Alternative Voting Methods

September 2008

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Alternative Voting Methods

September 2008

Table Of Contents iii

Executive Summary.................................................................................................. 1

Early Voting in Texas............................................................................................... 2

 Implementation and Effect.......................................................................................... 2

 Legislative History ...................................................................................................... 3

 1987 ...................................................................................................................... 3

 1988 ...................................................................................................................... 3

 1991 ...................................................................................................................... 4

 Establishing Early Voting Locations............................................................................ 4

 Costs ......................................................................................................................... 5

Personnel Costs.................................................................................................... 5

Technology Costs.................................................................................................. 5

Administrative Challenges........................................................................................... 6

Voter Turnout............................................................................................................... 6

Legal Challenges ........................................................................................................ 8

Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 8

Figure 1. Overall Turnout (RV) for Federal General Elections (1980-2006) ...................... 7

Figure 2. Early Voting as a Percentage of Overall Turnout................................................ 7

Election Day as a Holiday: Illinois and Maryland .................................... 10

Implementation and Effect ........................................................................................ 10

Voter Turnout....................................................................................................... 11

Election Day in Illinois ............................................................................................... 13

Administrative Challenges................................................................................... 13

Voter Turnout....................................................................................................... 14

Election Day in Maryland .......................................................................................... 15

Administrative Challenges................................................................................... 15

Voter Turnout....................................................................................................... 15

Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 16

A National Holiday..................................................................................................... 16

Table 1. Turnout in Election Day State Holiday States, 

 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006................................................................................ 12

Oregon’s Vote-By-Mail .......................................................................................... 17

Implementation and Effect ........................................................................................ 17

History of Vote-by-Mail .............................................................................................. 18

1981 .................................................................................................................... 19

1983 .................................................................................................................... 19

1987 .................................................................................................................... 20

1993 .................................................................................................................... 20

1995 .................................................................................................................... 20

1996 .................................................................................................................... 21

1998 .................................................................................................................... 21

Establishing Uniform Vote-by-Mail Procedures ......................................................... 22
Returning the Voted Ballot .................................................................................. 22

Counting the Voted Ballot.................................................................................... 24

Administrative Challenges......................................................................................... 24

Voters with Disabilities .............................................................................................. 25

Voter Turnout............................................................................................................. 26

Legal Challenges ...................................................................................................... 26

Academic Studies ..................................................................................................... 27

Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 28

Table 2. Oregon’s Vote-by-Mail Timeline of Major Events ............................................... 18

Table 3. Election Day Timeline ........................................................................................ 23

Table 4. Statewide Daily Ballot Returns, November 2000 Presidential Election ............. 24

Table 5. Voter Turnout by Political Party, 2000 and 2006................................................. 26

Figure 4. Cumulative Statewide Ballot Returns, November 2000 Presidential Election.. 25

Colorado Vote Centers....................................................................................... 29

Implementation and Effect ........................................................................................ 29

Legislative History............................................................................................... 30

Larimer County Launches Vote Centers ................................................................... 31

Costs................................................................................................................... 31

Educating the Public ........................................................................................... 31

Technology and Logistics.................................................................................... 32

Vote Center Staffing.................................................................................................. 33

The Physical Layout of a Vote Center ....................................................................... 33

Greeter................................................................................................................ 33 

Computer Station ................................................................................................ 33

Provisional Ballot Table ....................................................................................... 33

Ballot Station....................................................................................................... 34

Voting Booth........................................................................................................ 34

Exit ...................................................................................................................... 34

Impact of Larimer County Vote Centers .................................................................... 34

Voter Turnout....................................................................................................... 35

Poll Workers ........................................................................................................ 35

Denver’s Vote Center Experience ............................................................................. 36

Educating the Public ........................................................................................... 36

Vote Center Design and Setup............................................................................ 36

Technology.......................................................................................................... 36

Contingency Measures ....................................................................................... 36

Academic Study ........................................................................................................ 37

Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 37

Figure 5. Vote Center Stations ........................................................................................ 34

Table 6. Larimer County Election Year Totals .................................................................. 35

Weekend Voting ....................................................................................................... 38

iv
Implementation and Effect ........................................................................................ 39

Weekend Voting in Louisiana .................................................................................... 41

Administrative Challenges................................................................................... 41

Voter Turnout....................................................................................................... 41

Weekend Voting in Harris County, Texas................................................................... 43

Administrative Challenges................................................................................... 43

Voter Turnout....................................................................................................... 44

Weekend Voting in New Castle County, Delaware.................................................... 45

Administrative Challenges................................................................................... 45

Voter Turnout....................................................................................................... 45

Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 45

Figure 6. Daily Voter Turnout in Harris County, Texas, November 2006.......................... 43

Voting in Puerto Rico............................................................................................ 46

Implementation and Effect ........................................................................................ 46

Costs................................................................................................................... 48

Administrative Challenges................................................................................... 48

Voter Turnout....................................................................................................... 49

Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 49

Table 7: Introduction of Voting Methods in Puerto Rico................................................... 46

Uniform Poll Closing ........................................................................................... 50

FEASIBILITY AND ADVISABILITY ............................................................................... 52

Early Voting............................................................................................................... 52

Election Day Holidays ............................................................................................... 52

Vote-by-Mail .............................................................................................................. 52

Vote Centers ............................................................................................................. 53

Weekend Voting ........................................................................................................ 53

Voting in Puerto Rico ................................................................................................ 53

v
vi
Executive Summary 1

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) 

is an independent, bipartisan commission created 

by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 to 

assist State and local election officials with the 

administration of Federal elections.1

 The EAC 

provides assistance by disbursing, administering, 

and auditing Federal funds for States to implement 

HAVA requirements; conducting studies and other 

activities to promote the effective administration 

of Federal elections; and serving as a source of 

information regarding election administration. 

Section 241(b)(10) of HAVA requires the EAC 

to study “[t]he feasibility and advisability of 

conducting elections for Federal office on different 

days, at different places, and during different 

hours, including the advisability of establishing a 

uniform poll closing time and establishing – (A) a 

legal public holiday under section 6103 of title 5, 

United States Code, as the date on which general 

elections for Federal office are held; (B) the 

Tuesday next after the 1st Monday in November, in 

every even numbered year, as a legal public holiday 

under such section; (C) a date other than the 

Tuesday next after the 1st Monday in November, 

in every even numbered year as the date on which 

general elections for Federal office are held; and 

(D) any data described in subparagraph (D) as a 

legal public holiday under such section.”2

In 2006, the EAC commissioned two studies 

about alternative voting methods currently used in 

the United States. One study involved a national 

survey of voters regarding their opinions on 

matters such as changing the date of the Federal 

Election Day, instituting a uniform poll closing time, 

and increasing confidence in the voting system, 

among many others. The other study resulted in 

this publication, Alternative Voting Methods, which 

examines the experiences of selected States and/or 

local jurisdictions with voting outside the traditional 

precinct-based polling place through early voting, 

vote-by-mail, and vote centers. Sections in this 

publication address the feasibility and advisability of 

conducting Election Day on a different day through 

weekend voting and declaring Election Day holidays. 

The final section reviews voting in Puerto Rico. 

Each alternative voting method in this report 

is feasible in nearly every State because the 

changes to current election administration 

practices mostly require legislation at the local, 

State, and/or Federal level. Not every method 

would be successful in every jurisdiction, however, 

nor would every jurisdiction be able to handle 

the costs of implementing each alternative voting 

method. The Alternative Voting Methods study is 

meant to provide details about new and exciting 

ways of administering elections so that each 

jurisdiction can chart the future of its own system 

of election administration with the most information 

possible. States and localities will need to evaluate 

their own processes before any change in election 

administration is advisable. 

The Alternative Voting 

Methods study is meant 

to provide details about 

new and exciting ways of 

administering elections 

so that each jurisdiction 

can chart the future of its 

own system of election 

administration with the 

most information possible. 

1

42 U.S.C. § 15321 (2006).

2

§ 15381(b)(10) (2006).
2

State Name: Texas

Chief Election 

Official: Hon. Roger Williams

 Texas Sec. of State

 Elections Division

 P.O. Box 12060 

 Austin, TX 78711-2060

Total Number of 

Registered Voters: 13,074,279 (in 2006)

Alternative Voting 

Method Used: Early Voting

Implemented: 1987

Early Voting in Texas

Early voting is traditionally defined as a process 

by which voters cast their ballots before Election 

Day at precinct-like polling stations throughout a 

jurisdiction. It requires no excuse from voters and 

is “virtually like voting on Election Day.” The use of 

early voting has expanded throughout the country 

over the past several election cycles. Texas has 

been administering early voting for more than 20 

years, making it a good choice for a case study into 

the alternative early voting method. 

Texas began to implement early voting in 1987, 

although the process was somewhat different from 

the early voting of today. At that time, absentee 

voting was expanded to provide the opportunity 

to all voters to cast a ballot before Election 

Day. Counties were required to offer “absentee 

voting in-person” to all voters at any one of their 

permanent election office branch locations. In 

1991, Texas State law was changed to provide a 

minimum standard for the number of early voting 

locations incorporated within each county. The law 

also permitted the creation of temporary branch 

locations for the express purpose of conducting 

early voting.3

In Texas, registered voters may vote at any early 

voting location within their county between 4 and 17 

days before Election Day. If the 17th day before a 

Federal general election falls on a weekend, Texas 

State law requires that the start of early voting 

occur on the first business day thereafter for an 

overall early voting period of 12 days.4

Early voting procedures are similar to those 

already conducted on Election Day. Officials’ clear 

procedures and forward planning has led to the 

success of early voting as supported by data 

showing an increasing proportion of voters that 

chooses to vote early. This section will provide 

information about the evolution of early voting in 

Texas by detailing the legislative history, reviewing 

the logistical issues surrounding the implementation 

of early voting, and examining the overall effect of 

early voting in the State of Texas.

A thorough study about how early voting is 

administered in Texas from the perspective of 

election officials has not occurred to date. With 

the limited amount of source material available, 

this case study was conducted using statutory 

references, personal interviews, and published 

statistics from the Texas Secretary of State’s office. 

Implementation 

and Effect

Although voter participation data suggest that 

early voting does not increase overall turnout, 

election officials interviewed have seen clear 

benefits. An increasing percentage of voters take 

advantage of early voting with each successive 

Federal election. For local election officials, the 

lighter volume of voters on Election Day equates 

to shorter lines, fewer complaints, and a more 

efficient Election Day environment. 

No empirical studies are available regarding 

election officials’ attitudes about early voting, 

but anecdotal evidence from throughout Texas 

suggests that it was greeted with general 

reluctance, which was to be expected with any 

unfunded mandate. More than 20 years after 

3

United States. Cong. House. Committee on Energy and 

Commerce. Subcommittee on Elections. Alternative Ballot 

Techniques. Hearing, 22 Sept. 1994. 103rd Cong., 2nd sess. 

Washington: GPO, 1994.

4

Ibid.
3

Major Milestones in the Evolution 

of Early Voting in the State of Texas

1988: The State of Texas permits noexcuse, in-person absentee voting.

1991: Requirements mandate early voting 

locations in counties with a population of at 

least 100,000 residents, expanded hours—

including on weekends—for early voting, 

procedures, and noticing requirements. 

State law recognizes early voting as a 

distinct form of voting.

1993: Early voting legislation becomes 

effective statewide; all counties must 

establish temporary (early voting) branch 

locations beginning up to 20 days before 

an election.

1997: The Texas Legislature further 

defines the quantity and distribution of 

early voting locations in counties with 

populations of more than 120,000 and less 

than 400,000. The early voting period is 

shortened to 17 days before an election.

2003: All counties are required to begin 

early voting 17 days before an election.

implementation, however, local election officials 

have fully incorporated any extra costs associated 

with early voting into their budgets and reported 

that they favor the alternative voting method. 

Since its inception in 1987, early voting in 

Texas has undergone significant changes to 

address matters pertaining to equal protection, 

accessibility, and inconsistencies within the Texas 

Election Code (TEC). All these changes put early 

voting practices and procedures on par with those 

used on Election Day.

Legislative History

1987

Texas House bill 612 is enacted, which creates 

“no-excuse” voting by personal appearance. Voters 

no longer need to provide a reason if they wish to 

vote in person before Election Day. Only a limited 

number of early voting locations are established, 

however, usually in the permanent branch offices 

of the county election official. Moreover, the State 

and local officials do not lead an aggressive 

public education effort to inform voters of the new 

alternative voting method. Local election officials are 

especially nervous about paying for the new form of 

voting for which the State provides no funding.

1988

The Committee on Elections of the Texas House 

of Representatives reviews the implementation of 

expanded absentee voting. It seems as if the new 

option is well received by both the general public 

and the local election officials implementing and 

administering it. Included in the committee’s report 

are the following findings:

• The success of the expanded in-person 

absentee voting program is reflected in an 

increase in the number of absentee votes cast, 

which encourages the creation of more inperson absentee voting locations.

• The concerns about the ability of voters to cast 

more than one ballot during the early voting 

period appear unfounded; no data suggest that 

multiple voting occurs.5

These findings prove to be an impetus for 

subsequent changes to the TEC. One improvement 

is the adoption of technology and procedures—

such as real-time connectivity between early voting 

sites and the central office poll book—meant to 

mitigate the threat of multiple voting.

5

Texas. Committee on Elections, Texas House of 

Representatives. Interim Report to the 71st Texas Legislature. 

Austin: The Committee [1988]. pp. 3-6.
4

1991

On May 26, 1991, Governor Ann Richards signs 

Senate bill 1234, which revolutionizes voting in 

Texas. The law amends the TEC to identify “early 

voting” as a separate and distinct voting method 

apart from “absentee voting.” Among the substantive 

changes are rules that require the following:

• Clerks’ offices must remain open on Election Day.

• Counties with more than 100,000 residents 

must establish temporary branch early voting 

locations, open early voting polling places 12 

hours each day during the final week of early 

voting, and observe extended hours during the 

last weekend of early voting.

• Electioneering must take place outside larger 

boundaries near early voting locations to 

put procedures in line with Election Day 

electioneering.

• Clerks’ offices must establish uniform voting 

hours for all early voting locations.6

The 1991 legislation calls for an early voting period 

beginning 20 days before the election. Subsequent 

amendments narrow the early voting period to 

provide greater uniformity in the voting process. 

Today, the current period of early voting begins on 

the 17th day before a general election or the first 

business day thereafter if the 17th day before the 

election falls on the weekend.

Establishing Early 

Voting Locations

Early voting sites are not chosen at random. State 

law defines the formula for establishing early voting 

locations for State and Federal elections as follows:

• Counties with populations of less than 100,000 

are required to maintain early voting locations 

at the main office of the county election official 

and any permanent branch locations.

• Counties with populations between 100,000 

and 120,000 are required to maintain one 

early voting location within each County 

Commissioner District if the county receives a 

request from within a particular precinct by 15 

or more registered voters.

• Counties with populations between 120,000 

and 400,000 are required to maintain one 

early voting location within each County 

Commissioner District plus a main early voting 

location (minimum of five locations).

• Counties with populations of more than 400,000 

are required to maintain one early voting 

location within each State Representative 

District plus the main early voting location.

• The total number of permanent branch and 

temporary branch early voting locations in one 

County Commissioner District may not exceed 

twice the number of permanent and temporary 

polling places open at that time in another 

County Commissioner District.7

The County Commissioners Court, the governing 

body of each county, is the ultimate authority for 

the placement and use of early voting locations 

throughout the county. All decisions about the 

placement of early voting locations must be official 

actions of the court, which are posted on the agenda 

of their regular meetings. Furthermore, there are 

statutory requirements to ensure that the placement 

of early voting sites is fair and politically neutral.8

 

The current statutory requirement for the relatively 

equal distribution of early voting locations among 

County Commissioner Districts (not to exceed a 

ratio of 2:1) provides a valuable tool for maintaining 

a minimum level of equality in service because 

each County Commissioner District is required by 

law to have roughly the same population. 

Although each county must achieve minimum 

compliance with the law, many pursue additional 

alternative methods allowable under the TEC. Some 

6

Texas. Committee on Elections, Texas House of 

Representatives. Interim Report 1992. Austin: The Committee 

[1992]. pp. 5-8.

7

Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 85.062 (2003). 

8

Ibid.
5

counties have established “mobile early voting” 

locations. These locations are open for limited 

durations and are intended to serve particular 

areas. All mobile locations are subject to the same 

noticing requirements and procedures as stationary 

early voting buildings.9

Costs

Texas has not conducted a statewide review of the 

costs associated with early voting. Tarrant County, 

however, the third largest county in the State and 

home to the city of Fort Worth, estimates that the 

direct costs associated with conducting early voting 

during the Presidential election in November 2004 

amounted to $524,320; more than 57 percent of 

that expenditure is attributable to payroll and the 

hiring of additional clerks. 

Tarrant County establishes 28 early voting locations 

for the duration of the early voting period and an 

additional 9 locations of limited duration. Because 

of its large population, Tarrant County is required 

to conduct early voting for a period of 12 hours per 

day (Monday through Friday) during the last week 

of early voting. During the 2004 general election, 

the county’s 307,246 early votes cast averaged a 

cost of $1.70 per early voter according to interviews 

with the Tarrant County Elections Administrator.

In Harris County, the State’s largest county, with 

1.9 million registered voters, the cost per early 

voter in the 2004 Presidential election was $1.14. 

Total costs associated with the 32 early voting 

locations in Harris County totaled $471,073, and 

an estimated 72 percent of that amount was for 

personnel expenses, according to interviews with 

the Harris County Clerk. 

Other costs associated with early voting include 

telecommunication line installations, site rental 

fees, and transportation fees to transport voting 

equipment to and from early voting locations. The 

cost per early voter varies from election to election 

based on the level of turnout during early voting. 

Personnel Costs

Payroll expenses account for a substantial 

percentage of the money required to conduct early 

voting in Tarrant and Harris Counties. To conduct 

“Election Day” over an extended period, local 

election officials must hire temporary employees, 

who are paid at a higher pay rate than that of 

standard Election Day poll workers. 

In 2007, supervisors at an early voting location 

in Harris County earned $8.49 per hour, while 

election clerks earned $7.92 per hour. Election 

Day poll workers in Harris County earned 

$7.50 and $6.00 per hour, respectively, for the 

equivalent positions. 

Technology Costs

With many early voting locations open and 

processing voters simultaneously, counties use 

modems and other telecommunication devices 

that provide real-time connectivity to the elections 

office to prevent multiple voting. The need for 

this technology was first identified when Texas 

expanded no-excuse absentee voting. At that time, 

the Texas Legislature wanted to ensure that voters 

could cast only one ballot during each election. 

