which was successfully argued by the Attorney General of the state of

Washington before the U.S. Supreme Court, and my scholarship has been cited in an opinion of the

U.S. Supreme Court. My curriculum vitae is attached to this report as Appendix A.1.

11 I have served as an expert in election-related litigation in several states, hired by both

plaintiffs and defendants (including serving as an expert for the State of Florida, the State of

Colorado, and the State of California to defend their election laws). Most recently, I provided

written reports and testified at federal trial in Jones v. Ron DeSantis, etc. et al. (Consolidated

Case No. 4:19-cv-300, N.D. Fla.), where the court cited my analysis of individuals convicted of

a felony in Florida who are eligible, but for legal financial obligations, to have their voting rights

restored, and American Civil Rights Union v. Snipes (Case No. 16-cv-61474, S.D. Fla.), where

the court accepted my opinion in whole; and provided written reports for successful plaintiffs in

Fair Fight Action v. Crittenden (Case No. 1:18-cv-05391, N.D. Ga.), DNC Services Corporation

et al. v. Lee et al. (Case No. 4:18-cv-520 (RH/MJF, N.D. Fla.),MOVE Texas Civic Fund, et. al.

v. Whitley, et. al. (Case No. 3:19-cv-00041, S.D. Tex.), and Thompson, et al. v. Merrill, et al.

(Case No. 2:16-cv-783-ECM-SMD), and for defendants in Judicial Watch, Inc., Election Integrity

Project California, Inc. et al. v. Dean C. Logan, et al. (Case No. 2:17-cv-08948-R-SK, C.D. Cal.),

for successful plaintiffs in Rivera v. Detzner (Case No. 1:18-cv-00152, N.D. Fla.), for plaintiffs in

Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Secretary of State, Jon Husted (Case No. 2:16-cv-00303,

S.D. Ohio), for successful plaintiff-intervenors in Florida Democratic Party v. Scott (Case No. 4:16-

cv-00626, N.D. Fla.), for successful plaintiffs in Florida Democratic Party v. Detzner (Case No.

4:16-cv-00607, N.D. Fla.), and for successful plaintiffs in League of Women Voters of Florida v.

Detzner (Case No. 4:18-cv-00251, N.D. Fla.). All of these cases relate to aspects of election law and

election administration.

14

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 15 of 116
12 I am being paid at a rate of $400/hour for work in this litigation. My compensation is

contingent neither on the results of the analyses described herein nor on the contents of my report.

4 The calculus of voting

13 Implicit in the decision of qualified individuals to cast a ballot or not in an election is

what political scientists refer to as the calculus of voting. A cost-benefit perspective concerning

an individual’s decision to turn out implies that a person will cast a ballot when the costs to do

so are outweighed by the benefits that accrue from a preferred party or candidate winning, and

that this is discounted by the probability of having an impact on the election outcome, plus any

added satisfaction an individual gains from performing his or her civic duty (Downs 1957; Riker

and Ordeshook 1968; Ferejohn and Fiorina 1974; Aldrich 1993).

14 To be sure, every method of voting entails some costs. And one method of voting (say,

in-person on Election Day) versus another method of voting (say, vote-by-mail) may deferentially

raise the cost of voting for some voters, but not for others. For example, when voting in person on

Election Day, some voters are more likely than others to incur information, time, transportation,

and financial costs that may impede their ability to turn out and vote (Haspel and Knotts 2005;

Brady and McNulty 2011; Amos, Smith and Ste. Claire 2017; Mukherjee 2009; Herron and Smith

2015). The attendant costs for prospective voters who want to vote in person might entail acquiring

necessary information to ascertain the location of an early voting or Election Day polling station,

securing transportation to travel to the polling site, and then sacrificing time waiting in line. For

some, these may be a negligible costs; for others, they may be more burdensome. While many

voters become habitual voters (Plutzer 2002; Green and Shachar 2000; Fowler 2006), not all do,

including in Florida (Shino and Smith 2018).

15 Barriers to voting differ, depending on the mode by which a prospective voter is to cast a

ballot. As with voting in person, the ability to navigate mail voting certainly entails costs. Although

15

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 16 of 116
mail voting is commonly understood as a "convenience" (Gronke 2012), voting by mail has its own

set of costs, and these costs are likely higher for some registered voters than for others. As such,

because Florida does not have an all-mail voting system in place, and because the existing system

is not well-suited to enable all voters to cast a mail ballot in upcoming elections, the costs of voting

by mail may be higher for some voters who request and try to return their VBM ballot, as well as

for those who try to ensure that a cast VBM ballot that has a problem ultimately counts.

16 Because of the implicit costs of voting by mail, even in an no-excuse VBM state like Florida,

a wholesale shift to mail voting due to health considerations stemming from the COVID-19 disease

could potentially disenfranchise tens-of-thousands of eligible voters from being able to vote a mail

ballot or to have their mail ballot count. Unlike states that have taken decades to transition to

mail-voting systems (Bonica et al. 2020),1 given the laws and regulations concerning voting by

mail in Florida, and given the health concerns that many Floridians have due to the coronavirus

pandemic, not all eligible voters will be able to shift seamlessly to voting a mail ballot that counts.

17 Faced with the possibility of compromising one’s health, such as the possibility of contracting

COVID-19, it is likely that many voters will turn to an alternative method of voting that is deemed

to be safer, at least from a public health standpoint—voting by mail. However, if registered voters

opt to vote by mail, will all individuals have the same likelihood of casting a valid ballot if they were

to vote in person? Or, might some registered voters who cast a mail ballot—in particular minority

voters, those indicating they need assistance with voting, or young and old voters—have a greater

chance of having their mail ballot rejected than other voters?

18 Given the current system of voting by mail in Florida, millions of registered voters will face

several costs when trying to cast a mail ballot. When trying to properly request, fill out, and return

1

In the all-mail ballot states Colorado, Oregon, and Washington, a majority of voters physically drop

their VBM ballot off in person. In the 2016 General Election, 73 percent of surveyed voters in Colorado

said they dropped their ballot off in person; 59 percent reported they did so in Oregon; with 65 percent

doing so in Washington. See (Stewart III 2017).

16

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 17 of 116
their VBM ballot, voters face information, transportation, time, and financial costs.

19 These costs will affect some potential voters more than others. If forced to shift to voting

by mail under Florida’s current system, racial and ethnic minorities are likely to face increased

barriers. Compared to the convenience of voting early in person, or showing up to vote at one’s

neighborhood Election Day polling site where poll workers are able to assist voters (including those

who need language assistance or who make a mistake and need to have a new ballot issued), many

Black and Hispanic registered voters will likely to face increased or unexpected costs when trying to

navigate what can be a complicated VBM process. Due to associated information costs, including

language or literacy barriers, racial and ethnic minorities are likely to face higher barriers when

casting a ballot by mail than other voters under the state’s current VBM system. Scholars have

found that racial minorities are more likely to cast ballots that are voided due to overvotes or

undervotes (Tomz and Houweling 2003; Herron and Sekhon 2005), and this may well have to do

with the unfamiliarity with the modality of voting, as was the case with the confusion sowed by

Palm Beach County’s confusing butterfly ballot in the 2000 presidential election (Wand et al. 2001).

20 Racial and ethnic minorities already have lower turnout rates than other voters (Fraga

2018; Leighley and Nagler 2013). Black and Hispanic voters might be especially sensitive to any

changes made by election officials in the availability of early voting locations or Election Day voting

that might be a response to the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, scholars have found that

minority registered voters in Florida are particularly sensitive to changes in early in-person voting

opportunities as well as to changes to Election Day voting locations. When the state reduced the

number of days of early in-person voting prior to the 2012 GE, particularly when it eliminated the

final Sunday of early voting, minority voters were more likely to face long lines at the polls (Herron

and Smith 2013), and early voting among minorities voters tailed-off in the election (Herron and

Smith 2014). Furthermore, turnout among minority voters decreases at a higher rate when Election

Day precincts are either eliminated or relocated—that is, when information and transportation

costs increase—even when other methods of voting might be available (Amos, Smith and Ste. Claire

17

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 18 of 116
2017). In contrast, when the costs of voting are lowered in general (Kaplan and Yuan 2020), and

in Florida in particular Herron and Smith (2012)—such as with the expansion of early in-person

voting—scholars have found minority voters to be particularly responsive to increased opportunities

to vote. Such was the case in Florida’s 2018 midterm election when early in-person voting permitted

on public university campuses, resulting in higher turnout among young voters (Shino and Smith

2020).

21 A shift to voting by mail may also negatively affect the ability of those registered voters

who have indicated to election officials that they need assistance voting to cast a valid ballot.

Registered voters with cognitive or physical disabilities already have lower turnout rates than other

voters (Karlan 2007; Schur, Adya and Ameri 2015; Belt 2016). While voting at home may be more

accessible for some older registered voters or those with some disabilities (Karp and Banducci 2001;

Miller and Powell 2016; Schur and Kruse 2014; Schur, Adya and Ameri 2015), others may have

difficulties procuring or returning a VBM ballot (Fay 2005), which can depress turnout (Kousser

and Mullin 2007). Furthermore, filling out a VBM ballot with ease and integrity may prove to be

more difficult for registered voters who require specialized equipment to read or fill out a ballot

(Tokaji and Colker 2007; Belt 2016). Some voters who indicate they need help to vote may lack

awareness of how they can be assisted or fear stigmatization about voting by mail (Schur and Kruse

2014). Older individuals and those with a disability may receive in-person help at a polling location,

including voting on an accessible machine or having someone assist in filling out their ballot. This

might not be possible at home for registered voters who are in need of assistance. As such, voting

by mail might place them at greater risk of not having their vote count.2

2Registered voters who have a disability in Florida are given the option to fill out a declaration when

registering to vote, affirming that they would like assistance when voting. Florida law requires that ballots must be "fully accessible to all voters, including voters having a disability" to ensure that all voters

may "cast a secret, independent, and verifiable" ballot without the assistance of another person. See

Title IX, § 101.662, "Accessibility of vote-by-mail ballots," available at http://www.leg.state.fl.us/

statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0100-0199/0101/0101.html (last accessed

May 15, 2020).

18

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 19 of 116
22 Regardless of race/ethnicity or need for assistance, millions of Florida registered voters could

also face financial burdens when trying to return their mail ballots. In Florida, race and ethnicity

is correlated with poverty, and it is well-established that poverty increases the opportunity costs

of casting a ballot, altering the calculus of voting (Rosenstone 1982; Nagler and Leighley 1992).

In Florida, the rate of Black and Hispanic households that are poor is higher than that of White

households. According to the Census Bureau’s 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year

Estimates, 31.5 percent of the more than 1 million Black (or African American) households earned

less than $25,000 in income in the past 12 months (in 2018 inflation-adjusted dollars). Of the

more than 1.5 million Hispanic (or Latino) households, 25.8 percent earned less than $25,000 in

income in the past 12 months (in 2018 inflation-adjusted dollars). In contrast, only 20.4 percent of

similar White households earned less than $25,000 in the previous year.3 This holds true when it

comes to voting by mail, as prospective voters in a majority of Florida’s 67 counties have to obtain

and pay for their own postage to place on their return VBM ballot envelope. Furthermore, not

all registered voters in the state have reliable mail service or access to a Post Office or a store to

purchase stamps (either in person or online). The ability to purchase stamps to return a mail ballot

not only imposes information and transportation costs on registered voters, it imposes a financial

cost, which particularly burdens poorer registered voters.

23 Unless the barriers to voting a valid mail ballot are lowered, shifting to voting by mail

might also negatively affect the ability of otherwise likely voters to cast a valid mail ballot. Even

registered voters who are habitual in-person voters will face new barriers to voting under Florida’s

current VBM system if they concerned about health risks associated with voting in person due

to COVID-19. Scholars have found that voter turnout is depressed when an election coincides

with inclement weather or during or after a natural disaster (Merrifield 1993; Knack 1994; Gomez,

Hansford and Krause 2007; Sinclair, Hall and Alvarez 2011; Stein 2015; Zelin and Smith 2020).

3See U.S. Census Bureau, 108: ACS 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles, "Median Household Income in

the Past 12 Months (in 2018 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) by Household Size," available at https:

//data.census.gov, last accessed May 17, 2020.

19

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 20 of 116
Furthermore, the impact of weather-related issues may be uneven across different kinds of voters.

For example, Fujiwara, Meng and Vogl (2016) find that rainfall either on Election Day or days

immediately preceding the election decreases voter turnout, and its effects are stronger in poorer

and more rural areas. It certainly seems logical that voters who have health concerns about voting

in person in the state’s upcoming elections, if they are not offered a low-cost alternative of voting

by mail, are more likely not to vote.

5 Voting by Mail in Florida

24 Potential mail voters in Florida face several costs when trying to cast a VBM ballot—

including time, information, transportation, and financial costs.

25 First, when a registered voter wants to cast a VBM ballot in Florida he or she must make

a formal request to his or her Supervisor of Election ("SOE"). Requests can either be standing,

meaning in effect for multiple elections, or requested for a single election.4 There are time limits

on when a voter, or his or her surrogates, may request a mail ballot. This requires information—

information that not even the Secretary of State seemed aware of when she issued a statement on

March 9, 2020, after the state’s deadline for voters to request a mail ballot in the March 17, 2020

Presidential Preference Primary, that encouraged Florida voters to vote by mail.5 SOEs maintain

4Per Florida Statutes § 101.62 (2), "A request for a vote-by-mail ballot to be mailed to a voter must

be received no later than 5 p.m. on the 10th day before the election by the supervisor. The supervisor

shall mail vote-by-mail ballots to voters requesting ballots by such deadline no later than 8 days before

the election. (3) For each request for a vote-by-mail ballot received, the supervisor shall record the

date the request was made, the date the vote-by-mail ballot was delivered to the voter or the voter’s

designee or the date the vote-by-mail ballot was delivered to the post office or other carrier, the date

the ballot was received by the supervisor, the absence of the voter’s signature on the voter’s certificate,

if applicable, and such other information he or she may deem necessary. This information shall be

provided in electronic format as provided by rule adopted by the division. The information shall be

updated and made available no later than 8 a.m. of each day, including weekends, beginning 60 days

before the primary until 15 days after the general election and shall be contemporaneously provided to

the division."

5See Secretary of State "Florida Secretary of State Laurel M. Lee Issues Election Readiness Update for Upcoming Presidential Preference Primary on March

17," available https://dos.myflorida.com/communications/press-releases/2020/

florida-secretary-of-state-laurel-m-lee-issues-election-readiness-update-for-upcoming-presidential-

20

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 21 of 116
records on VBM requests, and each VBM ballot cast in an election thus has the voter’s request date

associated with it.

26 Based on requests, SOEs send out VBM ballots to voters who requested them. This takes

time. The date on which a ballot is sent to a voter is called its delivery date. When an SOE sends

out a VBM ballot, it may take over a week to reach a voter, as SOEs themselves caution on their

websites.6 Some VBM ballots never make it to the voter, as they are returned by the U.S. Postal

Service back to the election office as undeliverable.

7 Voters who do not receive a VBM for which

they have a standing request or have made a one-off request may have no knowledge that the VBM

ballot was returned to sender; this can impose additional information and time costs to determine

why their ballot never was delivered.

27 A voter who has requested and receives a VBM ballot is not obligated to return it. A voter

can formally cancel a VBM ballot request or can simply ignore a VBM ballot provided to him or

her. There are no penalties for voters associated with not completing or returning a requested

VBM ballot. But there are information costs should the voter want to subsequently cast a ballot

in person.

28 For registered voters who do fill out and want to return their VBM ballot, it takes time for

the U.S. Postal Service to be deliver VBM return envelopes back to the the SOEs. For voters where

the return envelope postage is not pre-paid by the SOE, it may also entail the voter having to travel

to a Post Office to purchase stamps. When an SOE receives a completed VBM ballot envelope, the

voter’s envelope is assigned a return date by the election office. In the elections analyzed in this

report, all domestic (non-UOCAVA) VBM ballots are required to be received by the SOEs no later

last accessed May 16, 2020).

6See, for example, Hillsborough Supervisor of Elections, "Vote By Mail," available at https://www.

votehillsborough.org/VOTERS/Vote-By-Mail, last accessed May 16, 2020. "You should allow at

least one week for your ballot to reach us by mail."

7Here, I am not referring to the estimated 0.01 percent of letters the U.S. Postal Service estimates are

never delivered, but rather those that are returned to the sender as undeliverable. See (Stewart III

2010) for a discussion of the ways mail ballots may leak out of the "voting pipeline."

21

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 22 of 116
than 7 PM on Election Day. Non-UOCAVA domestic ballots received by SOEs after this deadline

are deemed to be late and do not count.8

29 Every VBM ballot return envelope includes a voter’s certificate.9 Voters who want to cast

a VBM ballot face a variety of information costs. Not only do they need to know how to fill out

a ballot properly, they also need to be able to fill out the return voter’s certificate on the return

envelope. This includes the voter knowing what his or her official signature on file with their county

elections office looks like. When an SOE receives a return VBM ballot envelope, it is assessed by

election staff, and possibly county canvassing boards, on several grounds.

30 Election officials must determine whether a VBM ballot arrives on-time (by 7 PM on Election

Day) or is late, whether the corresponding voter’s certificate is missing a signature, or whether the

voter’s certificate has a so-called "voter-caused error."10 A "voter-caused error" can result if the

signature on the voter’s certificate does not match the voter’s official signature on file with an SOE

or if a voter signed a ballot envelope that was assigned to someone else, or other possible problems

(e.g., the return envelope was not properly sealed or was torn). On-time non-UOCAVA ballots

that have no signature or "voter-caused errors" may be cured by the voter prior to the state’s cure

deadline through the cure affidavit process, although it is unlikely that all voters know that this

protection exists.11 If a voter returns a VBM ballot envelope on time, but if the envelope lacks the

8For different rules pertaining to military and overseas voters, see Federal Voter Assistance Program,

"Voting Assistance Guide," available at https://www.fvap.gov/guide (last accessed May 16, 2020).

9For details about the voter’s certificate, see fn. 17.

10My use of the State’s official term "voter-caused error" is not an endorsement of the idea that errors

labeled as such by SOEs are necessarily caused by voters. "Voter-caused error" is an official term used

by the Florida Division of Elections; see in "Vote-by-Mail Ballot Request Information File Layout,"

available at https://www.dos.myflorida.com/media/695816/dsde145.pdf (last accessed May 15,

2020).

11Prior to the 2018 GE, a federal court ordered that the deadline for voters to cure VBM ballots with

problems be extended until 5 PM two days after Election Day. Thus, voters who, say, returned their

VBM ballot on Election Day, had fewer than two days to be informed by an SOE that their VBM

return envelope had a problem, and then provide the SOE with the necessary information with a cure

affidavit. In 2019, the Florida state legislature permanently extended the cure deadline to 46 hours

after the close of voting on Election Day. SOEs are required to “immediately” notify a voter whose

VBM ballot has been flagged for rejection on the basis of an apparent signature mismatch or a missing

signature, and to provide voters with a VBM cure affidavit with such notification. See Florida statutes,

22

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 23 of 116
voter’s signature or if it has another error, the voter may correct the error at any time up until

two days after Election Day via the "cure" affidavit process. VBM voters who are informed by an

SOE about a problem with their return VBM envelope close to the statutory deadline (which is

only 46 hours after the close of polls on Election Day), may may especially incur time, information,

transportation, and financial costs to successfully provide a cure affidavit in such a short time

frame. If the voter is unable to cure his or her envelope prior to the cure deadline, the VBM ballot

is rejected as illegal. VBM ballots rejected as illegal (hereinafter, rejected) do not count.12

31 Aligned with the steps outlined above, Florida SOEs create VBM activity reports that

they upload to the Division of Elections on a daily basis during the election. These reports describe

ballots received and corresponding codes assigned by SOEs. While challenging, it is entirely possible,

by relying on careful and conservative data processing methods, to disentangle discrepancies with

official codes in the daily VBM files.13 According to the Division of Elections, Rule 1S-2.043, F.A.C.,

Form DS-DE 145, which went into effect in 2015, there are eight "applicable codes for [VBM ballot

envelope] reporting purposes."

C: Use when a voter cancels a request for vote-by-mail ballot. E: Use when there is

any "voter-caused error" in a returned vote-by-mail ballot other than a failure to sign

the Voter’s Certificate. N: Use when a voter returns a vote-by-mail ballot with no

"Canvassing of vote-by-mail ballot," § 101.68 (d)(4)(a), available at http://www.leg.state.fl.us/

statutes/index.cfm (last accessed May 15, 2020.

12County canvassing boards are responsible for final decisions about VBM ballot rejection. These

boards make decisions by majority rule. See Florida statutes § 101.68, "Canvassing of vote-by-mail ballot," available at http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm (last accessed May 15, 2020).

Per statute, "The canvassing board must, if the supervisor has not already done so, compare the signature of the elector on the voter’s certificate. . . to see that the elector is duly registered in the county

and to determine the legality of that vote-by-mail ballot."

13These daily VBM activity reports do not always to conform to statutory requirements. The ballot

return codes counties use in the files to identify the status of VBM ballots are sometimes not reconcilable

with final status codes as reported in statewide vote history files; counties do not appear to rely on

a standardized code for VBM ballots that they flag for having a signature mismatch that sets those

ballots apart from VBM ballots flagged for other "voter-caused errors"; and because the Division of

Elections does not appear to maintain its own a database of VBM ballots flagged for mismatched

signatures, isolating VBM ballots statewide that a county SOE has flagged for a signature mismatch

can be challenging. That said, I have taken every step to make sure my calculations do not over-inflate

the number of individuals who cast VBM ballots that were rejected or not counted.

23

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 24 of 116
signature on the Voter’s Certificate. P: Use when the vote-by-mail ballot is provided

to the voter by any proper means of delivery (mail, fax, etc.). (Only record one ballot

provided per voter.) R: Use when the supervisor has processed a vote-by-mail ballot

request and determined that the voter is eligible to vote-by-mail for that election. S:

Use when a voter has or makes a standing request to receive a vote-by-mail ballot for

all elections occurring from the date of the request through the end of the calendar

year for the second ensuing regularly scheduled general election. (Once the supervisor

determines that the voter is eligible to vote-by-mail in a particular election, the status of

the standing request for that election is recorded as “R”.) U: Use when a vote-by-mail

ballot is returned as undeliverable to the address where it was sent. V: Use when a

voted vote-by-mail ballot is returned and received in the supervisor’s office and does not

otherwise fall into a status code of E, N, or U. NOTE: The code for each voter shall be

updated daily so that each voter has only one code associated with the voter’s record.

For example, a prior report for a voter reflecting an “S” will be changed on a subsequent

report to an “R” if the voter is determined eligible to vote in the election.14

6 Data sources

32 This report covers VBM voting in Florida in the November 8, 2016 General Election (hereinafter the 2016 GE), the November 6, 2018 General Election (2018 GE), and the recent March

17, 2020 Presidential Preference Primary (2020 PPP).

33 In Florida, day-to-day election administration is conducted largely at the county level by

Supervisors of Elections. Within the Office of the Secretary of State, the Division of Elections

maintains a variety of statewide election-related databases. In particular, my analysis uses official

Florida Voter Registration System (FVRS) files made available monthly by the Division of Elec14Bolded emphasis added.

24

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 25 of 116
tions,15 official Legislative Report Election/Recap files made available after each Florida election,16

and Vote-by-Mail Ballot Request Information Files made available during elections. These latter

files, as described above, consist of daily VBM activity reports (including weekends) issued by the

Division of Elections.17 I also consider county-level data provided by SOEs to counsel. Finally,

I consider various public documents made available by the Division of Elections, SOEs, and the

Florida Supervisors of Elections Association, as well as scholarly articles related to the topic.

7 Undeliverable VBM ballots

34 I begin by analyzing the number and rate of VBM ballots in the three elections that were

returned as undeliverable by the U.S. Postal Service. Voters who request a VBM ballot only to have

it returned to the SOE as undeliverable face additional burdens when trying to vote. Such voters,

who proactively made it known to their SOE that they intended to vote by mail, are unlikely to

know that their VBM ballot was returned to the SOE by the Postal Service. They are thus likely

to bear additional costs—informational, time, transportation, and financial—when trying to rectify

15I rely on the Florida Division of Elections’ publicly available monthly statewide voter files from April

2020, January 2019, and January 2017.

16I rely on publicly available Florida’s Legislative Report Election/Recap files. "Within 30 days after

the Elections Canvassing Commission certifies the election results," SOEs "must submit voting history

["VH03"] data to the Division of Elections for each presidential preference primary election, special

election, primary election, and general election." "The Division of Elections on behalf of the Department

of State will compile the 67 county’s files of official voting history and voter registration information

on voters who were qualified and voted in the election and submit the elections recap report to the

Florida Legislature after each of the above-referenced elections." See Florida Statutes, § 98.0981, Rule

1S-2.043(7), F.A.C. (effective 10/27/2010), and Rule 1S-2.053(6) – Election Results, Precinct-Level

Election Results, Voting History, and Reconciliation Reporting (effective 7/1/2017).