Early voting requires using off-the-shelf or 

internally developed election management 

software. The software offers a user-friendly 

interface for processing voters by election clerks 

while verifying a voter’s registration status. The 

voter is then given credit for voting. After given 

credit, the individual is unable to vote in another 

early voting location or on Election Day. Should 

this connectivity be lost for some reason during 

voting, emergency procedures are in place to verify 

voters via telephone so that no voters are turned 

away from an early voting location. The increased 

telecommunication requirement adds to the costs 

associated with early voting—approximately 

$4,600 in Harris County, for example.

9

Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 85.067 (2003).
6

Administrative 

Challenges

The public expects reliable early voting each 

election, and local election officials continue to 

improve administrative practices and procedures to 

meet those expectations.

Counties are considering ways to inform the public 

during early voting about which sites are experiencing 

long lines and how best to redirect voters to alternate 

locations. Officials continue to examine the potential 

for more early voting locations and how best to rapidly 

verify a voter’s eligibility, because the ability to process 

voters quickly is critical to the success of early voting 

in any jurisdiction. 

Harris County has started using Geographic 

Information System software to analyze voter 

trends within service areas, identify gaps in service 

coverage, and anticipate the potential effect of 

moving early voting locations. 

Voter Turnout

The Texas Legislature initially justified its approval 

of early voting with a supposition that providing 

greater ease and flexibility might yield higher 

turnout. Early voting is certainly more convenient 

for voters; sites are open for many more hours 

during the course of the election cycle than they 

would be if voting occurred only on Election Day. 

The voter makes the decision of when and where 

to vote based on his or her schedule. Early voting, 

however, appears to serve only as an alternative 

voting method for active voters who would 

have otherwise voted on Election Day. Overall 

turnout as a percentage of registered voters has 

not increased, so little evidence supports the 

supposition that large proportions of previously 

nonvoting individuals are now participating because 

of the convenience provided by early voting. It is 

possible, though, that convenience is keeping some 

voters in the process that might otherwise have 

stopped voting without the alternative voting option.

Figure 1 illustrates the traditional ebb and flow 

of turnout associated with Federal elections. 

Presidential election years are usually the 

highest turnout elections. In Texas, the most 

noticeable trend in the data is the dropoff that 

occurred between the 1992 and 1996 Presidential 

elections—from a high of more than 70 percent 

in 1992 to 53 percent in 1996.10 Although 2004 

showed a slight increase in turnout, the overall 

trend since early voting began reveals no dramatic 

increase in turnout. Instead, it has remained 

relatively stable at slightly more than 50 percent 

during recent Presidential election cycles.

Figure 2 illustrates the increasing proportion of 

overall voting in Texas that occurs during early 

voting. Although the level of overall turnout has 

remained the same, the percentage of those 

voters choosing to vote early continues to grow 

when similar elections are compared. In 2004, the 

proportion of early voters of overall turnout was 

more than 50 percent for the first time. One trend 

of particular note is the double-digit increase in the 

percentage of early voters from 2000 to 2004. Future 

elections will reveal whether the trend continues. 

Figure 3 shows the daily turnout for the 15 most 

populous counties in Texas in the 2-week early voting 

period before Election Day. During the first week, 

early voting is limited to the 8-hour workday. During 

the second week of early voting, hours are extended 

to 12 hours per day in each of the 15 counties. The 

data show that for both the 2004 and 2006 general 

elections, a dramatic increase in turnout correlates 

with the expanded service hours during the second 

week of early voting. Local election officials should 

consider these data when implementing an early 

voting process. If 2 weeks of early voting proves too 

expensive, the same convenience voting effect may 

still be achieved in 1 week of early voting, because it 

appears that most voters decide to vote as close as 

possible to Election Day. 

10The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, also known as 

Motor Voter, went into effect on January 1, 1995. Although the 

law improved access to voter registration and information, it 

made it more difficult for jurisdictions to remove voters from 

the voter registration list. With the added difficulty of removing 

voters from the list, it is not surprising that the turnout of 

registered voters has declined in certain elections since 1995.
7

Figure 2. Early Voting as a Percentage of Overall Turnout

Election Year

 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Percent Early Vote

Source: Texas Secretary of State, Elections Division, Election Results Archive, 2006.

Figure 1. Overall Turnout (RV) for Federal General Elections (1980–2006)

Percentage 

Turnout

1980 1984 1990 1994 2000 2004 2008

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Year

Source: Texas Secretary of State, Elections Division, Election Results Archive, 2006.
8

Figure 3. Daily Distribution of Early Voters 2006 

versus 2004 General Elections*

Days of Early Voting

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

0

Total 

Number of Daily Early Voters

2006 General

2004 General

Legal 

Challenges

Texas won its first early voting 

legal battle when the 5th U.S. 

Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 

that “because the election of 

federal officials in Texas is not 

decided until Texas voters go to 

the polls on federal election day, 

we conclude that the Texas earlyvoting scheme is not inconsistent 

with federal election laws.”11

In 2003, the Mexican American 

Legal Defense and Education 

Fund (MALDEF) sued Bexar 

County (TX) election officials.12

The election involved in this 

dispute was the Texas State 

Constitutional Amendment 

election scheduled for September 

13, 2003. Because of low turnout 

expectations for this election, the number of early 

voting locations was decreased from the number 

used on a typical Federal Election Day. MALDEF 

claimed that the reduction of early voting locations 

happened in particular demographic areas that 

would be more likely to deny equal access for 

voters of some minority groups. The U.S. District 

Court ruled that the county had not properly 

secured preclearance through the U.S. Department 

of Justice under Section 5 of the Federal Voting 

Rights Act, which is required in some jurisdictions 

before changing an election practice.13 In addition, 

the overall distribution and existing levels of access 

of early voting locations were deemed insufficient. 

Bexar County was required to establish an 

additional six early voting locations.14 

In an effort to alleviate questions of equal access, 

the TEC now defines certain noticing provisions 

to registered voters regarding the schedule and 

locations for early voting. Any changes to early 

voting schedules or early voting locations must 

be submitted for Section 5 preclearance through 

the U.S. Department of Justice, as required by the 

Federal Voting Rights Act.15 

Conclusion

The success of early voting in Texas can be attributed 

to its statutory foundation, distinct rules that establish 

minimum service requirements for voters, and 

defined operating procedures for local election 

officials. Key portions in the TEC and best practices 

used by election officials include the following: 

Source: Texas Secretary of State, Elections Division, Election Results Archive, 2006.

*Day 6 represents a Saturday—the first voting day with 12 

hours of voting. Day 7 represents a Sunday, with limited voting 

hours in many counties, which results in far fewer votes than 

the immediately preceding and succeeding days of early voting. 

Days 8–12 represent the second week of early voting, with 12 

hours of voting each day.

11The Voting Integrity Project, Inc. et al v. Elton Bomer, 199 F.3d 

773 (5th Cir. 2000). 

12Miguel Hernanez Chapter of the Am. GI Forum v. Bexar 

County, No. SA-03CA-816-RF (W.D. Tex. August 28, 2003).

13Ibid.

14Ibid.

1542 U.S.C. § 1973c (2006).
9

• Clear rules for the uniform application of early 

voting hours and dates.

• Unambiguous minimum and maximum 

requirements for the quantity and distribution of 

early voting locations to ensure equal access 

within a county.

• Noticing provisions that inform the voting public 

about early voting locations, dates, and times 

and also inform them of any changes.

• Detailed procedures for processing voters 

during the early voting period. 

• Technology that permits real-time connectivity 

for verifying early voters.

As the popularity of early voting increases, so does 

the number of challenges for election officials. They 

must periodically reassess early voting service 

areas within their jurisdictions. As demand for early 

voting in one area increases, officials must respond 

by identifying and planning for new early voting 

locations as needed. 

Despite the fact that early voting has not increased 

overall turnout in Texas, as was originally hoped, it 

has been embraced by both the public and election 

officials. Voters have the flexibility of choosing a 

convenient time and place to cast their ballots—

something they may be unable or unwilling to do 

on Election Day—and long lines at polling places 

and resulting consequences become less likely for 

local election officials on Election Day. Continued 

increases in the proportion of the electorate 

choosing to use early voting signal that the 

alternative voting method has become an integral 

part of the election process by voters in Texas. 
10 Election Day as a Holiday: 

Illinois and Maryland

State Name: Illinois

Chief Election 

Official: Dan White 

 Executive Director 

 Illinois State Board 

 of Elections

 1020 S. Spring Street

 Springfield, IL 62704

 Phone: 217-782-1542

Number of 

Registered 

Voters: 7,320,000 (in 2006)

Implemented: 1943

State Name: Maryland

Chief Election 

Official: Linda Lamone

 Admin. of Elections

 151 West St. Ste 200 

 P.O. Box 6486

 Annapolis, MD 21401

Number of 

Registered 

Voters: 3,142,812 (in 2006)

Date of 

Implemented: 1882

In a national survey of voters conducted for EAC, 

51 percent of individuals favored establishing 

an Election Day Federal holiday compared with 

45 percent who opposed it. Many believe that 

an Election Day Federal holiday would result in 

more convenience for working individuals, which 

would result in higher turnout. There may also 

be some benefits for local election officials in the 

administration of elections on a holiday as opposed 

to on a regular Tuesday workday. 

An Election Day holiday would not be new to voters 

in all States. As of 2006, nine States observed 

State holidays on Federal Election Days. The nine 

States are Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, 

Louisiana, Maryland, Montana, New Jersey, and 

West Virginia.16

EAC researchers interviewed State and local 

election officials in Illinois and Maryland, States 

with Election Day State holidays on Federal 

Election Days, for this section. Aside from 

collecting information about the pros and cons in 

administering elections on Election Day holidays, 

researchers gathered data about whether election 

officials believe that the holiday adds value to the 

election process as a whole—for election officials 

and voters. 

Implementation 

and Effect

Assessing the effect of implementing an Election 

Day State holiday in Illinois and Maryland is difficult 

because of a lack of information. In Illinois, the 

State declared an Election Day holiday in 1943. 

In Maryland, Federal elections have been State 

holidays since 1882. Election officials in each State 

were unsure of the reasoning behind the statute, 

how long it took to implement the statute, and how 

costly the statute was to implement. 

One of the most common arguments in favor 

of establishing an Election Day Federal holiday 

is that it would become significantly easier for 

individuals who must work on Election Day to vote. 

In 1992, then-Representative Ron Wyden from 

Oregon said, regarding H.R. 3681 Democracy Day 

Act, “one of the largest barriers to voting is the 

busy daily schedule of the American people. The 

demands of home, work and family life often make 

it extraordinarily difficult to find the time to make it 

to the polls to vote.”17

It is not clear, however, that an Election Day 

Federal holiday would necessarily result in a more 

convenient voting experience for voters. In States 

16“2006 Polling Place Hours by State.” Chart. National 

Association of Secretaries of State. Nov. 2006. 14 Jul 2008 

<http://nass.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id

=71&Itemid=217>. 

17Cong. Rec. 7 May 1992: E1297.
11

with Election Day State holidays, the U.S. Postal 

Service and all other Federal agencies remain 

open. Many businesses choose not to close. 

In some States, including Maryland, the local 

jurisdictions determine whether schools, libraries, 

and other municipal buildings will be open as usual. 

In short, a State holiday guarantees the closing of 

only State offices. The same would be true of an 

Election Day Federal holiday; the only guaranteed 

closures would be for Federal agencies. 

The closing of State offices has some benefits for 

local election officials. Some jurisdictions recruit 

State employees to be poll workers for Federal 

elections on their days off. An Election Day State 

holiday may result in more options for local election 

officials in establishing polling places. Some States 

reported that more schools are available as polling 

places when is the State declares an Election 

Day State holiday. Again, an Election Day Federal 

holiday would not mandate that schools or State 

offices close, so the potential effect of such a 

holiday is difficult to measure. 

Additional costs are associated with establishing an 

Election Day holiday. The States that have declared 

Election Day State holidays must pay for the loss 

of 1 day’s productivity for all State employees. The 

same would be true if the Federal government were 

to declare a Federal holiday. More than 2.4 million 

Federal employees would be given the day off with 

pay.18 Total payroll cost for poll workers is not likely 

to rise dramatically just because the Election Day 

is a holiday. Local election officials and their staffs 

already receive overtime pay or compensatory time 

because of the long hours they work on Election Day.

Voter Turnout

Most arguments in favor of declaring an Election 

Day Federal holiday include an expected increase 

in voter convenience so that more individuals 

can participate in the electoral process. EAC 

researchers were able to identify data for Illinois 

regarding the number of votes cast for President in 

1940 and 1944 as well as population estimates of 

voting age population (VAP). Similar data about the 

implementation of an Election Day State holiday 

in Maryland were impossible to locate because 

Census Bureau data about VAP are not available 

before 1940.

In 1940, the last Presidential election before Illinois 

moved to an Election Day State holiday, 4,217,935 

votes were cast for Presidential electors.19 In Illinois, 

the civilian population age 21 and over (the legal 

voting age at the time) was 5,374,143.20 Thus, the 

turnout of VAP in 1940 was 78.5 percent. Four 

years later, after the implementation in 1943 of the 

Election Day State holiday, votes cast by civilians for 

Presidential electors decreased to 3,873,805 out of 

4,998,000 individuals in the VAP.21 Therefore, turnout 

decreased slightly to 77.5 percent in 1944 after the 

implementation of the Election Day State holiday.

EAC researchers compared turnout data from the 

past four Federal elections in Illinois and Maryland 

and the 7 additional States that have Election Day 

State holidays with the aggregated turnout data of 

the 41 States and the District of Columbia that do not 

have State holidays and to the national voter turnout. 

The data are included in Table 1. In Federal elections 

from 2000 and 2006, the aggregated turnout of 

States with Election Day State holidays was higher 

in two elections and lower in two elections than the 

turnout of the 41 States and the District of Columbia 

that do not have State holidays. For example, in 

2000 the 9 States with Election Day State holidays 

had a turnout of VAP of 50.6 percent while the 

national turnout was 50.0 percent. In 2006, however, 

the 9 States had a turnout of 35.8 percent when the 

national turnout was 37.0 percent. 

18United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department 

of Labor. Career Guide to Industries, 2008-09 Edition, Federal 

Government, Excluding the Postal Service. [Washington, DC :] 

BLS, 2008. 14 July 2008 <http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htm>.

United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department 

of Labor. Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008-09 Edition. 

[Washington, DC :] BLS, 2008. 19 August 2008 <http://www.

bls.gov/oco/ocos141.htm>.

19United States. Cong. House. Statistics of the Presidential and 

Congressional Election of November 5, 1940. 15 Jan. 1941. 

77th Cong., 1st sess. Washington: 1941. 14 Jul. 2008 <http://

clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/1940election.pdf>. 

20United States. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of 

Commerce. Current Population Reports Population Estimates. 

[Washington, DC :] Bureau of the Census, 1948. 14 July 2008 

<http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/voting/p25-015.pdf>.

21Ibid.
12

When the turnout data from States with Election 

Day State holidays are compared with the turnout 

data from States without Election Day holidays and 

with the entire country, it is evident that an Election 

Day holiday does not increase voter turnout.

Table 1. Turnout in Election Day State Holiday States, 2000, 2002, 2004, and 200622

2004 Presidential Election

State VAP* Voters Turnout (%)

Delaware 629,012 375,190 59.6

Hawaii 980,145 429,013 43.8

Illinois 9,518,511 5,274,322 55.4

Indiana 4,635,693 2,468,002 53.2

Louisiana 3,358,475 1,943,106 57.9

Maryland 4,200,864 2,386,705 56.8

Montana 715,516 450,445 63.0

New Jersey 6,573,016 3,611,691 54.9

W. Virginia 1,430,277 755,887 52.8

9 States w/ 

Election 

Day Holiday

32,041,509 17,694,361 55.2

41 States + 

DC without 

Election 

Day Holiday

189,243,590 104,600,617 55.3

United 

States 221,285,099 122,294,978 55.3

2000 Presidential Election

State VAP* Voters Turnout (%)

Delaware 596,389 327,529 54.9

Hawaii 921,695 367,951 39.9

Illinois 9,218,881 4,742,123 51.4

Indiana 4,522,034 2,182,295 48.3

Louisiana 3,258,261 1,765,656 54.2

Maryland 3,974,596 2,025,480 51.0

Montana 678,630 410,986 60.6

New Jersey 6,359,586 3,187,226 50.1

W. Virginia 1,406,441 648,124 46.1

9 States w/ 

Election 

Day Holiday

30,936,513 15,657,370 50.6

41 States + 

DC without 

Election 

Day Holiday

179,783,669 89,718,116 49.9

United 

States 210,720,182 105,375,486 50.0

2002 Midterm Election

State VAP* Voters Turnout (%)

Delaware 613,468 232,314 37.9

Hawaii 950,627 382,110 40.2

Illinois 9,375,151 3,538,883 37.7

Indiana 4,569,767 1,521,353 33.3

Louisiana 3,298,931 1,246,333 37.8

Maryland 4,095,794 1,704,560 41.6

Montana 695,012 331,321 47.7

New Jersey 6,473,660 2,112,604 32.6

W. Virginia 1,414,041 436,183 30.8

9 States w/ 

Election 

Day Holiday

31,486,451 11,505,661 36.5

41 States + 

DC without 

Election 

Day Holiday

184,520,406 66,867,802 36.2

United 

States 216,006,857 78,381,943 36.3

2006 Midterm Election

State VAP* Voters Turnout (%)

Delaware 650,932 254,099 39.0

Hawaii 991,442 344,315 34.7

Illinois 9,648,191 3,486,671 36.1

Indiana 4,758,146 1,666,922 35.0

Louisiana 3,138,364 902,498 28.8

Maryland 4,274,452 1,788,316 41.8

Montana 725,487 406,505 56.0

New Jersey 6,661,588 2,250,070 33.8

W. Virginia 1,427,746 459,884 32.2

9 States w/ 

Election 

Day Holiday

32,276,347 11,559,280 35.8

41 States + 

DC without 

Election 

Day Holiday

194,294,076 72,231,623 37.2

United 

States 226,570,423 83,771,171 37.0

*VAP = voting age population

22Voter turnout figures were derived from the number of votes 

cast for the highest office and the voting age population (VAP), as 

reported by Dr. Michael McDonald and the United States Election 

Project. 17 Jul. 2008 <http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm>.
13

Illinois Law:

(10 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/17-25 2008).

5/17-25. Election days to be holidays: 

The days upon which the general 

elections for members of the House 

of Representatives of this State shall 

hereafter be held shall be holidays, 

and shall for all purposes whatever as 

regards the presenting for payment 

or acceptance and of protesting and 

giving notice of the dishonor of bills of 

exchange, bank checks and promissory 

notes and as regards days of grace 

upon commercial paper, be treated 

and considered as is the first day of 

the week, commonly called Sunday; 

provided, that no other election day shall 

be treated and considered as a holiday.

Election Day in Illinois

The Illinois State Board of Elections was created 

in 1974, but the Election Day State holiday was 

implemented 31 years earlier in 1943. The Board 

of Elections was unable to provide information 

about how long it took to implement the holiday 

or any costs involved with the implementation. 

Similarly, it could not comment about changes in 

the administration of elections in Illinois as a result 

of the implementation of the Election Day State 

holiday. EAC researchers interviewed local election 

officials in seven jurisdictions in Illinois: Champaign, 

DuPage, Jackson, Lake, Mason, Peoria, and Rock 

Island Counties.

The Election Day State holiday is not advertised. 

As one election official explained it, the holiday 

has “been around for so long that people just take 

it for granted.” Still, as only a State holiday, the 

U.S. Postal Service and other Federal agencies 

remain open during the day as do many private 

businesses. Assessing whether those private 

businesses might be more likely to close on an 

Election Day Federal holiday is not feasible.

Administrative Challenges

Illinois has a State law that requires all government 

buildings be made available to local election 

officials as polling places on Election Day. 

Local election officials, however, say they have 

had difficulty enforcing the law. Some school 

administrators are reluctant to allow their facilities to 

be used as polling places on Election Day because 

of security concerns for their students. The problem 

became more severe after September 11, 2001. 

In Illinois, the decision to close schools on the 

Election Day State holiday is made at the county 

level. All seven counties represented in this study 

indicated that schools are open during the Election 

Day State holiday, which makes it difficult for local 

election officials to use those facilities. In addition, 

most of the counties cited parking problems at 

polling places located at open schools. 

The increased availability of State and local 

government buildings on the Election Day State 

holiday does not necessarily provide local election 

officials with greater polling place options. Although 

State government buildings are closed, the 

consensus among local election officials in Illinois 

is that government buildings are not ideal polling 

sites. Many government buildings have space 

configurations that do not provide enough room for 

polling places. An election official from a county that 

has used a State government building as a polling 

place noted that it is more difficult to gain access 

to the building during holidays because the regular 

maintenance and security personnel are not on site.

Most election officials interviewed told EAC 

researchers that there was no increase in interest 

in becoming a poll worker simply because State 

employees have the day off. Only one election 

official from the seven jurisdictions in Illinois 

interviewed for this case study indicated that the 

jurisdiction was able to recruit State employees as 

poll workers as a direct result of the Election Day 

State holiday. 
14

The administrative cost to run elections varies by 

county. Five of the seven county election officials 

interviewed told EAC researchers that local election 

officials in the jurisdiction get paid overtime. 

Those election officials, however, receive overtime 

pay because they work more than the standard 

business hours on that day and not because of the 

State holiday. Costs would increase if the county 

government were closed for the holiday, which 

would mean the local election official and staff 

would receive either overtime pay or compensatory 

time off for working on the State holiday.

Possibly the biggest administrative benefit of an 

Election Day State holiday for local election officials 

is a side effect of the State closure unrelated to the 

actual administration of elections. County clerks 

are the election administrators in Illinois. Those 

clerks’ offices are closed because of the Election 

Day State holiday, and local election officials can 

focus their offices’ efforts solely on the election in 

progress. Election officials use other personnel 

from the clerks’ offices to help with election 

administration, as needed. 

Voter Turnout

All seven county representatives whom the EAC 

interviewed agreed that the Election Day State holiday 

in Illinois does not result in higher voter turnout. 

The turnout data of VAP in Illinois verify the election 

officials’ beliefs that turnout in their State is not 

necessarily higher than it is in States without an 

Election Day State holiday. In 2000, 2002, and 

2004, voter turnout in Illinois was slightly higher 

than voter turnout nationwide. In 2006, however, 

voter turnout in Illinois was about 1 percent lower 

than national turnout.
15

The first statutory reference to Election 

Day as a legal holiday in Maryland was in 

1882. Chapter 23 of the Laws of Maryland 

(1882) designated “all days of general 

and congressional elections throughout 

the State” as legal holidays. The law 

related to presenting for payment or 

acceptance of bills of exchange, bank 

checks, drafts, and promissory notes on 

the designated legal holidays.

Election Day 

in Maryland

Election Day in Maryland has been a State holiday 

since 1882. Officials from the Maryland State 

Board of Elections were unable to provide EAC 

researchers information about the implementation 

of the holiday. Specifically, they did not know about 

the costs involved or how initial implementation 

affected voter turnout. EAC researchers interviewed 

local election officials in eight counties in Maryland: 

Allegany, Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Calvert, Carroll, 

Harford, Montgomery, and Washington Counties. 

In Maryland, a State holiday requires the closure 

of only State government buildings. Counties, 

municipalities, and private businesses do not 

necessarily have to close because of the State 

holiday. Some counties and municipalities in 

Maryland have declared Election Day a county or 

municipal holiday but others have not. 

Similarly, each school district has the authority 

to establish holidays in its jurisdiction. During the 

2006 election cycle, 22 of the 24 school districts 

were closed for the primary and general elections. 

For jurisdictions in which schools are closed, 

local election officials attempt to make use of 

those facilities as polling places because they are 

generally accessible for voters with disabilities and 

have adequate parking. 

Administrative Challenges

Schools are closed on Election Day in all of the 

eight counties that participated in this case study. 

In Carroll County, 32 of 33 polling places are in 

schools. In Montgomery County, 600 to 700 high 

school students work on Election Day at polling 

places, either as poll workers or helping in other 

ways during busy hours early in the morning and 

later in the evening. Election officials in a smaller 

jurisdiction also prefer using the closed schools as 

polling places. 

Election officials interviewed from all eight counties 

say they have more poll workers when State offices 

are closed. In Harford County, for example, 15 to 20 

percent of the 800 poll workers are State employees 

who have the day off. In 2006, Maryland Governor 

Robert Ehrlich used an incentive to recruit State 

employees to use their Election Day State holidays 

to serve as poll workers. Although State law provides 

8 hours of administrative leave for State employees 

in addition to poll worker compensation on days 

during which the employees are normally scheduled 

to work, the Election Day State holiday for Federal 

elections renders the State employees ineligible to 

receive the administrative leave because they are 

not scheduled to work. In a September 22, 2006, 

letter to all State employees, the Governor declared 

all State employees eligible for the administrative 

leave in addition to the poll worker compensation 

irrespective of the State holiday.

Voter Turnout

Maryland has had a higher voter turnout rate than 

the national voter turnout rate in each of the last 

four Federal elections. During the 2002 and 2006 

midterm Federal elections, Maryland recorded 

between 4.8 and 5.3 percent higher turnout than 

the national voter turnout rate. In fact, of States 

with Election Day State holidays, only Montana 

had consistently higher voter turnout rates than 

Maryland. This consistently higher turnout, though, 

is likely a reflection of greater civic interest than of 

the Election Day State holiday.
16

Conclusion 

It is a commonly held belief that Election Day holidays result in higher voter turnout while providing 

local election officials with more polling places and 

poll workers.The data, however, do not reveal significantly higher turnout in States with Election Day 

State holidays. Moreover, the Election Day holiday 

results in some drawbacks for administrators.

There may be some benefits to the Election Day 

State holidays that may extend to an Election Day 

Federal holiday. In some Illinois jurisdictions, the 

county clerks offices are closed on the Election Day 

State holiday, which enables local election officials to 

focus their full attention on the election. The holiday 

does not necessarily help local election officials 

secure polling places, however, especially if the 

school districts decide against closing. Election Day 

State holidays have only minimally increased the 

number of State employees working as poll workers.

Maryland election officials interviewed had greater 

access to closed schools for polling places only 

because the individual counties decided to close 

on Election Day. The closures helped, because 

many school districts have security concerns about 

polling places in the buildings while schools are in 

session. Closing the schools also made it possible 

for several hundred students to work in the polling 

places on Election Day. 

When comparing the nine States that have an 

Election Day State holiday with all the other States 

that do not have Election Day holidays, as well as 

with the United States as a whole, there appears to 

be no relationship between an Election Day holiday 

and higher voter turnout. 

A National Holiday

Just as with Election Day State holidays, an 

Election Day Federal holiday would not require that 

State, county, and local governments close nor 

would it require school closures. Some jurisdictions 

might follow the Federal government and close 

for the day. The only certainty with establishing 

an Election Day Federal holiday, however, would 

be the cost of paying for the day off for millions of 

Federal employees. At this time, the turnout data 

regarding Election Day State holidays do not reveal 

higher voter turnout. The benefits usually cited to 

justify the holidays are mostly anecdotal. 

It is inadvisable at this time to establish a legal 

public holiday under section 6103 of title 5, 

United States Code, as the date on which general 

elections for Federal office are held until more 

research can be completed.

When comparing the nine 

States that have an Election 

Day State holiday with 

all the other States that 

do not have Election Day 

holidays, as well as with 

the United States as a 

whole, there appears to be 

no relationship between an 

Election Day holiday and 

higher voter turnout.
17

State Name: Oregon

Chief Election

Official: Hon. Bill Bradbury, 

 Secretary of State

 136 State Capitol

 Salem, OR 97310-0722

Number of 

Registered 

Voters: 1,994,320 (in 2006)

Alternative 

Voting Method: Vote-by-Mail

Implemented: 1981

Oregon’s Vote-by-Mail

Oregon has a history of decentralized elections. 

Until the mid-1970s, local officials in the State’s 

36 counties could call for elections any time about 

any issue without coordinating with other electoral 

authorities in the State. As a result, there were 

frequent elections, and turnout in local contests 

steadily declined as voters suffered from “election 

fatigue.” 

For more than two decades, Oregon has conducted 

“vote-by-mail” elections. Originally, this alternative 

voting method was an attempt to reverse a decline 

in voter turnout. Now it is widely supported by the 

public for its convenience, and other jurisdictions 

and States have expressed interest in the method.

The alternative voting method began in 1981 when 

the Oregon Legislature approved vote-by-mail for 

local elections in which no candidates were on the 

ballot. The experiment has since evolved to include 

special elections, statewide elections, primaries, 

and Federal elections. Oregon election officials now 

administer all elections exclusively with vote-by-mail.

Implementation 

and Effect

Election officials quickly discovered a number of 

differences between traditional precinct-based 

and vote-by-mail elections. The administration of 

elections becomes less complicated when the 

pressures involved in recruiting, training, and 

managing poll workers are eliminated. Similarly, 

without in-person voting, officials have no need to 

secure numerous polling places. Oregon election 

officials claim that voter registration lists tend to 

be more accurate because the frequent mailing 

of nonforwardable ballots provides local election 

officials with updated information about the actual 

home addresses of the voters when mail is returned 

as undeliverable. Furthermore, some evidence 

indicates that vote-by-mail elections might cost less 

to administer than precinct-based elections and 

may increase voter turnout. 

Voter participation declined to the single digits 

for some local elections during the 1970s. While 

looking for an alternative way of conducting 

elections that would reenergize the electorate in his 

county, then-Multnomah County Elections Director 

Bill Radakovich observed a vote-by-mail election in 

California. That experience led him to present the 

potential to use the alternative voting method to the 

Oregon Legislature and to then-Secretary of State 

Norma Paulus (1977–85).

In 1981, the Oregon Legislature debated and 

passed a bill that allowed local jurisdictions to 

experiment with vote-by-mail elections in which 

no candidates were on the ballot. Subsequent 

legislation rapidly expanded the use of vote-by-mail 

methods that led to the practices and procedures 

used for vote-by-mail elections in Oregon today.
18

Table 2. Oregon’s Vote-by-Mail Timeline of Major Events23

1981 The Oregon Legislature approves a test of vote-by-mail methods for 

local elections.

1987 Vote-by-mail is made permanent; most counties use it for local/

special elections.

June 1993 First special statewide election by mail is held—39 percent turnout.

May 1995 Second special statewide election by mail is held—44 percent turnout.

Spring/Summer 

1995

The Oregon Legislature approves a proposal to expand vote-by-mail to 

primary and general elections. The Governor vetoes the bill. A separate bill 

authorizes the use of vote-by-mail for the Presidential preference primary. 

The Governor signs the bill into law.24

December 1995 Oregon becomes the first State to conduct a primary election totally by mail to 

nominate candidates to fill a vacancy in a Federal office—58 percent turnout.

January 1996

Oregon becomes the first State to conduct a general election totally by mail 

to fill a vacancy in a Federal office when it selects Senator Ron Wyden to 

replace Senator Bob Packwood—66 percent turnout.

March 1996

Oregon holds the country’s second vote-by-mail Presidential primary. (North 

Dakota held the first vote-by-mail Presidential primary just weeks before 

Oregon’s election.)—58 percent turnout.

May 1998

Primary election at the polls. Of registered voters in Oregon, 41 percent are 

permanent absentee voters. Overall, the State posts a record low turnout at 

35 percent. Absentee ballots represent nearly two-thirds of all ballots cast; 

Oregon becomes the first State to have more ballots cast by mail than at the 

polls during a polling place election. 

June 1998 Supporters of expanding vote-by-mail to primary and general elections use 

the initiative to put the issue on the November general election ballot.

November 1998 Oregon voters decide to expand vote-by-mail to primary and general 

elections by a vote of 757,204 to 334,021.

November 2000 First vote-by-mail Presidential general election is held—79.8 percent turnout.

November 2002 Vote-by-mail general election is held—69 percent turnout.

November 2004 Vote-by-mail Presidential general election is held—86.5 percent turnout.

November 2006 Vote-by-mail general election is held—70 percent turnout.

History of Vote-by-Mail 

23Adapted from “A Brief History of Vote by Mail.” Chart. Oregon 

Secretary of State. 14 Jul 2008 <http://www.sos.state.or.us/

elections/vbm/history.html>. 

24Oregon. Senate. Senate Bills Vetoed by Governor after 

Adjournment 1995 Regular Session. Salem: The Senate 

[1995]. 14 Jul 2008 <http://www.leg.state.or.us/95reg/pubs/

svetocal.txt>.
19

1981

The first legislation authorizing vote-by-mail 

elections was very restrictive. If local election 

officials wanted to conduct a vote-by-mail election, 

the legislation required the elections division of 

the Secretary of State’s office to first adopt an 

administrative authorization rule for the jurisdiction 

for that specific election. Still, the county clerk made 

the final decision about the method of voting for 

each local jurisdiction.

The administration of vote-by-mail elections in 

1981 was notably different from the practices and 

procedures currently used. Vote-by-mail elections 

were allowed for ballot measures only (i.e., not 

for candidates), and the county clerk was the 

sole authorized official to administer vote-by-mail 

elections at the local level. At the time, vote-bymail elections were conducted within a legislative 

framework designed for precinct-based elections. 

To resolve any questions about the allowable 

procedures for vote-by-mail elections, the Secretary 

of State had rulemaking authority to modify existing 

statutory provisions in the elections code in order to 

provide enough flexibility for local election officials 

to conduct successful vote-by-mail elections. 

1983 

The 1981 legislation was not made permanent. 

It expired at the end of the legislative session 

and needed to be reauthorized by subsequent 

legislation. Legislators were hesitant to 

permanently authorize vote-by-mail until more 

information was known about its effectiveness 

and costs. As a result, some local election 

officials were unwilling to commit resources 

for the necessary equipment and services to 

implement a successful vote-by-mail system 

because they were unsure about whether the 

voting method would be changed again in the 

near future. Furthermore, adapting operations 

and processes designed for precinct-based 

elections to those elections conducted with voteby-mail proved cumbersome.

Voter acceptance and significant increases in voter 

turnout, however, were encouraging. Secretary of 

State Norma Paulus and her successor, Barbara 

Roberts (1985–91), continued to encourage the use 

of vote-by-mail. 

Chapter 199, Oregon Laws 1983, 

SECTION 1 (2) [This Act applies] 

Sections 1 and 2, chapter 805, Oregon 

Laws 1981, apply to any election, [in 

which candidates are not listed on 

the ballot,] other than an emergency 

election, held on any date other than the 

date of a primary or general election.26

Chapter 805, Oregon Laws 1981, SECTION 1. (1) As provided in this Act and 

notwithstanding any contrary provision of 

law, a county clerk may conduct, with the 

supervision of the Secretary of State, an 

election by mail in the county or in a city 

or a district defined in ORS 255.012. In deciding to conduct an election by mail, the 

county clerk may consider requests from 

the governing body of the county, city or 

district, and shall consider whether conducting the election by mail will be economically and administratively feasible.

(2) This Act applies to any election in 

which candidates are not listed on the 

ballot, other than an emergency election, 

held on any date other than the date of a 

primary or general election.

SECTION 2. (1) The Secretary of 

State may adopt rules governing the 

procedures for conducting an election 

under this Act. The rules shall provide for 

uniformity in the conduct of the election 

throughout the electoral district in which 

the election is held. The Secretary of 

State by rule may modify the provisions 

of ORS chapters 254 and 255 as 

necessary to implement this Act.25

251981 Or. Laws Ch. 805.

261983 Or. Laws Ch. 199 Sec. 1.
20

1987

By the time the 1987 legislation passed, nearly all 

counties in Oregon were conducting some local 

elections with vote-by-mail. Although vote-by-mail 

was an optional method for use in local elections, 

the county clerk still made the final decision about 

which type of voting would be used for each election. 

Officials from political subdivisions of the county 

wanted to decide where, when, and how their 

elections would be conducted. This debate continued 

throughout the first decade of vote-by-mail.

The 1987 legislation made the option to use voteby-mail permanent for all local elections, including 

elections with candidates. The law, however, 

specifically excluded statewide primary and general 

elections. In the same bill, the Oregon Legislature 

required all county clerks to be certified to conduct 

vote-by-mail elections.

1993

In June, then-Secretary of State Phil Keisling 

(1991–99) administered the first statewide election 

conducted entirely with vote-by-mail in Oregon. 

As with the local-level introduction of vote-by-mail 

more than a decade before, the first statewide voteby-mail election did not include any candidates. 