17See Rule 1S-2.043, F.A.C., and Florida Statutes § 101.62(3), which states: "For each request for a

vote-by-mail ballot received, the supervisor shall record the date the request was made, the date the

vote-by-mail ballot was delivered to the voter or the voter’s designee or the date the vote-by-mail ballot

was delivered to the post office or other carrier, the date the ballot was received by the supervisor, the

absence of the voter’s signature on the voter’s certificate, if applicable, and such other information he

or she may deem necessary. This information shall be provided in electronic format as provided by rule

adopted by the division. The information shall be updated and made available no later than 8 a.m.

of each day, including weekends, beginning 60 days before the primary until 15 days after the general

election and shall be contemporaneously provided to the division." I rely on the final daily activity

report uploaded by SOEs to the Division of Elections during the 2016 GE, the 2018 GE, and the 2020

PPP. A few counties failed to upload their data on the final day; in these cases, I rely on data from a

county’s preceding daily upload.

25

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 26 of 116
the situation so as to be able to receive a mail ballot, or if that fails, to vote in person.

35 Table 1 provides the final dispositions for every VBM ballot code the final VBM activity

reports uploaded by SOEs to the Division of Elections in each of the three elections. In each

election, tens of thousands of registered voters in Florida requested a VBM ballot but they never

received one. These VBM ballots, coded by SOEs as a "U," were returned back to the SOEs from

the requesting voter because they were "undeliverable."18

Table 1: VBM ballot return codes

Code Definition 2016 GE 2018 GE 2020 PPP

Canceled C 131,172 148,658 70,595

Voter error E 14,459 18,828 11,284

Unsigned N 6,769 9,270 6,182

Provided P 613,794 788,212 745,801

Requested R 4,889 6,066 198,669

Standing S 12,175 28,704 285,980

Undeliverable U 32,643 43,887 46,575

Voted V 2,731,849 2,483,469 1,357,083

Total 3,547,750 3,527,094 2,722,169

36 From Table 1, it is easy to calculate the statewide undeliverable VBM ballot rate for each

election by simply dividing the number of undeliverable VBM ballots (code U) by the number of

VBM ballots delivered to voters (codes E, N, P, U, and V), and then multiplying by 100.

37 In the 2016 GE, the 33,182 undeliverable VBM ballots amounted to slightly less than 1.0

percent of the total VBM ballots delivered to voters; in the 2018 GE, the rate of the 44,323 unde18There are some inconsistencies in the official data sources used to create Table 1, such as a single

VBM voter in a daily activity file who is listed as having cast a valid VBM vote and a VBM ballot with

a missing signature). In these cases, I make a conservative decision in the direction of assuming that

inconsistent records connote a valid VBM ballot cast by the voter. Furthermore, three counties–Orange,

Palm Beach, and Sarasota–include VBM codes in their daily uploads to the Division of Elections that

are not valid VBM codes as required in Form DS-DE 145, Rule 1S-2.043, F.A.C. In particular, in the

2016 GE, Orange had 818 "X" codes, Palm Beach, 339 "X" VBM codes, and Sarasota, 50 "X" codes;

in the 2018 GE, Palm Beach had 776 "X" VBM codes and Sarasota, 83 "X" codes; and, in the 2020

PPP, Sarasota had 53 "X" VBM codes. Based on data received from Sarasota County indicating that

the county uses "X" to denote a voter error, I disregard Sarasota’s original "E" codes, transforming

their VBM ballots coded as "X" to "E."

26

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 27 of 116
liverable VBM ballots was slightly more than 1.3 percent of the total; and in the 2020 PPP, the

rate of the 47,012 undeliverable VBM ballots was nearly 2.2 percent of the total.19

7.1 Undeliverable VBM ballots, by race and ethnicity

38 By linking information in statewide voter files, I am able to determine the race and ethnicity

of each voter in the final daily upload files for each election whose VBM ballot was undeliverable,

by county, in the three elections.

39 Broken down by the race or ethnicity of registered voters who requested, but never received,

their VBM ballot, Table 2 displays the statewide rate undeliverable VBM ballots sent by SOEs in

the three elections. These VBM ballots were undeliverable by the U.S. Postal Service.

40 As Table 2 shows, Black registered voters were more likely than White voters to have

their requested VBM ballot returned undeliverable, with White registered voters more likely than

Hispanic registered voters to have their requested VBM ballot returned undeliverable to an SOE.

Table 2: Undeliverable VBM ballot rate, by race

Undeliverable percent

Election All Black Hispanic White

2016 GE 0.96 1.10 0.68 0.92

2018 GE 1.31 1.48 0.95 1.28

2020 PPP 2.15 2.58 1.96 2.03

41 More importantly, by looking down the columns in Table 2, it is easy to see the dramatic

jump in the rate of undeliverable VBM ballots from the 2018 General Election to the 2020 PPP

for Black and Hispanic registered voters. The percentage of undeliverable VBM ballots increased

19When calculating undeliverable VBM ballot rates, I disregard registered voters who have missing

birth dates or ages less than 18 or greater than 100 as of the date of a given election, the small number

of VBM voters who in the period surrounding an election appear in the data in multiple counties, and

those VBM ballots with codes of Canceled or Requested or Standing. The totals include UOCAVA

voters.

27

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 28 of 116
by at least 1 full percentage point for both Black and Hispanic voters, a much higher increase

than for White registered voters who requested a VBM ballot in the two elections. This could well

indicate that Black and Hispanic registered voters who requested a VBM ballot in lead-up to the

March presidential primary—maybe due to health concerns over COVID-19 and not wanting to

vote in person, or maybe because they heard Secretary of State Lee say they should request a VBM

ballot—contributed to a higher rate of VBM ballots that were mailed to these registered voters that

were returned as undeliverable. Regardless of the reason, the spike in undeliverable VBM ballots

requested by Black and Hispanic registered voters in the 2020 PPP raises concerns that there might

be a similar increase in undeliverable VBM ballots in the August and November elections.

42 I also am able to calculate, for each county, the rate of undeliverable VBM ballots for White,

Black, and Hispanic registered voters who requested VBM ballots in an election. The figures that

follow, which are for the 2020 PPP, make it clear that there is considerable heterogeneity across

the state’s 67 counties regarding the rates of VBM ballots that are undeliverable for White, Black

and Hispanic registered voters who requested, but never received, their VBM ballot. It is also

clear that while the rate of undeliverable VBM ballots mailed to White voters that were returned

undeliverable prior to the March 17, 2020 election ranged from zero to over 4 percent (Walton

County), the undeliverable VBM return rates for Black and Hispanic registered voters that were

returned by the U.S. Postal Service to SOEs as undeliverable in several counties are considerably

higher when compared to White registered voters.

43 For each Florida county in the 2020 PPP, the county-level undeliverable VBM ballot rates

for racial and ethnic groups are displayed in Figures 1a (Whites), 1b (Blacks), and 1c (Hispanics).

These three figures show that in the 2020 PPP, across many counties, over 3.0 percent of voters

had their VBM ballots returned to SOEs as undeliverable, with an even higher share for Black and

Hispanic voters. For example, in Alachua, Marion, Okaloosa, and Palm Beach counties, the rates

of undeliverable VBM ballots for Blacks and Hispanics in the 2020 PPP exceeded 4.0 percent of

28

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 29 of 116
ballots requested by registered voters.20 The plots for the 2018 GE and the 2016 GE, which show

very similar patterns, are available in Appendix A.2.

44 Overall, a clear pattern emerges in the three elections: a higher rate of VBM ballots mailed

to Black and Hispanic registered voters than White registered voters are returned as undeliverable

to SOEs. When a registered voter requests a mail ballot to be sent prior to an election, but when

it is returned to the SOE as undeliverable, the costs of voting for that registered voter increases.

These costs, as Table 2 shows, are not borne equally for all of Florida’s registered voters. Rather,

racial and ethnic minority registered voters, who have demonstrated their interest in voting by mail

in the election, are less likely to be able to participate because they never received their mail ballot.

45 From the existing data, I am unable to determine why undeliverable VBM ballot rates are

higher for Black and Hispanic voters. One possible explanation, though, could well be a function

of Florida’s current online VBM request system. The system that nearly all SOEs rely upon (a

product of the vendor VR Systems), allows registered voters to request a VBM ballot to be sent to

them without requiring the voter to update his or her permanent address that is on file with the

SOE. When requesting a VBM ballot to be delivered, the voter (or an immediate family member or

legal guardian, who may be authorized to request a mail ballot be delivered on behalf of the voter)

must enter the voter’s first and last name, date of birth, and house number of the voter’s address

that is currently on file with the SOE. The VBM ballot will then be delivered to that address; there

is no opportunity to for voters to update their mailing address.

46 Many voters, however—say, students away at college or snowbirds who reside in northern

states during the summer months—utilize the U.S. Postal Service’s temporary mail forwarding

service to have their mail delivered while they are away from their permanent address. If these

registered voters utilize an SOE’s online "Vote-By-Mail Request Form" portal requesting to have

20Counties with fewer than 40 VBM ballots cast are excluded from figures, as are any counties with

undeliverable rates greater than 8 percent.

29

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 30 of 116
their VBM ballot sent to them at their temporary address, they may think—wrongly, it turns out—

that their VBM ballot will be forwarded along with other mail that the U.S. Postal Service reroutes

to them. Their VBM ballot will not be forwarded to them. Unfortunately, there is no indication

on SOEs’ "Vote-By-Mail Request Form" websites that their VBM ballot will not be forwarded to

their temporary address.21 This could cause the potential mail voter to incur numerous costs—

information, time, transportation, and financial—to identify why their ballot did not arrive and

go through the process of requesting a new ballot. Voters do not incur these costs if they vote in

person—and particularly so during the early voting period—as it is easy for them to transfer their

former address on file (even if it’s out of county) to their new address at the polls after checking in.

21See, for example, the online "Vote-By-Mail Request Form" available on the Alachua County SOE’s

website, for the VBM ballot application process, available at: https://www.votealachua.com/MBRS,

last accessed May 24, 2020.

30

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 31 of 116
Figure 1: Percent of undeliverable VBM ballots in 2020 PPP, by race, by county

Note: displays counties with undeliverable VBM ballot rates less than or equal to eight percent.

Counties with fewer than 40 sent out VBM ballots not pictured.

0

2

4

6

8

Walton

Palm Beach

Alachua

Gulf

Marion

Manatee

Hardee

Volusia

Okaloosa

Indian River

Monroe

Putnam

Hernando

Orange Highlands Bay Columbia

Glades

Pasco

Franklin

Lee

Levy Hendry Seminole

Brevard

DeSoto

Collier

St. Johns

Flagler Martin

Pinellas

Osceola

Jackson

Clay Sumter

Wakulla

Broward

Washington Madison

Hillsborough Gadsden

Citrus

Dixie

Leon

Okeechobee

Miami−Dade

NassauHolmes

Bradford

Escambia

Calhoun

Suwannee

St. Lucie

Santa Rosa

Lake

Gilchrist

Taylor Duval

Baker

Charlotte

Hamilton

Jefferson

Lafayette Sarasota

Union

Percent of undeliverable ballots

(a) White VBM voters

31

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 32 of 116
Figure 1: Percent of undeliverable VBM ballots in 2020 PPP, by race, by county

Note: displays counties with undeliverable VBM ballot rates less than or equal to eight percent.

Counties with fewer than 40 sent out VBM ballots not pictured.

0

2

4

6

8

Palm Beach

Okaloosa

Bay

Putnam

Lee

Marion

Alachua

Gulf

Volusia

Seminole

DeSoto

Orange

Manatee

Columbia

Franklin

Indian River

Pinellas

Highlands

Pasco

Levy

Hernando

Monroe

Walton

Brevard

Hillsborough

Martin

Osceola

Madison

Clay

Washington

Collier

Jackson

Broward

St. Johns

Citrus

Flagler

Bradford

Miami−Dade

Escambia

Hendry

Santa Rosa

Leon

Taylor

Suwannee

Sumter

Nassau

St. Lucie

Gadsden

Lake

Duval

Baker

Calhoun

Charlotte

Hamilton

Jefferson

Okeechobee

Sarasota

Union

Wakulla

Percent of undeliverable ballots

(b) Black VBM voters

32

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 33 of 116
Figure 1: Percent of undeliverable VBM ballots in 2020 PPP, by race, by county

Note: displays counties with undeliverable VBM ballot rates less than or equal to eight percent.

Counties with fewer than 40 sent out VBM ballots not pictured.

0

2

4

6

8

Alachua

Columbia

Hardee

Okaloosa

Palm Beach

Orange

Marion

Hernando

Volusia

Lee

Levy

Walton

Seminole

Manatee

Pasco

Pinellas

Indian River

Bay

Martin

Clay

Putnam

St. Johns

Hendry

Osceola

Sumter

Highlands

Brevard

Collier

Hillsborough

Broward

Citrus

Flagler

Nassau

Escambia

Okeechobee

Monroe

Miami−Dade

Leon

Lake

Duval

St. Lucie

Santa Rosa

Charlotte

Sarasota

Percent of undeliverable ballots

(c) Hispanic VBM voters

33

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 34 of 116
7.2 Undeliverable VBM ballots, by assistance with voting

47 A VBM ballot that is not delivered to a voter who requests it imposes a burden on the

prospective voter. If a prospective VBM voter realizes that his or her ballot has not been delivered,

he or she must then arrange for a replacement ballot or to vote in person, which may require

additional information, time, and quite possibly transportation and financial costs. These costs

may be especially high for those individuals who have indicated that they are in need of assistance

with voting.

48 Drawing on the official Legislative Report Election/Recap files made available after the 2016

GE and 2018 GE, I am able to analyze undeliverable VBM ballots that were sent out to voters who

indicated when they registered to vote that they would need assistance with voting. Individuals

registering to vote in Florida are given the option to check a box indicating, "I will need assistance

with voting." I take a voter’s indication that he or she "will need assistance with voting" to be a

proxy for the voter having some type of disability.22

49 Across the three elections, Table 3 displays the percentage of undeliverable VBM ballots for

registered voters indicating they "need assistance with voting" and those who did not indicate such

a need.23

Table 3: Undeliverable VBM ballot rates and requests for voting assistance

No assistance Need assistance

Election Ballots Percent Ballots Percent Difference

2016 GE 3,270,315 0.95 112,481 0.87 -0.07

2018 GE 3,222,314 1.29 106,461 1.42 0.13

2020 PPP 2,040,636 2.16 60,944 2.47 0.31

22See Florida Division of Elections, "Florida Voter Registration Application," DS-DE 39, R1S-2.040,

F.A.C. (effective July 2019), available at https://dos.myflorida.com/media/693757/dsde39.pdf

(last accessed May 15, 2020). The previous DS-DE 39 form (effective October 2013), uses identical

wording.

23In calculations involving the subject of registered voters who need assistance voting, I include only

registered voters with valid ("Y" for yes or "N" for no) codes in the data.

34

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 35 of 116
50 Table 3 provides evidence of a growing disparity in the rates of undeliverable VBM ballots

for voters who indicated when they registered to vote that they needed assistance, compared to all

other voters in the elections. In both the 2018 GE and the 2020 PPP, voters needing assistance

with voting were more likely than those voters who did not indicate needing assistance to be more

likely to have their VBM ballot returned undeliverable to SOEs. In the 2020 PPP, voters indicating

they needed assistance with voting were nearly 15 percent (0.31 percentage points) more likely than

other voters to have their VBM ballot that they requested returned to an SOE as undeliverable.

51 Furthermore, the disparate rates of undeliverable VBM ballots are not equal across counties.

Figures 2a, 2b, and 3a plot county-level VBM undeliverable rates for registered voters who indicate

they need assistance with voting against those who do not in the 2020 PPP, the 2018 GE, and the

2016 GE. Along the horizontal axis in these three figures is the undeliverable rate of VBM ballots

among voters who did not request assistance (from zero to eight percent); along the vertical axis is

the undeliverable rate of VBM ballots among voters who did indicate that they needed assistance

with voting (from zero to eight percent).

52 If VBM undeliverable rates were equal for both sets of registered voters, all 67 counties

would align along pictured 45-degree line in each plot. They do not line up like this, however. In

all three elections, but especially the two most recent elections (the 2018 GE and the 2020 PPP),

the rates of undeliverable VBM ballots for voters needing assistance across most of Florida’s 67

counties are greater than for voters not requesting assistance.

35

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 36 of 116
Figure 2: Percent of undeliverable VBM ballots and requests for voting assistance

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

● ●

●

●

●

● ●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Note: displays counties with undeliverable ballot rates less

 than or equal to eight percent. Top eight counties in terms

of mailed out VBM ballots are labeled.

Brevard

Broward

Miami−Dade

Hillsborough

Lee

Orange

Palm Beach

Pinellas

0

2

4

6

8

0 2 4 6 8

Undeliverable VBM ballot percentage

among voters not needing assistance

Undeliverable VBM ballot percentage

among voters needing assistance

(a) 2020 PPP

36

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 37 of 116
Figure 2: Percent of undeliverable VBM ballots and requests for voting assistance

●

●

●

● ●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

● ●

● ●●

●

●

●

●

Note: displays counties with undeliverable ballot rates less

 than or equal to eight percent. Top eight counties in terms

of mailed out VBM ballots are labeled.

Brevard

Broward

Miami−Dade

Hillsborough

Lee

Palm Beach

Pinellas

Polk

0

2

4

6

8

0 2 4 6 8

Undeliverable VBM ballot percentage

among voters not needing assistance

Undeliverable VBM ballot percentage

among voters needing assistance

(b) 2018 GE

37

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 38 of 116
Figure 3: Percent of undeliverable VBM ballots, by needing assistance with voting

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

Note: displays counties with undeliverable ballot rates less

 than or equal to eight percent. Top eight counties in terms

of mailed out VBM ballots are labeled.

Brevard

Broward

Miami−Dade

Hillsborough

Lee

Orange

Palm Beach

Pinellas

0

2

4

6

8

0 2 4 6 8

Undeliverable VBM ballot percentage

among voters not needing assistance

Undeliverable VBM ballot percentage

among voters needing assistance

(a) 2016 GE

38

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 39 of 116
7.3 Undeliverable VBM ballots, by age

53 Beyond race/ethnicity and need of assistance to vote, it is also possible to examine whether

there are age disparities with respect to the rates at which Florida registered voters have their

requested VBM ballots returned to SOEs by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable.

54 Of the more than 14.5 million registered voters in Florida, as of April, 2020 there were

roughly 2.2 million registered voters aged 21 to 30 years old, and more than 900,000 registered

voters aged 81 through 100 years old.

55 Figures 4a 4b, and 4c, display the rates of undeliverable VBM ballots by age in the three

elections. A strikingly similar pattern is evident in each figure: the youngest (with the exception of

18 and 19 year-olds, many of whom just registered to vote and are likely still living at home) and

oldest registered voters are roughly twice as likely to never receive their VBM ballots on account

of them being returned as undeliverable, compared to registered voters between 50 to 70 years old.

In the most recent election, the 2020 PPP, the average undeliverable VBM ballot rate was over 2.5

percent for VBM ballots sent to voters aged 21-30 years old and those over 85 years old.

56 It is not surprising that both young and old voters are the most likely to not receive their

requested VBM ballot returned because it was returned as undeliverable by the U.S. Postal Service.

Once they leave home, younger voters may be highly mobile, changing their addresses with some

frequency. A temporary change of address filed with the U.S. Postal Service will prevent the forwarding of their non-forwardable VBM ballot, causing it to be returned to the SOE as undeliverable.

The state’s oldest registered voters may be more likely to be snowbirds, relying on a temporary

change of addresses during the summer months, that prevent the forwarding of their VBM ballot.

In addition, the state’s oldest registered voters may be more likely to move to group quarters or an

assisted living facility, that may impede the delivery of their VBM ballots.

39

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 40 of 116
57 As the three figures reveal, both young and old registered voters who have their requested

VBM ballot returned as undeliverable face higher costs of voting in the elections. They may be

particularly in jeopardy of not being able to vote in the election, as they face additional costs of

trying to obtain a new VBM ballot. Should they realize that their ballot was returned to the SOE

as undeliverable, if they request a new ballot it might not arrive in time their temporary residence.

Many of these voters may temporarily be residing outside the county in which they are registered,

making it costly, or indeed impossible, to get transportation to vote in person at the polls. These

efforts will likely entail information, time, transportation, and financial costs for both the state’s

youngest and oldest voters, decreasing the likelihood of them voting in the election.

40

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 41 of 116
Figure 4: Percent of undeliverable ballots, by age

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●●●

●

●

●

●●●

●●●●

●●●●●●●●●

●

●●●

●●

●

●●

●●

●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●● ●

●

●

●

●

Note: does not include individuals reported as being younger than 18 years old (24 voters),

over 100 (1,280 voters), or those with missing birth dates (51,165 voters).

Points proportional to number of sent VBM ballots.

0

1

2

3

4

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Age

Percent undeliverable ballots

(a) 2020 PPP

41

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 42 of 116
Figure 4: Percent of undeliverable ballots, by age

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●

●

●

●

●●●●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●

●

●●●●

●●●

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

●●●●●

●●●●

●●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Note: does not include individuals reported as being younger than 18 years old (61 voters),

over 100 (1,448 voters), or those with missing birth dates (112,421 voters).

Points proportional to number of sent VBM ballots.

0

1

2

3

4

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Age

Percent undeliverable ballots

(b) 2018 GE

42

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 43 of 116
Figure 4: Percent of undeliverable ballots, by age

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●●●

●●●

●●

●●

●

●

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

●●●

●●

●●

●●●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

Note: does not include individuals reported as being younger than 18 years old (233 voters),

over 100 (1,299 voters), or those with missing birth dates (84,988 voters).

Points proportional to number of sent VBM ballots.

0

1

2

3

4

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Age

Percent undeliverable ballots

(c) 2016 GE

43

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 44 of 116
8 Rejected VBM ballots ("voter-caused error" or no signature), returned before 7 PM Election Day deadline, by race

and ethnicity

58 In this section I analyze domestic (non-UOCAVA) VBM ballots that were were received by

SOEs prior to 7 PM on Election Day, but that had a final daily upload code as either a "voter-caused

error" (E) or the envelope missing a signature (N), in each of the three elections.24 It is important

to note that the rejection rates exclude any VBM domestic non-UOCAVA ballots received prior to

the 7 PM Election Day deadline that were successfully cured through the cure affidavit process by

the voter. In other words, the tables include only those VBM ballots with a "voter-caused error"

or missing signature that were not cured by voters.

59 For example, in the 2020 PPP, there were over 1,400 VBM ballots received on time by

SOEs that had a "voter-caused error" and over 5,700 VBM ballots received on time that had an an

unsigned returned ballot that were not cured. That is, canvassing boards rejected more than 7,200

VBM ballots that were cast by the end of Election Day by non-UOCAVA voters in the March 2020

election, that voters, whose VBM ballot was returned on time, did not provide an affidavit cure. The

figures are even larger in the 2018 GE and the 2016 GE, with over 11,000 on time, rejected, uncured

VBM ballots cast in both elections that had either "voter-cause" errors or missing signatures.

60 Table 4 reveals that the overall rejection rate for VBM ballots received on time by SOEs in

the 2020 PPP was higher than in both the 2018 GE and 2016 GE. In the 2020 PPP, 0.56 percent of

non-UOCAVA VBM ballots returned on time were ultimately rejected by county canvassing boards.

This raises concerns about the utility of the affidavit cure process for VBM voters who returned

24I calculate these rates by dividing the number of VBM ballots with codes of either E or N by the

total number of ballots with codes of E, N, and V, that is, the number of VBM ballots returned on

time by voters. That is, for each of the three elections, I restrict my analysis to non-UOCAVA voters

whose VBM return envelope was received by an SOE prior to the 7 PM Election Day cutoff.

44

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 45 of 116
their VBM ballot by Election Day, but were unable to cure either their unsigned VBM envelope or

cure a problem with their VBM return envelope.

Table 4: Rates of "voter-caused errors" and missing signatures among domestic VBM ballots

Ballot characteristic 2016 GE 2018 GE 2020 PPP

Percent "voter-caused error" 0.19 0.09 0.11

Percent unsigned 0.24 0.37 0.44

Percent "voter-caused error" or unsigned 0.43 0.46 0.56

61 Tables 5, 6, and 7, break down the rates of VBM ballots that were returned to SOEs on time

by White, Black, and Hispanic voters, but that were rejected by canvassing boards and uncured

by voters. That is, these voters, who returned their ballot in before the state’s 7 PM Election

Day deadline but had their VBM ballot rejected by a canvassing board due to the return envelope

having a "voter-caused error" or because the return envelope was missing the voter’s signature, did

not cure their VBM ballot.