The initiative on the ballot, however, about urban 

renewal bond payments, an issue that historically 

had generated very low voter interest, attracted a 

39 percent turnout.27 

1995

A second statewide vote-by-mail election was 

conducted in May 1995. The initiative on the 

ballot addressed district residency requirements 

for legislators and the use of lottery revenue for 

education; it garnered a turnout of 44 percent.29

The State conducted its first statewide election with 

a candidate on the ballot in 1995. Although primary 

and general elections were still not allowed to be 

conducted with vote-by-mail, Secretary of State Phil 

Keisling authorized the use of vote-by-mail in the 

primary “special election” to fill the vacancy created 

by the resignation of Senator Bob Packwood. NowSenator Ron Wyden was subsequently elected 

to fill the vacancy in a general special election in 

January 1996. The election recorded a 66 percent 

turnout of registered voters.30

Chapter 357, Oregon Laws 1987, 

SECTION 4. Not later than January 1, 

1989, every county in this state shall 

be certified by the Secretary of State as 

qualified to conduct an election by mail. 

Oregon Laws 1995 Chapter 712 SECTION

64. ORS 254.465 is amended to read: 

. . . A presidential preference primary 

election described in section 1 of this 

1995 Act shall be conducted by mail in 

all counties, under the supervision of the 

Secretary of State.

Except as provided in subsection (1) 

of this section, an election held on the 

date of the biennial primary or general 

election shall not be conducted by mail.

A state election not described in subsections (1) or (2) of this section may be 

conducted by mail. The Secretary of State 

by rule shall direct that a state election 

authorized to be conducted by mail under 

this subsection be conducted uniformly 

by mail or at polling places . . .28

27“A Brief History of Vote by Mail.” Chart. Oregon Secretary of 

State. 14 Jul 2008 <http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/vbm/

history.html>.

281987 Or. Laws Ch. 357 Sec. 4.

29“A Brief History of Vote by Mail.” Chart. Oregon Secretary of 

State. 14 Jul 2008 <http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/vbm/

history.html>.

30“Official Participation Summary by County Special U.S. 

Senate General Election January 30, 1996.” Chart. Oregon 

Secretary of State. 14 Jul 2008 <http://www.sos.state.or.us/

elections/jan3096/other.info/brsum.htm>. 
21

1996

During the regular legislative session of 1995, the 

Oregon Legislature attempted to require all primary 

and general elections to be conducted with voteby-mail. Although the House and Senate passed 

legislation with such a provision, Governor John 

Kitzhaber vetoed SB 319.31 

During the same session, however, the Governor 

signed SB 928, an omnibus election law bill, which 

included a change in the date of the Presidential 

preference primary and authorized that it be 

conducted with vote-by-mail.32 The State’s first 

Presidential primary using vote-by-mail attracted 58 

percent turnout.33 

1998

The Secretary of State decided to conduct the 1998 

statewide primary election as a precinct-based 

election. By Election Day, 41 percent of voters had 

requested absentee ballots, which was an increase 

of 300 percent over the number requesting ballots 

in 1992. Overall turnout for the primary election was 

35 percent. Absentee ballots represented nearly 

two-thirds of all ballots cast, and Oregon became 

the first State to have more ballots cast by mail 

than at the polls during a precinct-based election. 

Turnout among individuals requesting an absentee 

ballot was 53 percent.34

The 1998 primary was a precinct-based election 

with an extraordinarily high rate of voting by mail. 

Election officials needed to pay both the costs of 

providing fully staffed precincts on Election Day and 

of processing a high number of absentee ballots. 

Under Oregon law, counties pay all election costs, 

and county election administrators estimated that 

an election conducted exclusively with vote-by-mail 

would cost about half the amount of a precinctbased election with a high rate of absentee voting.

Almost two decades after the passage of the 

first bill authorizing vote-by-mail, legislation to 

extend the provisions to all elections remained 

deadlocked in the Oregon Legislature. In an 

attempt to bypass the legislature, a group of 

vote-by-mail supporters qualified an initiative 

for the November 1998 ballot that would require 

that primary and general elections be conducted 

exclusively with vote-by-mail.

An increasing number of voters were applying 

for absentee ballots for the primary and general 

elections even though Oregon did not have a noexcuse absentee voting law. It became evident to 

local election officials that a growing majority of 

voters preferred vote-by-mail over precinct-based 

elections. The public was accustomed to using voteby-mail in most elections and was frustrated at not 

being able to do so in primary and general elections. 

31Oregon. Senate. Senate Bills Vetoed by Governor after 

Adjournment 1995 Regular Session. Salem: The Senate [1995]. 

14 Jul 2008 <http://www.leg.state.or.us/95reg/pubs/svetocal.txt>.

32Oregon. Senate. Senate Bills. Salem: The Senate [1995]. 14 

Jul 2008 <http://www.leg.state.or.us/95reg/pubs/senmh.txt>.

33“Official County Participation Summary Oregon Presidential 

Preference Primary March 12, 1996.” Chart. Oregon Secretary 

of State. 14 Jul 2008 <http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/

mar1296/other.info/coparsum.htm>.

34“Official Voter Participation Statistics May 19, 1998 Biennial 

Primary.” Chart. Oregon Secretary of State. 14 Jul 2008 <http://

www.sos.state.or.us/elections/may191998/other.info/totreg.htm>.

An increasing number 

of voters were applying 

for absentee ballots for 

the primary and general 

elections even though 

Oregon did not have a noexcuse absentee voting 

law. It became evident to 

local election officials that 

a growing majority of voters 

preferred vote-by-mail over 

precinct-based elections. 
22

In November 1998, Measure 60 passed by a vote 

of 757,204 to 334,021 (69.4 percent “yes” to 30.6 

percent “no”).35 The passage of this initiative meant 

that the entire 2000 Presidential election cycle 

would be conducted with vote-by-mail.

Establishing Uniform 

Vote-by-Mail 

Procedures

In preparation for the 2000 Presidential primary 

and general elections, the Secretary of State, in 

conjunction with the Oregon Association of County 

Clerks, developed the “Vote-by-Mail Procedures 

Manual” for election officials. County clerks had 

been administering statewide vote-by-mail elections 

since 1993 and had run a Presidential primary with 

vote-by-mail 4 years earlier. The goal of this first 

administration manual was to standardize processes 

and identify best practices from across the State. 

The manual is updated periodically, usually following 

biennial sessions of the Oregon Legislature.36 

Table 3 (on the next page) highlights major events 

during the election cycle.

All steps in the vote-by-mail process are open for 

public observation. These steps include inserting 

blank ballots into envelopes for mailing, receiving 

voted ballots, verifying signatures for determining 

voter eligibility, inspecting ballots, and tallying votes. 

Before the beginning of voting, counties must file 

a security plan with the Secretary or State’s office 

that describes security measures at ballot dropoff 

sites and for the transport of voted ballots to the 

central office for counting. The security plan also 

The text of Measure 60 on the 1998 General 

Election ballot provided:

REQUIRES VOTE BY MAIL IN BIENNIAL

PRIMARY, GENERAL ELECTIONS 

RESULT OF “YES” VOTE: “Yes” vote amends 

existing law to require vote by mail in 

biennial primary, general elections. 

RESULT OF “NO” VOTE: “No” vote retains 

current law prohibiting vote by mail in 

biennial primary or general elections. 

SUMMARY: Current law prohibits vote 

by mail for biennial primary or general 

elections. This proposal eliminates the 

prohibition and requires vote by mail for 

biennial primary or general elections. 

The proposal does not affect existing law 

permitting the Secretary of State and county 

clerk to conduct other elections either at the 

polls or by mail. 

ESTIMATE OF FINANCIAL IMPACT: County 

government expenditures are estimated 

to be reduced each Primary and General 

Election year by $3,021,709.37

must include off-premises sites used during the 

administration of the vote-by-mail election, including 

the locations of vendors where the ballots are 

assembled and mailed.

Returning the 

Voted Ballot

Oregon election officials spent considerable time 

developing procedures for the return of hundreds of 

thousands of voted ballots—either via the mail or at 

dropoff sites in each county. 

Election officials focused first on ensuring ballot 

secrecy. Most counties use a three-envelope 

system for each blank ballot sent out that includes a 

secrecy envelope, a return-mail envelope, and the 

35“Official Results November 3, 1998 General Election State 

Measure 60.” Chart. Oregon Secretary of State. 14 Jul 2008 

<http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov398/other.info/m60.

htm>.

36Oregon. Secretary of State. Vote By Mail Procedures Manual. 

Salem: Secretary of State [2008]. 14 Jul 2008 <http://www.sos.

state.or.us/elections/vbm/vbm_manual.pdf>.

37“Measure No. 60.” Oregon Secretary of State. 14 Jul 2008 

<http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov398/guide/measure/

m60.htm>.
23

Table 3. Election Day Timeline38

60 days before Election Day Cutoff for ballot content

45 days before Election Day Overseas ballots are mailed

21 days before Election Day Registration closes for previously unregistered voters. 

14 to 18 days before Election Day All eligible voters in election mailed a ballot.

Ballot “drop sites” throughout the county may open on the day 

ballots are mailed.

14 days before Election Day 

until 8:00 pm on Election Day

Voters can return ballots to any elections office in the State in 

person, by mail, or via authorized ballot drop sites. 

Signatures on return ballot envelopes are verified against the 

signatures on the voter record.

7 days before Election Day Election officials can begin opening ballot envelopes, removing 

and inspecting ballots, and preparing them for vote tally.

Election day Election officials can begin tallying ballots any time during 

election day.

Election Day (8:00 pm) Polls close. All ballots received by 8:00 p.m. are accepted.

original mail-out envelope, which includes the other 

two envelopes and the blank ballot. After the voter 

makes his or her selections on the ballot, he or she 

seals it in the secrecy envelope, which contains 

no information with which an individual could 

ascertain the voter’s identity. The voter then places 

the secrecy envelope into the return-mail envelope 

on which the voter has provided identification 

information and a signature to prove his or her 

voting eligibility. 

The voter then delivers the return-mail envelope 

to the local election office either via the U.S. 

Postal Service or through ballot dropoff sites. 

After the local election office receives the returnmail envelope, officials check the information on 

the envelope and validate the voter signature by 

signature match. After approving the signature, 

officials separate the ballot in the secrecy envelope 

from the return-mail envelope so that it cannot be 

associated with the voter’s identification information.

A key element in the successful implementation of 

vote-by-mail in Oregon is the cooperation election 

officials receive from the U.S. Postal Service. 

Officials from the U.S. Postal Service help with 

preplanning the mass mailings of ballots. Together, 

the local election officials and postal officials set 

schedules so the volume of ballots received in any 

one day is not overwhelming. On Election Day, 

postal officials provide facility “sweeps” of mail at 

8:00 p.m. and allow election officials to pick up 

those returned ballots, which otherwise would 

not be delivered until the day after the election 

and would not be counted, because they must be 

received by the election office by the close of voting 

on Election Day.

Voters may also return voted ballots at ballot drop 

sites located throughout the counties. Most of these 

sites are in public buildings (e.g., city halls and 

libraries), where local election officials can provide 

supervision of the voting process. Counties are 

required by law to provide voting booths for voters 

wishing to fill out their ballots at county election 

offices and ballot drop sites. The election offices 

38Compiled from Oregon revised statutes, administrative rules, 

and vote-by-mail procedures.
24

and drop sites remain open until 8:00 p.m. on 

Election Day, at which point local election officials 

collect all the ballots for validation and counting. 

Counting the 

Voted Ballot

After receiving a voted ballot at the election office, 

the voter’s eligibility must be established before 

the ballot can be cast and counted. Oregon’s 

identification procedures include the comparison 

of the signature on the return-mail envelope with 

the voter’s signature on file with the county clerk. 

Signature verifiers in election offices, who are 

trained periodically in handwriting analysis by 

the Oregon State Police, perform verification on 

all ballots returned. Voters whose signatures are 

considered “not matching” are notified that they 

have until the 10th day after the election to remedy 

a discrepancy before their ballots are invalidated. 

A significant number of ballots are returned to 

election offices before Election Day and are ready 

for vote tally before the close of the polls. Starting 

7 days before Election Day, officials can begin 

opening return-mail envelopes, removing and 

inspecting ballots, and preparing them for the vote 

tally. Election officials can begin tallying ballots any 

time during Election Day. As a result, the initial vote 

totals released on Election Day evening contain 

a larger portion of the results than is typical in a 

precinct-based election, which would not include 

any absentee vote totals.

Administrative 

Challenges

The move to vote-by-mail for all elections presented 

new difficulties for local election officials. Most of 

the statewide elections conducted with vote-bymail by 2000 were relatively low-turnout contests. 

Election officials learned that higher voter turnout 

elections exhibit a different trend in ballot return. 

During the earlier statewide elections conducted 

with vote-by-mail, voters tended to return their 

ballots early, sometimes as many as 50 percent 

within the first few days after receiving their blank 

ballots. Officials also observed a notable spike on 

the last 2 days of the election.

The general election ballot in 2000 included 

Federal, State, and local races as well as a large 

number of ballot measures. Election officials 

learned that a larger number of contests and issues 

equates to voters taking a longer amount of time 

to return their ballots. The larger number of ballots 

returned later in the process created a backlog 

for election officials. Statewide, 45 percent of the 

ballots returned in the 2000 general election were 

returned during the last 2 days of voting. The data 

are presented in Table 4 and Figure 4.

The move to vote-by-mail is not without potential 

problems. Many opponents of vote-by-mail contend that a greater chance for fraud exists than 

for elections conducted in polling places. People 

are transient and do not always cancel their voter 

Date 23-Oct 24-Oct 25-Oct 26-Oct 27-Oct 30-Oct 31-Oct 1-Nov 2-Nov 3-Nov 6-Nov 7-Nov Total

No. of 

Ballots 

Returned

20,579 65,907 57,381 60,158 55,884 96,720 149,872 106,891 104,894 138,136 327,480 374,986 1,558,888

Ballots 

Returned 

as 

Percent 

of Total 

Ballots 

Cast

1.3 4.2 3.7 3.9 3.6 6.2 9.6 6.9 6.7 8.9 21.0 24.1

Table 4. Statewide Daily Ballot Returns, November 2000 Presidential Election39

39“Ballot Return History 1996 General Election to Current.” 

Chart. Oregon Secretary of State. 14 Jul 2008 <http://www.sos.

state.or.us/elections/ballot_return_history.pdf>.
25

registrations when they move, which 

allows for the possibility of ballots 

being sent to addresses at which 

voters no longer live. Also, no polling 

place protections, such as a private voting experience or the ability 

to ask for help from a poll worker 

trained to administer elections, are 

in place. Proponents of the practice believe that there are ways to 

eliminate fraud from the process. In 

Oregon, all ballots are put through 

a signature verification process. If 

the signature on the absentee ballot 

secrecy envelope does not match 

the signature on file with the election 

official, the ballot is rejected. 

The early iterations of vote-bymail laws in Oregon required 

the Secretary of State’s office to 

investigate instances of fraud, 

particularly in the area of voter intimidation. 

Concerns focused on problems ranging from forged 

signatures to coercion, including “ballot parties,” 

where individuals were forced to vote a certain 

way, and family members influencing the votes of 

other family members. Then-Secretary of State 

Norma Paulus commissioned a number of polls on 

voter fraud and intimidation, but none returned any 

significant evidence of a problem.

During the 1990s, election officials became 

much more efficient in administering vote-bymail elections. Most counties converted from 

punchcard systems to optical scan ballots. 

Instead of hand-stuffing the ballots to be sent 

out individually, some counties contracted the 

work to third parties or purchased machinery 

to label and insert ballots for distribution. Voter 

registration systems were upgraded to allow for 

scanning registration records. Scanning facilitates 

electronic access to the registrar’s database of 

voters’ signatures for validation so that individual 

voter cards need not be used to conduct signature 

verifications. Finally, voter ID barcodes were 

added to labels to facilitate more rapid ballot 

accounting and signature validation.

Voters With Disabilities

The Help America Vote Act requires that all 

voting systems be accessible for individuals with 

disabilities. This requirement results in a unique 

problem for administering an all vote-by-mail 

election. Oregon has developed a number of 

practices designed to meet this challenge.

For voters with vision impairments, Marion County 

election officials developed a ballot encased in a 

sleeve that contains tactile markings. While filling in 

the ballot, an accompanying audio tape describes 

the entire ballot to the voter based on the individual’s 

appropriate ballot style. The tape also includes 

instructions for navigating the tactile markings.40 

In 2004, the Secretary of State experimented with a 

telephone voting system for voters with disabilities, 

which has since been implemented in all Oregon 

counties. The Assistive Ballot Marking System 

enables voters with disabilities to mark their ballots 

independently using a telephone and fax machine at 

40Marion County (Oregon). Audio Voter Pamphlet. [Salem, 

Oregon:] Department of Elections [2008]. 14 Jul 2008 <http://

www.co.marion.or.us/CO/elections/may2008avp.htm>.

Figure 4. Cumulative Statewide Ballot Returns, 

November 2000 Presidential Election

400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

0

10/23

10/24

10/25

10/2610/2710/2810/2910/3010/3111/0111/0211/03

 11/04 11/05

11/06

11/07

Ballot Returns
26

the county clerk’s office. It was used statewide for the 

first time in 2006. The Secretary of State also used an 

HTML ballot for some voters with disabilities. Voters 

using this technology could download their ballots 

from the Secretary of State’s Web site. The voter 

could then fill in his or her ballot on the computer, print 

it out, and cast it using the return ballot envelope as 

would any individual using vote-by-mail.41

Voter Turnout

The Oregon Legislature initially authorized vote-bymail elections as an attempt to reverse a decrease 

in turnout for local elections. The belief then was 

that the added convenience of voting through the 

mail would increase turnout. Now that vote-by-mail 

is used for all elections in Oregon, it is reasonable to 

evaluate the effect of vote-by-mail on overall turnout. 

A survey completed in 1996 shows that Oregon 

voters overwhelmingly supported vote-by-mail 

elections. The results also suggested, however, 

that voter turnout was likely to remain at levels 

consistent with regular precinct-based elections. In 

1996, individuals choosing to cast their ballots by 

mail tended to resemble traditional voters rather than 

nonvoters; it appeared that such individuals seemed 

to want an easier, more convenient way to vote. 