Table 5: Rates of "voter-caused errors" and missing signatures among domestic VBM ballots,

White voters

Ballot characteristic 2016 GE 2018 GE 2020 PPP

Percent "voter-caused error" 0.13 0.07 0.11

Percent unsigned 0.13 0.22 0.33

Percent "voter-caused error" or unsigned 0.26 0.29 0.44

Table 6: Rates of "voter-caused errors" and missing signatures among domestic VBM ballots,

Black voters

Ballot characteristic 2016 GE 2018 GE 2020 PPP

Percent "voter-caused error" 0.31 0.19 0.10

Percent unsigned 0.58 0.77 0.73

Percent "voter-caused error" or unsigned 0.90 0.96 0.84

62 As Tables 5, 6, and 7 make clear, the overall rejection rates for registered voters who cast

on-time VBM ballots and that were not cured were higher for Black and Hispanic voters who

45

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 46 of 116
Table 7: Rates of "voter-caused errors" and missing signatures among domestic VBM ballots,

Hispanic voters

Ballot characteristic 2016 GE 2018 GE 2020 PPP

Percent "voter-caused error" 0.36 0.10 0.12

Percent unsigned 0.55 0.84 0.95

Percent "voter-caused error" or unsigned 0.91 0.94 1.07

returned their VBM ballots on time, compared to White voters in all three elections. In the 2016

GE, the 2018 GE, and the 2020 PPP, over 0.84 percent of all VBM ballots returned on time by

Black voters, and over 0.91 percent of all VBM ballots returned by Hispanic voters, were rejected

by county canvassing boards and not cured by the voters. The comparable VBM rejection rate for

White voters in all three elections was less than 0.50 percent, or roughly half the rates for minority

voters in the three elections.

63 For each Florida county in the 2020 PPP, I plot county-level rejection rates of on-time

domestic (non-UOCAVA) VBM ballots that were rejected for a "voter-caused error" (horizontal

axis) or a missing signature (vertical axis). In the following figures, I do this for all on-time VBM

ballots returned by White, Black, and Hispanic VBM voters, respectively. Voters of these ballots

returned their VBM ballots to SOEs prior to the state’s VBM deadline, but they did not successfully

cure their rejected VBM ballot. These patterns hold for the 2018 GE and 2016 GE, as reported in

Appendix A.5.

64 Figures 5a, 5b, and 5c break these rejection rates out by the race/ethnicity of VBM voters

by county in the 2020 PPP. The 45-degree line merely helps reference the spacial location of counties

in the three plots to identify the rejection rate of the ballots rejected for a "voter-caused error" or

a missing signature that went uncured. In addition, for reference purposes, I have darkened the

dots for the five counties in Florida that were once under Section 5 coverage of the Voting Rights

Act—Collier, Hardee, Hendry, Hillsborough, and Monroe.

46

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 47 of 116
65 As the three plots clearly display, across most of Florida’s counties the rejection rates of

VBM ballots returned on time by White voters are much lower and much more concentrated around

zero on both axes than for Black and Hispanic voters who also returned their VBM ballots on time

but who did not cure them. Compared to White voters returning their VBM ballots on time, Black

and Hispanic voters who successfully returned their VBM ballot by the state’s 7 PM Election Day

deadline had a higher percentage of their VBM ballots rejected for a missing signature or some

other "voter-caused error."

66 For example, in the 2020 PPP, Orange County’s rejection rate for on-time VBM ballots

received with a missing signature was twice as high for Black voters and three times as high for

Hispanic voters than for White voters who cast on-time VBM ballots.

67 Furthermore, the three sets of figures reveal that the rejection rates for on-time VBM ballots

due to a "voter-caused error" vary greatly across the 67 counties. For example, in Lee County in

the 2020 PPP, Black and Hispanic voters who cast a VBM ballot that was received by the SOE

office on time were several times more likely to have their VBM ballot rejected for a "voter-caused

error" than comparable White voters. Although the VBM daily uploads do not provide the reason

for "voter-caused error," or why a voter was not able to cure his or her VBM ballot, the figures

provide evidence that minority voters in counties across the state, who returned their VBM ballot

on time but had a problem with their voter’s certificate, did not cure their ballot.

47

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 48 of 116
Figure 5: Rejected on-time VBM ballots in 2020 PPP, percent "voter-caused error" versus percent

no signature, by race, by county

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●● ●

●

●

● ●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ● ● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

● ● ●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

Brevard

Broward

Collier

Miami−Dade

Duval

Escambia

Hernando

Hillsborough

Lee

Manatee

Marion

Orange Osceola

Palm Beach

Pasco

Pinellas Sarasota

Seminole

St. Lucie

Volusia

Note: displays counties with unsigned and voter−caused error

rates less than or equal to four percent. Top 20 counties

in terms of returned VBM ballots are labeled.

0

1

2

3

4

0 1 2 3 4

Percent voter−caused error among domestic returned VBM ballots

Percent unsigned among domestic returned VBM ballots

(a) White VBM voters

48

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 49 of 116
Figure 5: Rejected on-time VBM ballots in 2020 PPP, percent "voter-caused error" versus percent

no signature, by race, by county

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Brevard

Broward

Collier

Miami−Dade

Duval

Escambia

Hernando

Hillsborough

Lee

Manatee

Marion

Orange

Osceola

Palm Beach

Pasco

Pinellas

Sarasota

Seminole St. Lucie

Volusia

Note: displays counties with unsigned and voter−caused error

rates less than or equal to four percent. Top 20 counties

in terms of returned VBM ballots are labeled.

0

1

2

3

4

0 1 2 3 4

Percent voter−caused error among domestic returned VBM ballots

Percent unsigned among domestic returned VBM ballots

(b) Black VBM voters

49

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 50 of 116
Figure 5: Rejected on-time VBM ballots in 2020 PPP, percent "voter-caused error" versus percent

no signature, by race, by county

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Brevard

Broward

Collier

Miami−Dade

Duval

Escambia

Hernando

Hillsborough

Lee

Manatee

Marion

Orange

Osceola

Palm Beach

Pasco

Pinellas

Sarasota

Seminole St. Lucie

Volusia

Note: displays counties with unsigned and voter−caused error

rates less than or equal to four percent. Top 20 counties

in terms of returned VBM ballots are labeled.

0

1

2

3

4

0 1 2 3 4

Percent voter−caused error among domestic returned VBM ballots

Percent unsigned among domestic returned VBM ballots

(c) Hispanic VBM voters

50

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 51 of 116
68 The rates of rejected VBM ballots that were received by SOEs in the 2018 GE and the 2016

GE before the Election Day cutoff, broken down by the race and ethnicity of the VBM voter, are

available in Appendix A.3. The conclusions based on the plots from the two general elections are

qualitatively similar to those based on the 2020 PPP. For example, in the 2018 GE, roughly 1.5

percent of on-time returned VBM ballots cast by Black voters and 1.0 of ballots cast by Hispanic

voters in Miami-Dade county were rejected in the 2018 GE for a missing signature, but only 0.5

percent of VBM ballots cast by White voters had a similar problem in that election. The disparity

in on-time VBM ballots that had an uncured missing a signature is even higher for minority voters

compared to White voters in Volusia County.

9 Number and cure rates of VBM ballots received with

"voter-caused errors" or missing signatures in Miami-Dade

County, by race and ethnicity

69 Unfortunately, since they are static data, it is not possible to use the final VBM daily

files uploaded by SOEs to the Division of Elections in the three elections to determine whether

voters who returned their VBM ballot on-time, but whose VBM return envelope had a problem,

were able to successfully cure their ballot through the affidavit cure process. To get a sense of

the VBM affidavit cure success rate for voters whose VBM return envelope had a "voter-caused

error" or missing signature, I draw county-level data from the 2020 PPP and the 2018 GE provided

to counsel by the Miami-Dade SOE. The data appear to include the records of voters who were

successfully contacted by, and who responded to, the Miami-Dade SOE about their on-time VBM

ballot having a problem with the return envelope. The records do not include information about

VBM voters who had problems with their VBM ballots but who did not return a cure affidavit

51

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 52 of 116
to the SOE.25 As such, these figures are conservative and underinclusive, as there are likely other

voters who returned their VBM ballot on time, but who were not able to be contacted by the

Miami-Dade SOE about the affidavit cure process, or if they were notified, did not respond with

an affidavit cure form.

70 Not all the VBM voters who responded with a cure affidavit were successful in curing their

VBM ballot that had a problem with the envelope. From the Miami-Dade individual-level data, it

is possible to determine the success rate of those individuals who responded to the SOE after being

informed that their on-time VBM ballot had a problem with the return envelope. Some voters

apparently did not provide the SOE a required ID with their cure affidavit form; others provided

an "illegible ID" or an "expired ID" with their cure affidavit form.

71 Table 8 provides the number of cure affidavits returned by non-UOCAVA Miami-Dade voters

who cast on-time VBM ballots but that had a problem with the return envelope, and the successful

cure rate of those who returned an affidavit cure form for the the 2018 GE and the 2020 PPP,

broken down by the race and ethnicity of the VBM voters.26 In the 2018 GE, for example, I am

able to identify 203 Black VBM voters who went through the cure process; only 55.7 percent of

them were successful with the absentee cure process. In contrast, 73.7 percent of Hispanic VBM

voters who tried to cure their VBM ballot, and 71.2 percent of White VBM voters who tried to

cure their VBM ballot, had success providing the necessary documentation with their cure affidavit.

Although the success rate was higher for the 91 Black VBM voters who went through the process

in the 2020 PPP, it still lagged behind Hispanic and White VBM voters who navigated the affidavit

cure process.

27 Again, these figures are underinclusive, as there are likely other voters who returned their

25I received no documentation with the Miami-Dade data; there are discrepancies in the two elections

in the labels used in headers of the data.

26I match the unique voter ID number provided in the Miami-Dade data files with the voter ID in

the April 2020 statewide voter file to determine the race/ethnicity of the voters in the county’s VBM

affidavit cure data files.

27

52

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 53 of 116
Table 8: Cure affidavits and success rates in Miaim-Dade County

Black Hispanic White Other

Election Count Rate Count Rate Count Rate Count Rate

2018 GE 203 55.67 600 73.67 153 71.90 93 62.37

2020 PPP 91 76.92 447 81.21 172 86.63 52 88.46

VBM ballot on time, but who were not able to be contacted by the Miami-Dade SOE about the

affidavit cure process, or if they were notified, did not respond with an affidavit cure form.

10 VBM delivery date and VBM ballots not counted because

they were returned by voters after 7 PM Election Day

deadline, by race and ethnicity

72 This section examines the relationship between the delivery date of VBM ballots by SOEs to

voters requesting them, and the percentage of those VBM ballots that were not counted because the

arrived to SOE officess after the state’s 7 PM Election Day deadline. Using the same methods as

above, I again differentiate among VBM ballots returned by White, Black, and Hispanic registered

voters.

73 The issue of late-delivered VBM ballots is not new in Florida. At the June 18-22, 2017

Annual Summer Conference held by the Florida Supervisors of Elections, Clay County Assistant

Supervisor of Elections, Robin Conte, gave a PowerPoint presentation entitled, "Vote By Mail

Envelope REDESIGN," that included a slide entitled, "Shared Issues," "Late Delivery."28

28Mentioned under "Late Delivery" was "Voter Responsible- Waits until the last minute,"

as well as "USPS Responsible - A handful of ballots returned several weeks after the election; delivered by the USPS on the same day with varied post-election metered date." See

"Vote by Mail Envelope REDESIGN," Clay County Supervisor of Elections, Florida Supervisors of Elections 2017 Annual Summer Conference, June 18-22, 2017, available at

https://www.myfloridaelections.com/portals/fsase/Documents/ConferencePresentations/

Robin_Conte_-_VBM_Redesign_reduced.pdf?timestamp=1499433610334 (last accessed May 16,

2020).

53

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 54 of 116
74 As reported in Table 1, thousands of ballots in each of the three elections were returned

by voters after the statutory Election Day cutoff. Here, I restrict my analysis to non-UOCAVA

VBM voters in each of the three elections, and limit the analysis to VBM ballots with final codes of

provided (code of P), voted (V), no signature (N), and "voter-caused error" (E). These ballots were

all delivered to voters who requested a ballot, and thus in principle, they could have been returned

by a voter either on-time or after the state’s deadline.

75 The three figures that follow for the 2020 PPP election, broken down by the race and

ethnicity of VBM voters, plot the day a VBM ballot was delivered by an SOE (through the final

statutory day of delivery prior to each the election), and the rate associated with the VBM ballots

delivered on each day that were received by SOEs after the 7 PM Election Day deadline.

76 Plotted along the horizontal axis of Figures 6a, 6b, and 6c are the days SOEs delivered VBM

ballots to voters who requested them in the 2020 PPP. In each plot, the delivery dates begin 35

days prior to the election and extend through the statutory cutoff date that SOEs were permitted

to deliver VBM ballots to voters prior to the March 17, 2020 PPP Election Day.29 The size of each

dot on each day is scaled proportional to the number of VBM ballots that were delivered on that

day by SOEs. The vertical height of each daily dot is the percentage of VBM ballots that were

delivered on each day that SOEs recorded as having been return after Election Day.

77 Of course, a VBM ballot that arrived at an SOE’s office after Election Day may have been

no fault of the voter—a voter who requested a VBM ballot may have immediately filled it out and

returned it that same day via post. But it is certainly possible that the ballot took several days to

arrive in the mail to the voter or took several days to be delivered back to the SOE. Indeed, some

SOEs advise voters that it could take at least one week for ballots to reach reach their offices (and

presumably just as long for VBM ballots to reach voters once they are mailed out by SOEs).

29For the statutory change from four days to eight days that an SOE may deliver a requested VBM

ballot to a voter, see "Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 7066," codified as Title IX, § 101.62

(2), available at http://laws.flrules.org/2019/162, last accessed May 24, 2020.

54

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 55 of 116
78 Three notable points can be observed in the plots for the 2020 PPP. First, ignoring the height

of each dot, it is clear from the three plots that a greater proportion of VBM ballots delivered to

Black and Hispanic registered voters were sent by SOEs closer to Election Day than to White

registered voters. The relative size of the February 13 dot in Figures 6b and 6c (the plots for Black

and Hispanic registered voters, respectively), is much larger than the comparable dot in Figure 6a

(the plot for White registered voters). It is clear from the three plots that the bulk of VBM ballots

mailed out to White registered voters who requested them were done on February 11, exactly five

weeks before Election Day, the first day SOEs were permitted to send out VBM ballots. Such is

not the case for Black and Hispanic registered voters who requested a VBM ballot. This is most

visible in the three figures by the different sizes of the dots on February 13, 2020, which was 33

days before Election Day, the third day SOEs were permitted to deliver VBM domestic ballots to

those who requested them.

79 Second, it is clear by the height of the dots on most delivery days for Black and Hispanic

registered voters is higher than for White registered voters. Indeed, in the figures for Black and

Hispanic VBM voters, there are at least six days in which the percent of returned VBM ballots that

were returned late exceeds 2.5 percent; there are only four such days in the figure for White VBM

voters.

80 Third, it is clear that many White, Black, and Hispanic registered voters had their requested

VBM ballots delivered in the final days leading up to the 2020 PPP, but black voters were particularly more likely to have their VBM ballot delivered during the final week, beginning Tuesday

March 3. Not surprisingly, anywhere between 2 and 8 percent of these late-delivered VBM ballots

that voters returned to SOEs arrived too late to be counted.

81 The rates in the 2018 GE and the 2016 GE of rejected VBM ballots that were received by

SOEs after the 7 PM Election Day deadline, broken down by the race and ethnicity of the VBM

voter, are available in Appendix A.4. The conclusions based on the plots from the two general

55

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 56 of 116
elections are qualitatively similar to those based on the 2020 PPP. In short, the closer to the

statutory four-day cutoff prior to Election Day (that in place at the time for those two elections)

that a VBM mail ballot was delivered by SOEs, the greater the likelihood that these VBM ballots

arrived late, and that the rejection rates for minority voters across time were generally higher than

they were for White voters.

56

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 57 of 116
Figure 6: Day of VBM delivery and percent VBM returned late, 2020 PPP, by race and ethnicity

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ●

●

● ●

● ●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

Note: shows dates with at least twenty returned VBM ballots.

Points proportional to total number of returned VBM ballots.

0

5

10

15

February 11, 2020February 18, 2020February 25, 2020

March 3, 2020

VBM ballot delivery date

Percent of late VBM ballots

Delivery date

● More than eight days prior to Election Day

(a) White VBM voters

57

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 58 of 116
Figure 6: Day of VBM delivery and percent VBM returned late, 2020 PPP, by race and ethnicity

● ●

● ●

● ●

● ●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

Note: shows dates with at least twenty returned VBM ballots.

Points proportional to total number of returned VBM ballots.

0

5

10

15

February 11, 2020February 18, 2020February 25, 2020

March 3, 2020

VBM ballot delivery date

Percent of late VBM ballots

Delivery date

● More than eight days prior to Election Day

(b) Black VBM voters

58

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 59 of 116
Figure 6: Day of VBM delivery and percent VBM returned late, 2020 PPP, by race and ethnicity

● ●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

Note: shows dates with at least twenty returned VBM ballots.

Points proportional to total number of returned VBM ballots.

0

5

10

15

February 11, 2020February 18, 2020February 25, 2020

March 3, 2020

VBM ballot delivery date

Percent of late VBM ballots

Delivery date

● More than eight days prior to Election Day

(c) Hispanic VBM voters

11 Accepted domestic non-UOCAVA VBM ballots received

by SOEs after Election Day, by race and ethnicity

82 This brief section identifies what might be innocent recording errors by SOEs in their final

daily upload files. Alternatively, they might indicate the discretion of SOEs to count as valid VBM

ballots that they receive after Election Day, contravening state statute. Table 9 provides the count

of VBM ballots received after Election Day in the three elections. Although the total number of

VBM ballots with a date received that is after Election Day is relatively small for each race and

ethnic group of VBM voters, it is not zero, indicating either coding errors or discretion by the SOEs.

59

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 60 of 116
Table 9: Codes on late domestic VBM ballots, by race

All Black Hispanic White

Election E N V E N V E N V E N V

2016 GE 7,584 23 1,322 1,041 9 333 1,643 1 154 4,045 12 697

2018 GE 15,028 74 818 1,768 14 118 3,243 19 100 8,583 30 517

2020 PPP 8,969 6 308 1,414 0 52 1,379 0 23 5,586 6 205

12 Time between request date and delivery date for requested

ballots, by race and ethnicity

83 I now turn to the relationship between the date an SOE reports that a voter requested a

VBM ballot be sent, and the date an SOE delivered that ballot to the requesting voter. I am able

to distinguish whether there are any differences in the time-lag between when a request was made

and when an SOE delivered the ballot for White, Black, and Hispanic registered voters. SOEs

are required under Florida statute to deliver VBM ballots to those who request them within two

business days after receiving a request for such a ballot.30

84 Table 10 provides information for the 2020 PPP, the 2018 GE, and the 2016 GE regarding

the average number of days between a voter making a domestic VBM ballot request 35 or fewer days

before Election Day, and the date an SOE recorded the delivery date, broken down by racial and

ethnic groups.31 Table 10 makes it clear that the turnaround time that it takes SOEs to deliver VBM

ballots to Black, and especially Hispanic, registered voters is longer than that to White registered

voters in all three elections.

30See Title IX, § 101.62 4(b), "Request for vote-by-mail ballots," available at http://www.leg.state.

fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0100-0199/0101/0101.html (last

accessed May 21, 2020).

31I limit the data to ballot requests within 35 days of an election, thereby excluding standing VBM

requests that may predate an election by months. The table also drops date differences that appear to

reflect erroneous dates, i.e., cases were delivery dates precede request dates.

60

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 61 of 116
Table 10: Average days between ballot requesting and delivery date, by race, for ballots requested

within 35 days of Election Day

All Black Hispanic White

Election Count Days Count Days Count Days Count Days

2016 General 715,185 2.32 101,561 2.50 160,295 3.20 392,048 1.90

2018 General 742,979 2.36 79,820 2.70 130,629 3.67 476,052 1.93

2020 PPP 161,917 1.60 16,767 1.53 19,320 2.23 116,849 1.50

85 That SOEs do not deliver VBM ballots in as timely a fashion to Black and Hispanic registered voters who request them increases the costs for these potential mail voters. Because of the

delay, these voters will have less time to return their VBM ballot to the SOE. Of course, registered

voters in Florida who request a VBM ballot do not control how quickly SOEs respond to their VBM

requests; they also do not control how long it takes the U.S. Postal Service to deliver ballots to

them, or how long it takes the Postal Service to return to the SOEs their completed ballots. But

in all three elections, the gap in the date a VBM ballot was requested, and the date a VBM was

delivered, by SOEs clearly raises the costs of voting for Black and Hispanic registered voters who

want to vote by mail.

13 Conclusion

86 My analysis of mail-in ballots in Florida over three recent statewide elections comports

with the academic literature on the costs of voting. Florida’s system of mail voting particularly

burdens Black and Hispanic registered voters, registered voters needing assistance with voting, and

young and old registered voters. These registered voters bear the greatest costs—information, time,

transportation, and financial—under Florida’s current VBM system.

87 My analysis relies on official state records of valid and invalid VBM ballots cast in the 2020

PPP, the 2018 GE, and the 2016 GE. My analysis includes undeliverable VBM ballots that never

61

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 62 of 116
made it to the requesting registered voter, VBM ballots not counted by county elections offices

because they arrived after Florida’s 7 PM Election Day deadline, VBM ballots rejected by county

canvassing boards for an alleged "voter-caused error" on the return envelope or a missing signature

on the return envelope, and VBM ballots that voters (in Miami-Dade County) tried, but failed, to

cure through the cure affidavit process in the 2020 PPP and the 2018 GE.

88 As my analysis of the 2018 GE and the 2016 GE reveals, problems of voting by mail for

these groups of registered voters are not new; they pre-date the coronavirus pandemic. The threat

to the health of prospective voters brought on by COVID-19, however, has shown a light on the

pre-existing condition afflicting communities of color, those in need of assistance to vote, and young

and old registered voters in Florida. Pre-coronavirus, these groups of registered voters were already

sickened by Florida’s burdensome system of voting by mail; the threat of COVID-19 only further

jeopardizes their condition in the state’s upcoming elections.

89 In all three elections, I find that VBM ballot rejection rates also vary substantially across

Florida’s 67 counties, making the success of voting a valid mail ballot subject to a voter’s county

of registration.

90 In conclusion, I find that Black and Hispanic registered voters, registered voters indicating

that they need assistance with voting, and young and elderly registered voters, are disproportionately more likely not to have their mail ballots count in Florida, whether it is because they never

receive a requested VBM ballot, because their VBM ballot arrived after the state’s 7 PM Election Day deadline, or because their returned VBM ballot envelope has a problem with the voter’s

certificate.

91 I would like to reserve the right to continue to supplement my declarations in light of

additional facts, data, and testimony.

62

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 63 of 116
92 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this May

26, 2020, at Alachua County, Florida.

Daniel A. Smith, Ph.D.

63

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 64 of 116
References

Aldrich, John H. 1993. “Rational choice and turnout.” American Journal of Political Science (1):246–

278.

Amos, Brian, Daniel A. Smith and Casey Ste. Claire. 2017. “Reprecincting and Voting Behavior.”

Political Behavior 39(1):133–156.

Belt, Rabia. 2016. “Contemporary Voting Rights Controversies Through the Lens of Disability.”

Stanford Law Review 68(6):1491–1550.

Bonica, Adam, Jacob M. Grumbach, Charlotte Hill and Hakeem Jefferson. 2020. “All-Mail Voting in Colorado Increases Turnout and Reduces Turnout Inequality.”. Unpublished working paper.

URL: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8n4zjvgmytim1rv/BonicaGrumbachHillJ effersonMailV oting.pdf

Brady, Henry E. and John E. McNulty. 2011. “Turning out to vote: The costs of finding and getting

to the polling place.” American Political Science Review 105(01):115–134.

Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.

Fay, Jessica A. 2005. “Elderly Electors Go Postal: Ensuring Absentee Ballot Integrity for Older

Voters.” Elder Law Journal 13:453–487.

Ferejohn, John A. and Morris P. Fiorina. 1974. “The paradox of not voting: A decision theoretic

analysis.” American Political Science Review 68(2):525–536.

Fowler, James H. 2006. “Habitual voting and behavioral turnout.” The Journal of Politics 68(2):335–

344.

Fraga, Bernard L. 2018. The Turnout Gap: Race, Ethnicity, and Political Inequality in a Diversifying America. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Fujiwara, Thomas, Kyle Meng and Tom Vogl. 2016. “Habit formation in voting: Evidence from

rainy elections.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 8(4):160–88.

Gomez, Brad T, Thomas G Hansford and George A Krause. 2007. “The Republicans should pray

for rain: Weather, turnout, and voting in US presidential elections.” The Journal of Politics

69(3):649–663.

Green, Donald P and Ron Shachar. 2000. “Habit formation and political behaviour: Evidence of

64

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 65 of 116
consuetude in voter turnout.” British Journal of Political Science 30(4):561–573.

Gronke, Paul. 2012. Early Voting: The Quiet Revolution in American Elections. In Law and

Election Politics: The Rules of the Game, ed. Matthew Streb. New York, NY: Routledge New

York pp. 134–48.

Haspel, Moshe and H Gibbs Knotts. 2005. “Location, location, location: Precinct placement and

the costs of voting.” The Journal of Politics 67(2):560–573.

Herron, Michael C. and Daniel A. Smith. 2012. “Souls to the Polls: Early Voting in Florida in the

Shadow of House Bill 1355.” Election Law Journal 11(3):331–347.

Herron, Michael C. and Daniel A. Smith. 2013. “The Effects of House Bill 1355 on Voter Registration

in Florida.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 13(3):279–305.

Herron, Michael C. and Daniel A. Smith. 2014. “Race, Party, and the Consequences of Restricting

Early Voting in Florida in the 2012 General Election.” Political Research Quarterly 67(3):646–665.

Herron, Michael C. and Daniel A. Smith. 2015. “Precinct Closing Times in Florida During the 2012

General Election.” Election Law Journal 14(3):220–238.

Herron, Michael C and Jasjeet S Sekhon. 2005. “Black candidates and black voters: Assessing the

impact of candidate race on uncounted vote rates.” The Journal of Politics 67(1):154–177.

Kaplan, Ethan and Haishan Yuan. 2020. “Early Voting Laws, Voter Turnout, and Partisan Vote

Composition: Evidence from Ohio.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 12(1):32–

60.

Karlan, Pamela S. 2007. “Framing the voting rights claims of cognitively impaired individuals.”

McGeorge L. Rev. 38:917.

Karp, Jeffrey A and Susan A Banducci. 2001. “Absentee voting, mobilization, and participation.”

American Politics Research 29(2):183–195.

Knack, Steve. 1994. “Does rain help the Republicans? Theory and evidence on turnout and the

vote.” Public Choice 79(1-2):187–209.

Kousser, Thad and Megan Mullin. 2007. “Does Voting by Mail Increase Participation? Using

Matching to Analyze a Natural Experiment.” Political Analysis 15(4):428–445.

65

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 66 of 116
Leighley, Jan E. and Jonathan Nagler. 2013. Who Votes Now?: Demographics, Issues, Inequality,

and Turnout in the United States. Princeton University Press.

Merrifield, John. 1993. “The institutional and political factors that influence voter turnout.” Public

Choice 77(3):657–667.

Miller, Peter and Sierra Powell. 2016. “Overcoming voting obstacles: The use of convenience voting

by voters with disabilities.” American Politics Research 44(1):28–55.

Mukherjee, Elora. 2009. “Abolishing the time tax on voting.” Notre Dame L. Rev. 85:177.

Nagler, Jonathan and Jan Leighley. 1992. “Presidential campaign expenditures: Evidence on allocations and effects.” Public Choice 73(3):319–333.

Plutzer, Eric. 2002. “Becoming a Habitual Voter: Inertia, Resources, and Growth in Young Adulthood.” American Political Science Review 96(1):41–56.

Riker, William H and Peter C Ordeshook. 1968. “A theory of the calculus of voting.” American

Political Science Review 62(1):25–42.

Rosenstone, Steven J. 1982. “Economic adversity and voter turnout.” American Journal of Political

Science pp. 25–46.

Schur, Lisa and Douglas Kruse. 2014. Disability and Election Policies and Practices. In The measure

of American elections, ed. Barry C. Burden, and Charles Stewart III. Cambridge University Press

pp. 188–222.

Schur, Lisa, Meera Adya and Mason Ameri. 2015. “Accessible democracy: reducing voting obstacles

for people with disabilities.” Election Law Journal 14(1):60–65.

Shino, Enrijeta and Daniel A. Smith. 2018. “Timing the Habit: Voter Registration and Turnout.”

Electoral Studies 51:72–82.

Shino, Enrijeta and Daniel A. Smith. 2020. “Mobilizing the Youth Vote?” Forthcoming. Election

Law Journal .

Sinclair, Betsy, Thad E Hall and R Michael Alvarez. 2011. “Flooding the vote: Hurricane Katrina

and voter participation in New Orleans.” American politics research 39(5):921–957.

Stein, Robert M. 2015. “Election administration during natural disasters and emergencies: Hurri66

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 67 of 116
cane Sandy and the 2012 election.” Election Law Journal 14(1):66–73.

Stewart III, Charles. 2010. “Losing votes by mail.” New York University Journal of Legislation and

Public Policy 13:573–602.

Stewart III, Charles. 2017. “2016 Survey of the Performance of American Elections: Final Report.”

MIT .

Tokaji, Daniel P and Ruth Colker. 2007. “Absentee voting by people with disabilities: Promoting

access and integrity.” McGeorge L. Rev. 38:1015–1046.

Tomz, Michael and Robert P Van Houweling. 2003. “How does voting equipment affect the racial

gap in voided ballots?” American Journal of Political Science 47(1):46–60.

Wand, Jonathan N., Kenneth W. Shotts, Jasjeet S. Sekhon, Walter R. Mebane Jr, Michael C.

Herron and Henry E. Brady. 2001. “The Butterfly Did It: The Aberrant Vote for Buchanan in

Palm Beach County, Florida.” American Political Science Review 95(4):793–810.

Zelin, William and Daniel A. Smith. 2020. “Weathering the Storm: Did Hurricane Michael Affect

Voter Behavior in Florida in the 2018 General Election?” Paper presented at the 2020 Annual

Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, San Juan, PR.

67

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 68 of 116
68

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 69 of 116
A Appendix

A.1 Curriculum vitae of Daniel A. Smith

8 May 2020 

DANIEL A. SMITH 

Curriculum Vitae 

Mailing Address Contact 

Department of Political Science Office: 303 Anderson Hall 

234 Anderson Hall Phone: 352.273.2346 

PO Box 117325 Fax: 352.392.8127

University of Florida Email: electionsmith@gmail.com dasmith@ufl.edu

Gainesville, FL 32611-7325 Homepage: http://people.clas.ufl.edu/dasmith/

 www.electionsmith.com

EDUCATION 

University of Wisconsin-Madison 

 Ph.D., Political Science, 1994 

 M.A., Political Science, 1989 

The Pennsylvania State University

 B.A., Political Science (Foreign Affairs) & B.A., History (cum laude), 1988 

 University Scholars Program (University Honors) 

 Phi Beta Kappa, Phi Alpha Theta 

 Macro Economics Program, Westminster College, Oxford University, Summer, 1987 

ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT 

University of Florida, Gainesville 

 Professor, Department of Political Science, 2010- 

 Chair, 2017- 

Graduate Coordinator, 2014-2016 

Associate Chair, 2013-2014 

Director, Graduate Program in Political Campaigning, 2007-2011 

Affiliate Professor, Center for African Studies, 2010- 

Affiliate Professor, The Bob Graham Center for Public Service, 2013- 

Internship Coordinator, Department of Political Science, 2005- 

Associate Professor (with tenure), Department of Political Science, 2003-2009 

University of Denver

 Associate Professor (with tenure), Department of Political Science, 2000-2003 

 Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, 1994-2000 

Director, University of Denver/University of Ghana Study Abroad Program, 1995-2002 

University of Ghana 

Senior Fulbright Scholar, Department of Political Science, 2000-01 

West Virginia University

 Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, 1993-1994 

Beloit College

 Visiting Lecturer, Warner Mills Teaching Fellow, Department of Government, 1992-1993 

University of Wisconsin-Madison

 Teaching Assistant, Department of Political Science, 1988; 1990-1991 

 Research Assistant, Center on Wisconsin Strategy, 1989-1991 

 Project Assistant, Department of Political Science, 1989-1990 

RESEARCH FELLOWSHIPS

University of Florida Term Professor, 2016-2018 

Research Associate, Ghana Center for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana), Accra, Ghana, Fall 2011 

University of Florida Research Foundation (UFRF) Professor, 2010-2012 

Visiting Scholar, Bill Lane Center for the Study of the North American West, Stanford University, Spring 2007 

Senior Research Scholar, Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, Washington, D.C., Spring 2006 

Senior Fulbright Scholar (Ghana), United States Department of State, 2000-01 

Research Associate, Ghana Center for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana), Accra, Ghana, 2000-01 

AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION 

American State Politics 

Voting and Elections (Political Campaigns, Campaign Finance, Voting Rights, Redistricting) 

Direct Democracy (Ballot Initiatives and Referendums) 

American Institutions (Political Parties and Interest Groups) 

Politics of Ghana (Voting and Elections) 69

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 70 of 116
2 

COURSES TAUGHT 

Intro to American Politics (Undergrad) State and Local Government (Grad & Undergrad) 

Interest Group Politics (Undergrad) Political Parties (Grad & Undergrad) 

Direct Democracy (Grad & Undergrad) Politics of Campaign Finance (Grad & Undergrad) 

Politics of Reform (Grad) Problems of Markets and Governments (Undergrad) 

SCHOLARLY PUBLICATIONS

BOOKS 

3) Todd Donovan, Daniel A. Smith, Tracy Osborne, and Christopher Z. Mooney. 2015. State and Local Politics: Institutions 

and Reform. 4th edition. Boston (MA): Cengage Learning Wadsworth. 

2) Daniel A. Smith and Caroline J. Tolbert. 2004. Educated by Initiative: The Effects of Direct Democracy on Citizens and Political 

Organizations in the American States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 

1) Daniel A. Smith. 1998. Tax Crusaders and the Politics of Direct Democracy. NY: Routledge. 

JOURNAL ARTICLES (current PhD students bold; former PhD students italics; current undergrad students italics) 

63) William D. Hicks, Seth C. McKee, and Daniel A. Smith, “Contemporary Views of Liberal Democracy and the 2016 

Presidential Election.” Accepted. PS: Political Science. 

62) Michael Martinez, Michael P. McDonald, Enrijeta Shino, and Daniel A. Smith. “Verifying Voter Registration 

Records.” Forthcoming. American Politics Review. 

61) Enrijeta Shino and Daniel A. Smith, “Mobilizing the Youth Vote? Early Voting on College Campuses.” Forthcoming. 

Election Law Journal. 

60) David Cottrell, Michael C. Herron, and Daniel A. Smith. Forthcoming. “Voting Lines, Equal Treatment, and Early 

Voting Check-in Times in Florida,” State Politics and Policy Quarterly. 

59) Charles Bullock, William D. Hicks, M.V. Hood, Seth C. McKee, and Daniel A. Smith. Early View. “The Election of 

African American State Legislators in the Modern South.” Legislative Studies Quarterly (April 1, 2020). 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lsq.12280. 

58) Thessalia Merivaki and Daniel A. Smith. 2019. “A Failsafe for Voters? Cast and Rejected Provisional Ballots in North 

Carolina,” Political Research Quarterly. (September 19, 2019). https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912919875816. 

57) Seth C. McKee, Daniel A. Smith, and M.V. (Trey) Hood. 2018. “The Comeback Kid: Donald Trump on Election 

Day in 2016.” PS: Political Science 52 (2): 239-242. 

56) Hannah L. Walker, Michael C. Herron, and Daniel A. Smith. 2019. “North Carolina voter turnout and early voting 

hours in the 2016 General Election.” Political Behavior 41: 841-69.

55) Daniel Biggers and Daniel A. Smith. 2019. “Does Threatening their Franchise Make Registered Voters More Likely 

to Participate? Evidence from an Aborted Voter Purge.” British Journal of Political Science. 

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123418000157

54) Brian Amos, Diana Forster, and Daniel A. Smith. 2018. “Who Signs? Ballot Petition Signatures as Political 

Participation,” American Review of Politics 36(2): 19-37. 

53) David Cottrell, Michael C. Herron, Javier M. Rodriguez, and Daniel A. Smith. 2019. “Mortality, Incarceration, and 

African-American Disenfranchisement in the Contemporary United States,” American Politics Research 47(2) 195–

237. 

52) Daniel A. Smith, Seth C. McKee, and M.V. (Trey) Hood, III. 2018. “Election Daze: Voting Modes and Voter 

Preferences in the 2016 Presidential Election,” Florida Political Chronicle 25(2): 123-141. 

51) Enrijeta Shino and Daniel A. Smith. 2018. “Timing the Habit: Voter Registration and Turnout in the American 

States.” Electoral Studies 51: 72-82. 

50) William D. Hicks, Carl E. Klarner, Seth C. McKee, and Daniel A. Smith. 2018. “Revisiting Majority-Minority 

Districts and Black Representation,” Political Research Quarterly 71(2): 408-23. 

49) Brian Amos, Daniel A. Smith, and Casey Ste. Claire. 2017. “Reprecincting and Voting Behavior,” Political Behavior 

39(1): 133-156. 

48) William D. Hicks, Seth C. McKee, and Daniel A. Smith. 2016. “A Bipartisan Election Reform? Explaining Support 

for Online Voter Registration in the American States,” American Politics Research 44(6): 1008-1036. 

47) Michael C. Herron and Daniel A. Smith. 2016. “Race, Shelby County, and the Voter Information Verification Act in 

North Carolina,” Florida State University Law Review 43: 465-506. 

46) William D. Hicks, Seth C. McKee, and Daniel A. Smith. 2016. “The Determinants of State Legislator Support for 

Restrictive Voter ID Laws,” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 16(4): 411-431.

45) Michael C. Herron and Daniel A. Smith. 2016. “Precinct Resources and Voter Wait Times,” Electoral Studies 42: 249–

63. 

44) Thessalia Merivaki and Daniel A. Smith. 2016. “Casting and Verifying Provisional Ballots in Florida,” Social Science 

Quarterly 97(3): 729–47. 

43) Michael C. Herron and Daniel A. Smith. 2015. “Precinct Closing Times in Florida during the 2012 General 

Election,” Election Law Journal 14: 220-38. 

42) William D. Hicks, Seth C. McKee, Mitchell Sellers, and Daniel A. Smith. 2015. “A Principle or a Strategy? Voter 

Identification Laws and Partisan Competition in the American States,” Political Research Quarterly 68: 18-33. 70

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 71 of 116
3 

41) Michael C. Herron and Daniel A. Smith. 2014. “Race, Party, and the Consequences of Restricting Early Voting in 

Florida in the 2012 General Election,” Political Research Quarterly 67: 646-65. 

40) Josh Brodbeck, Matthew T. Harrigan, and Daniel A. Smith. 2013. “Citizen and lobbyist access to Members of 

Congress: Who gets and who gives?” Interest Groups and Advocacy 2: 323-42. 

39) Michael C. Herron and Daniel A. Smith. 2013. “House Bill 1355 and Voter Registration in Florida,” State Politics and 

Policy Quarterly, 13: 279-305. 

38) Michael C. Herron and Daniel A. Smith. 2012. “Souls to the Polls: Early Voting in Florida in the Shadow of House 

Bill 1355,” Election Law Journal 11: 331-47. 

[Winner of the 2013 APSA State Politics and Policy Section’s Best Paper Award] 

37) Janine Parry, Daniel A. Smith, and Shayne Henry. 2011. “The Impact of Petition Signing on Voter Turnout,” Political 

Behavior 34: 117-36.

36) Stephanie Slade and Daniel A. Smith. 2011. “Obama to Blame? African American Surge Voters and the Ban on 

Same-Sex Marriage in Florida,” The Forum 9(2), Article 6: http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol9/iss2/art6. 

35) Daniel A. Smith. 2011. “Generating Scholarship from Public Service: Media Outreach, Nonprofit Foundation 

Service, and Legal Expert Consulting,” PS: Political Science & Politics 44: 255-9. 

34) Josh Huder, Jordan Ragusa, and Daniel A. Smith. 2011. “The Initiative to Shirk? The Effects of Ballot Measures 

on Congressional Voting Behavior,” American Politics Research 39 (3): 582-610. 

33) Daniel A. Smith, Caroline J. Tolbert, and Amanda Keller. 2010. “Electoral and Structural Losers and Support for a 

National Referendum in the U.S.” Electoral Studies 29: 509-520. 

32) Daniel A. Smith and Caroline J. Tolbert. 2010. “Direct Democracy, Public Opinion, and Candidate Choice,” Public 

Opinion Quarterly 74: 85-108. 

31) Caroline Tolbert, Daniel A. Smith, and John Green. 2009. “Mass Support for Redistricting Reform: District and 

Statewide Representational Winners and Losers.” Political Research Quarterly 62: 92-109. 

30) Todd Donovan, Caroline J. Tolbert, and Daniel A. Smith. 2009. “Political Engagement, Mobilization, and Direct 

Democracy,” Public Opinion Quarterly 73: 98-118. 

29) Daniel A. Smith. 2009. “An Americanist in Africa,” PS: Political Science & Politics 42 (4): 827-33. 

28) Beatrix Allah-Mensa, Kevin S. Fridy, Daniel A. Smith, and Ukoha Ukiwo. “2009 APSA Workshop on African Elections 

and Democracy,” PS: Political Science & Politics. 42 (4): 827-33. [Editors of a Special Symposium on the 2009 APSA 

Workshop in Ghana]. 

27) Todd Donovan, Caroline Tolbert, and Daniel A. Smith. 2008. “Priming Presidential Votes by Direct Democracy,” Journal 

of Politics 70: 1217-31. 

26) Daniel A. Smith and Dustin Fridkin. 2008. “Delegating Direct Democracy: Interparty Legislative Competition and 

the Adoption of the Initiative in the American States,” American Political Science Review 102: 333-50. 

25) Eric Heberlig, Bruce Larson, Daniel A. Smith, and Kristen Soltis. 2008. “Look Who’s Coming to Dinner: Direct 

versus Brokered Member Campaign Contributions to the NRCC.” American Politics Research 36 433-450. 

24) Daniel A. Smith and Caroline J. Tolbert. 2007. “The Instrumental and Educative Effects of Ballot Measures: 

Research on Direct Democracy in the American States.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 4: 417-446. 

23) Daniel A. Smith. 2007. “Representation and the Spatial Bias of Direct Democracy,” University of Colorado Law Review

78 (4): 1395-1434. 

22) Daniel A. Smith and Caroline J. Tolbert, and Daniel Bowen. 2007. “The Educative Effects of Direct Democracy: A 

Research Primer for Legal Scholars,” University of Colorado Law Review 78 (4): 1371-94. 

21) Daniel A. Smith, Matthew DeSantis, and Jason Kassel. 2006. “Same-Sex Marriage Ballot Measures and the 2004 

Presidential Election,” State and Local Government Review 38 (2): 78-91. 

20) Caroline J. Tolbert and Daniel A. Smith. 2006. “Representation and Direct Democracy in the United States.” 

Representation: The Journal of Representative Democracy 42 (1): 25-44. 

19) Elizabeth Garrett and Daniel A. Smith. 2005. “Veiled Political Actors and Campaign Disclosure Laws in Direct 

Democracy.” Election Law Journal 4 (4) 295-328. 

18) Caroline J. Tolbert and Daniel A. Smith. 2005. “The Educative Effects of Ballot Initiatives on Voter Turnout.” 

American Politics Research 33 (2): 283-309. 

17) Daniel A. Smith. 2004. “Peeling Away the Populist Rhetoric: Toward a Taxonomy of Anti-Tax Ballot Initiatives.” 

Journal of Public Budgeting and Finance 24 (4): 88-110. 

16) Daniel A. Smith. 2003. “Overturning Term Limits: The Legislature’s Own Private Idaho?” PS: Political Science & 

Politics 36 (2): 215-220. 

15) Caroline J. Tolbert, Ramona McNeal, and Daniel A. Smith. 2003. “Enhancing Civic Engagement: The Effect of 

Direct Democracy on Political Participation and Knowledge.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 3 (1): 23-41. 

14) Daniel A. Smith. 2003. “Distorted by Outside Money: National Parties and the Race for Colorado’s Seventh 

Congressional District,” PS: Political Science & Politics 36 (3) PSOnline E-Symposium 

<http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?aid=164256>. 

13) Daniel A. Smith and Joseph Lubinski. 2002. “Direct Democracy during the Progressive Era: A Crack in the 

Populist Veneer?” Journal of Policy History 14 (4): 349-83. 

12) Jonathan Temin and Daniel A. Smith. 2002. “Media Matters: Evaluating the Role of the Media in Ghana’s 2000 

Elections.” African Affairs 101: 585-605. 71

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 72 of 116
4 

11) Daniel A. Smith. 2002. “Consolidating Democracy? The Structural Underpinnings of Ghana’s 2000 Elections.” 

Journal of Modern African Studies 40 (4): 1-30. 

10) Daniel A. Smith. 2002. “Ghana’s 2000 Elections: Consolidating Multi-Party Democracy.” Electoral Studies 21 (3): 519-

26. 

9) Daniel A. Smith and Caroline Tolbert. 2001. “The Initiative to Party: Partisanship and Ballot Initiatives in California.” 

Party Politics 7 (6): 781-99. 

8) Caroline Tolbert, John Grummel, and Daniel A. Smith. 2001. “The Effect of Ballot Initiatives on Voter Turnout in 

the American States.” American Politics Research 29 (6): 625-48. 

7) Daniel A. Smith. 2001. “Homeward Bound? Micro-Level Legislative Responsiveness to Ballot Initiatives.” State Politics 

and Policy Quarterly 1 (1): 50-61. 

6) Daniel A. Smith and Robert J. Herrington. 2000. “The Process of Direct Democracy: Colorado’s 1996 Parental 

Rights Amendment.” Social Science Journal 37 (2): 179-94. 

5) Daniel A. Smith. 1999. “Reevaluating the Causes of Proposition 13.” Social Science History 23 (2): 173-210. 

4) Daniel A. Smith and Nathaniel Golich. 1998. “Some Unintended Consequences of TABOR.” Comparative State 

Politics 19 (6): 33-40. 

3) Daniel A. Smith, Kevin M. Leyden, and Stephen A. Borrelli. 1998. “Predicting the Outcomes of Presidential 

Commissions: Evidence from the Johnson and Nixon Years,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 28 (2): 269-85. 

2) Daniel A. Smith. 1996. “Populist Entrepreneur: Douglas Bruce and the Tax and Government Limitation Moment in 

Colorado, 1986-1992,” Great Plains Research 6 (2): 269-94. 

1) Daniel A. Smith. 1993: “Removing the Pluralist Blinders: Labor-Management Councils and Industrial Policy in the 

American States,” Economic Development Quarterly 7 (4): 373-89. 

UNDER REVIEW (current PhD students bold; former PhD students italics; current undergrad students italics) 

1) Enrijeta Shino and Daniel A. Smith, “Political Knowledge of Early Voters.” Revise and Resubmit. 

BOOK CHAPTERS (current PhD students bold; former PhD students italics; current undergrad students italics) 

28) Thessalia Merivaki and Daniel A. Smith. 2019. “Challenges in Voter Registration,” in The Future of Election 

Administration, Mitchell Brown, Kathleen Hale, and Bridgett A. King, eds. New York: Palgrave/Macmillan. 

27) Seth C. McKee and Daniel A. Smith. 2019. “Trump Territory,” in Florida and the 2016 Election of Donald J. Trump, 

Matthew Corrigan and Michael Binder, eds. Gainesville: University of Florida Press (49-75).

26) Daniel A. Smith, Brian Amos, Daniel Maxwell, and Tyler Richards. 2019. “Rigged? Assessing Election 

Administration in Florida's 2016 General Election,” in Florida and the 2016 Election of Donald J. Trump, Matthew 

Corrigan and Michael Binder, eds. Gainesville: University of Florida Press (pp. 154-74).

25) Daniel A. Smith, Dillon Boatner, Caitlin Ostroff, Pedro Otálora, and Laura Uribe, “Early Bird Special: 

Convenience Voting in Florida’s 2016 General Election,” in Florida and the 2016 Election of Donald J. Trump, 

Matthew Corrigan and Michael Binder, eds. Gainesville: University of Florida Press (pp.134-53).

24) Michael C. Herron, Daniel A. Smith, Wendy Serra, and Joseph Bafumi. 2017. “Wait Times and Voter Confidence: 

A Study of the 2014 General Election in Miami-Dade County,” in The American Election 2014: Contexts and 

Consequences, Tauna Sisco, Christopher Galdieri, and Jennifer Lucas, eds. Akron, OH: University of Akron Press 

(pp. 107-122). 

23) Joseph T. Eagleton and Daniel A. Smith. 2015. “Drawing the Line: Public Support for Amendments 5 and 6,” in 

Jigsaw Puzzle Politics in the Sunshine State, Seth C. McKee, ed. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida (pp. 109-

25). 

22) Diana Forster and Daniel A. Smith. 2014. “A Climate for Change? Environmental Ballot Measures,” in U.S. Climate 

Change Policy and Civic Society, Yael Wolinsky-Nahmias, ed. Washington, DC: C.Q. Press. 