Voter turnout data from more recent elections show 

a different trend in participation. Turnout of regisTable 5. Voter Turnout 

by Political Party, 2000 and 2004

Year 200045 200446

Democrats 82.9 88.8

Republicans 85.6 89.7

Nonaffilliated 67.4 78.9

Other 60.7 76.1

Total 79.8 86.5

tered voters has increased in each of the last two 

Presidential elections. During the 1996 Presidential 

election, which was the last one conducted as a 

precinct-based election, 71.3 percent of registered 

voters cast ballots.42 The percentage increased 

to 79.8 percent during the 2000 Presidential election, which was the first election conducted exclusively with vote-by-mail.43 The second Presidential 

election conducted with vote-by-mail saw another 

sizeable increase in percentage of turnout to 86.5 

percent.44 The 2008 election turnout figure will be 

useful data for evaluating the continuing effect of 

vote-by-mail on turnout.

Some debate by party officials and political 

scientists throughout the 25 years Oregon has 

used vote-by-mail has centered on whether a 

political party might gain an advantage with voteby-mail elections as compared with traditional 

precinct-based voting. It appears that the increases 

in turnout seen in the past three Presidential 

elections, though, were bipartisan. The turnout in 

the 2000 Presidential election was the highest the 

State had seen since 1964, and each major party 

showed similar levels of increase. Turnout among 

nonaffiliated and third-party voters increased the 

most, by nearly 14 and 16 percent, respectively.

Legal Challenges

The most significant legal dispute over Oregon’s 

vote-by-mail elections was a lawsuit in Federal 

court challenging the State’s authority to expand 

voting in Federal elections beyond Election 

Day. The Voting Integrity Project’s position was 

41Oregon. Secretary of State. “Last Day to Safely Mail Ballot is 

Here.” Press Release. 3 November 2006. 14 Jul 2008 <http://

www.sos.state.or.us/executive/pressreleases/2006/1103.html>.

42“Official Election Participation Statistics November 5, 1996 

Biennial General Election.” Chart. Oregon Secretary of State. 

14 Jul 2008 <http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov596/other.

info/totbycty.htm>.

43“2000 General Election Statistical Summary.” Chart. Oregon 

Secretary of State. 14 Jul 2008 <http://www.sos.state.or.us/

elections/nov72000/other.info/genstats.pdf>.

44“Statistical Summary 2004 General Election.” Chart. Oregon 

Secretary of State. 14 Jul 2008 <http://www.sos.state.or.us/

elections/nov22004/g04stats.pdf>.

45“2000 General Election Statistical Summary.” Chart. Oregon 

Secretary of State. 14 Jul 2008 <http://www.sos.state.or.us/

elections/nov72000/other.info/genstats.pdf>.

46“Statistical Summary 2004 General Election.” Chart. Oregon 

Secretary of State. 14 Jul 2008 <http://www.sos.state.or.us/

elections/nov22004/g04stats.pdf>.
27

that the U.S. Constitution provides that the first 

Tuesday after the first Monday in November is 

established “...as the exclusive day throughout 

the United States for balloting for United States 

Representatives, United States Senators, and 

Presidential Electors.” Thus the argument was that 

the election was taking place before Election Day. 

In upholding the District Court’s ruling against the 

plaintiffs, the 9th Circuit found that “the Supreme 

Court has provided the device for reconciling 

the federal election day statute and the federal 

absentee voting statute: a definition of ‘election’ 

that treats election day as the ‘consummation’ 

of the process rather than any day during which 

voting takes place. Given that definition, and the 

force of the absentee voting statute, Oregon is in 

compliance with the federal election day statute. 

Although voting takes place, perhaps most 

voting, prior to election day, the election is not 

‘consummated’ before election day because voting 

still takes place on that day.”47 

Academic Studies

The special election in 1996 to fill the vacancy 

in one of Oregon’s seats in the U.S. Senate was 

one of the first statewide vote-by-mail elections to 

include candidates. Shortly after the election, three 

academic studies were released about various 

aspects of the vote-by-mail alternative voting 

method. The studies covered a range of topics, 

including the attitudes about vote-by-mail, the 

demographics of individuals using vote-by-mail as 

compared with precinct-based voters, the method 

of ballot return, and the presence or absence of 

fraud and intimidation in vote-by-mail elections.

Priscilla L. Southwell of the University of Oregon 

completed a survey about the demographics of 

vote-by-mail voters. According to Southwell’s data, 

vote-by-mail voters tend to resemble traditional 

voters rather than nonvoters, meaning that voteby-mail would be unlikely to increase the turnout of 

new voters. It appears that those using vote-by-mail 

are traditional voters who want an easier, more 

convenient way to vote.

Vote-by-mail is an alternative voting method that has 

attracted much national attention. An overwhelming 

majority (76.5 percent) of the 1,225 respondents to 

Southwell’s survey favored vote-by-mail elections 

over polling place elections. Her research, however, 

also suggests that the consequences of vote-by-mail 

are far less dramatic—with lower increases in voter 

turnout and fewer party advantages—than others 

had suggested.48 

Michael W. Traugott of the University of Michigan 

and Robert G. Mason of Oregon State University 

focused their study on election administration. 

Eighty-five percent of voters reported mailing in 

their ballots, and 15 percent indicated they dropped 

off their ballots. Traugott and Mason noted that 

women were more likely to mail their ballots than 

were men. Voters cited four main reasons for 

dropping off their ballots: (1) it was more convenient 

(42 percent); (2) they had no time to mail the ballot 

(23 percent); (3) it saves postage (16 percent); (4) it 

ensures the ballot arrives safely (8 percent).49

47The Voting Integrity Project, Inc. et al v. Phil Keisling, Secretary 

of State of Oregon, 259 F.3d 1169, 1176 (9th Cir. 2001). 

48Southwell, Priscilla L. “Final Report, Survey of Vote-ByMail Senate Election.” Presented to the Vote-by-Mail Citizen 

Commission, Oregon, 3 Apr. 1996. 14 Jul 2008 <https://

scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/dspace/bitstream/1794/1268/5/

VBM+Full+Report.pdf>.

49Michael W. Traugott and Robert G. Mason. “Preliminary report 

on the characteristics of the Oregon electorate participating 

in the special general election for the U.S. Senate on January 

30, 1996.” Technical report, University of Michigan and Oregon 

State University, 30 May 1996.

Vote-by-mail is an 

alternative voting method 

that has attracted much 

national attention. An 

overwhelming majority 

(76.5 percent) of the 1,225 

respondents to Southwell’s 

survey favored vote-bymail elections over polling 

place elections. 
28

David Magelby of Brigham Young University 

researched the return of voted ballots. Specifically, 

his research focused on the timeliness of the 

return of voted ballots. He identified three periods 

during the ballot return window: January 10–17, 

January 18–23, and January 24–30. Magelby 

asked three questions: (1) Does vote-by-mail create 

an advantage or disadvantage for a particular 

candidate or party? (2) Is one political party more 

able to mobilize voters early in the process? (3) 

How many days should be given to voters to return 

their mail ballots?

The most important conclusion to be drawn from 

Magelby’s data is that the results within each time 

period do not significantly differ from the final result. 

The final election result would have remained the 

same even if voting had ended on January 17 or 

January 23. With this information, it appears that 

neither party had an advantage during any part 

of the extended campaign process. Supporters of 

both candidates behaved similarly in all three time 

periods, and the results favored the eventual winner 

at the end of all three time periods. Administrators 

might be able to use this initial assessment to justify 

shortening the voting period by several days without 

altering the outcome of an election in order to save 

on election administration expenses.50 

Conclusion

It is possible that vote-by-mail increases turnout; 

however, other benefits to vote-by-mail are 

unassociated with voter turnout. For example, 

local election officials do not need to spend any 

time securing traditional polling places. They do 

not need to recruit, train, and retain poll workers 

from election to election. Without these tasks, 

election officials can direct their focus toward ballot 

production, distribution, and counting. Specifically, 

some administrators cite the top benefit as 

improved oversight of the election, because most 

of the process occurs within the elections office or 

a vote processing facility instead of in hundreds of 

precincts staffed by poll workers.

Former Multnomah County Election Director Vicki 

Ervin believes that vote-by-mail has benefited 

her county. Vote-by-mail removes some of the 

traditional barriers to voting, such as inaccessible 

polling places and arranging transportation to and 

from polling places. She notes that voters have 

a more thorough understanding of the issues 

because the ballot is provided early enough in 

the process for the voter to study it along with any 

explanatory materials provided.

Vote-by-mail is widely supported by both the public 

in Oregon and election administrators across the 

State. It may increase participation for both lowand high-turnout contests, and it is likely to expand 

in the future election cycles.

50Magelby, David. “An Initial Assessment of Oregon’s Voteby-Mail.” Presented to the Vote-by-Mail Citizen Commission, 

Oregon, 3 Apr. 1996.

The most important 

conclusion to be drawn from 

Magelby’s data is that the 

results within each time 

period do not significantly 

differ from the final result. 
Colorado Vote Centers 29

State Name: Colorado

Alternative 

Voting Method: Vote Centers

Larimer County

Chief Election 

Official: Scott Doyle

Active 

Registered 

Voters: 154,540 (in 2006)

Precincts 153 

Vote Centers 30

Implemented: 2003

Denver County

Chief Election 

Official: Wayne Vaden

Active

Registered

Voters: 287,839 (in 2006)

Precincts 423

Vote Centers 55

Implemented: 2006

Vote centers are an alternative method of voting 

that provides additional convenience to voters 

on Election Day. Instead of using traditional 

neighborhood precincts, voters choose to vote in 

any one of the larger, strategically located polling 

sites throughout the county on Election Day. 

More than 20 counties in Colorado have used 

the vote center model in at least one election. 

This section examines the implementation of vote 

centers in two counties: Larimer and Denver. In 

2003, Larimer County effectively established vote 

centers and has used them in subsequent elections. 

Denver County’s first experience with them in 

2006, however, was less successful. Even so, in 

2008 Denver County plans to use “super precincts,” 

which differ from vote centers because voters are 

assigned to them and are not able to choose for 

themselves the most convenient location at which to 

vote. In essence, they are the aggregation of many 

precincts into one large polling place.

Although only a small number of elections have 

been administered with vote centers, preliminary 

research points to potential increases in turnout. 

The concept is so new that it will take time for 

policymakers to determine where it is best used 

and where it is least desirable. More research is 

necessary to determine the effect of vote centers, 

but the new concept seems to have more positive 

than negative consequences. 

Implementation 

and Effect

According to data collected during the 2004 and 

2006 Federal elections, finding a polling place is one 

of the biggest difficulties faced by a voter on Election 

Day.51 Small precincts are sometimes located 

in places with which some voters are unfamiliar. 

Alternatively, vote centers are located in high-profile, 

major-traffic areas rather than in neighborhood 

schools or churches. Each voter decides for himself 

or herself where it would be most convenient to vote 

that day. This new method of voting could reduce the 

number of provisional ballots needed each election, 

because any registered voter can choose to vote in 

any vote center. 

The 2000 Presidential election was a turning 

point for election administration. Election officials 

across the country began assessing their systems 

and planning for the future. In Larimer County, 

ideas were already being developed for a voting 

experiment that would enable citizens to vote at any 

one of many polling sites located in high-profile, 

major-traffic areas. It was in this context that a new 

alternative to traditional voting methods emerged—

the alternative was called a “vote center.” 

Vote centers are easier for local election officials to 

administer than are a multitude of smaller polling 

places. First, there are fewer Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant polling locations 

to find and manage. Fewer polling locations 

51University of Pennsylvania. Fels Institute of Government. 

“MyVote1 National Election Report: Voice of the Electorate 2006.” 

[Philadelphia, PA :] Penn, 2007. pp. 6. 15 July 2008 <http://www.

fels.upenn.edu/Projects/myvote1_report_8_20_07.pdf>.
30

equates to fewer administrative hurdles for local 

election officials. Administrators can recruit the 

most efficient poll workers to serve on Election Day 

when they do not need to staff hundreds of small, 

individual precincts. Second, fewer provisional 

ballots need to be issued, because a registered 

individual cannot vote in the “wrong” polling place, 

which increases the likelihood that ballots will be 

counted correctly as individuals vote with regular 

ballots. Finally, the larger polling locations also 

benefit from economies of scale, leading to more 

adequate parking logistics and a more effective 

deployment of resources.

The success or failure of the vote center concept 

begins with the planning and preparation before 

Election Day. Vote centers require significantly more 

training—and more specialized training—for staff 

and poll workers. For example, Larimer County poll 

workers are required to complete 8 hours of training 

before working in a vote center. Poll workers are 

also trained for the specific job function they will 

fulfill on Election Day. 

To closely estimate the amount of supplies and/

or number of voting machines for each vote 

center, administrators must predict where voters 

will vote. No concrete formula is available to help 

an administrator determine the best allocation 

of electronic poll books, voting machines, paper 

ballots, and poll workers throughout his or her 

county. In Larimer County, the practice has been 

to overestimate what is needed and to have extra 

resources ready to be delivered to vote centers as 

necessary throughout Election Day. 

If vote centers are to be successful, the county 

must use an electronic poll book, which tracks 

real-time voter information and benefits both 

administrators and candidates. Administrators 

see where more resources might be necessary 

because of higher turnout in one vote center 

over another. The political parties and candidates 

receive electronically generated lists created 

throughout the day, enabling them to alter their getout-the-vote efforts.

Legislative History

After Larimer County successfully completed its 

first vote center election in 2003, election officials 

approached the Colorado Legislature about 

permitting the use of the vote center model in 

general election years. At the time, Colorado law 

did not allow for the combining of precincts for 

general elections. The Colorado Legislature passed 

Senate bill 04-153, which permitted the use of vote 

centers in general elections, but only if the State’s 

other voting procedures were not affected. 

There are other legal considerations for election 

officials using vote centers in Colorado. The vote 

centers must be equipped with secure electronic 

connections for the poll book. The county clerk is 

required to consult with all of the major and minor 

parties during site selection and must have one 

vote center for every 10,000 voters.52

Colorado Voting Options

Permanent Mail-In Balloting

Thirty days before Election Day, ballots are 

mailed to voters who have requested them. 

The voted ballots must be returned to the 

elections office before the close of the polls on 

Election Day.

Early Voting

Early voting in Colorado begins two weeks 

before Election Day; early voting sites are open 

from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., weekdays. 

Election Day

Larimer County uses 30 vote centers instead of 

153 precincts. The five early voting sites convert 

to vote centers on Election Day, when polls are 

open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

521 Colorado Revised Statutes § 5-102.7.
31

Larimer County 

Launches Vote Centers

Larimer County Clerk and Recorder Scott Doyle 

and his staff began planning for the use of vote 

centers in early 2003, and the model was used 

for the first time in the November 2003 election. 

Colorado law at that time already allowed precincts 

to be combined in off-year elections. 

Costs

One of the first issues to address was the cost of 

implementing vote centers and figuring out how 

to cover the expense within the existing 2003 

budget. Larimer County elections staff developed 

a business plan that identified all financial 

components of a vote center election and included 

a contingency amount of roughly 5 percent to allow 

for unforeseen problems. Vote centers require 

larger polling locations than do traditional precincts; 

however, the economies of scale created by using 

the vote center model mitigate some of the costs of 

administering an election, and local officials need 

fewer poll workers, sites, and machines.

One new expense stemming from the vote 

center model is the electronic poll book. In 2003, 

Larimer County made an additional expenditure 

of $165,000; however, the extra expense for the 

electronic poll book technology is a one-time cost.

Educating the Public 

Early in the process, local officials contracted with 

an outside public relations expert to address the 

voter education challenges of the project. Because 

vote centers represented a major change to the 

traditional voting process, it was deemed necessary 

by election officials to develop a comprehensive plan 

for systematically informing voters of, and preparing 

them for, the new system of voting on Election Day. 

The elections office conducted several mailings. 

The first mailer, which went to all county voters 

in May 2003, contained a letter from the county 

clerk addressing the change and explaining what it 

would mean to voters. As an added convenience, 

an absentee ballot request form was included for 

voters wishing to avoid the new system. A second 

mailer sent to all voters in September 2003—timed 

to encourage early voting—included a signature 

card that voters were encouraged to bring to the 

vote center to expedite the voting process.

A key element of the public relations campaign was 

to direct all voters to the county clerk’s elections 

Web page.53 Other traditional methods, however, 

were also used. With the help of the outside public 

relations expert, the elections office compiled a 

contact list of media organizations. The county clerk 

wrote editorials for local newspapers. The elections 

office purchased advertising in affordable media 

and distributed fact sheets and fliers depicting the 

vote center experience to the public. The clerk’s 

Key Elements in 

Larimer County Vote Centers

•	 Each vote center is designed to 

accommodate more voters than are 

reasonably expected. For example, if the 

highest expected usage is 3,500, the center 

is designed to handle 5,000.

•	 The electronic poll book is designed to 

process a voter every 30 seconds.

•	 Each center is equipped with enough 

electronic poll books to serve the number of 

voters expected. Large turnout sites begin 

the day with 8 to 10 poll books.

•	 Vote centers allow for the use of paper 

ballots or electronic voting.

•	 The ballot station is set up to handle a paper 

or electronic voter every 10 seconds.

•	 Based on estimated turnout volume and 

the type of voting equipment used, 2 to 20 

electronic voting machines and 5 to 40 voting 

booths are located at each vote center. 53http://www.larimer.org/elections
32

office developed a newsletter in house and sent 

it out electronically each quarter to those who 

expressed interested. This newsletter continues 

to provide an ongoing outlet for important election 

dates and events.

Technology and Logistics

Each vote center is unique and requires a different 

setup to operate efficiently. In heavily populated 

areas, vote centers are configured to process up to 

5,000 voters on Election Day. The successful use of 

vote centers requires choosing an adequately large 

site, having appropriate technology and ballots in 

place, and ensuring judges are adequately trained. 

Less populated areas of the county require smaller 

vote centers.

Most Larimer County vote centers are 1,500 

to 2,500 square feet, with some as large as 

3,000 square feet. Parking for at least 80 cars is 

suggested, and each vote center must comply 

with the ADA according to the U.S. Department of 

Justice’s guide for polling places.54

Larimer County purchased and installed T-1 lines 

(cables capable of quickly transferring electronic 

data), routers, and switches in vote center locations. 

Officials tested all electronics before Election Day 

to ensure the system functioned properly. 

The computers used to check voters in at vote 

centers came from various county departments 

that had upgraded their computer systems. 

These surplus computers had been scheduled 

for replacement by other departments, so no cost 

was associated with their procurement. Today, 

computers are cycled out as “new” retired units 

become available from other departments of the 

local government.

Larimer County already had six servers that could 

handle the load of data on Election Day. The 

electronic poll book developed in house included 

a reduced amount of voter registration data to 

allow fast operation and easy training for judges. 

The entire system runs parallel to the Internet and 

allows for secure sockets layer, which is the same 

security used in online banking worldwide. With this 

real-time technology, a voter checks in at a vote 

center and receives instant credit for voting on the 

master poll book.