21) Daniel A. Smith. 2014. “Direct Democracy,” in The Encyclopedia of Political Thought, Michael T. Gibbons, ed. Oxford: 

Wiley-Blackwell. 

20) William Hicks and Daniel A. Smith. 2013. “State Campaigns and Elections,” in The Oxford Handbook of State and 

Local Government, Donald Haider-Markel, ed. New York: Oxford University Press. 

19) Daniel A. Smith. 2012. “Direct Democracy: Regulating the ‘Will of the People,’” in Matthew J. Streb, ed., Law and 

Election Politics: The Rules of the Game, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. 

18) Daniel A. Smith. 2011. “Direct Democracy in Colorado: A Historical Perspective,” in Courtenay Daum, Robert 

Duffy, and John Straayer, eds., State of Change: Colorado Politics in the Twenty-first Century. Boulder: University of 

Colorado Press. 

17) Daniel A. Smith. 2010. “Direct Democracy and Candidate Elections,” in Stephen C. Craig and David Hill, The 

Electoral Challenge: Theory Meets Practice, 2nd edition. Washington, DC: CQ Press. 

16) Daniel A. Smith. 2010. “Financing Ballot Measures in the U.S.,” in Karin Gilland-Lutz and Simon Hug, eds., 

Financing Referendum Campaigns. New York: Palgrave. 

15) Daniel A. Smith. 2008. “Direct Democracy and Campaigns,” in Shaun Bowler and Amihai Glazer, eds., Direct 

Democracy’s Impact on American Political Institutions. New York: Palgrave. 

14) Todd Donovan and Daniel A. Smith. 2008. “Identifying and Preventing Signature Fraud on Ballot Measure 

Petitions,” in Michael Alvarez, Thad E. Hall, and Susan D. Hyde, eds., Election Fraud: Detecting and Deterring 

Electoral Manipulation. Washington, DC: Brookings. 

72

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 73 of 116
5 

13) Daniel A. Smith. 2008. “Direct Democracy and Election and Ethics Laws,” in Bruce Cain, Todd Donovan, and Caroline 

Tolbert, eds, Democracy in the States: Experiments in Elections Reform. Washington, DC: Brookings. 

12) Daniel A. Smith. 2007. “Ballot Initiatives,” in Gary Anderson and Kathryn Herr, eds., Encyclopedia of Activism and 

Social Justice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 

11) Raymond J. La Raja, Susan E. Orr, and Daniel A. Smith. 2006. “Surviving BCRA: State Party Finance in 2004,” in 

John Green and Daniel Coffey, eds., The State of the Parties (5th edition). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. 

10) Daniel A. Smith. 2006. “Initiatives and Referendums: The Effects of Direct Democracy on Candidate Elections,” in 

Steven Craig, ed., The Electoral Challenge: Theory Meets Practice. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. 

9) Daniel A. Smith (with Sure Log). 2005. “Orange Crush: Mobilization of Bias, Ballot Initiatives, and the Politics of 

Professional Sports Stadia,” in David McCuan and Stephen Stambough, eds., Initiative-Centered Politics. Durham, 

NC: Carolina Academic Press. 

8) Daniel A. Smith. 2005. “The Initiative to Party: The Role of Parties in State Ballot Initiatives,” in David McCuan and 

Stephen Stambough, eds., Initiative-Centered Politics. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. 

7) Daniel A. Smith. 2004. “Strings Attached: Outside Money in Colorado’s Seventh Congressional District,” in David 

Magleby and Quin Monson, eds., The Last Hurrah? Washington, D.C.: Brookings. 

6) Daniel A. Smith. 2002. “Direct Democracy and Its Critics,” in Peter Woolley and Albert Papa, eds., American Politics: 

Core Argument/Current Controversy. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 

5) Daniel A. Smith. 2001. “Campaign Financing of Ballot Initiatives in the American States,” in Larry Sabato, Bruce 

Larson, and Howard Ernst, eds., Dangerous Democracy? The Battle Over Ballot Initiatives in America. Lanham, MD: 

Rowman and Littlefield. 

4) Daniel A. Smith. 2001. “Special Interests and Direct Democracy: An Historical Glance,” in M. Dane Waters, ed., The 

Battle Over Citizen Lawmaking. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. 

3) Daniel A. Smith and Jonathan Temin. 2001. “The Media and Ghana’s 2000 Elections,” in Joseph Ayee, ed., Deepening 

Democracy in Ghana: Politics of the 2000 Elections, Volume 1 (Thematic Studies). Accra: Freedom Publications. 

2) Daniel A. Smith. 2001. “The Politics of Upper East and the 2000 Ghanaian Elections,” in Joseph Ayee, ed., Deepening 

Democracy in Ghana: Politics of the 2000 Elections, Volume 2 (Constituency Studies). Accra: Freedom Publications. 

1) Daniel A. Smith. 1998. “Unmasking the Tax Crusaders,” in Bruce Stinebrickner, ed., Annual Editions: State & Local 

Government. 9th ed. Guilford, CT: Dushkin/McGraw-Hill, 83-85 [Reprinted]. 

RESEARCH GRANTS, CONTRACTS, HONORS, AND AWARDS 

38) University Scholars Program Grant (advising Emily Boykin and Jenna Tingum), University of Florida, “Spanish 

Language Materials, Administrative Compliance, and Hispanic Voting in Florida.” Fall 2019/Spring 2020. 

37) CLAS Scholars Program Grant (advising William Zelin), University of Florida, “The Effect of Natural Disasters on 

Voter Turnout.” Fall 2019/Spring 2020. 

36) Gill Foundation Grant, “LGBT Issues in Florida,” Spring 2018 (Co-PI, Michael Martinez). 

35) University of Florida Term Professorship, 2017-2019. 

34) University Scholars Program Grant (advising Pedro Otálora), University of Florida, “Political Participation of 

Native-Born and Naturalized Citizens in Miami-Dade.” Summer/Fall 2017. 

33) Ruben Askew Scholar Award (advising Wendy Serra), Bob Graham Center, University of Florida, Summer 2016. 

32) Emerging Scholars Program (advising Anthony Rychkov), University of Florida, “The Timing of Voter Registration 

and Turnout,” Spring/Summer 2016. 

31) University Scholars Program Grant (advising Casey Ste. Claire), University of Florida, College of Liberal Arts & 

Sciences, “Reprecincting and Voter Turnout,” Fall 2015/Spring 2016. 

30) University Scholars Program Grant (with Frances Chapman), University of Florida, College of Liberal Arts & 

Sciences, “Truing or Suppressing the Vote? Private Voter Challenges in Florida,” Fall 2013/Spring 2014. 

29) Best Paper Award presented in 2012 by the APSA Organized Section on State Politics and Policy: “Souls to the 

Polls: Early Voting in Florida in the Shadow of House Bill 1355,” 2013 (with Michael Herron). 

28) University Scholars Program Grant (with Bryce Freeman), University of Florida, College of Liberal Arts & Sciences, 

“Impact of Voter Suppression on Political Participation,” Spring 2013. 

27) The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, “Popular Support and Conditions for the Passage of Ballot Measures,” 

June 2013. 

26) Advancement Project, “Congestion at the Polls: A Study of Florida Precincts in the 2012 General Election,” June 

2013 (with Michael Herron). 

25) Co-Principal Investigator, “Trans-Saharan Professionals Program,” United States Department of State, Bureau of 

Educational and Cultural Affairs, S-ECAPPE-10-GR-231 (DT), September 2010-August 2012. 

24) University of Florida Research Foundation (UFRF) Professor, 2010-2012 (annual salary supplement and research 

funding). 

23) Co-Principal Investigator, American Political Science Association Workshop on Elections and Democracy, University of 

Ghana at Legon, Ghana, Summer 2009, funded by Mellon Foundation. 

22) Best Paper Award presented in 2006 by the APSA Organized Section on State Politics and Policy: “Do State-Level 

Ballot Measures Affect Presidential Elections?” (with Caroline Tolbert and Todd Donovan). 

21) Research Grant, “Did Gay Marriage Re-Elect George W. Bush?” University of Florida, College of Liberal Arts & 

Sciences, Summer 2005. 

73

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 74 of 116
6 

20) University Scholars Program Grant (with Kirsten Soltis), University of Florida, College of Liberal Arts & Sciences, 

“Money and the Member: An Analysis of Fundraising in Congressional Politics in the Post-Campaign Finance 

Reform Era,” Fall 2005.

19) Research Grant, “Mobilization Effects of Ballot Measures in Colorado, Florida, Ohio, and Nevada,” Ballot Initiative 

Strategy Center, Fall 2004. 

18) Research Grant, “Mobilization Effects of Gay Marriage Ban in Ohio,” Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, Fall 2004. 

17) Research and Travel Grant, Pew Charitable Trusts, “Veiled Political Actors,” Daniel Lowenstein, Kim Alexander, 

Robert Stern, Tracy Western, and Joseph Doherty, Principle Investigators, Fall 2003. 

16) Travel Grant, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Florida, “Initiative and Referendum Campaigns,” Fall 

2003. 

15) Research Grant, Pew Charitable Trusts, “Outside Money: Colorado’s 7th Congressional District,” David Magleby, 

Principal Investigator, Fall 2002. 

14) Faculty Research Fund, “Ballot Initiatives during the Progressive Era,” University of Denver, Fall 2002. 

13) Research Grant, American Political Science Association, “Ballot Initiatives during the Progressive Era: Evidence from 

California, 1912-1920,” Summer 2002. 

12) Research Grant, Colorado Endowment for the Humanities, “The ‘Golden Era’ of Direct Democracy? Colorado’s Election 

of 1912,” (R017-0300-010) (with Joseph Lubinski), Spring 2000. 

11) Partners in Scholarship: 2000 Winter Quarter Project Proposal, “The ‘Golden Era’ of Direct Democracy? Evidence 

from the Colorado Election of 1912,” University of Denver, with Joseph Lubinski). 

10) Rosenberry Fund, “Direct Democracy in Colorado,” University of Denver, Spring 1999. 

9) Best Paper, Charles Redd Politics of the American West, “Howard Jarvis, Populist Entrepreneur: Reevaluating Causes 

of Proposition 13,” Western Political Science Association, Los Angeles, March 20, 1998. 

8) Faculty Research Fund, “Ballot Warriors: Citizen Initiatives in the 1990s,” University of Denver, Fall 1997. 

7) Partners in Scholarship: 1997 Winter Quarter Project Proposal, “The Process of Direct Democracy: Parental Rights 

Amendment,” University of Denver, with Robert Herrington, Winter 1997. 

6) Faculty Research Fund, “Faux Populism: Populist Entrepreneurs and Populist Moments,” University of Denver, Fall 

1996. 

5) International Small Grants, “Election Monitor: Ghana Presidential and Parliamentary 1996 Elections,” Office of 

Internationalization, University of Denver, Fall 1996. 

4) Faculty Research Fund, “Populist Prophets and the Mass Appeal of Direct Democracy,” Program Support Services, 

University of Denver, Spring 1995. 

3) Research Grant, Institute for Public Affairs, West Virginia University, Summer 1994. 

2) Senate Research Travel Grant, Faculty Development Fund, West Virginia University, Fall 1994. 

1) Research Travel Grant, Robert LaFollette Institute of Public Affairs, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Fall 1992. 

TECHNICAL REPORTS & OTHER SCHOLARLY PUBLICATIONS 

27) Daniel A. Smith, “Audit of Assignment of Registered Voters to New, Court-Ordered House of Delegates Districts,” 

Virginia Secretary of State (with Michael P. McDonald), Spring 2019. 

26) Daniel A. Smith, “Vote-by-Mail Ballots Cast in Florida,” A Report Commissioned by ACLU Florida, August 2018. 

25) Michael C. Herron and Daniel A. Smith, “Congestion at the Polls: A Study of Florida Precincts in the 2012 General 

Election,” A Report Commissioned by Advancement Project, Washington, DC, June 24, 2013. Available: 

http://www.advancementproject.org/news/entry/voters-of-color-faced-longest-wait-times-in-florida. 

24) Michael C. Herron and Daniel A. Smith, “Florida’s 2012 General Election under HB 1355: Early Voting, 

Provisional Ballots, and Absentee Ballots,” League of Women Voters Florida, January 2013. 

23) Daniel A. Smith, “The Re-demarcation and Reapportionment of Parliamentary Constituencies in Ghana,” Ghana 

Center for Democratic Development (CDD-GHANA), Vol. 10 (2): October, 2011. Available: 

http://www.cddghana.org/documents/Vol.%2010,%20No.%202.pdf 

22) Daniel A. Smith. 2010. “Educative Effects of Direct Democracy: Evidence from the US States,” Memorandum 

requested by the British House of Lords, Constitution Committee, January 4. Available: 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldconst/99/99we14.htm. 

21) Daniel A. Smith. 2006. “Money Talks: Ballot Initiative Spending in 2004.” Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, June. 

Available: http://ballot.org. 

20) Daniel A. Smith. 2006. “Ballot Initiatives, Tax Issues,” in Larry Sabato and Howard Ernst, eds., Encyclopedia of 

American Political Parties and Elections. New York: Facts on File. 

19) Daniel A. Smith. 2004. “Direct Democracy,” in David Wishart, ed., Encyclopedia of the Great Plains. Lincoln: University 

of Nebraska Press. 

18) Daniel A. Smith and Caroline J. Tolbert. 2003 “Educated by Initiative,” Campaigns and Elections, August, p. 31. 

17) Elizabeth Garrett, and Daniel A. Smith. 2003. “Veiled Political Actors: The Real Threat to Campaign Disclosure 

Statutes” (July 22). USC Law and Public Policy Research Paper No. 03-13 http://ssrn.com/abstract=424603.

16) Daniel A. Smith. 2003. “Ballot Initiatives and the (Sub)Urban/Rural Divide in Colorado,” in Daphne T. Greenwood, 

ed., Colorado’s Future: Meeting the Needs of a Changing State. Colorado Springs: Center for Colorado Policy Studies. 

15) Daniel A. Smith. 2003. “The Colorado 7th Congressional District,” in David B. Magleby and Quin Monson, eds., The 

Last Hurrah? Provo, UT: Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy. 

74

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 75 of 116
7 

14) Stan Elofson, Daniel A. Smith, Jennifer Berg, and Joseph Lubinski. 2002. “A Listing of Statewide Initiated and 

Referred Ballot Proposals in Colorado, 1912-2001.” Issue Brief No. 02-02. (March 5) Colorado Legislative Council, 

Colorado General Assembly, Denver. [Revised Edition]. 

13) Daniel A. Smith. 2001. “Howard Jarvis’ Legacy? An Assessment of Antitax Initiatives in the American States.” State 

Tax Notes 22: 10 (December): 753-764. 

12) Daniel A. Smith. 2001. “The Structural Underpinnings of Ghana’s December 2000 Elections.” Critical Perspectives, 

No. 6. Ghana Center for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana), Accra, Ghana. 

11) Daniel A. Smith, Jonathan Temin, and Kwaku Nuamah. 2001. “Media Coverage of the 2000 Election: A Report on 

the Media Coverage of Election 2000 (May 2000-Janurary 2001).” Research Paper, No. 8. Ghana Center for 

Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana), Accra, Ghana. 

10) Daniel A. Smith. 2000. “Election 2000: Debating the Issues?” Briefing Paper, Volume 2, Number 4, Ghana Center for 

Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana), Accra, Ghana. 

9) Daniel A. Smith. 2000. “Growth and Transportation Ballot Measures in Colorado,” in Floyd Ciruli, ed., Moving Visions: 

Next Steps Toward Growing Smart. Denver: Gates Family Foundation. 

8) Stan Elofson, Daniel A. Smith, Jennifer Berg, and Joseph Lubinski. 2000. “A Listing of Statewide Initiated and 

Referred Ballot Proposals in Colorado, 1912-2000.” Issue Brief No. 8. (December) Colorado Legislative Council, 

Colorado General Assembly, Denver. [updated 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008] 

7) Daniel A. Smith. 2000. “Progressives and the Initiative Process: A Call to Arms.” Ballot Initiative Strategy Center (BISC). 

6) Daniel A. Smith and Joseph Lubinski. 2000. “Sponsoring ‘Counter-Majoritarian’ Bills in Colorado.” Ag Journal. 

(September): 12-13. 

5) Daniel A. Smith. 1998. “Unmasking the Tax Crusaders.” State Government News. 41:2 (March): 18-21. 

4) Daniel A. Smith. 1997. “Howard Jarvis, Populist Entrepreneur,” Working Paper, 97-8, Institute of Governmental 

Studies, University of California - Berkeley. 

3) Daniel A. Smith. 1995. “The West Virginia Labor-Management Advisory Council,” The West Virginia Public Affairs 

Reporter. 12:4 (Winter): 1-11. 

2) Daniel A. Smith. 1992. “A Tale of Five Cities,” The La Follette Policy Report. 5 (Fall): 18-21. 

1) Daniel A. Smith. 1991. “Emerging Skill Needs in the Wisconsin Non-Automotive Engines Industry,” Commissioned 

by the Wisconsin Board of Vocational, Technical, and Adult Education, Working Paper, Center on Wisconsin 

Strategy, University of Wisconsin-Madison. 

OUTSIDE ACTIVITIES: BOARDS/EXPERT WITNESS/POLITIAL CONSULTANT/INVITED 

TESTIMONY/MISCELANEOUS 

President, ElectionSmith www.electionsmith.com (S-Corp) 2006- 

Board Member, Ballot Initiative Strategy Center (BISC) www.ballot.org 1999-2019. 

Board Member, Common Cause Florida https://www.commoncause.org/florida/ 2014- 

Board President, 300 Club https://300clubswimandtennis.com/ 2018- 

Domestic Consulting 

Expert (written declarations), Gruver, et al. v. Barton, et al. Case 1:19-cv-00121-MW-GRJ (US District Court for the 

Northern District of Florida). [Provided written reports and deposed for plaintiffs analyzing records on the 

impact of SB7066 on Florida residents with felony convictions and outstanding LFOs], 2019-. 

Consultant, Andrew Goodman Foundation [Analysis of on-campus early voting in Florida], 2019. 

Consultant, ACLU-Florida [Data analysis of Ex-Felons in Florida], 2019-. 

Expert (written declaration), DNC Services Corporation et al. v. Lee et al. Case 4:18-cv-00524-MW-CAS (US District Court 

for the Northern District of Florida) [Provided written report for plaintiffs on Vote by Mail ballots in Florida], 

2019-. 

Expert (written declaration), MOVE Texas Civic Fund, et. al. v. Whitley, et. al. Case 3:19-cv-00041 (US District Court for 

the Southern District of Texas) [Provided written reports for plaintiffs on number of naturalized citizens in 

Texas], 2019. 

Expert (written declarations), Fair Fight Action v. Crittenden, Case No. 1:18-cv-05391 (US District Court for the Northern 

District of Georgia) [Retained by plaintiffs to analyze data related to Georgia’s election laws], 2018-. 

Expert, The Democratic Party of Georgia v. Crittenden, Case No. 1:18-cv-05443 (US District Court for the Northern District 

of Georgia) [Retained by plaintiffs to analyze data related to the 2018 gubernatorial election], 2018. 

Consultant, ACLU-Florida [Provided analysis of Vote by Mail ballots in Florida], 2018. 

Expert, Judicial Watch, Inc., Election Integrity Project California, Inc., et al. v. Dean C. Logan, et al. Case No. 2:17-cv-08948-R-SK 

(US District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division). [Retained by defendants (California 

Department of Justice) to analyze data concerning inactive voters], 2018. 

Expert (written declaration), Rivera v. Detzner, Case 1:18-cv-61474 (US District Court for the Norther District of Florida) 

[Provided written report for plaintiffs on Puerto Rican population and registered voters in Florida], 2018. 

Expert, Thompson et al. v. Merrill, Case No. 2: 16-cv-783 (US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama) [Retained 

by plaintiffs to analyze data related to the discriminatory impact of Alabama’s felony disenfranchisement 

scheme over time], 2018-. 75

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 76 of 116
8 

Expert (written affidavit), League of Women Voters of Florida, Inc., et al. v. Detzner, Case No. 4:18-cv-00251-MW-CAS (US 

District Court for the Northern District of Florida) [Provided written report for plaintiffs (LWV) to extend 

early voting in Florida], 2018. 

Expert (written affidavit), Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al. v. Secretary of State, Jon Husted, Case 2:16-cv-00303 (US 

District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division) [Provided written report and deposed for 

plaintiffs (APRI, ACLU OH, Demos) to reinstate registered voters removed by Ohio’s “Supplemental 

Process”], 2017. [Decision, Husted v. APRI, by SCOTUS, July 11, 2018]. 

Expert (written affidavits), Bellito & ACRU v. Snipes, Case 4:16-cv-61474 (US District Court for the Southern District of 

Florida, Ft. Lauderdale Division) [Provided written expert reports and deposed for intervenors (SEIU, Project 

Vote, Demos) to defend NVRA compliance by Broward Supervisor of Elections, 2017; testified at trial]. 

Consultant, ACLU, Georgia [Provided analysis of CVAP, VAP, and registered voters in Irwin County, Georgia], 2017. 

Consultant, ACLU, Georgia [Provided analysis of proposed redistricting changes to the Georgia House of 

Representatives by the Georgia state legislature], 2017. 

Expert (written affidavit), Florida Democratic Party v. Scott, Case 4:16-cv-00626 (US District Court for the Northern District 

of Florida) [Provided written expert report for plaintiff-intervenors (Mi Familia Vota Education Fund) to 

extend voter registration deadline in Florida due to Hurricane Matthew], 2016. 

Consultant, ACLU, Georgia [Provided analysis of registration deadline in Georgia due to Hurricane Matthew], 2016. 

Expert (written affidavit), Florida Democratic Party v. Detzner, Case 4:16-cv-00607 (US District Court for the Northern 

District of Florida) [Provided written empirical analysis for plaintiff on vote-by-mail ballots cast in Florida], 

2016. 

Advisor, “Mad As Hell: Howard Jarvis and the Birth of the Tax Revolt,” Documentary Film by Jason Cohn, Bread and 

Butter Films [Academic Advisor on Jarvis and antecedents of Prop. 13], 2011-16. 

Advisor, “Rigged,” Documentary Film by Natasha del Torro, Fusion TV (Naked Truth), 2016. [Winner of the Robert F. 

Kennedy Journalism Award for Best Documentary]. Available: http://tv.fusion.net/story/352548/nakedtruth-rigged-elections-documentary/.

Advisor, “Voting: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver,” HBO, February 14, 2016. Available: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHFOwlMCdto. 

Expert (written affidavit), Frank v. Walker, Case 16-3003, 16-3052 (US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit) 

[Provided written empirical analysis for plaintiffs (ACLU) on voter ID and turnout], 2015. 

Expert (consultant), Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Alabama, Case 2:15-cv-02193-LSC (US District Court for the 

Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division) [Provided oral empirical analysis for plaintiffs (NAACP 

LDEF) on use of absentee ballots], 2015. 

Consultant, America Votes [Provided demographic shift of registered voters analysis for state of Florida], 2015. 

Expert (written affidavits), NAACP, et al. v. Husted, et al., 2:14 cv-00404 (US District Court for the Southern District of 

Ohio) [Provided written empirical analysis and deposed for plaintiffs (ACLU) on early in-person absentee 

voting in Ohio], 2014. 

Expert (written affidavit), John Sullivan, et al. v. Marni Lin Sawiki, et al., 2013-CA-003122 (20th Judicial Circuit (Lee County, 

FL) [Provided written empirical analysis and deposed on early, absentee, and Election Day vote totals in the 

November 5, 2013 Cape Coral mayoral election], 2014. 

Expert (written affidavit), Gateway Retail Center, LLC v. City of Jacksonville, Florida, 3:13-cv1040-J-TJC-JRK (US District 

Court for the Middle District of Florida) [Provided empirical analysis for Gateway Retail Center’s attorneys of 

African American voting during early voting in Duval County in the 2012 General Election], 2013. 

Expert (written affidavits), Arcia, et al. v. Detzner, 1:12-cv-22282-WJZ (US District Court for the Southern District of 

Florida) [Provided empirical analysis for Arcia’s attorneys of the Florida Department of State’s various lists of 

“potential non-citizens”], 2012. [Arcia, et al. v. Florida Secretary of State (Defendant-Appellee) and Garcia, et al.

(Intervenor Defendants), 12-15738 (Appealed in 11th Circuit, from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Florida), 2014. 

Elections Analyst, WUFT (TV and Radio), Election Night Coverage, November 6, 2012. 

Advisor, “Voters in America: Who Counts?” CNN Documentary Investigation, October 14, 2012. 

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/19/voters-in-america-who-counts-joejohnscnn-investigatesvoter-suppression-voter-fraud/

Expert (written affidavit), Brown v. Detzner 3:12-cv-00852 (US District Court for the Middle District of Florida) 

[Provided empirical analysis for Brown’s attorneys of minority early voting in Duval County during the 2008 

and 2010 general elections and the 2011 Jacksonville mayoral race], 2012. 