The electronic poll book has many benefits. First, 

it enables election staff to monitor vote center 

operations from the elections office as the day 

progresses to determine the ballot supply needs 

at the vote centers. This enhanced management 

tool is extremely useful for keeping voters moving 

through the process. Also, candidate and party 

poll watching is simplified with electronic poll 

book technology. As the day progresses, the 

county clerk develops an electronic list of who 

has voted. The elections office supplies the list to 

any campaign or party requesting the information, 

which enables get-out-the-vote campaign phone 

workers to use it immediately.

Before the use of vote centers, poll workers in 

Larimer County picked up precinct equipment 

and supplies early on Election Day morning and 

returned them after the polls closed. With vote 

centers, much of the workload occurs the day 

before and the day after Election Day. The day 

before an election, a moving company delivers 

equipment and supplies to vote centers. A team 

of technology experts arrives just after the moving 

company and arranges the center as specified in a 

predesigned site plan. The team wires and tests all 

technology at that time to ensure proper operation.

Larimer County attempted to identify all issues that 

might arise on Election Day by calculating how long 

it takes to serve one voter, multiplying that time by 

the number of voters expected, and then factoring 

in “what if” scenarios. It is difficult to identify all that 

might go wrong during an election, but Larimer 

County’s vote center model contains contingency 

measures that can be implemented if needed. In 

addition, one key to success is the rigorous testing 

and retesting of all systems. 54United States. Department of Justice. Americans with 

Disabilities Act ADA Checklist for Polling Places. [Washington, 

DC:] DOJ, 2004. 15 Jul 2008 <http://www.ada.gov/votingprt.pdf>.
33

Vote Center Staffing

Each vote center is staffed with a supervisor, 

troubleshooter, and judges. 

• The supervisor is a specially trained staff 

member of the clerk’s office or an election judge 

who has gained experience in a supervisory 

capacity during the previous 2 weeks of early 

voting. The supervisor is responsible for all 

Election Day activities at his or her assigned 

vote center. Supervisors assist troubleshooters 

and judges and are responsible for overseeing 

all processes at the vote center. The supervisor 

is equipped with a cell phone so that he or she 

can establish contact quickly with the clerk, 

election director, or main election office when 

needed. 

• In many cases, a troubleshooter is a staff 

member from the clerk’s office. Troubleshooters 

are responsible for traffic flow through the vote 

center and for identifying technology issues that 

arise. The troubleshooter reports directly to the 

vote center supervisor. 

• Election judges are recruited and chosen for 

vote centers in several ways. Political parties 

supply most of the judges in Larimer County, 

and the clerk’s office staff and other county 

employees are recruited to assist as needed. A 

“student judge” program has been developed 

using students from area high schools.

 A well-balanced mix of judges is necessary. 

Although a direct need exists for qualified judges 

who can handle technology issues, there are many 

other activities to be accomplished within a vote 

center. Judges less familiar with technology are put 

to work greeting voters, handing out ballots, and 

seeing voters out after they complete voting. 

Judges are trained for the specific job function 

they will be expected to accomplish on Election 

Day. Currently, the Larimer County election staff 

trains judges in house, but election officials have 

considered using an outside trainer for future 

election cycles. General training lasts 3 hours in 

the morning, and the afternoon is spent training 

to perform the specific job function the staffer will 

handle on Election Day.

The Physical Layout 

of a Vote Center

Each vote center consists of multiple “stations” (see 

Figure 5).Greeters welcome voters, electronic poll 

book judges check them in, ballot judges provide 

the voter with the proper ballot, escorts help voters 

to the voting booth or digital recording electronic 

(DRE) voting machine, ballot deposit judges 

oversee the scanning and deposit of ballots, and 

judges stationed at the provisional ballot table help 

voters with provisional ballots. 

Greeter 

Upon arrival, a greeter welcomes the voter, asks 

if the person brought the personal signature card 

that was mailed the previous week, and checks 

the voter’s identification. The voter is asked to fill 

out a signature card (if he/she did not bring the 

preprinted form) and is then routed to the next 

station. Each vote center is designed so that lines 

move at a rate of 100 feet every 30 minutes. 

Computer Station 

The next station is the electronic poll book 

where the voter shows the proper identification 

and signature card. Vote centers have multiple 

electronic poll book stations, and each is designed 

to process a voter in 30 seconds or less. (Many 

voters finish their experience at this station within 

as little as 15 to 20 seconds.) The voter is given 

credit for voting on the master poll book and routed 

to the next station. 

Provisional Ballot Table 

If a voter experiences a problem (e.g., not listed 

in the poll book or not having appropriate ID), the 
34

person is routed to the provisional ballot table. At 

the provisional ballot table, the voter provides the 

required information, signs an affidavit, receives an 

appropriate ballot, and is routed to the voting booth/

DRE to vote the ballot. 

Ballot Station 

Voters at the ballot station are provided with the 

appropriate ballot style. 

Voting Booth 

From the ballot station, the voter is directed to a 

voting booth/DRE and left alone to vote. 

Exit 

After voting is complete, the voter deposits the 

paper ballot or DRE voter access card with the 

judge located near the exit door. 

Impact of Larimer 

County Vote Centers

According to Larimer County Clerk Scott Doyle, 

the use of vote centers has significantly improved 

access to voting. Instead of many small precinctbased polling locations, a fewer number of 

large vote center facilities are used, and voters 

simply choose the one that is most convenient 

for them. In a culture where home, work, and 

recreation facilities may be distributed all across 

a metropolitan area and where extensive 

commuting is the norm, it makes sense to do 

what retailers have done for decades—provide 

multiple convenient locations for mobile Americans. 

Administratively, vote centers are easier to manage, 

improve overall efficiency, and reduce Election 

Day issues for election officials if they are properly 

planned and implemented. 

Greeter

Asks voter to have 

necessary ID and 

preprinted signature 

card available

(if no signature card, 

one is provided)

If ID and signature 

card are ready

If all is verified in

Ballot Station

Judge receives 

signature card and gives 

voter the proper ballot or 

DRE access card.

Voting Booth

Paper

Electronic

Exit

Ballot Drop

Access Card Return

If no 

ID available

Provisional 

Ballot Table

If not in 

poll book

Computer Station

(Electronic poll book)

1. Witnesses as voter 

signs signature card

2. Checks ID

3. Verifies voter 

registration in poll 

book

Figure 5. Vote Center Stations
35

election cycles to evaluate the effectiveness of the 

alternative voting method to increase voter turnout.

Poll Workers

The use of vote centers decreased the number 

of Election Day judges needed by 50 percent 

compared with the number needed when the 

county used the precinct-based model of voting. 

From a practical perspective, the use of vote 

centers means election administrators have fewer 

facilities to manage and fewer poll workers to 

recruit, train, retain, and pay. 

Voter Turnout

Total voter turnout has increased following the 

introduction of vote centers, as demonstrated 

in Table 6. Although the implementation of vote 

centers coupled with early voting, absentee 

voting, and the decrease in provisional voting for 

individuals attempting to vote out of precinct on 

Election Day contributed to higher turnout, voting 

on the actual Federal Election Day did decrease 

from 2000 to 2004 after the implementation 

of vote centers. EAC researchers will need to 

follow the vote center concept over several more 

Election Year

Total 

Registered

Early Voted Total 

Early 

Voted

Vote 

Center 

or 

Precinct

Voting

Total 

Voted % Early 

Voting Absentee

Poll Book Mail Walkout

Total 

Absentee

Total 

Voted / 

Reg

General 2004 199,129 45,718 46,941 174 47,115 92,933 52,481 147,112 78.88

General 2002 188,168 8,325 35,651 1,584 37,235 45,560 48,919 95,276 50.63

General 2000 191,124 13,769 40,355 7,278 47,633 61,402 57,582 119,201 62.37

General 1998 166,700 10,969 13,877 5,524 19,401 30,370 56,484 86,875 52.11

Table 6: Larimer County Election Year Totals
36

Denver’s Vote 

Center Experience

Colorado law allows any county to the vote center 

model, and 20 have done so with few problems.55 

Douglas County encountered issues the vote center 

model for the first time in the November 2006 

general election, but those issues were likely an 

underestimation of resources needed and the way 

those resources were allocated. 

The 2006 primary and midterm elections in Denver 

did not go smoothly. An investigative review panel 

formed by the Mayor of Denver, John Hickenlooper, 

reported the following issues with Denver’s vote 

center model:56

Check-in: 

Electronic poll books did not work efficiently, 

which made it difficult to move voters to the 

next step expeditiously.

Voting Equipment:

Lines formed because not enough electronic 

voting machines were available to handle the 

volume of voters.

Ballots: 

A shortage of provisional (paper) ballots 

contributed to the long lines.

Educating the Public

Denver may have benefited from hiring an 

outside consultant to develop a comprehensive 

communication plan for advertising and explaining 

vote centers. Larimer County spent considerable 

time and resources on this step during its 

implementation of the alternative voting method. 

The Larimer County elections officials explained to 

voters how a vote center works and that alternative 

voting options such as absentee and early voting 

were available. 

Vote Center Design 

and Setup

Denver complied with the law governing the 

minimum number of vote centers—at least one 

per 10,000 voters. It is not clear is how Denver 

estimated voter turnout and whether Denver’s 

contingency measures addressed larger than 

normal turnout. 

Even if the poll book technology had worked well 

in Denver, trouble may still have occurred at voting 

machines. Denver estimated that each voter would 

need to minutes to access and vote the ballot, but 

the 2006 ballot was Colorado’s longest ballot in a 

century—resulting in slower voting and longer lines.

Technology

It was reported that the electronic poll book had 

problems during the absentee voting period; 

however, the poll book was not tested before 

Election Day.57 As was demonstrated in Larimer 

County, routine testing and monitoring of 

equipment, software, and network performance is 

crucial to the success of the vote center model.

Contingency Measures

Denver had contingency measures in place, but 

it is not clear whether they were activated within 

a reasonable window of time. An ideal response 

would be the deployment of staff to any given 

location within minutes. Denver had no manual 

backup in place to guide voters through the 

voting process. 

55According to counties implementing vote centers (in their 

comments to Larimer County Clerk Scott Doyle)

56Denver (Colorado). Election Commission Investigative Panel: 

Findings and Recommendations. [Denver, Colo.:] The City 

[December 2006].

57Ibid.
37

Academic Study

Professor Robert M. Stein of Rice University studied 

vote center use in Larimer County to test the 

hypothesis that Election Day vote centers positively 

influence turnout among nonhabitual voters.58

Stein suggests that the cost of voting is largely tied 

to the time and inconvenience associated with the 

act of voting. Previous electoral reforms, such as 

early voting and absentee voting, may not have 

effectively addressed this aspect of the cost of 

voting. As such, these reforms may have failed to 

remedy the inconvenience of voting and may have 

benefited only those who would have voted anyway. 

Stein’s study examines the convenience afforded by 

vote centers and the effect on turnout.

Stein’s study indicates that a change in polling 

locations has two effects: 

1. Transportation effect resulting from change in 

distance.

2. Disruption effect resulting from information 

required to locate a voting site.

Together, these findings may suggest that the 

convenience and accessibility of a voter’s Election 

Day voting location is a significant factor in 

whether or not he or she will vote. Stein reports 

that the reported popularity of early voting 

suggests that many voters prefer the convenience 

afforded by accessible voting locations, short 

lines, and assistance in using new, unfamiliar 

voting technologies. Therefore, it is reasonable to 

assume that voter turnout may increase if more 

voter convenience is introduced into Election Day 

balloting through vote centers. 

Although Stein’s research includes data from only 

a few elections administered with vote centers, the 

aggregate-level findings suggest that Election Day 

vote centers may account for an increase in overall 

turnout in Larimer County. 

Conclusion

Vote centers have had mixed success in Colorado. 

Larimer County has used the alternative voting 

method successfully, but Denver has decided 

not to use it in 2008. When local election officials 

administer vote centers correctly, it appears that 

vote centers have a positive effect on overall 

turnout. Although overall turnout increased, actual 

voting on Election Day decreased from 2000 to 

2004 in Larimer County. Moreover, it is still not 

known if the increase in overall turnout seen so far 

is sustainable.

The use of vote centers is popular when everything 

works efficiently, and it is advisable to explore 

further the alternative voting method for its 

effectiveness and use in future elections and for its 

expansion to other jurisdictions.

58Stein, Robert M. and Greg Vonnahme. “Election 

Day Vote Centers and Voter Turnout.” Prepared for 

presentation at the 2006 Annual Meetings of the Midwest 

Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April 20-23. 

15 Jul 2008 <http://www3.brookings.edu/gs/projects/

electionreform/20060418Stein.pdf>.
38

Federal law requires that elections for Federal office 

occur on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in 

November. Yet, the traditional Tuesday Election Day 

is predicated on the needs of an agrarian society 

and may not still be the most optimal day on which 

Americans should vote. Weekend voting has been 

used as an alternative voting method with the belief 

that it might provide more convenience to voters 

and increase voter turnout.

Weekend voting for Federal elections is not without 

potential drawbacks. For example, it may make 

it more difficult for some local election officials to 

recruit sufficient poll workers and to find suitable 

polling places. Voting on a weekend might cost 

more because most States require overtime pay for 

employees on the weekends. Although weekend 

voting may result in higher turnout for some State 

and local elections, the added benefits of weekend 

voting when compared with Tuesday Election Day 

for Federal elections are less clear. 

EAC researchers chose Louisiana, Texas, and 

Delaware to highlight for this case study. In each of 

these States, jurisdictions either currently conduct 

or have conducted some form of weekend voting. 

Federal elections cannot be conducted exclusively 

on weekends under current law. Therefore, it 

is impossible for researchers to gather good 

comparative data about the effect of weekend 

voting on Federal elections. It is still possible, 

however, to explore the potential benefits and 

drawbacks of a possible move to weekend voting 

by looking at the election administration of weekend 

voting for State and local elections.

It should also be noted that jurisdictions have 

different conceptions of weekend voting. The 

studies of Louisiana and Delaware reflect only 

a Saturday Election Day. The most recently 

introduced related legislation in the Senate, the 

Weekend Voting Act, as well as almost all Federal 

legislation to move Election Day to the weekend, 

would establish a new Federal Election Day as the 

“first Saturday and Sunday after the first Friday in 

November.”59 EAC considers “weekend voting” to 

be a 2-day Election Day that takes place on both 

Saturday and Sunday.

Jurisdiction 

Name: East Feliciana 

 Parish, Louisiana

Chief Election

Official: Hon. Debbie D. Hudnall

 East Feliciana 

 Parish Clerk of Court

 P.O. Drawer 599

 Clinton, LA 70722

Number of 

Registered Voters: 13,371

Alternative 

Voting Method: Weekend Voting

Implemented: 1959

Jurisdiction Name: Harris County, TX

Chief Election 

Official: Beverly Kaufman, 

 County Clerk

 1001 Preston Avenue

 Houston, TX 77251

Number of 

Registered Voters: 1,804,641 

Alternative 

Voting Method: Weekend Voting

Implemented: 1975

Jurisdiction 

Name: New Castle County, 

 Delaware

Chief Election 

Official: Elaine Manlove,

 Director of Elections

 820 N. French Street

 New Castle, DE 19801

Number of 

Registered Voters: 358,705

Alternative 

Voting Method: Weekend Voting

Implemented: 1978 

Weekend Voting

59S. 2638, 110th Cong. (2008).
39

Implementation 

and Effect

The studies provide useful data about turnout 

in local and State elections on Saturdays. In 

Louisiana, all elections except Federal contests 

occur on Saturdays. In the past, Delaware 

conducted its primaries on a Saturday. The Texas 

study, however, may be the most instructive when 

evaluating the efficacy of moving Federal Election 

Day from Tuesday to weekend voting. The weekend 

voting in the Texas study represents the portion 

of the 12-day early voting period that occurs on 

Saturdays and Sundays. Still, an evaluation of 

voting patterns during the entire Texas early voting 

period reveals no rise in voting on Saturdays and 

Sundays when put in context with the other days 

during the early voting period. It is impossible to 

determine from the data whether turnout would 

have been the same if voting had taken place on 

Saturday and Sunday exclusively.

Some differences between Tuesday Election Day 

and weekend voting that can be examined are the 

administrative costs and challenges. A rough cost 

comparison between Tuesday Election Day costs 

and weekend Election Day costs can be made by 

local election officials of any additional costs that 

might be incurred if Federal elections were moved 

to the weekend. The studies indicate that some 

additional costs are incurred related to holding 

Saturday Election Days versus Tuesday Election 

Days. Saturday elections are likely to cost more 

per day because of higher weekend pay for facility 

maintenance and security personnel, overtime pay 

for election staff, and the increased cost to rent 

polling places. The cost could increase substantially 

if the 1-day Tuesday Election Day is changed to 2 

days of weekend voting. In addition, some costs 

associated with a 2-day election are not incurred 

during a 1-day election, such as overnight ballot 

and polling place security.

Voter convenience is usually the main argument in 

favor of moving Federal Election Day to weekend 

voting. For example, because most of the workforce 

works during the regular business week, weekend 

voting could make it easier and, presumably, more 

likely for voters to go to the polls. Similarly, without 

voting on a traditional workday, there might be less 

of morning and evening rush voting periods that 

result in long lines. Although local election officials 

interviewed thought that weekend voting might 

reduce wait time at the polls, there were no data 

with which to evaluate the hypothesis. 

Most arguments against the implementation of 

weekend voting stem from the added administrative 

challenges for local election officials. Ballot integrity 

and polling place security measures must be 

rewritten to account for the new 2-day Election Day. 

Keeping ballots and polling places secure overnight 

is not an issue that most local election officials deal 

with during Tuesday Election Day voting if they do 

not use early voting. After devising secure systems, 

local election officials would likely have to pay for 

the additional security costs without Federal or 

State help.

Weekends are not necessarily more convenient 

than Tuesday Election Days for all voters. Both 

Saturday and Sunday are religious days for groups 

of voters. Any organized push to weekend voting is 

likely to be met with strong opposition from Jewish 

and Christian groups. Delaware legislators and 

election officials witnessed this backlash from the 

Jewish community regarding Saturday primary 

elections. The Delaware Legislature eventually 

decided to move the primaries back to Tuesdays.

Weekends are not necessarily 

more convenient than 

Tuesday Election Days for all 

voters. Both Saturday and 

Sunday are religious days 

for groups of voters. Any 

organized push to weekend 

voting is likely to be met 

with strong opposition from 

Jewish and Christian groups. 
40

Even though a voter may not be working if 

Election Day is conducted during the weekend, 

it is unclear whether that scenario means that 

voting becomes a priority for the individual. 