Expert (written affidavits), Romo v. Scott, No. 2012-CA-000412 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Leon County). [Provided empirical analyses 

and deposed for Coalition’s attorneys of new Congressional redistricting maps submitted and adopted by the 

Florida legislature as well as alternative maps submitted by the The League of Women Voters of Florida, the 

National Council of La Raza, and Common Cause Florida], 2012-14. 

Pro Bono Consultant (written work product), League of Women Voters of FL v. Browning, N.D. Fla. (4:11-cv-00628). 

[Provided empirical analysis for LWV’s attorneys (Brennan Center, New York University), assessing the impact 

of Florida’s “third party organization” voter registration requirements], 2012. 

Pro Bono Consultant (written work product), Hillsborough Hispanic Coalition, Tampa, Florida, 2012. [Provided empirical 

analysis of the likely racial/ethnic impact of the redistricting maps adopted by the Hillsborough County 

76

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 77 of 116
9 

Commission, and provided alternative maps to be submitted by the Hillsborough Hispanic Coalition, in 

anticipation of federal litigation], 2012. 

Invited Testimony, U.S. Senate, Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights, 

“New State Voting Laws II: Protecting the Right to Vote in the Sunshine State,” January 2012. 

Expert (written affidavit), Worley v. Detzner, U.S. District Court, N.D. Fla (4:10-cv-00423-RH-WCS). [Provided expert 

opinion to Florida Secretary of State to help defend Election code provisions concerning the reporting, 

registration, and disclosure requirements applicable to political committees (ballot issues)], 2010. 

Expert (written affidavit), Citizens Against Slots v. PPE Casino, 999 A.2nd 181 (2010) 415 Md. 117. [Provided empirical 

analysis of the validity rates of the signatures submitted by Citizens Against Slots for a county popular 

referendum], 2010. 

Expert (written affidavit), The Independence Institute, et. al. v. Bernie Buescher 1:2010-cv-00609. (US 10th Circuit) [Provided 

empirical analysis for the Office of the Colorado Attorney General to defend Secretary of State’s enforcement 

of public disclosure laws for ballot issue committees], 2009-2010. 

Lead Author, “Direct Democracy Scholars” Amicus Brief, Doe v. Reed, 132 S. Ct. 449. [Provided empirical evidence that 

public disclosure of signatures on ballot measures serves sufficiently important governmental interests in order 

to prevent fraudulent signature gathering activities, to limit the deceptive solicitation of signatures, and to 

provide information to voters about ballot measures], 2010. 

Expert (written affidavit), Dallman, et al. v. William Ritter and Rich L. Gonzales and Daniel Ritchie, et al 09SA224 (Colorado 

Supreme Court) [Provided empirical analysis for Ritter, Gonzales, and Ritchie of analysis of campaign financing 

of ballot measures], 2009-10. 

Expert (written affidavit), Sampson v. Buescher, 08-1389, 08-1415 (US 10th Circuit) [Provided empirical analysis refuting 

claims of barriers to participation in ballot issue campaigns for Office of the Colorado Attorney General, 

defending Secretary of State’s enforcement of disclosure laws], 2007-10. 

Consultant, Trust the Voters, Tallahassee, 2006. 

Consultant, The Washington State Patrol Troopers Association [Conducted empirical analysis for State Patrol Troopers of the 

validity of signatures collected on ballot issue campaign], 2006. 

Expert (written affidavit), The City of Winter Springs, FL v. Seminole County, City of Winter Springs, 2004. 

Expert (written affidavit), California Pro-Life Council, Inc. v. Karen Getman, et al. 328 F.3d 1088, 1101 (US 9th Cir) [Provided 

empirical analysis for the Office of the California Attorney General on veiled political actors in California ballot 

measure campaigns], 2004-05. 

Expert (written affidavit), Colorado Right to Life Committee, Inc. v. Donetta Davidson 395 F.Supp.2d 1001 (US 10th Circuit) 

[Provided empirical analysis of broadcasted television and direct mail ads in Colorado between 1999-2003 for 

the Office of the Colorado Attorney General], 2004-05. 

Invited Testimony, Ballot Initiative Reform, Florida Legislature, 2002; 2003-05. 

Invited Testimony Witness, Ballot Initiative Reform, Colorado Legislature, 1999-2000. 

Consultant (pro bono), Ad Hoc Committee to Defend Heath Care, Denver, CO, 1998-2000. 

International Consulting

Consultant, National Democratic Institute (NDI), Ghana, 2013. 

Invited Written Testimony, British House of Lords, Constitution Committee (Direct Democracy), 2010. 

Consultant, Institute of International Education (IIE)), New York, 2002-04. 

Consultant, Coalition of Domestic Elections Observers (CODEO), Accra, Ghana, 2000-01. 

Consultant, International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES), Washington, DC, 1999-2001. 

Consultant, International Student Exchange Program (ISEP), Washington, DC, 1995-97. 

BOOK REVIEWS & REVIEW ESSAYS 

9) Daniel A. Smith. 2008. Review of Dorothy Holland, Donald M. Nonini, Catherine Lutz, Lesley Bartlett, Marla 

Frederick-McGlathery, Thaddeus C. Guldbradsen, and Enrique G. Murillo, Jr., Local Democracy Under Siege: 

Activism, Public Interests, and Private Politics, Perspectives on Politics 6: 386-86. 

8) Daniel A. Smith. 2006. Review of Stephen Nicholson, Voting the Agenda: Candidates, Elections, and Ballot 

Propositions, Political Science Quarterly 120: 695-697. 

7) Daniel A. Smith. 2005. Review of John Matsusaka, For the Many or the Few? The Initiative, Public Policy, and 

American Democracy, Perspectives on Politics 3: 646-47. 

6) Daniel A. Smith. 2000. Review of Shaun Bowler and Todd Donovan, Demanding Choices: Opinion, Voting, and 

Direct Democracy, Social Science Quarterly 81: 1104-1106. 

5) Daniel A. Smith. 1999. Review of Shaun Bowler, Todd Donovan, Caroline Tolbert, eds., Citizens as Legislators, 

American Political Science Review 93: 446-447. 

4) Daniel A. Smith. 1998. Review of David Ryden, Representation in Crisis, Politics and Policy 26: 514-515. 

3) Daniel A. Smith. 1998. Review of Grant Reeher and Joseph Cammarano, eds., Education for Citizenship, H-Pol, HNet. (February). 

2) Daniel A. Smith. 1997. Review Essay of William S. K. Reno, Corruption and State Politics in Sierra Leone, and Sahr 

John Kpundeh, Politics and Corruption in Africa, Africa Today 44: 362-365. 77

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 78 of 116
10 

1) Daniel A. Smith. 1996. Review of Stephen Lowe, The Kid on the Sandlot: Congress and Professional Sports, 1910-

1992, Sport History Review 27: 90-92. 

TEACHING GRANTS, HONORS, AND AWARDS 

Anderson Scholar Award, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Florida, 2011; 2015; 2016; 2017 

Political Science Board of Advisors, “Outstanding Professor Award,” University of Florida, Spring 2008. 

Center for Teaching and Learning Technology Grant, “Introduction to American Politics: Web-Based Interactive 

Learning,” University of Denver, Spring, 1997. 

Faculty Appreciation Award, Learning Effectiveness Program, University of Denver, April 1997. 

Curriculum Diversity Grant, “A Theater History: The Racial and Class Politics of US Drama from Colonization 

Forward,” University of Denver, Winter, 1997. 

CORE Development Grant, “Drama of Politics/Politics of Drama,” University of Denver, Summer, 1996. 

International Small Grants, “Summer Student Study Abroad Program: University of Ghana at Legon,” Office of 

Internationalization, University of Denver, Spring, 1995. 

International Small Grants, “Ghana Study Abroad Program,” Office of Internationalization, University of Denver, Spring, 

1995. 

NEWSPAPER OP-EDS, INVITED BLOG POSTS & LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 

Op-Ed, “Your voting habits may depend on when you registered to vote,” Salon, September 24, 2019. [Originally 

appeared in the Conversation] https://www.salon.com/2019/09/24/your-voting-habits-may-depend-on-whenyou-registered-to-vote_partner/ (with Enrijeta Shino). 

Invited Blog Post, “Who Votes Provisionally and Why? A Look at North Carolina’s 2016 General Election,” MIT 

Election Science Data Lab, May 2, 2018. https://medium.com/mit-election-lab/who-votes-provisionally-andwhy-4dd413c02fa9 (with Lia Merivaki). 

Op-Ed, “Do we have a right not to vote? The Supreme Court suggests we don’t,” NY Daily News, June 12, 2018 (with 

Michael C. Herron). 

Op-Ed, “If more states start using Ohio’s system, how many voters will be purged?” The Washington Post (Monkey Cage), 

June 17, 2018 (with Michael C. Herron). 

Op-Ed, “2-to-1 Registration Advantage for Democrats Among 440K New Hispanic Voters In Florida,” Huffington Post, 

October 7, 2016. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/latino-decisions/2-to-1-registrationadvan_b_12385884.html. 

Op-Ed, “The Battle Over "One Person, One Vote," Has Just Begun,” The American Prospect, April 18, 2016. (with Carl 

Klarner) Available: http://prospect.org/article/one-person-one-vote-battle-just-starting

Invited Blog Post, “Party competition is the primary driver of the recent increase in restrictive voter ID laws in the 

American states,” London School of Economics, U.S. Politics and Policy, November 12, 2014. 

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2014/11/12/party-competition-is-the-primary-driver-of-the-recent-increasein-restrictive-voter-id-laws-in-the-american-states/ 

Op-Ed, “Rejected Ballots in Florida,” Florida Voices, November 4, 2012 (with Michael Herron). 

Op-Ed, “High ballot rejection rates should worry Florida voters,” Tampa Bay Times, October 28, 2012 (with Michael 

Herron). 

Op-Ed, “Voters need to push back against corporate cash,” St. Petersburg Times, July 13, 2010. 

Op-Ed, “A chance for Floridians to redraw rigged districts,” St. Petersburg Times, November 25, 2009. 

Op-Ed, “Lawmakers don’t trust voters with the constitution,” Gainesville Sun, October 21, 2006. 

Op-Ed, “Jeb Bush’s secret-squirrel hunt? Rocky, that’s just a bunch of Bullwinkle,” Orlando Sentinel, February 23, 2006. 

Op-Ed, “Colorado: Independent of Whom?” Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, Ballot Blog, August 29, 2005. 

Op-Ed, “Stop Political Fund-Raising Arm,” Gainesville Sun, April 25, 2004 (with Nicole M. James). 

Op-Ed, “Committees Hold the Secret to Campaign Financing,” St. Petersburg Times, April 10, 2004 (with Nicole M. 

James). 

Letter, “Reform Ballot Initiative and Preserve the People’s Power,” Miami Herald, February 29, 2004. 

Op-Ed, “No: The Rich Have Taken Over,” Denver Post, December 1, 2002. 

Op-Ed, “The Millionaire’s Club: Why Leave Ballot Initiatives to the Rich?” Denver Post, August 18, 2002 . 

Op-Ed, “The Political Consequence of ‘Praying for Peace,’” The Crusading Guide [Accra, Ghana], 12-18 October, 2000. 

Letter, “Book’s [Democracy Derailed by David Broder] premise is problematic,” Denver Post, May 28, 2000. 

Letter, “Initiative process ignores rural voices,” Denver Rocky Mountain News, March 15, 2000. 

Op-Ed, “Progressives need to show initiative on ballot signatures,” Denver Post, January 13, 2000. 

Op-Ed, “Colorado should put campaign finance data on the Internet,” Denver Post, November 4, 1998 (with Richard 

Braunstein).

Letter, “Follow the Money,” Washington Post, October 12, 1998. 

Op-Ed, “Voters behind rule,” Denver Post, June 21, 1998. 

Op-Ed, “Founders crafted safeguards against popular excesses,” Denver Post, May 21, 1995. 

CONFERENCE PAPER PRESENTATIONS 

78

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 79 of 116
11 

“Voter Registration after Parkland and Early Voting on College Campuses,” American Political Science Association, 

Washington, DC, August 28-September 1, 2019 (with Enrijeta Shino). 

“Did Ballot Design Oust a US Senator? A Study of the 2018 Election in Florida,” American Political Science 

Association, Washington, DC, August 28-September 1, 2019 (with Michael C. Herron & Michael Martinez). 

“Barriers to Registering Returning Citizens in Florida,” American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, August 

28-September 1, 2019. 

“Ballot Design, Voter Intentions, and Representation: A Study of the 2018 Midterm Election in Florida,” Election 

Sciences, Reform, and Administration, University of Pennsylvania, July 10-12, 201 (with Michael C. Herron & 

Michael Martinez). 

“Mobilizing the Youth Vote? Early Voting on College Campuses in Florida,” 19th State Politics and Policy Conference at 

the University of Maryland, May 30-June 1, 2019 (with Enrijeta Shino). 

“Did Ballot-Design Outs an Incumbent Senator? A Study of the 2018 Midterm Election in Florida,” Midwest Political 

Science Association Annual Meeting, April 4-7, 2019, Chicago (with Michael Herron and Michael Martinez). 

“Election Administration and Public Records Responsiveness,” Midwest Political Science Association Annual Meeting, 

April 4-7, 2019, Chicago (with Enrijeta Shino, Anna Baringer, Justin Eichermuller, and William Zelin). 

“Estimating the Differential Effects of Purging Inactive Registered Voters,” American Political Science Association, 

Boston MA, August 28-September 1, 2018 (with Michael C. Herron). 

“Estimating the Differential Effects of Purging Inactive Registered Voters,” Election Sciences, Reform, and 

Administration, University of Wisconsin-Madison, July 26-27, 2018 (with Michael C. Herron). 

“Exact-Match Voter List Verification and Turnout,” 18th State Politics and Policy Conference at Penn State, June 7-9, 

2018 (with Michael P. McDonald, Pedro Otálora, and Enrijeta Shino). 

“Estimating the Differential Effects of Purging Inactive Registered Voters,” at the 18th State Politics and Policy 

Conference at Penn State, June 7-9, 2018 (with Michael C. Herron). 

“Who are Provisional Voters? Evidence from North Carolina,” Midwest Political Science Association Annual Meeting, 

April 5-8, 2018, Chicago (with Lia Merivaki). 

“A History and Analysis of Black Representation in Southern State Legislatures,” Symposium on Southern Politics, The 

Citadel, Charleston, South Carolina, March 1-2, 2018 (with Charles S. Bullock III, William D. Hicks, M. V. 

(Trey) Hood III, Seth C. McKee, and Adam Myers). 

“Who are Provisional Voters? Evidence from North Carolina,” Southern Political Science Association Annual Meeting, 

January 4-7, 2018, New Orleans (with Lia Merivaki). 

“Naturalizing the Party: Party Registration and Voter Turnout of Foreign-Born Citizens,” State of the Party: 2016 & 

Beyond, November 10, 2017, Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics, University of Akron, Ohio (with Lidia 

Kurganova). 

“The Erosion of Liberal Democracy: Dissensus and Ideology in America,” American Political Science Association, San 

Francisco, August 31-September 3, 2017 (with William D. Hicks and Seth C. McKee. 

“Early Voting Availability and Turnout in Florida and North Carolina,” American Political Science Association, San 

Francisco, August 31-September 3, 2017 (with David Cottrell and Michael C. Herron). 

“Determinants of County Level Voter Turnout, 1970-2016,” American Political Science Association, San Francisco, 

August 31-September 3, 2017 (with Carl Klarner, Brian Amos, and Michael P. McDonald). 

“Waiting to Vote: Using EViD Data to Assess the Electoral Consequences of Long Voting Lines,” Midwest Political 

Science Association annual meetings, April 6-9, 2017, Chicago (with David Cottrell and Michael C. Herron). 

“Timing the Habit: Voter Registration and Turnout in the American States,” American Political Science Association, 

Philadelphia, September 1-4, 2016 (with Enrijeta Shino). 

“Revisiting Majority-Minority Districts and Black Representation,” American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, 

September 1-4, 2016 (with Seth C. McKee, William D. Hicks; Carl E. Klaner). 

“Defending Democracy: How Political Scientists Are Engaging in the Fight over Voting Rights (and Why You and Your 

Dept. Should too),” APSA Roundtable with Theda Skocpol, Presented by the Scholars Strategy Network, 

American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, September 1-4, 2016. 

“Timing the Habit: Voter Registration and Turnout in the American States,” State Politics and Policy Conference, 

University of Texas at Dallas, May 19-21, 2016 (with Enrijeta Shino). 

“Revisiting Majority-Minority Districts and Descriptive Representation,” State Politics and Policy Conference, University 

of Texas at Dallas, May 19-21, 2016 (with Seth C. McKee, William D. Hicks; Carl E. Klarner). 

“Purging Participation? Eligibility Challenges, Psychological Reactance, and the Decision to Vote,” Midwest Political 

Science Association annual meetings, April 7-10, 2016, Chicago (with Daniel Biggers and Bryce Freeman). 

“Missing Black Men and Representation in American Political Institutions,” Midwest Political Science Association 

annual meetings, April 7-10, 2016, Chicago (with David Cottrell, Michael Herron, and Javier Rodriguez). 

“Early Voting Effects on Pre-Election Poll Estimates,” Southern Political Science Association, January 7-10, 2016, San 

Juan, Puerto Rico (with Michael P. McDonald, Michael D. Martinez, and Chris McCarty). 

“Your Ballot’s in the Mail: The Effects of Unsolicited Absentee Ballots,” American Political Science Association, San 

Francisco, September 1-4, 2015 (with Michael Martinez) 

“A Reassessment of the Turnout Effects in of Election Reforms in the United States,” American Political Science 

Association, San Francisco, September 1-4, 2015 (with Michael P. McDonald and Enrijeta Shino). 79

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 80 of 116
12 

“Reprecincting and Voting Behavior,” American Political Science Association, San Francisco, September 1-4, 2015 (with 

Brian Amos and Casey Ste. Claire) 

“Looks Can Be Deceiving: Explaining Support for Online Voter Registration in the American States,” State Politics and 

Policy Conference, California State University, Sacramento, May 28-30, 2015 (with William Hicks and Seth 

McKee). 

“Public Opinion on Statewide Ballot Measures,” State Politics and Policy Conference, California State University, 

Sacramento, May 28-30, 2015 (with Diana Forster). 

“Early Voting Effects on Pre-Election Poll Estimates,” American Association for Public Opinion Research Annual 

Conference, May 14-17, 2015, Hollywood, Florida (with Michael P. McDonald, Michael D. Martinez, and Chris 

McCarty). 

“Dumbing Down the Electorate? Assessing the Political Knowledge of Early Voters,” Midwest Political Science 

Association annual meetings, April 15-19, 2015, Chicago (with Enrijeta Shino). 

“Race, Shelby County, and the Voter Information Verification Act in North Carolina,” American Political Science 

Association, Washington, DC, August 27-31, 2014 (with Michael C. Herron). 

“Who Signs? Ballot Petition Signatures as Political Participation,” American Political Science Association, Washington, 

DC, August 27-31, 2014 (with Diana Forster and Brian Amos). 

“Race, Shelby County, and the Voter Information Verification Act in North Carolina,” State Politics and Policy 

Conference, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, May 15-17, 2014 (with Michael C. Herron). 

“The Effects of Spatial Proximity on Voting,” State Politics and Policy Conference, Indiana University, Bloomington, 

IN, May 15-17, 2014 (with Kenton Ngo). 

“Race, Shelby County, and the Voter Information Verification Act in North Carolina,” Midwest Political Science 

Association Conference, Chicago, April 3-6, 2014 (with Michael C. Herron). 

 “Beyond Regulatory Interpretation: The Demand and Supply of Provisional Ballots in Florida,” Symposium on 

Regulation in the U.S. States, DeVoe Center, Florida State University, Tallahassee, February 21, 2014 (with Lia 

Merivaki). 

“Evolution of an Issue: Voter ID Laws in the American States,” American Political Science Association Conference, 

Chicago, August 28-September 2, 2013 (with Seth McKee, William Hicks, and Mitch Sellers). 

“Closing the Door on Democracy”: Early Voting and Participation in Florida,” American Political Science Association 

Conference, Chicago, August 28-September 2, 2013 (with Michael Herron). 

 “Evolution of an Issue: Voter ID Laws in the American States,” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 13th annual 

conference, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, May 23-25, 2013 (with Seth McKee, William Hicks, and Mitch 

Sellers). 

“Early Voting in Florida in the Aftermath of House Bill 1355,” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 13th annual 

conference, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, May 23-25, 2013 (with Michael Herron). 

“Racial Disparities in Provisional Ballot Rejection Rates,” Midwest Political Science Association Conference, Chicago, 

April 11-14, 2013 (with Michael Herron). 

“Who Registers? The Differential Impact of Florida’s House Bill 1355 on Voter Registration,” American Political 

Science Association Conference, New Orleans, August 30-September 2, 2012 (with Michael Herron). 

“The Effect of Polling Locations Upon Vote Choice: A Natural Experiment,” Southern Political Science Association 

Conference, Orlando, January 3-5, 2013 (with Charles Dahan). 

“Casting and Verifying Provisional Ballots in Florida,” Southern Political Science Association Conference, Orlando, 

January 3-5, 2013 (with Lia Merivaki). 

“Who Registers? The Differential Impact of Florida’s House Bill 1355 on Voter Registration,” American Political 

Science Association Conference, New Orleans, August 30-September 2, 2012 (with Michael Herron). 

“The Participatory Impact of Truncating Early Voting in Florida,” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 12th annual 

conference, Rice University, Houston, TX, February 16 – February 18, 2012 (with Michael Herron). 

“Engaging Potential Voters? The Collection of Valid Signatures on Ballot Petitions,” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 

11th annual conference, Dartmouth University, June 4-6, 2011 (with Diana Forster). 

“Pledging Democracy: Congressional Support for a National Advisory Initiative and Referendum,” Southern Political 

Science Association, January 5-8, 2011, New Orleans (presented by Matthew Harrigan). 

“We Know What You Did Last Summer: The Impact of Petition Signing on Voter Turnout,” State Politics and Policy 

Quarterly 10th annual conference, University of Illinois, Springfield, June 5-6, 2010 (with Janine Parry and 

Shayne Henry). 

“Reassessing Direct Democracy and Civic Engagement: A Panel Study of the 2008 Election,” State Politics and Policy 

Quarterly 10th annual conference, University of Illinois, Springfield, June 5-6, 2010 (with Caroline J. Tolbert 

and Amanda Frost). 

“Generating Scholarship from Public Service: Media Work, Nonprofit Foundation Service, and Legal Expert 

Consulting,” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 10th annual conference, University of Illinois, Springfield, June 

5-6, 2010. 

“Obama to Blame: Minority Surge Voters and the Ban on Same-Sex Marriage in Florida,” American Political Science 

Association Conference, Toronto, September 2-5, 2009 (with Stephanie Slade). 80

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 81 of 116
13 

“State Context and Support for a National Referendum in the U.S.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 9th annual 

conference, UNC Chapel Hill/Duke University, May 22-23, 2009 (with Caroline J. Tolbert and .Amanda 

Frost). 

“Direct Democracy, Opinion Formation, and Candidate Choice,” American Political Science Association Conference, 

Boston, August 2008 (with Caroline J. Tolbert). 

“The Legislative Regulation of the Initiative,” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 8th annual conference, Temple 

University, Philadelphia, PA, May 30-31, 2008. 

“The Initiative to Shirk? The Effects of Ballot Measures on Congressional Voting Behavior,” State Politics and Policy 

Quarterly 8th annual conference, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, May 30-31, 2008 (with Josh Huder and 

Jordan Ragusa). 

“Participatory-Based Trust? Political Trust and Direct Democracy,” American Political Science Association Conference, 

Chicago, August 2007 (with Caroline J. Tolbert and Daniel Bowen). 

“Giving Power to the People: The Adoption of Direct Democracy in the American States,” Western Political Science 

Association Conference, Las Vegas, NV, March 7-9, 2007 (with Dustin Fridkin) 

“Mass Support for Redistricting Reform: District and Statewide Representational Winners and Losers,” State Politics 

and Policy Quarterly 7th annual conference, Austin, TX, February 22-24, 2007 (with Caroline J. Tolbert and 

John C. Green).

“Mass Support for Redistricting Reform: Partisanship and Representational Winners and Losers,” American Political 

Science Association Conference, Philadelphia, August 2006 (with Caroline J. Tolbert and John C. Green). 

“Gaming the System: The Effect of BCRA on State Party Finance Activities.” The State of the Parties: 2004 & Beyond. Ray 

C. Bliss Institute for Applied Politics, Akron, OH, October 2005 (with Susan Orr). 

“Do State-Level Ballot Measures Affect Presidential Elections?” American Political Science Association Conference, 

Washington, D.C., September 1-4, 2005 (with Caroline Tolbert and Todd Donovan). 