Weekends are often spent on leisure time, and 

no evidence exists to indicate that voting would 

become a priority during weekend voting if it is 

not already a priority to an individual on traditional 

Tuesday Election Days. Such a move to weekend 

voting may instead lead to an increase in demand 

for absentee ballots, but only 31 States currently 

offer no-excuse absentee voting.60 

Local election officials interviewed reported mixed 

experiences about locating enough polling places for 

weekend voting. Some reported no added difficulty in 

finding enough polling places. Others found it difficult 

to secure polling places on weekends because 

60“Absentee and Early Voting Laws.” Chart. The Early Voting 

Information Center at Reed College. Feb. 2008. 15 Jul 2008 < 

http://www.earlyvoting.net/states/abslaws.php>.

facilities and maintenance staff are required to be 

on site in public buildings used as polling places, 

and local elections officials do not control those staff 

members. Churches and synagogues previously 

used for voting would likely no longer be available. 

Some community centers use their facilities more on 

the weekends than they do during the week, which 

may result in their unavailability to serve as polling 

places for weekend voting. 

No information supports the conclusion that more 

poll workers are available for weekend voting than 

for Tuesday Election Day. Election officials noted 

that they would recruit poll workers from a different 

pool for weekend voting. For example, teachers 

would be available to work on weekends, but not 

on Tuesdays, unless the jurisdiction observes an 

Election Day holiday.
41

Weekend Voting 

in Louisiana

Saturday Election Day was introduced in Louisiana 

in 1959 for gubernatorial primaries and extended 

to gubernatorial general elections in 1975. In both 

cases, the move away from a Tuesday Election Day 

to a Saturday Election Day was meant to benefit 

the voters in the workforce. 

Louisiana election officials believe that conducting 

non-Federal elections on Saturday is a benefit, 

because it makes voting more convenient for the 

individual voter. It may also be a benefit because 

voters feel less rushed in the polling place, 

being that they have fewer concerns about work 

schedules on the weekends. A local election official 

interviewed believes that Saturday voting results in 

fewer poll worker errors, because voting is spread 

out during the day without the “crunch times” 

experienced on Tuesday Election Days before work, 

during the lunch hour, and after work. 

Administrative Challenges

Local election officials have been recruiting poll 

workers for Saturday Election Days for decades. 

Most elections in Louisiana take place on Saturdays; 

only Federal elections are conducted on a Tuesday 

Election Day. Some parish clerks explained that 

it makes little difference to them whether they are 

conducting elections on Tuesdays or Saturdays 

because the same number of poll workers is 

required. In fact, some parish clerks indicated that 

they find it slightly more difficult to recruit individuals 

to work as poll workers for Tuesday Election Days 

than for Saturday Election Days. 

2006 Elections Calendar

Saturday, January 21: propositions only.

Saturday, April 1: municipal primary.

Saturday, April 29: municipal general.

Saturday, July 15: propositions only.

Saturday, September 30: open primary.

Tuesday, November 7: open general/

congressional.

Saturday, December 9: congressional 

runoffs.

Note: La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § R.S. 18:402(G) (2008) 

prohibits elections from being conducted on certain 

Jewish holidays.

Furthermore, Louisiana law requires that all public 

buildings be available to host a polling place on 

Election Day without any cost to the parish.61 Local 

election officials report that this law makes it easier 

for them to secure polling place facilities than it is 

for their counterparts in other States that do not 

have such a law. Most polling places are in public 

buildings, such as schools, fire stations, and town 

halls, and the officials make only limited use of 

private buildings, including churches. Therefore, 

Saturday Election Day does not significantly affect 

the local election officials’ ability to find sufficient 

space for polling places. 

Voter Turnout

Voter turnout depends on the type of election 

being conducted. Federal elections result in higher 

turnout than do State and local elections. In 2000 

and 2004, statewide turnout for the Presidential 

elections on Tuesdays was 63.5 percent and 66.9 

percent, respectively.62 The statewide gubernatorial 

elections of 1999, 2003, and 2007—all conducted 

on Saturdays—showed wide variations in turnout 

6118 Louisiana Revised Statutes § 533. 

62“State Wide Post Election Statistical Report Election Date 

11/07/2000.” Chart. Louisiana Secretary of State Elections 

Division. 15 Jul 2008 <http://www400.sos.louisiana.gov/stats/

Post_Election_Statistics/Statewide/2000_1107_sta.txt>.

“State Wide Post Election Statistical Report for Election of 

11/02/2004.” Chart. Louisiana Secretary of State Elections 

Division. 15 Jul 2008 <http://www400.sos.louisiana.gov/stats/

Post_Election_Statistics/Statewide/2004_1102_sta.txt>.
42

from between 26.4 and 50.9 percent.63 Local 

election officials interviewed believe that there 

would be no difference in turnout if a Federal 

election were conducted on a Saturday as opposed 

to a Tuesday. Similarly, they did not believe 

63“State Wide Post Election Statistical Report Election Date 

11/17/2007.” Chart. Louisiana Secretary of State Elections 

Division. 15 Jul 2008 <http://www400.sos.louisiana.gov/stats/

Post_Election_Statistics/Statewide/2007_1117_sta.pdf>.

“State Wide Post Election Statistical Report for Election of 

11/15/2003.” Chart. Louisiana Secretary of State Elections 

Division. 15 Jul 2008 <http://www400.sos.louisiana.gov/stats/

Post_Election_Statistics/Statewide/2003_1115_sta.txt>. 

“State Wide Post Election Statistical Report for Election of 

11/20/1999.” Chart. Louisiana Secretary of State Elections 

Division. 15 Jul 2008 <http://www400.sos.louisiana.gov/stats/

Post_Election_Statistics/Statewide/1999_1120_sta.txt>.

that there would be a difference in turnout for a 

gubernatorial election if it were to be conducted 

on a Tuesday instead of a Saturday. They believed 

that turnout depends on the measures and/or 

candidates on the ballot. 
43

workers. Should Texas move away from a process 

that includes both a period of early voting and a 

Tuesday Election Day to a system of just weekend 

voting, however, it is unclear if the higher pay would 

be necessary. 

Weekend Voting in 

Harris County, Texas

Weekend voting in Texas is used for both Federal 

and non-Federal elections. A few non-Federal 

elections take place on the second Saturday in 

May. That day is set aside for general elections for 

cities and schools. Although Federal elections, by 

law, occur on Tuesdays, the Texas law that created 

early voting in 1987 led to a de facto introduction of 

weekend voting for Federal elections. The 12 days 

of early voting in Texas must include one weekend. 

Administrative Challenges

According to local election officials, early voting 

does affect their ability to a recruit a sufficient 

number of poll workers. To conduct early voting 

for 12 days, Harris County local election officials 

need to hire poll workers as temporary employees 

at higher rates than they pay Election Day poll 

Harris County conducts 12 days of early 

voting, which spans two weekends. 

Because the hours of operation at early 

voting locations fluctuate during the 

early voting period, it is difficult to make 

comparisons between weekday and 

weekend voting turnout.

First Saturday in period: 1:00 p.m.–6:00 p.m. 

First Sunday in period: 1:00 p.m.–6:00 p.m. 

Monday through Friday: 8:00 a.m.–4:30 p.m.

Second Saturday in period: 

7:00 a.m.–7:00 p.m. 

Second Sunday in period: 

1:00 p.m.–6:00 p.m.

Figure 6. Daily Voter Turnout in Harris County, Texas, November 2006

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

Mon. Oct. 23, 8 am-4:30 pm

Tues. Oct. 24, 8 am-4:30 pm

Wed. Oct. 25, 8 am-4:30 pm

Thurs. Oct. 26, 8 am-4:30 pm

Fri. Oct. 27, 8 am-4:30 pm

Sat. Oct. 28, 7 am-7 pm

Sun. Oct. 29, 1-6 pm

Mon. Oct. 30, 7 am-7 pm

Tues. Oct. 31, 7 am-7 pm

Wed. Nov. 1, 7 am-7 pm

Thurs. Nov. 2, 7 am-7 pm

Fri. Nov. 3, 7 am-7 pm
44

It costs local election officials more to rent polling 

places for Saturday voting because State law 

allows the owner of a polling place to charge an 

additional fee for overtime and administrative 

overhead on top of the base rate. The average 

extra cost for a polling place on a Saturday is $250 

according to the local election officials interviewed. 

Polling place availability, though, is not a problem 

for the weekend days of early voting. City and 

county buildings, libraries, and community centers 

are secured for the entire early voting period. 

Voter Turnout

Harris County election officials believe that voter 

turnout depends on the type of election and on the 

measures and candidates on the ballot rather than 

on the day on which the election is held. 

•	 Tuesday, November 7, 2006, general election 

turnout: 31.59 percent.

•	 Tuesday, November 8, 2005, municipal election 

turnout: 17.96 percent. 

•	 Tuesday, November 2, 2004, Presidential 

election turnout: 58.03 percent.

•	 Saturday, May 15, 2004, city of Houston special 

bond election turnout: 8.81 percent. 

Although turnout during the November 2006 

general election spiked slightly on Saturday, 

October 28 (see Figure 6), it is the general 

expectation that more people will vote each day of 

early voting as Election Day approaches. The dip in 

voting on Sunday, October 29, could be attributed 

to the relatively fewer number of hours during which 

the early voting sites are open compared with the 

number of hours on the other days of early voting.

Harris County election 

officials believe that voter 

turnout depends on the 

type of election and on the 

measures and candidates 

on the ballot rather than 

on the day on which the 

election is held. 
45

Weekend Voting in 

New Castle County, 

Delaware

Delaware has used a Saturday Election Day for 

local elections and Presidential primaries. Over the 

past two election cycles, however, the State has 

moved all primary elections back to the traditional 

Tuesday Election Day. From 1978 through 2006, 

local elections, including primaries, were held on 

Saturdays. The State’s first Saturday Presidential 

primary was in 1996. 

Election officials often justify the move to voting 

during the weekends by claiming an added 

convenience to voters. In Delaware, Jewish 

voters did not find it more convenient to vote on 

Saturdays exclusively. The State’s 2002 primary 

election fell on Rosh Hashanah (the Jewish New 

Year), and Saturday primaries always coincided 

with the Jewish Sabbath. In 2004, the Presidential 

primary was moved to a Tuesday, and, beginning 

in 2006, the State primary was moved to a 

Tuesday Election Day.

Administrative Challenges

New Castle County election officials reported that 

they did not have a problem recruiting enough poll 

workers. They did note, however, that they were 

hiring different poll workers for Saturday Election 

Day than for Tuesday Election Day. Teachers are 

the most common replacements on Saturday 

Election Days for traditional Tuesday Election Day 

poll workers.

Election officials in New Castle County did have 

a harder time securing enough polling places for 

Saturday voting. They reported that fewer churches 

and community centers are available to use as 

polling places because those facilities are not 

always available during the weekends.

Voter Turnout

Moving a non-Presidential Federal primary election 

from Saturday to Tuesday did not appear to 

substantially affect turnout.

•	 Tuesday, September 12, 2006: 45.76 percent.

•	 Saturday, September 7, 2002: 43.42 percent. 

•	 Saturday, September 12, 1998: 37.32 percent.

As reported by local election officials in other 

States and jurisdictions, election officials in New 

Castle County reported that voter turnout is directly 

linked to the candidates and measures on the 

ballot and not to the day of the week on which the 

election is conducted.

Conclusion

EAC’s study of weekend voting is limited because 

only a few States allow some form of the alternative 

voting method and no State is allowed to conduct 

Federal elections on weekends exclusively. Based 

on the turnout data in State and local elections from 

the three States studied, the measurement of voter 

turnout seems to be affected very little by weekend 

voting. It is impossible, however, to extrapolate from 

those turnout data to make predictions about how a 

move to weekend voting for Federal elections might 

affect turnout. 

The only real certainty is that the cost of 

administering the election will be higher. Interviews 

with local election officials reveal that Saturday 

Election Day usually costs more than Tuesday 

Election Day. If Congress changes the Federal 

Tuesday Election Day to 2-day weekend voting, the 

cost of the election is likely to increase substantially. 

With very little data to support a positive effect on 

turnout and likely higher administrative cost, it is 

inadvisable at this time for EAC to recommend a 

move from Tuesday Election Day to weekend voting 

for Federal elections. 
46 Voting in Puerto Rico

Territory: Commonwealth of 

 Puerto Rico

Chief Election 

Official: Lic. Ramon E. Gomez

 Colon, President

 Puerto Rico 

 Elections Commision

 550 Arterial B. Ave.

 Hato Rey

 San Juan, PR 00919-5552

 Phone: 787-777-8675

Number of 

Registered 

Voters: 2,178,956 (in 2006)

Alternative 

Voting Method: Alternative days, times 

 and places to vote

Implemented: 2004

General elections in Puerto Rico for all levels of 

government coincide with the U.S. Presidential 

election. The different levels of government are 

elected using three separate ballots. The first ballot 

includes the races for Governor and for Resident 

Commissioner. Although the Federal Resident 

Commissioner is Puerto Rico’s delegate to the U.S. 

Congress, the race appears on the State ballot. The 

second ballot is used for choosing members of the 

Puerto Rico Legislature. The third ballot is used for 

contests in each of Puerto Rico’s 78 municipalities. 

In Puerto Rico, Election Day is designated as a 

State holiday.

The Puerto Rico Elections Commission (Comisión 

Estatal de Elecciones or CEE)—an independent 

body consisting of a representative of each political 

party—is responsible for all aspects of election 

administration in Puerto Rico. In addition to 

governing traditional voting on Election Day, the CEE 

governs Puerto Rico’s alternative voting methods. 

This section examines the implementation and effect 

of Puerto Rico’s use of alternative voting methods.

Implementation 

and Effect

Puerto Rico’s election officials use some of the 

alternative voting methods employed on the U.S. 

mainland, but they have also used innovative 

options not established anywhere else in the 

United States. All of Puerto Rico’s alternative voting 

methods are restricted to specific groups of people. 

For example, an absentee voter must have a 

specific excuse—usually related to employment—for 

voting by absentee ballot. These excuses include 

employment as a police officer, firefighter, student, 

and so forth. Puerto Rico also has alternative voting 

procedures for incarcerated felons, hospitalized 

individuals, and bedridden voters.

For decades, Puerto Rico has used some of its 

alternative voting methods, such as absentee voting 

and early voting. Other methods have been used 

only in the most recent election in 2004. See Table 

7 for the dates of implementation of all of Puerto 

Rico’s alternative voting methods. None of the 

alternative voting methods in Puerto Rico disrupts 

Election Day procedures because they are designed 

to occur before Election Day. Each alternative voting 

method has restrictive eligibility requirements, which 

results in most people voting in traditional precinctbased polling places on Election Day.

Table 7: Introduction of 

Voting Methods in Puerto Rico

Voting Method Implementation

Absentee and 

Early Voting

Election law of 1974

Provisional Voting Decision by the local 

Supreme Court of 1988 

(122 DPR 490)

Prisoner Voting Decision by Tribunal 

Special Committee 

(Junta Revisora) in 1980

Hospital Voting Elections Commission 

decision in 2004

Domicile/Bedridden 

Voting

Elections Commission 

decision in 2004
47

Absentee and Early Voting

The CEE must receive all absentee voting 

requests at least 60 days before the election, and 

only a small group of citizens is eligible to apply. 

This group includes active-duty National Guard 

personnel, Merchant Marines, Department of Labor 

personnel, members of the diplomatic or foreign aid 

service, students, commercial airline crews, and 

essential public servants (e.g., firefighters, police 

officers, and judges). An eligible voter in one of the 

preceding categories who is unable to vote in his or 

her assigned precinct on Election Day may request 

an absentee ballot and cast the vote by mail. 

Puerto Rico also permits some individuals to vote 

absentee in person before their local elections 

commissions, usually on the day before Election 

Day. This process is similar to early voting in some 

States. Eligible citizens include those individuals 

working in essential positions on Election Day such 

as officials of the Correctional Administration (e.g., 

prison guards), CEE officials, and police officers.

Provisional Voting (Añadidos a Mano)

Since 1988, the CEE has administered a 

provisional voting and canvassing process called 

Añadidos a Mano (AM). On Election Day, multiple 

precincts vote in the same polling location. If a voter 

claims to be registered but does not appear in the 

precinct’s poll book, he or she is permitted to vote 

in a provisional precinct within the polling place. 

This provisional precinct is similar to an absentee 

ballot precinct; no voter is regularly assigned to a 

provisional precinct, but the votes are tallied there 

on Election Day for reporting purposes. A voter in a 

provisional precinct signs an affidavit swearing that 

he or she is a registered voter in the jurisdiction and 

casts a ballot, which is placed in an envelope to be 

verified by CEE staff after Election Day.

Provisional votes must be authenticated before 

being counted. To safeguard voters’ privacy rights 

and the election’s integrity, provisional ballots are 

kept separate from other ballots when they are 

sent from the polling places to the local elections 

commission’s office. Provisional ballots that can be 

authenticated are counted and tallied for the correct 

precinct. All voters who cast provisional ballots can 

verify whether their votes were counted by calling 

a toll-free number or by visiting the local elections 

commission’s office. 

Prisoner Voting (Voto de los Confinados)

Since 1980, Puerto Rico has allowed felons and 

prisoners in State custody to vote. These voters 

are subject to a two-tier system. If prisoners want 

to vote in the State, legislative, and municipal 

elections, they must submit a request in writing 

using a special absentee voting form at least 60 

days before Election Day. If incarcerated voters 

do not make the request at least 60 days before 

the election, they may still vote through the AM 

process. These voters, however, are eligible only for 

the State ballot and cannot vote in the legislative 

and municipal elections because they may be 

incarcerated outside their home jurisdictions and 

may not have given the CEE enough time to supply 

the appropriate ballot style. 

The CEE conducts penal institution voting on the 

Sunday before Election Day. Voting on this day 

allows for sufficient time to transport the votes to 

the appropriate local elections commissions for 

adjudication on Election Day. Voting also occurs on 

Sunday so that it does not interfere with Saturday 

prison visitation hours.

In the November 2004 election, 5,102 prisoners 

cast votes. The CEE validated 4,384 of the voters 

as registered and counted those votes.