“Did Gay Marriage Elect George W. Bush?” Fifth Annual Conference on State Politics and Policy, Michigan State University, 

East Lansing, MI, May 13-14, 2005 (with Todd Donovan, Caroline Tolbert, and Janine Parry).

“Was Rove Right? Evangelicals and the Impact of Gay Marriage in the 2004 Election.” Fifth Annual Conference on State 

Politics and Policy, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, May 13-14, 2005 (with Matt DeSantis and Jason 

Kassel).

“Partisanship, Direct Democracy, and Candidate Choice,” Midwest Political Science Association Conference, Chicago, IL, April 

7-10, 2005 (with Caroline Tolbert and Todd Donovan). 

“Did Gay Marriage Elect the President? Mobilizing Effects of Ballot Measures in the 2004 Election,” Western Political 

Science Association Conference, Oakland, CA, March 17-19, 2005 (with Todd Donovan and Caroline Tolbert). 

“Initiatives and Referendums: The Effects of Direct Democracy on Candidate Elections,” Conference on What We Know 

and Don’t Know about Campaigns and Elections, Graduate Program in Political Campaigning, University of Florida, 

Gainesville, FL, February 24-5, 2005. 

“Was Rove Right? The Partisan Wedge and Turnout Effects of Issue 1, Ohio’s 2004 Ballot Initiative to Ban Gay 

Marriage,” University of California Center for the Study of Democracy/USC-Caltech Center for the Study of Law and 

Politics/Initiative and Referendum Institute Conference, Newport Beach, CA, January 14-15, 2005. 

“The Educative Effects of Direct Democracy on Voter Turnout,” American Political Science Association Conference, Chicago, 

IL, September 1-5, 2004 (with Caroline Tolbert). 

“Turning On and Turning Out: Assessing the Indirect Effects of Ballot Measures on Voter Participation,” Fourth Annual 

Conference on State Politics and Policy, Kent State University, Kent, OH, April 30-May 2, 2004 (with Todd 

Donovan). 

“Veiled Political Actors: The Real Threat to Campaign Finance Disclosure Statutes?” Midwest Political Science Association 

Conference, Chicago, April 14-18, 2004 (with Elizabeth Garrett). 

“Elephants, Umbrellas, and Quarrelling Cocks: Disaggregating Party Identification in Ghana’s Fourth Republic,” 

Western Political Science Association Conference, Portland, OR, March 11-13, 2004 (with Kevin Fridy). 

“Gaming the System: State Party Finance Activities in Colorado and Florida,” Southern Political Science Association 

Conference, New Orleans, January 7-10, 2004. 

“The Educative Effects of Direct Democracy: Ballot Campaigns and Civic Engagement in the American States,” Societa 

Italiana di Studi Elettorali (SISE) VIIIth International Conference on Electoral Campaigns (Initiative and 

Referendum),Venice, Italy, December 18-20, 2003. 

“In the Wake of Prop. 13,” American Political Science Association Conference, Philadelphia, PA, August 27-31, 2003. 

“Soft Money and Issue Advocacy in the 2002 Colorado 7th Congressional District Election,” Western Political Science 

Association Conference, Denver, CO, March 26-30, 2003. 

“Educated by Initiative: Direct Democracy and Civic Engagement in the American States,” Third Annual Conference on 

State Politics and Policy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, March 14-15, 2003 (with Caroline Tolbert). 

“Ballot Initiatives and the (Sub)Urban/Rural Divide in Colorado,” Colorado’s Future: How Can We Meet the Needs of a 

Changing State? University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, September 27, 2002. 

“Representation and the Spatial Dimension of Direct Democracy,” American Political Science Association Conference, Boston, 

MA, August 29-September 1, 2002. 

“Representation and the Spatial Bias of Direct Democracy,” Second Annual Conference on State Politics and Policy,” University 

of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, May 24-25, 2002. 

81

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 82 of 116
14 

“Minority Rights and the Spatial Bias of Direct Democracy,” Southwestern Political Science Association Conference, New 

Orleans, LA, March 27-30, 2002. 

“Representation and the Urban Bias of Direct Democracy,” Western Political Science Association Conference, Long Beach, CA, 

March 21-24 2002. 

“Ghost Busters: The Structural Underpinnings and Politics of Ghana’s 2000 Elections,” African Studies Association 

Conference, Houston, TX, November 15-18, 2001. 

“The Effect of Ballot Initiatives on Voter Turnout,” American Political Science Association Conference, Washington, DC, 

August 31-September 3, 2000 (with Caroline Tolbert and John Grummel). 

“Campaign Finance of Ballot Initiatives,” National Direct Democracy Conference, University of Virginia’s Center for 

Governmental Studies, Charlottesville, VA, June 8-9, 2000. 

“Meet the Authors Roundtable: Recent Books on Direct Democracy in the States,” Midwest Political Science Association 

Conference, Chicago, April 27-30, 2000. 

“Counter-Majoritarian Bills and Legislative Response of State Ballot Initiatives,” Western Political Science Association 

Conference, San Jose, March 24-26, 2000. 

“The Gun Behind the Door Fires Blanks,” Pacific Northwest Political Science Association Conference, Eugene, OR, October 14-

16, 1999. 

“Orange Crush: Mobilization of Bias, Ballot Initiatives, and the Politics of Professional Sports Stadia,” American Political 

Science Association Conference, Atlanta, September 2-5, 1999 (with Sure Log). 

“Direct Democracy in Colorado: Limited Information, Tough Choices,” A Century of Citizen Lawmaking: Initiative and 

Referendum in America, Initiative and Referendum Institute, Washington, D.C., May 6-8, 1999. 

“The Initiative to Party: The Role of Political Parties in State Ballot Measures,” Western Political Science Association 

Conference, Seattle, March 25-28, 1999. 

“Direct Democracy in the Late 20th Century: The Legacy(ies) of Prop. 13,” Roundtable, American Political Science 

Association Conference, Boston, September 3-6, 1998. 

“The Legacy of Howard Jarvis and Proposition 13? Tax Limitation Initiatives in 1996,” Western Political Science Association 

Conference, Los Angeles, March 19-21, 1998. 

“Special Interests and the Initiative Process in Colorado: The Case of the Parental Rights Amendment” (with Robert 

Herrington), Poster Session, American Political Science Association Conference, Washington, D.C., August 28-31, 

1997. 

“Howard Jarvis, Populist Entrepreneur: Reevaluating Causes of Proposition 13,” Western Political Science Association 

Conference, Tucson, March 13-15, 1997. 

“Guided Immersion: A Non-Traditional Study Abroad Program at the University of Ghana at Legon,” Midwest Political 

Science Association Conference, Chicago, April 10-12, 1997. 

“Exploring the Political Dimension of Privatization: A Tale of Two Cities” (with Kevin Leyden), Midwest Political Science 

Association Conference, Chicago, April 18-20, 1996. 

“Populist Entrepreneur: Douglas Bruce and the Tax Limitation Movement in Colorado,” 20th Annual Interdisciplinary 

Symposium of the Politics and Culture of the Great Plains, Lincoln, April 11-13, 1996. 

“Faux Populism: Douglas Bruce and the Anti-Tax Moment in Colorado, 1986-1992,” Western Political Science Association 

Conference, San Francisco, March 14-16, 1996. 

“Insular Democracy: Advisory Councils and Task Forces in the American States,” Western Political Science Association 

Conference , Portland, March 1995. 

“Supporting Labor-Management Initiatives at the State Level: The Case of the West Virginia Labor-Management 

Advisory Council,” Southern Industrial Relations and Human Resource Conference, Morgantown, WV, October 1994. 

“State Autonomy, Capacity, and Coherence: Labor-Management Councils in the American States,” Western Political Science 

Association Conference, Albuquerque, March 1994. 

“Removing the Pluralist Blinders: Labor-Management Councils and Industrial Policy in the American States,” American 

Political Science Association Conference, Chicago, September 1992. 

“You Can’t Live with Them...The Emerging Role of Organized Labor in Industrial Policy in the American States,” 

Midwest Political Science Association Conference, Chicago, April 1992. 

“It Can Happen Here: Apprenticeship, Workplace-based Learning, and the Affirmative Role of Unions” (with Eric 

Parker), Southwestern Political Science Association Conference, Austin, TX, March 1992. 

“The Affirmative Role of U.S. Unions in Restructuring” (with Eric Parker), American Sociological Association Conference, 

Indianapolis, IN, August 1991. 

“Economic Development Strategy and the Problem of Skills: The Case of Wisconsin’s Advanced Metalworking Sector” 

(with Eric Parker), American Society for Public Administration Conference, Cleveland, OH, October 1990. 

INVITED TALKS AND OTHER PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATIONS 

Keynote Speaker, “6 Things Every Democrat Should Know about Florida Elections,” Democratic Women’s Club of 

Florida, 63rd Annual Convention, Orlando, September 14, 2019. 

Invited Talk, “5 Things Every Floridian Should Know about Florida Elections,” Stetson University, April 25, 2019. 

Invited Talk, “The 2018 Mid-Term Elections,” Graham Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, November 

13, 2018. 82

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 83 of 116
15 

Invited Talk, “Is a Blue Wave Coming? The 2018 General Election,” FedCon, National Association of Retired Federal 

Employees Association, Jacksonville, Florida, August 28, 2018. 

Invited Talk, “Voting Rights Litigation,” ACLU of Florida, 2018 Lawyers Conference, Delray Beach, Florida, September 

7, 2018. 

Invited Panelist, “The Black Vote: Is it being taken for Granted?” Collaboratively Woke and The Virginia Leadership Institute, 

Downtown Alachua Public Library, Gainesville, Florida, June 23, 2018. 

Invited Talk, “Public Records Requests and Analyzing Elections in Florida,” The Bob Graham Center for Public 

Service, University of Florida, Gainesville, Civic Scholar Lecture, February 14, 2018. 

Invited Talk, “Voting in Florida,” Voter Suppression Forum, The Bob Graham Center for Public Service, University of 

Florida, Gainesville, November 13, 2017. 

Invited Talk, “Journalist-Scholar Big Data Partnerships,” Investigative Reporters and Editors, The National Institute for 

Computer-Assisted Reporting, Annual Conference, Jacksonville, FL, March 2, 2016. 

Invited Talk, “Florida’s Constitutional Revision Commission and Game Theory,” Future of Florida Summit, University 

of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, February 18, 2016. 

Invited Talk, “Explaining Trump’s Win in Florida: 10 Election Myths and Realities,” Graham Center, University of 

Florida, Gainesville, Florida, November 14, 2016. 

Invited Response, Michael Kang (Emory School of Law) “Law and Politics of Judging Election Cases,” University of 

Florida School of Law, Gainesville, Florida, November 4, 2016. 

Invited Talk, “Patterns of Political Participation in Florida,” Women, Race, and the U.S. Presidency, The Center for The 

Study of Race and Race Relations & The Center for Gender, Sexualities, and Women’s Studies Research, 

University of Florida, Gainesville, October 13, 2016. 

Invited Talk, “The Structural Pathologies of the American Electoral System,” US Fulbright Association (UF 

International Center), Gainesville, September 27, 2016. 

Invited Talk, “Registered Voters and Turnout in Alachua County,” Gainesville Area Chamber of Commerce’s 

Leadership Gainesville 43 Government and Policy Day, September 8, 2016. 

Invited Talk, “The Politics of Voter Suppression in Florida,” Santa Fe College, American Democracy Project, February 

9, 2016. 

Invited Talk, “The Contributions and Conundrums of Technology: EAVS Data Reporting Consistency,” at The 

Evolution of Election Administration since the VRA, Auburn University, September 15, 2015 (with Lia 

Merivaki). 

Invited Talk, “2014 Election Wrap-Up,” Graham Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, November 6, 2014. 

Roundtable Participant, “I Am A Millennial: The Importance of the Youth and Minority Vote,” Graham Center, 

University of Florida, October 23, 2014. 

Invited Talk, “Voting Rights in North Carolina,” Emory University, Atlanta, April 8, 2014. 

Keynote Speaker, “Anticipating 2014: The State of Voting Rights in Florida,” Gainesville Labor Council, Gainesville, 

Florida, December 9, 2013. 

Invited Talk, “Design Fail: The Attack on Voting Rights in Florida,” University of Florida Retired Faculty, Harn 

Museum, University of Florida, February 22, 2013. 

Keynote Speaker, “The Attack on Voting Rights in Florida,” Gainesville Labor Council, Gainesville, Florida, December 

10, 2012. 

“Moved by the Spirit? Atmospherics and Ballot Measure Vote Choice,” Initiatives and Referendums in the Elections of 

2012, University of Southern California, November 16, 2012 (with Charles Dahan). 

Invited Talk, “Design #Fail: Voting Rights in Florida,” Graham Center’s Election Wrap Up: Decision 2012, University 

of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, November 13, 2012. 

Invited Talk, “Consolidating Representation in Ghana? Parliamentary Malapportionment and Rejected Ballots,” Stability 

Amidst Chaos: Reflections on Two Decades of Ghanaian Democracy, Program of African Studies, Northwestern 

University, Chicago, Illinois, October 12, 2012. 

Keynote Speaker, “Curtailing Voting Rights in Florida,” Civic Dialogues and the 2012 Election in the United States, College of 

Central Florida, Ocala, Florida, October 22, 2012. 

Keynote Speaker, “The Return of Jim Crow? Voting Rights Under Florida’s House Bill 1355,” League of Women 

Voters, Annual Fall Luncheon, Gainesville, Florida, September 11, 2012. 

Invited Talk, “Litigating Voting Rights in Florida,” 8th Judicial Circuit Florida Bar Association, Continuing Legal 

Education, Gainesville, Florida, September 21, 2012. 

Invited Presentation, “The Impact of HB 1355 on Florida’s Hispanics,” Gator Academic Outreach Symposium, cohosted by Hispanic Alumni Association and Miami-Dade College, Miami, FL, May 11, 2012. 

Invited Talk, “Voting and Elections in the United States,” US Embassy, Accra, Ghana, live satellite talk to US Embassy, 

Ivory Coast, October 3, 2011. 

Invited Public Lecture, “Ghana’s National Electoral Commission and the 2012 Elections: The Malapportionment of 

Parliamentary Constituencies, Rejected Ballots, and Questions of Representation,” Department of Political 

Science International Lecture Series, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana, November 17, 2011. [Q&A followed 

by several media interviews, including RadioUniverse, Ghana Television Broadcasting and TV3]. 

Invited Public Lecture, “Assessing the Credibility of Public Opinion Polls,” Ghana Center for Democratic Development 

(CDD-Ghana), Accra, Ghana, November 23, 2011. [Taped broadcast by TV3 and several FM stations]. 

83

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 84 of 116
16 

Invited Talk, “Obama to Blame?” Penn State University, February 26, 2010. 

Invited Talk, “Shirking the Initiative?” Rutgers University, November 6-7, 2008. 

Invited Talk, “Granting Power to the People: The Adoption of Direct Democracy in the American States,” Bose Series 

Lecturer, University of Iowa, Iowa City, November 7-10, 2007.

Invited Talk, “Instrumental Effects of the Initiative in the American States,” The Voice of the Crowd—Colorado’s 

Initiative, Byron R. White Center for the Study of American Constitutional Law, University of Colorado, 

Boulder, Old Supreme Court Chambers, Colorado State Capitol, Denver, January 26, 2007. 

Invited Paper/Presentation, “Initiating Reform: The Effects of Ballot Measures on State Election and Ethics Policy,” 

2008 and Beyond: The Future of Election and Ethics Reform in the States, Ohio State Capital Building, Kent 

State University, January 16, 2007. 

Invited Paper/Presentation, “Financing Ballot Measures in the American States,” Financing Referendum Campaigns 

Conference, University of Zurich, Switzerland, October 27-29, 2006. 

Invited Talk, “Pressure at the Polls/Ballot Initiatives,” Capitol Beat Conference, Columbus, OH, August, 2006. 

Invited Talk, “Turnout and Priming Effects of Ballot Initiatives,” Ballot Initiative Strategy Center Spring Briefing, 

National Education Association, Washington, DC, May 11, 2006. 

Invited Talk, “The People as Legislators: The Influence of Direct Democracy,” Moritz College of Law, Ohio State 

University. Columbus, OH, March 3, 2006. 

Invited Public Debate, “Initiative Reform in Florida,” Orlando Regional Chamber of Commerce, Orlando, FL, February 23, 

2006. 

Invited Talk, “Direct Democracy: The Battle over Citizen Lawmaking,” Minnesota Council of Nonprofits, Public Policy Day 

2006: Nonprofits as a Force for Change, Minneapolis, MN, January 26, 2006. 

Keynote Speaker, “Taking the Initiative in Florida,” National Conference of Editorial Writers Regional Conference, 

University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, October 16, 2005. 

Panelist, “The Educative Effects of Direct Democracy,” Direct Democracy: Historical Roots and Political Realities, The Bill 

Lane Center for the Study of the North American West, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, April 14-15, 2005. 

Panelist, “The Initiative and Referendum Process,” The 2004 Election: What Does it Mean for Campaigns and Governance?

University of Southern California Law School, Los Angeles, CA, October 8, 2004. 

Invited Talk, “Florida’s Initiative Process,” Oak Hammock, Gainesville, FL, October 21, 2004. 

Invited Talk, “Educated by Initiative,” Oak Hammock, Gainesville, FL, October 6, 2004. 

Invited Talk, “Are Initiatives Good or Bad for Business,” National Chamber of Commerce Federation, Boca Raton, FL, 

February 22, 2004. 

Panelist, “Roundtable on Florida Politics,” UF-FSU Colloquium, Gainesville, FL, November 10, 2003. 

Panelist, “Initiatives and Referenda: Implications for Public Administration and Governance,” National Academy of Public 

Administration, Washington, DC, October 22, 2003. 

Panelist, “Initiatives and Referenda: Direct Democracy or Government for Sale?” New York Bar Association, New York 

City, May 8, 2003. 

Keynote Speaker, “Direct Democracy in Colorado: The (Sub)Urban-Rural Divide,” Colorado Water Congress Annual 

Meeting, Denver, November 8, 2002. 

Invited Talk, “Prospects for a Universal Health Care Ballot Initiative in Florida,” Alachua County Labor Party, 

Gainesville, FL, January 25, 2002. 

Invited Talk, “The 2000 Ghana Elections: Lessons for the Future,” The Center for African Studies, University of Florida, 

Gainesville, August 28, 2001. 

Panelist, “Graduate Studies in Canada and U.S.,” University of Ghana at Legon, Accra, Ghana, March 14, 2001. 

Invited Talk, “Media Coverage of the 2000 [Ghanaian] Elections,” Ghana Center for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana), 

Accra, Ghana, March 2, 2001. 

Invited Talk, “Ghana’s 2000 Elections: The ‘Politics of Absence,’” Ghana Center for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana), 

Accra, Ghana, February, 20, 2001. 

Panelist, “Special Forum on U.S. Presidential Elections 2000,” University of Ghana at Legon, Accra, Ghana, November 21, 

2000. 

Invited Talk, “The Role of The Media in US Elections,” Public Affairs Section, United States Embassy, Accra, Ghana, 

October 31, 2000. 

Facilitator, “Three’s A Crowd? The Fate of Third Parties in America,” Humanities Institute Salon, Denver, May 4, 11, & 18, 

2000. 

Chair and Discussant, “Factors Affecting the Success of Initiatives,” Western Political Science Association Conference, San Jose, 

March 24-26, 2000. 

Invited Talk, “The Progressive Myth: Direct Democracy in Colorado, 1912,” Willamette University, February 3, 2000. 

Invited Talk, “The Initiative to Party: The Partisan - Ballot Initiative Nexus,” Willamette University, February 3, 2000. 

Invited Talk, “Taking the Initiative into the 21st Century,” Colorado Water Congress Annual Meeting, Broomfield, January 

27, 2000. 

Invited Talk, “Foundations of the American Political System,” Zhejiang University, Zhejiang, China, October 13, 1999. 

Invited Talk, “Trade, Taiwan, Tiananmen, and Theft: Partisanship in US-China Relations,” Fudan University, Shanghai, 

China, October 11, 1999. 

Invited Talk, “Republicans, Democrats, and US-China Relations,” The People’s University, Beijing, China, October 9, 1999. 

84

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 85 of 116
17 

Invited Talk, “US-China Relations and the 2000 Presidential Election,” China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, 

Beijing, China, October 7, 1999. 

Invited Talk, “Taking the Initiative: The Role of Money in Ballot Initiatives in the US,” Aspen Community & Institute 

Committee, Aspen, August 10, 1999. 

Facilitator, “Taking the Initiative: The Politics of Direct Democracy in Colorado,” Humanities Institute Salon, May 20, May 

27, & June 3, 1999. 

Invited Talk, “The State of Direct Democracy in Colorado,” American Center Series, University of Colorado at Boulder, 

April 9, 1999. 

Participant, “TABOR: Today & Tomorrow,” Graduate School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado at Denver, January 

20-21, 1999. 

Keynote Speaker, Colorado Water Congress Annual Meeting, “The Initiative Process: What You Need to Know,” November 

10, 1998. 

Invited Talk, “The Political Economy of the Bronco’s New Stadium Proposal,” George Washington High School, Reach 

Out DU, October 15, 1998. 

Invited Talk, “The Political Economy of the Bronco’s New Stadium Proposal,” Cherry Creek High School, Reach Out 

DU, October 15, 1998. 

Invited Talk, “Tax Crusaders and the Politics of Direct Democracy,” Tattered Cover Bookstore, Denver, August 20, 

1998. 

Academic Session Leader, “The Politics of Building a New Broncos Stadium,” West High School VIP Program, 

University of Denver, April 17, 1998. 

Participant, “Proposition 13 and its Progeny: Is California Suffering from an Excess of Democracy?” Institute of 

Governmental Studies, University of California, Berkeley, April 1-2, 1998.

Moderator, “Politics 101,” Student Forum, University of Denver, March 3, 1998. 

Panelist, “Ways to use Technology in Teaching,” Dean’s Luncheon on Teaching and Learning, University of Denver, 

February 20, 1998. 

Panelist, “The End of Empire in Ghana, 1957,” The End of Empire: 50 Years of British Withdrawal, Center for 

Teaching International Relations, University of Denver, February 7, 1998. 

Moderator, “1996 Candidate Forum,” DU Programs Board, University of Denver, October 28, 1996. 

Invited Talk, “Election 1996,” KARIS Community, Denver, October 24, 1996. 

Invited Talk, “Faux Populism: Douglas Bruce, Populist Entrepreneur, and the Anti-Tax Moment in Colorado,” 

Humanities Institute, University of Denver, October 17, 1996. 

Panelist, “The Federal Budget Battle,” Sponsored by Omicron Delta Epsilon and Pi Sigma Alpha, University of Denver, 

October 2, 1995. 

Invited Talk, “US Energy Policy,” Highlands Ranch High School, Reach Out DU, November 10, 1995. 

Panelist, “Study Abroad,” Second Annual University Conference: Internationalization at the University of Denver, 

University of Denver, April, 1994. 

Chair and Panelist, “African Studies,” Second Annual University Conference: Internationalization at the University of 

Denver, University of Denver, April, 1994. 

Panelist, “Public Policy and Work Force Participation: Making the School-to-Work Transition,” Public Policy and Work 

Force Participation Seminar, University of Pittsburgh, September 15, 1993. 

Rapporteur, “City$Money Conference,” The La Follette Institute for Public Affairs, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 

February 4-6, 1992. 

EDITORIAL/ADVISORY BOARDS/REVIEWER

Review Board, National Science Foundation, 2016 

Editorial Board, State Politics and Policy, 1999-2007; 2014-2016 

Editorial Board, Election Law Journal, 2012-2016. 

Review Board, American Political Science Association (APSA) Small Research Grant Program, 2004-05. 

Review Board, Fulbright/ American Political Science Association (APSA) Congressional Fellowship Program, 2002-2005. 

Academic Advisory Board, Annual Editions, State & Local Government (Brown & Benchmark), 1995-. 

Sub-Field Editor, State Politics, FirstResearch, 1999-2001. 

PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS

American Political Science Association, 1990- 

State Politics and Policy Section, 2000- 

 President, 2013-2015 

Executive Council, 2010-2012 

Political Organizations and Parties Section, 2000- 

Midwest Political Science Association, 1990- 

Southern Political Science Association, 2001- 

Western Political Science Association, 1994- 

Local Co-Host, Annual Meeting (Denver), 2003 

Chair, Committee on Membership, Attendance, and Registration, 1998-2000 

85

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 86 of 116
18 

Section Chair, State Politics and Policy, 1999 Annual Conference (Seattle) 

Member, Charles Redd Politics of the American West Award Committee, 1999 

Chair, Best Dissertation Award Committee, 1999-2001 

Florida Political Science Association (1994-) 

Section Chair, State Politics, 2004 Annual Conference (Gainesville) 

PROFESSIONAL APPOINTMENTS 

Research Associate, Ghana Center for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana), Accra, Ghana, 2011. 

Research Scholar, Bill Lane Center for the Study of the American West, Stanford University, 2007. 

Senior Research Scholar, Ballot Initiative Strategy Center Foundation (BISCF), Nonprofit 501 (c)(3), Washington, DC,

(www.ballot.org), 2006. 

Board of Directors, Ballot Initiative Strategy Center Foundation (BISCF), Nonprofit 501 (c)(3), Washington, DC, 2000-2019. 

Board of Scholars, Initiative & Referendum Institute, USC Law School, University of Southern California, 2004-. 

Senior Research Fellow, Initiative & Referendum Institute, Washington, DC, 1998-2003. 

Research Associate, Ghana Center for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana), Accra, Ghana, 2000-01. 

President & Co-Founder, Citizens Institute for Voter Information in Colorado (CIVIC), Denver, CO, 1998-2001.

UNIVERSITY SERVICE

University of Florida

 College/University 

Appointed Member, Latin American Studies Search Committee (Latino Studies), 2014-15 

Appointed Member, Political Science/African Studies Search Committee, 2013-14 

Appointed Member, 20th Century American History Search Committee (History), 2008-09 

Appointed Member, Latino Studies Search Committee (LAS), 2006-07 

Departmental Representative, United Faculty of Florida, 2003- 

Alternate Senator, United Faculty of Florida, 2005- 

State Delegate, Florida Education Association, 2006- 

Elected Member, College of Arts and Sciences, Nominating Committee, 2004-06 

Appointed Member, University of Florida Fulbright Committee, 2003-07 

Department 

Chair, 2017- 

Graduate Coordinator, 2014-2016 

Associate Chair, 2013-2014 

Appointed Member, Informatics Search Committee (Departmental Representative), 2013-14 

Appointed Member, Promotion (Full) Review Committee (Service), Leonardo Villalon, 2011 

Appointed Member, Promotion (Full) Review Committee (Research), Badredine Arfi, 2010 

Elected Member, Chair’s Advisory Committee, 2004-05; 2006-07 (Chair); 2007-08 (Chair); 2010-11; 2012-13 

Elected Member, Chair Search Committee, 2004; 2009 

Appointed Member, Tenure Review Committee (Research), Daniel O’Neill, 2008 

Appointed Faculty Mentor, State Senator Mike Haridopolos, 2008-09 

Appointed Member, Strategic Planning Committee, 2008-09 

Appointed Director, Graduate Program in Political Campaigning, 2007-11 

Appointed Member, Committee to establish Undergraduate Certificate in Political Campaigning, 2007 

Elected Member, Market Equity Committee, 2006-07 (Chair); 2007-08; 2008-09 (Chair) 

Appointed Internship Coordinator, 2005- 

Elected Member, Merit Committee, 2004-05; 2005-06; 2006-07 (Chair) 

Appointed Faculty Mentor, Marcus Hendershot, 2006- 

Appointed Faculty Mentor, Helena Rodriques, 2005-06 

Appointed Member, Ad-Hoc Graduate Teaching Committee, 2005-06 

Appointed Member (Chair), Latino Politics Search Committee, 2004-05 

Appointed Member, Tenure and Promotion Committee (Samuel Barkin), 2004. 

Appointed Member, Mid-Career and Mentoring Task Force, 2004-05 

Appointed Member, Speakers Committee (Chair), 2003-05. 

Appointed Member, Tenure and Promotion Committee (Richard Conley), 2003. 

Appointed Member, Political Science Best Undergraduate Paper Award Committee, 2003-04 

University of Denver 

Social Science Promotion and Tenure Committee, 1999-2000 

Joint Ph.D. Program in Religious and Theological Studies, (with Iliff School of Theology), 1999-2002 

AH/SOCS Grade Appeals Committee, 1999-2001 

Phi Beta Kappa Selection Committee, Gamma of Colorado, 1998-2002 

Partners in Scholarship (PINS) Committee, 1997-2000 

86

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 87 of 116
19 

AH/SOCS Elected Faculty Committee, 1996-98 

Post-Tenure Review Committee, 1996-98 

SOAR (Summer Orientation), 1997-2000 

Faculty Senate Representative, 1995-1996 

Study Abroad Faculty Advisory Committee, 1995-2000 

Study Abroad Travel Scholarships Committee, 1995-2000 

Faculty Member, Culture and Critical Studies Program, 1995-2000 

Faculty Mentor, 1995-2000 

Reach-Out DU, 1995-2000 

Advisor, Department of Political Science Honors Program, 1995-1996 

MEDIA INTERVIEWS

Quoted more than 1,000 times by the media (newspaper, radio, television) on various political issues, including the New York 

Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, USA Today, Bloomberg, The Economist, Newsweek, Time, CNN, CBS News, Fox 

News, National Public Radio, Tampa Bay Times, Miami Herald, Florida Times-Union, San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles 

Times, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, etc. 

87

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 88 of 116
A.2 Undeliverable VBM ballots, by race and ethnicity, 2018 GE and

2016 GE

93 This appendix contains six scatter plots that describe the relationship between undeliverable

VBM ballots, by race and ethnicity, for the 2018 GE and 2016 GE.

88

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 89 of 116
Figure 7: Percent of undeliverable VBM ballots in 2018 GE, by race, by county

Note: displays counties with undeliverable VBM ballot rates less than or equal to eight percent.

Counties with fewer than 40 sent out VBM ballots not pictured.

0

2

4

6

8

Hillsborough Collier

Citrus

Marion

Seminole

Broward

OkaloosaColumbia

Lee

Bay Flagler Martin

Nassau

Gulf

Manatee

Osceola

Brevard

Pasco

Levy Pinellas

Alachua

Hernando

Monroe

Calhoun

Madison

Volusia

St. Johns

Duval

Clay Walton

Lake

Sumter

Hendry Indian River

Santa Rosa

Lafayette Putnam

St. Lucie

DeSoto

Jackson

Wakulla

Dixie

Leon

Holmes

Escambia

Bradford

Highlands Suwannee

Polk

Gadsden

Taylor Washington Glades

Baker

Charlotte

Franklin

Gilchrist

Hamilton

Hardee

Jefferson

Liberty Miami−Dade

Okeechobee

Palm Beach

Sarasota

Union

Percent of undeliverable ballots

(a) White VBM voters

89

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 90 of 116
Figure 7: Percent of undeliverable VBM ballots in 2018 GE, by race, by county

Note: displays counties with undeliverable VBM ballot rates less than or equal to eight percent.

Counties with fewer than 40 sent out VBM ballots not pictured.

0

2

4

6

8

Seminole

Hillsborough Collier

Okaloosa

Marion

Broward

Gulf

Hendry Putnam

Citrus

Lee

Alachua

Clay Duval

Sumter

Flagler Columbia

Brevard

Pinellas

Nassau

Osceola

Pasco

Lake

Manatee

Bay Volusia

Monroe

Leon

St. Johns

Indian River

Hernando

DeSoto

Calhoun

Santa Rosa

Bradford

Madison

Escambia

Gadsden

Suwannee

St. Lucie

Taylor Walton

Polk

Jackson

Martin

Highlands Baker

Charlotte

Dixie

Franklin

Hamilton

Hardee

Jefferson

Levy Liberty Miami−Dade

Okeechobee

Palm Beach

Sarasota

Union

Wakulla

Washington

Percent of undeliverable ballots

(b) Black VBM voters

90

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 91 of 116
Figure 7: Percent of undeliverable VBM ballots in 2018 GE, by race, by county

Note: displays counties with undeliverable VBM ballot rates less than or equal to eight percent.

Counties with fewer than 40 sent out VBM ballots not pictured.

0

2

4

6

8

Hillsborough

Seminole

Okaloosa

Levy

Clay

Citrus

Marion

Alachua

Sumter

Putnam

Lee

Collier

Broward

Bay

Flagler

Hernando

Osceola

Manatee

Martin

Gadsden

Walton

Pinellas

Brevard

Pasco

Duval

Columbia

Monroe

Leon

Lake

Polk

Volusia

Indian River

Nassau

Escambia

DeSoto

St. Johns

St. Lucie

Hendry

Santa Rosa

Highlands

Miami−Dade

Charlotte

Glades

Hardee

Jackson

Okeechobee

Palm Beach

Sarasota

Suwannee

Wakulla

Percent of undeliverable ballots

(c) Hispanic VBM voters

91

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 92 of 116
Figure 8: Percent of undeliverable VBM ballots in 2016 GE, by race, by county

Note: displays counties with undeliverable VBM ballot rates less than or equal to eight percent.

Counties with fewer than 40 sent out VBM ballots not pictured.

0

2

4

6

8

Orange DeSoto

Lee

Charlotte

Martin

Indian River

Seminole

Broward

Monroe

Hillsborough Levy Collier

Citrus

Alachua

Gulf

Volusia

Hernando

Pasco

Brevard

Osceola

Manatee

Highlands Duval

Putnam

Marion

Columbia

Pinellas

Okaloosa

St. Johns

Walton

Nassau

Sumter

Flagler Washington Calhoun

Hendry Polk

Bay Clay Bradford

Santa Rosa

Wakulla

Jackson

Taylor Suwannee

Madison

Holmes

Escambia

Gadsden

Gilchrist

Okeechobee

Dixie

Baker

Franklin

Glades

Hamilton

Hardee

Jefferson

Lafayette Lake

Leon

Liberty Miami−Dade

Palm Beach

Sarasota

St. Lucie

Union

Percent of undeliverable ballots

(a) White VBM voters

92

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 93 of 116
Figure 8: Percent of undeliverable VBM ballots in 2016 GE, by race, by county

Note: displays counties with undeliverable VBM ballot rates less than or equal to eight percent.

Counties with fewer than 40 sent out VBM ballots not pictured.

0

2

4

6

8

Orange Seminole

Hillsborough Alachua

Lee

Clay Duval

Charlotte

Citrus

Collier

OkaloosaColumbia

Volusia

Washington Calhoun

Marion

Broward

Suwannee

Pinellas

Hernando

Nassau

Osceola

Brevard

Pasco

Jackson

Bay Walton

Martin

Okeechobee

Monroe

Manatee

Levy Gadsden

Putnam

Madison

Flagler St. Johns

Indian River

Taylor Polk

Escambia

Hendry Bradford

Santa Rosa

Wakulla

Highlands Sumter

Baker

DeSoto

Dixie

Franklin

Gulf

Hamilton

Hardee

Jefferson

Lake

Leon

Liberty Miami−Dade

Palm Beach

Sarasota

St. Lucie

Union

Percent of undeliverable ballots

(b) Black VBM voters

93

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 94 of 116
Figure 8: Percent of undeliverable VBM ballots in 2016 GE, by race, by county

Note: displays counties with undeliverable VBM ballot rates less than or equal to eight percent.

Counties with fewer than 40 sent out VBM ballots not pictured.

0

2

4

6

8

Orange

Seminole

Bay

Putnam

Walton

Nassau

Charlotte

Hillsborough

Manatee

Marion

Alachua

Hernando

Duval

Lee

Okaloosa

Pinellas

Pasco

Collier

Osceola

DeSoto

Volusia

Indian River

Broward

Monroe

Martin

Brevard

Hendry

Columbia

Citrus

St. Johns

Escambia

Clay

Polk

Flagler

Sumter

Highlands

Santa Rosa

Gadsden

Glades

Hardee

Lake

Leon

Levy

Miami−Dade

Okeechobee

Palm Beach

Sarasota

St. Lucie

Suwannee

Percent of undeliverable ballots

(c) Hispanic VBM voters

94

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 95 of 116
A.3 Rejected VBM ballots returned before 7 PM Election Day deadline,

by race and ethnicity, 2018 GE and 2016 GE

94 This appendix contains six scatter plots that describe the relationship between rejected

VBM ballots that were received on time by SOEs, by race and ethnicity, for the 2018 GE and 2016

GE.

95

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 96 of 116
Figure 9: Rejected on-time VBM ballots in 2018 GE, percent "voter-caused error" versus percent

no signature, by race, by county

●

●

●

●

●

●

●● ●

●

●●

●

●

● ●

●● ● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●● ●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

● ●

●

●●

● ●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Brevard

Broward

Charlotte

Collier

Miami−Dade

Duval

Hernando

Hillsborough

Lee

Manatee

Marion

Osceola

Palm Beach

Pasco

Pinellas

Sarasota Polk

Seminole

St. Lucie

Volusia

Note: displays counties with unsigned and voter−caused error

rates less than or equal to four percent. Top 20 counties

in terms of returned VBM ballots are labeled.

0

1

2

3

4

0 1 2 3 4

Percent voter−caused error among domestic returned VBM ballots

Percent unsigned among domestic returned VBM ballots

(a) White VBM voters

96

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 97 of 116
Figure 9: Rejected on-time VBM ballots in 2018 GE, percent "voter-caused error" versus percent

no signature, by race, by county

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

Brevard

Broward

Charlotte

Collier

Miami−Dade

Duval

Hernando

Hillsborough

Lee

Manatee

Marion

Osceola Palm Beach

Pasco Pinellas

Polk

Sarasota

Seminole

St. Lucie

Volusia

Note: displays counties with unsigned and voter−caused error

rates less than or equal to four percent. Top 20 counties

in terms of returned VBM ballots are labeled.

0

1

2

3

4

0 1 2 3 4

Percent voter−caused error among domestic returned VBM ballots

Percent unsigned among domestic returned VBM ballots

(b) Black VBM voters

97

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 98 of 116
Figure 9: Rejected on-time VBM ballots in 2018 GE, percent "voter-caused error" versus percent

no signature, by race, by county

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Brevard

Broward

Charlotte

Collier

Miami−Dade

Hernando Duval

Hillsborough

Lee

Manatee

Marion

Osceola

Palm Beach

Pasco

Pinellas

Polk

Sarasota

Seminole

St. Lucie

Volusia

Note: displays counties with unsigned and voter−caused error

rates less than or equal to four percent. Top 20 counties

in terms of returned VBM ballots are labeled.

0

1

2

3

4

0 1 2 3 4

Percent voter−caused error among domestic returned VBM ballots

Percent unsigned among domestic returned VBM ballots

(c) Hispanic VBM voters

98

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 99 of 116
Figure 10: Rejected on-time VBM ballots in 2016 GE, percent "voter-caused error" versus percent

no signature, by race, by county

● ●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●● ●

●

●

● ● ● ● ● ●

●

●

●

●● ●●●

●●●

●●● ●●

●

●

●●● ●

●

●● ●

●

●●●● ●● ● ● ● ● ●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

Brevard

Broward

Charlotte

Collier

Miami−Dade

Duval

Hillsborough

Lee

Manatee

Marion

Orange

Osceola

Palm Beach

Pasco

Pinellas

Polk

Sarasota

Seminole

St. Lucie

Volusia

Note: displays counties with unsigned and voter−caused error

rates less than or equal to four percent. Top 20 counties

in terms of returned VBM ballots are labeled.

0

1

2

3

4

0 1 2 3 4

Percent voter−caused error among domestic returned VBM ballots

Percent unsigned among domestic returned VBM ballots

(a) White VBM voters

99

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 100 of 116
Figure 10: Rejected on-time VBM ballots in 2016 GE, percent "voter-caused error" versus percent

no signature, by race, by county

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

● ●● ● ●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

● ●

● ●

●

● ● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Brevard

Broward

Charlotte

Collier

Miami−Dade

Duval

Hillsborough Manatee Lee

Marion Orange

Osceola

Palm Beach

Pasco

Pinellas

Polk

Sarasota

St. Lucie Seminole

Volusia

Note: displays counties with unsigned and voter−caused error

rates less than or equal to four percent. Top 20 counties

in terms of returned VBM ballots are labeled.

0

1

2

3

4

0 1 2 3 4

Percent voter−caused error among domestic returned VBM ballots

Percent unsigned among domestic returned VBM ballots

(b) Black VBM voters

100

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 101 of 116
Figure 10: Rejected on-time VBM ballots in 2016 GE, percent "voter-caused error" versus percent

no signature, by race, by county

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

● ● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Brevard

Broward

Charlotte

Collier

Miami−Dade

Duval Hillsborough Lee

Manatee

Marion

Orange

Osceola

Palm Beach Pasco

Pinellas

Polk

Sarasota

Seminole

St. Lucie

Volusia

Note: displays counties with unsigned and voter−caused error

rates less than or equal to four percent. Top 20 counties

in terms of returned VBM ballots are labeled.

0

1

2

3

4

0 1 2 3 4

Percent voter−caused error among domestic returned VBM ballots

Percent unsigned among domestic returned VBM ballots

(c) Hispanic VBM voters

101

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 102 of 116
A.4 Delivery date and rejected VBM ballots returned after 7 PM Election Day deadline, by race and ethnicity, 2018 GE and 2016 GE

95 This appendix contains six scatter plots, three for the 2018 GE and three for the 2016 GE,

broken down by the race and ethnicity of VBM voters. Each plots the day VBM ballots were

delivered by SOEs (through the final statutory day of delivery prior to each the election), and the

rejection rate associated with the VBM ballots delivered on each of these days because they were

received by SOEs after the 7 PM Election Day deadline.

102

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 103 of 116
Figure 11: Day of VBM delivery and percent VBM returned late, 2018 GE, by race and ethnicity

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

●

● ● ● ● ● ●

●

●

● ●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Note: shows dates with at least twenty returned VBM ballots.

Points proportional to total number of returned VBM ballots.

0

5

10

15

October 2, 2018October 9, 2018

October 16, 2018October 23, 2018October 30, 2018

VBM ballot delivery date

Percent of late VBM ballots

Delivery date

● More than eight days prior to Election Day

(a) White VBM voters

103

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 104 of 116
Figure 11: Day of VBM delivery and percent VBM returned late, 2018 GE, by race and ethnicity

● ●

● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

●

●

● ● ●

● ●

● ● ●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

Note: shows dates with at least twenty returned VBM ballots.

Points proportional to total number of returned VBM ballots.

0

5

10

15

October 2, 2018October 9, 2018

October 16, 2018October 23, 2018October 30, 2018

VBM ballot delivery date

Percent of late VBM ballots

Delivery date

● More than eight days prior to Election Day

(b) Black VBM voters

104

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 105 of 116
Figure 11: Day of VBM delivery and percent VBM returned late, 2018 GE, by race and ethnicity

● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ●

●

●

● ● ● ●

●

●

●

● ●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

Note: shows dates with at least twenty returned VBM ballots.

Points proportional to total number of returned VBM ballots.

0

5

10

15

October 2, 2018October 9, 2018

October 16, 2018October 23, 2018October 30, 2018

VBM ballot delivery date

Percent of late VBM ballots

Delivery date

● More than eight days prior to Election Day

(c) Hispanic VBM voters

105

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 106 of 116
Figure 12: Day of VBM delivery and percent VBM returned late, 2016 GE, by race and ethnicity

● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Note: shows dates with at least twenty returned VBM ballots.

Points proportional to total number of returned VBM ballots.

0

5

10

15

October 4, 2016

October 11, 2016October 18, 2016October 25, 2016

November 1, 2016

VBM ballot delivery date

Percent of late VBM ballots

Delivery date

● More than eight days prior to Election Day

(a) White VBM voters

106

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 107 of 116
Figure 12: Day of VBM delivery and percent VBM returned late, 2016 GE, by race and ethnicity

● ● ● ● ●

●

● ● ● ● ●

●

● ● ● ● ● ● ●

●

● ● ● ●

● ●

●

●

●

Note: shows dates with at least twenty returned VBM ballots.

Points proportional to total number of returned VBM ballots.

0

5

10

15

October 4, 2016

October 11, 2016October 18, 2016October 25, 2016

November 1, 2016

VBM ballot delivery date

Percent of late VBM ballots

Delivery date

● More than eight days prior to Election Day

(b) Black VBM voters

107

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 108 of 116
Figure 12: Day of VBM delivery and percent VBM returned late, 2016 GE, by race and ethnicity

● ● ●

● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ●

●

●

Note: shows dates with at least twenty returned VBM ballots.

Points proportional to total number of returned VBM ballots.

0

5

10

15

October 4, 2016

October 11, 2016October 18, 2016October 25, 2016

November 1, 2016

VBM ballot delivery date

Percent of late VBM ballots

Delivery date

● More than eight days prior to Election Day

(c) Hispanic VBM voters

108

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 109 of 116
A.5 VBM ballot return codes: "voter-caused error" or no signature, by

race and ethnicity, 2018 GE and 2016 GE

96 This appendix contains six scatter plots that describe VBM ballots with a code for "votercaused error" (E) or no signature (N), by the race and ethnicity of the voter, for the 2018 GE and

2016 GE.

109

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 110 of 116
Figure 13: Percent of rejected ballots in 2018 GE, by race and ethnicity

●

●

●

●

●

●

●● ●

●

●●

●

●

● ●

●● ● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●● ●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

● ●

●

●●

● ●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Brevard

Broward

Charlotte

Collier

Miami−Dade

Duval

Hernando

Hillsborough

Lee

Manatee

Marion

Osceola

Palm Beach

Pasco

Pinellas

Sarasota Polk

Seminole

St. Lucie

Volusia

Note: displays counties with unsigned and voter−caused error

rates less than or equal to four percent. Top 20 counties

in terms of returned VBM ballots are labeled.

0

1

2

3

4

0 1 2 3 4

Percent voter−caused error among domestic returned VBM ballots

Percent unsigned among domestic returned VBM ballots

(a) White

110

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 111 of 116
Figure 13: Percent of rejected ballots in 2018 GE, by race and ethnicity

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

Brevard

Broward

Charlotte

Collier

Miami−Dade

Duval

Hernando

Hillsborough

Lee

Manatee

Marion

Osceola Palm Beach

Pasco Pinellas

Polk

Sarasota

Seminole

St. Lucie

Volusia

Note: displays counties with unsigned and voter−caused error

rates less than or equal to four percent. Top 20 counties

in terms of returned VBM ballots are labeled.

0

1

2

3

4

0 1 2 3 4

Percent voter−caused error among domestic returned VBM ballots

Percent unsigned among domestic returned VBM ballots

(b) Black

111

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 112 of 116
Figure 13: Percent of rejected ballots in 2018 GE, by race and ethnicity

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Brevard

Broward

Charlotte

Collier

Miami−Dade

Hernando Duval

Hillsborough

Lee

Manatee

Marion

Osceola

Palm Beach

Pasco

Pinellas

Polk

Sarasota

Seminole

St. Lucie

Volusia

Note: displays counties with unsigned and voter−caused error

rates less than or equal to four percent. Top 20 counties

in terms of returned VBM ballots are labeled.

0

1

2

3

4

0 1 2 3 4

Percent voter−caused error among domestic returned VBM ballots

Percent unsigned among domestic returned VBM ballots

(c) Hispanic

112

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 113 of 116
Figure 14: Percent of rejected ballots in 2016 GE, by race and ethnicity

● ●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●● ●

●

●

● ● ● ● ● ●

●

●

●

●● ●●●

●●●

●●● ●●

●

●

●●● ●

●

●● ●

●

●●●● ●● ● ● ● ● ●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

Brevard

Broward

Charlotte

Collier

Miami−Dade

Duval

Hillsborough

Lee

Manatee

Marion

Orange

Osceola

Palm Beach

Pasco

Pinellas

Polk

Sarasota

Seminole

St. Lucie

Volusia

Note: displays counties with unsigned and voter−caused error

rates less than or equal to four percent. Top 20 counties

in terms of returned VBM ballots are labeled.

0

1

2

3

4

0 1 2 3 4

Percent voter−caused error among domestic returned VBM ballots

Percent unsigned among domestic returned VBM ballots

(a) White

113

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 114 of 116
Figure 14: Percent of rejected ballots in 2016 GE, by race and ethnicity

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

● ●● ● ●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

● ●

● ●

●

● ● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Brevard

Broward

Charlotte

Collier

Miami−Dade

Duval

Hillsborough Manatee Lee

Marion Orange

Osceola

Palm Beach

Pasco

Pinellas

Polk

Sarasota

St. Lucie Seminole

Volusia

Note: displays counties with unsigned and voter−caused error

rates less than or equal to four percent. Top 20 counties

in terms of returned VBM ballots are labeled.

0

1

2

3

4

0 1 2 3 4

Percent voter−caused error among domestic returned VBM ballots

Percent unsigned among domestic returned VBM ballots

(b) Black

114

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 115 of 116
Figure 14: Percent of rejected ballots in 2016 GE, by race and ethnicity

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

● ● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Brevard

Broward

Charlotte

Collier

Miami−Dade

Duval Hillsborough Lee

Manatee

Marion

Orange

Osceola

Palm Beach Pasco

Pinellas

Polk

Sarasota

Seminole

St. Lucie

Volusia

Note: displays counties with unsigned and voter−caused error

rates less than or equal to four percent. Top 20 counties

in terms of returned VBM ballots are labeled.

0

1

2

3

4

0 1 2 3 4

Percent voter−caused error among domestic returned VBM ballots

Percent unsigned among domestic returned VBM ballots

(c) Hispanic

115

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 109-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 116 of 116