Hospital Voting (Voto en Hospitales)

During the general election of 2004, Puerto Rico 

conducted a pilot program that allowed registered 

voters who were hospitalized on Election Day to 

vote outside of their traditional precinct-based 

polling place. As with some prisoner voting 

procedures, however, the patients were presented 

State ballots only and were not permitted to vote in 

legislative and municipal races, because they may 

be located outside their home jurisdictions.

It was more difficult for the CEE to determine how 

to allocate resources for hospital voting than it 

was for prisoner voting. Patients are much more 
48

transient than prisoners and cannot be expected to 

register their statuses more the 60 days in advance 

of Election Day. By October 29, 2004, 3 full days 

before Election Day, each participating hospital’s 

administration submitted to the CEE updated 

statistics of admitted patients and information about 

the number of them expected to remain hospitalized 

on Election Day. The CEE then installed electoral 

precincts accordingly in public areas inside the 

hospitals and used mobile precincts for voters who, 

because of their medical conditions, could not leave 

their rooms to vote.

Voting in the hospital precincts occurred on the day 

before the general election. Polls were open during 

the same hours that traditional precinct-based 

polling places were open and followed the same 

procedures that are used on Election Day. Unlike 

the officials at a regular precinct, however, hospital 

precinct officials did not count the cast ballots when 

the polls closed. Instead, after the polls closed, poll 

workers sent the cast ballots to the corresponding 

local elections commission’s office and then to the 

CEE’s main operations center to be counted along 

with the ballots cast on Election Day. 

The CEE provided hospital voting in approximately 

70 hospitals. Hospitalized voters cast 2,673 ballots. 

The CEE identified 2,438 of those voters as 

registered and counted their votes.

Domicile/Bedridden Voting 

(Voto en el Domicilio)

The CEE also conducted a pilot program for 

bedridden individuals during the 2004 election. 

Eligible voters with physical impediments, unable 

to leave their homes on Election Day to vote, 

could request no later than 45 days before the 

election, via a person of confidence or the Internet, 

to vote by this alternative voting method. Unlike 

hospitalized or prisoner voters, domicile voters 

were presented ballots for legislative and municipal 

elections along with the State ballot.

Poll workers carried ballots to those individuals 

eligible to vote from their homes on the day before 

Election Day. Votes were cast in the poll worker’s 

presence. Poll workers then certified the cast ballot, 

sealed it in an envelope, and delivered it to the local 

elections commission’s office to be counted with 

the votes of its corresponding home precinct on 

Election Day.

Costs

In Puerto Rico, all poll workers are volunteers 

representing their respective political parties and 

are trained by the local elections commissions. 

Political parties were responsible for selecting and 

recruiting poll workers who administered Puerto 

Rico’s two pilot programs in 2004. Puerto Rico’s 

election officials were able to keep some costs from 

rising because they were not recruiting and paying 

the additional poll workers to conduct hospital and 

domicile voting. Furthermore, officials reported no 

noticeable increases in cost to the local elections 

commissions for registration materials, because 

most individuals using the alternative voting methods 

were already registered to vote. Part of the cost 

associated with the two pilot programs for personnel, 

training, and administrative expenses was covered 

by the general election administration budget. The 

costs associated with absentee and early voting as 

well as prisoner voting were already included in the 

general election administration budget. 

Additional expenses paid outside the general 

election administrative budget include the rent 

for vehicles to transport elections officials to 

the hospitals or domiciles in which voting took 

place. and costs to develop, print, and distribute 

posters and purchase radio and television time 

to inform voters of the new alternative voting 

methods. Approximately $70,000 was spent on 

the information campaign to promote hospital and 

domicile voting.

Administrative Challenges

The implementation of the prisoner, hospital, 

and bedridden alternative voting methods did 

not affect other voting procedures in place on 

Election Day. To avoid any possible problems, the 

alternative voting methods were designed to be 
49

administered on dates before Election Day. This 

pre-Election Day method made the administrative 

challenge of matching legislative and municipal 

ballots to their appropriate precincts for counting 

considerably easier. 

Most voting in Puerto Rico takes place on the 

Tuesday Election Day. In 2004, hospital and 

domicile voting took place 1 day before Election 

Day, on Monday, November 1. By avoiding 

weekends during the voting process, there was 

minimal impact on religious groups. Only prison 

voting is conducted on a weekend in Puerto Rico. 

Sunday was chosen to avoid disrupting visitation 

hours on Saturday. 

Voter Turnout

The goal of Puerto Rico’s alternative voting 

methods is to include groups of people in the 

elections who otherwise could not have voted. 

Each alternative voting method has a highly 

restrictive eligibility requirement, which means 

most of the electorate must still vote on Election 

Day in traditional precinct-based polling places. 

Having individuals vote by one of the alternative 

voting methods could only have resulted in 

higher overall turnout for the 2004 election than 

would have been achievable without the options, 

because those voters would not have been able 

to vote before the implementation of the various 

alternative voting methods. 

The CEE created an administrative absentee vote 

board (Junta de Adminstracion del Voto Ausente)

to manage all absentee voting in Puerto Rico, 

which includes all its alternative voting methods. 

The board uses the name and voter identification 

number (Tarjeta de Identificacion Electoral) on each 

envelope to verify the voter’s eligibility. Ballots from 

voters whose eligibility cannot be verified are not 

counted. During the 2004 general election, 22,267 

individuals voted by one of the alternative voting 

methods. Of those ballots, 12,610 were counted; 

9,657 ballots were rejected.

Conclusion

The CEE is responsible for the design, 

organization, structure, and supervision of all 

procedures and practices used in Puerto Rico 

elections. It is also responsible for periodically 

evaluating its election procedures and adopting any 

new alternative voting methods. All new provisions 

must be approved unanimously by the Puerto Rico 

Elections Commission members at least 4 months 

ahead of Election Day.

The CEE did not hastily move from one voting 

method to another. Instead, the CEE included 

alternative voting methods to supplement its current 

precinct-based elections to assist underserved 

groups within the population. It took approximately 

6 months to develop and establish the procedures 

by which the two most recent alternative voting 

methods were put in place. These innovative 

practices have been successful to date and could 

be used in jurisdictions across the United States.

The goal of Puerto Rico’s 

alternative voting methods 

is to include groups of 

people in the elections who 

otherwise could not have 

voted. Each alternative 

voting method has a 

highly restrictive eligibility 

requirement, which means 

most of the electorate must 

still vote on Election Day in 

traditional precinct-based 

polling places. 
50

HAVA Section 241(b)(10) requires a discussion 

of the “advisability of establishing a uniform poll 

closing time.” A uniform poll closing time would 

ensure that voters on the west coast are not 

affected by the announced election returns from 

the east coast. In some cases, projections have 

been made about the outcome of the race based 

on those east coast returns while hours of voting 

remained in other parts of the country; research 

shows that knowledge of these projections can 

influence voters.64 

Congress has attempted to address the problem 

of early projections many times. In 1960, Senator 

Barry Goldwater from Arizona introduced legislation 

that would have prohibited all media outlets 

from announcing any election results until after 

midnight eastern standard time (EST). Although 

the legislation to limit the ability of the media to 

make election projections did not make it through 

Congress, there is another way to combat the 

controversy regarding election night returns. All 

polling places in the continental United States could 

close at the same time. 

In 1985, the House of Representatives first passed 

legislation that would have established a uniform 

poll closing time, and several bills have been in 

both the House of Representatives and the Senate 

as recently as 2002 to do the same. As former 

Representative Al Swift from Washington, one of 

the most ardent proponents of a national uniform 

poll closing time, has argued, “[a]nything that 

erodes the integrity of the voting process weakens 

our democracy. Projecting a Presidential winner 

before all the polls have closed adversely affects 

us all, but the problem can be easily solved....”65 By 

closing all polls at the same time, each individual’s 

vote remains free from the outside influence of 

knowing the outcome. 

Among the several different proposals for a 

federally mandated uniform poll closing, the 

most common proposals, and the only ones to 

pass in the House of Representatives, mandate 

a 9:00 p.m. EST poll closing. They also amend 

the Uniform Time Act of 1966 to extend daylight 

saving time in the Pacific Time zone in Presidential 

election years to the Sunday after Election Day.66

Other proposals mandate 10:00 p.m. EST poll 

closing67 or 11:00 p.m. EST poll closing,68 and 

some leave the exact time of uniform poll closing 

open ended.69 The most unlikely option floated by 

some academics would be to establish a single 

time zone across the country. 

The Constitution reserves to the Congress the 

power to regulate the time, place, and manner 

for holding Federal elections.70 A congressional 

mandate for a 9:00 p.m. EST poll closing would 

affect the poll closing time in 40 States. Thirty 

Uniform Poll Closing

64Crespin, Michael H. and Ryan J. Vander Wielen. “The 

Influence of Media Projections on Voter Turnout In Presidential 

Elections from 1980-2000.” Prepared for presentation at 

the 2002 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science 

Association. pp. 2-3. 

Jackson, John E. “Election Night Reporting and Voter Turnout.” 

American Journal of Political Science 27.4 (November 1983): 

615-635. pp. 633.

65Swift, Al. Letter. New York Times. 20 Dec. 1988. 11 Jul. 2008 

<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE5DF13

3BF933A15751C1A96E948260>.

66H.R. 3525, 99th Cong. (1986); S. 628, 101st Cong. (1989); 

H.R. 18, 101st Cong. (1989); H.R. 1554, 103rd Cong. (1993); S. 

3287, 106th Cong. (2000); H.R 5678, 106th Cong. (2000); and, 

S. 50, 107th Cong. (2001).

67S. 136, 101st Cong. (1989); S. 571, 105th Cong. (1997); and, 

S. 175, 107th Cong. (2001).

68H.R. 3153, 105th Cong. (1998); H.R. 668, 106th Cong. (1999); 

and, H.R. 1666, 107th Cong. (2001).

69H.R. 96, 101st Cong. (1989).

70U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 4 and Article II, Section 1.

In 1985, the House of 

Representatives first passed 

legislation that would have 

established a uniform poll 

closing time, and several 

bills have been in both the 

House of Representatives 

and the Senate as recently 

as 2002 to do the same. 
51

States, mostly in the East, and the District of 

Columbia would have to extend polling place hours 

by as many as 3 hours. Nine States in the West 

would have to reduce polling place hours by as 

many as 2 hours.71 Six States in the East would 

have polling places open for 15 hours and most 

other eastern States would have them open for 14 

hours, while the maximum a western State could 

reasonably have its polling places open would be 

for 12 hours. 

The States would likely resist any Federal 

mandate to change polling place hours. 

Projections of election results in eastern States 

may affect voters in the West, and it is reasonable 

to have serious discussions about how to fix the 

problem. A uniform poll closing, however, is not an 

advisable solution. Although the alternative voting 

methods in this report are all intended to expand 

the ease and convenience of voting, a uniform 

poll closing would present a huge inconvenience 

for many voters in the West, who would lose the 

opportunity to vote after work. Likewise, local 

election officials in the East would need to keep 

polls open even longer than they do now. At this 

time, the negative side effects of a uniform poll 

closing time are greater than a fix to the early 

election projection problem.

71“2006 Polling Place Hours by State.” Chart. National 

Association of Secretaries of State. Nov. 2006. 11 Jul 2008 

<http://nass.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id

=71&Itemid=217>.
52

The administration of elections is evolving. 

According to the EAC’s 2006 Election 

Administration and Voting Survey, more than one 

in five ballots was cast during early and absentee 

voting during the 2006 midterm elections.72 As 

more States move to no-excuse absentee voting 

and expand early voting, there will likely be a rise in 

the percentage of ballots cast before Election Day. 

Administrative procedures on Election Day itself 

are also changing. Vote centers enable individuals 

to vote at many different locations on Election Day 

instead of a traditional polling place. There are no 

polling places at all in Oregon because all ballots 

are cast by mail. Some States consider Election 

Day to be a holiday and others conduct non-Federal 

elections on the weekends. The feasibility of the 

alternative voting methods in this report will be 

determined by different levels of legislative bodies: 

local, State, and Federal. The advisability of each of 

the alternative voting methods in this report varies 

depending on the jurisdiction. Local and State 

election officials must take into consideration their 

jurisdictions’ population density, culture of voting, 

ability to recruit poll workers, and so forth before 

making any decision to implement a new alternative 

voting method.

Early Voting

Early voting is traditionally defined as a process 

by which voters cast their ballots before Election 

Day at precinct-like polling stations throughout a 

jurisdiction. Texas has used this process for two 

decades and other States have been gradually 

implementing it. The benefits to early voting, as 

opposed to other convenience voting, include 

convenience to the voter and security of the 

ballot. Early voting, however, comes with a high 

cost, because personnel and facilities must be 

coordinated for many days in addition to Election 

Day. Early voting truly is an alternative voting 

method. It is used mostly by those voters who 

would alternatively vote on Election Day if it was 

the only option. Overall, turnout has not significantly 

increased during the early voting era in Texas. 

Still, it is advisable for other States to consider the 

successes of this method of convenience voting. 

Election Day Holidays

Some States have declared Election Day State 

holidays for Federal elections. Advocates of an 

Election Day Federal holiday often argue that such 

a holiday would result in higher turnout because 

individuals would be given the day off from work. 

Yet, an analysis of the States with Election Day 

State holidays during Federal elections does not 

reveal a higher level of turnout. Over the past 

four Federal elections, the aggregated turnout 

of States with holidays showed insignificant 

differences in turnout than States without holidays. 

The implementation of an Election Day Federal 

holiday would be accompanied by some costs for 

the Federal government, because more than 2 

million employees would be given a paid day off. 

It is unclear how many State governments and 

private businesses would close as a result of the 

Federal holiday, which advocates say results in 

more convenience for voters. Finally, it is unlikely 

that a Federal holiday would positively affect voter 

turnout when a State holiday does not. Until more 

research can be completed about the positive 

effects of Election Day holidays to counter the 

inevitable drawback of higher administrative cost, it 

is inadvisable at this time to establish a legal public 

holiday on the Federal Election Day.

Vote-by-Mail

Absentee voting has been around since the Civil 

War. It was originally intended for soldiers who were 

away from home on Election Day. Today, absentee 

voting has expanded to all States, of which 31 allow 

no-excuse absentee voting for all individuals.73

Oregon has moved one step further and created an 

all vote-by-mail system. Officials there claim clear 

benefits for both local election officials and voters. 

Feasibility and Advisability

72United States. U.S. Election Assistance Commission. The 

2006 Election Administration and Voting Survey. Washington: 

EAC, 2007. 11 Jul. 2008 <http://www.eac.gov/files/Eds2006/

eds2006/edsr-final-adopted-version.pdf>. pp. 14.

73“Absentee and Early Voting Laws.” Chart. The Early Voting 

Information Center at Reed College. Feb. 2008. 11 Jul 2008 

<http://www.earlyvoting.net/states/abslaws.php>.
53

Election officials do not need polling places or poll 

workers in a vote-by-mail system. Voter registration 

lists tend to be more accurate because the frequent 

mailing of nonforwardable ballots provides updated 

information on the actual home addresses of 

voters. Furthermore, some evidence supports 

the supposition that vote-by-mail elections might 

be less costly to administer than precinct-based 

elections and may increase turnout. Voters have the 

convenience of voting from home and can choose to 

mail the ballot back to the election office or drop it off 

at conveniently located sites around the jurisdiction. 

Although Oregon has additional concerns about 

ballot integrity, the State believes it has solved 

the problem with its 100 percent signature match 

procedures. This alternative voting method works 

well in Oregon, which already had a history of higher 

than average absentee voting. Officials in other 

jurisdictions considering a move to a vote-by-mail 

method are advised to evaluate the current methods 

of voting that their citizens use most before instituting 

any changes to their election systems.

Vote Centers

Even the traditional precinct-based election is 

evolving. There was a time when the poll workers 

knew all the voters in their given precincts. In 

smaller jurisdictions with smaller precincts, this is 

still sometimes the case. As precincts have become 

larger, however, the administration of elections 

has become less of a neighbor-to-neighbor 

experience. Small neighborhood precincts often 

are not the most convenient places for individuals 

to vote today, because the voters are not near their 

residences as much during normal polling place 

hours. First attempted in Colorado, vote centers are 

an alternative voting method in which individuals 

choose to vote in any one of larger, strategically 

located polling sites throughout the county on 

Election Day. This added convenience for voters has 

been well received, and local election administrators 

enjoy the benefits of economies of scale. Only two 

Federal elections have been conducted with vote 

centers, however, and it is unclear to what extent 

vote centers can be credited with raising overall 

turnout (including absentee and early voting) when 

voter turnout on the actual Election Day declined 

after the change from traditional precincts to vote 

centers. Jurisdictions interested in vote centers are 

advised to consider all the planning that Colorado 

did before implementing vote centers and to look at 

the data on voter turnout and administrative costs 

after the 2008 Presidential election in jurisdictions 

using vote centers.

Weekend Voting

Federal law requires that elections for Federal office 

occur on the first Tuesday after the first Monday 

in November. Yet, the traditional Tuesday Election 

Day is predicated on the needs of an agrarian 

society and may not still be the most optimal day 

on which Americans should vote. Weekend voting 

as an alternative voting method might provide 

more convenience to voters and increase voter 

turnout, although election officials’ experiences 

with some State and local elections conducted 

on the weekends have shown some drawbacks 

in recruiting poll workers and finding appropriate 

polling place locations, as well as pushback from 

religious groups. With very little data to support 

a positive effect on turnout and likely higher 

administrative costs, it is inadvisable at this time for 

EAC to recommend a move from Tuesday Election 

Day to weekend voting for Federal elections. 

Voting in Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico has been very innovative with its 

system of election administration. Some of Puerto 

Rico’s alternative voting methods, such as absentee 

voting and early voting, have been used for 

decades. Others have been used only in the most 

recent elections in 2004. None of the alternative 

voting methods in Puerto Rico disrupts Election 

Day procedures, because they were designed to 

occur before Election Day. Each alternative voting 

method has highly restrictive eligibility requirements, 

which results in voting by most people in traditional 

precinct-based polling places on Election Day. 

Specifically, programs are in place for prisoner 

voting, hospital voting, and domicile/bedridden 

voting. The EAC recommends further research 

into how some of these unique programs could be 

implemented in other jurisdictions. 
U.S. Election Assistance Commission

EAC Commissioners

Chair Rosemary E. Rodriguez

Vice Chair Donetta L. Davidson

Commissioner Gracia M. Hillman

EAC Staff

Thomas Wilkey, Executive Director

Juliet Hodgkins, General Counsel

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

1225 New York Ave., NW

Suite 1100

Washington, DC 20005

1-866-747-1471 (toll free)

HAVAinfo@eac.gov

www.eac.gov