ELECTIONS

Views on 

Implementing Federal 

Elections on a 

Weekend

Report to Congressional Committees

January 2012

GAO-12-69

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-69, a report to 

congressional committees

January 2012 

ELECTIONS

Views on Implementing Federal Elections on a

Weekend 

Why GAO Did This Study

Many U.S. citizens who are eligible to 

vote in federal elections do not do so.

For instance, in the 2008 general 

election, about 62 percent of eligible 

citizens voted. To increase voter 

turnout by enhancing convenience, 

some states have implemented 

alternative voting methods, such as inperson early voting—casting a ballot in 

person prior to Election Day without 

providing a reason—and no-excuse 

absentee voting—casting an absentee 

ballot, usually by mail, without 

providing a reason. In general, since 

1845, federal law has required that 

federal elections be held on Tuesday. 

The committees on appropriations

directed GAO to study and report on 

costs and benefits of implementing 

H.R. 254—the Weekend Voting Act—

including issues associated with 

conducting a weekend election. 

Specifically, this report addresses: 

(1) alternatives to voting on Tuesday 

that states provided for the November 

2010 general election, (2) how election 

officials anticipate election 

administration and costs would be 

affected if the day for federal elections 

were moved to a weekend, and 

(3) what research and available data 

suggest about the potential effect of a 

weekend election on voter turnout. 

GAO reviewed H.R. 254 and analyzed

state statutes and early voting turnout 

in the 2010 Maryland elections, which 

had early voting over weekdays and 

weekends. GAO interviewed election 

officials in nine states, the District of 

Columbia (District), and 17 local 

jurisdictions that were selected on the 

basis of geographic dispersion and 

experience with weekend voting, 

among other things. Though not 

generalizable, the interviews provide 

insights. 

What GAO Found

For the 2010 general election, 35 states and the District provided voters at least 

one alternative to casting their ballot on Election Day through in-person early 

voting, no-excuse absentee voting, or voting by mail. Specifically, 33 states and 

the District provided in-person early voting, 29 states and the District provided

no-excuse absentee voting, and 2 states provided voting by mail to all or most 

voters. Of the 9 states and the District where GAO conducted interviews, all but 2 

states provided voters the option of in-person early voting in the 2010 general 

election, and 5 states and the District offered both early voting and no-excuse 

absentee voting. Implementation and characteristics of in-person early voting 

varied among the 7 states and, in some cases, among the jurisdictions within a 

state. For example, 5 states and the District required local jurisdictions to include

at least one Saturday, and 2 states allowed for some jurisdiction discretion to 

include weekend days.

State and local election officials GAO interviewed identified challenges they 

would anticipate facing in planning and conducting Election Day activities on 

weekends—specifically, finding poll workers and polling places, and securing 

ballots and voting equipment—and expected cost increases. Officials in all 17 

jurisdictions and the District we contacted said they expected the number of poll 

workers needed for a 2-day weekend election would increase. Further, officials in 

13 jurisdictions said that some poll workers would be less willing to work on the 

weekend because of other priorities, such as family obligations or attending 

religious services. Officials in 14 of the 17 jurisdictions and the District expected 

that at least some of the polling places they used in past elections—such as 

churches—would not be available for a weekend election, and anticipated 

difficulty finding replacements. Officials in all 9 states, the District, and 15 of the 

17 local jurisdictions said ensuring the security of ballots and voting equipment 

over the Saturday night of a weekend election would be both challenging and 

expensive. Officials in 5 of the 7 states and the District that conducted early 

voting and provided security over multiple days explained that the level of 

planning needed for overnight security for a weekend election would far surpass 

that of early voting due to the greater number and variety of Election Day polling 

places. For example, officials in one state said that for the 2010 general election, 

the state had fewer than 300 early voting sites—which were selected to ensure 

security—compared to more than 2,750 polling places on Election Day, which 

are generally selected based on availability and proximity to voters. In addition, 

officials in all 9 states, the District, and 15 of the 17 local jurisdictions said they 

expected overnight security costs to increase. 

Weekend elections have not been studied, but studies of other voting alternatives 

determined that voter turnout is not strongly affected by them. Since nationwide 

federal elections have never been held on a weekend, it is difficult to draw valid 

conclusions about how moving federal elections to a weekend would affect voter 

turnout. GAO’s review of 24 studies found that, with the exception of vote by 

mail, each of the alternative voting methods was estimated to change turnout by 

no more than 4 percentage points. GAO’s analysis of early voter turnout data in 

Maryland found that 1.5 percent of voters we analyzed cast ballots on the 

weekend during the 2010 general election. View GAO-12-69. For more information, 

contact William O. Jenkins, Jr., at (202) 512-

8777 or jenkinswo@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

Letter 1 

Background 6

Most States Provided Early or No-Excuse Absentee Voting as 

Alternatives to Voting on Tuesday in the 2010 General Election 14

Most Election Officials We Interviewed Expect Greater Difficulty 

and Costs Associated with a Weekend Election 19

Weekend Elections Have Not Been Studied, but Studies of Other 

Voting Alternatives Suggest That Voter Turnout May Not Be 

Strongly Affected 32

Appendix I Selected Characteristics of States and Local Election Jurisdictions We 

Contacted 42

Appendix II Analysis of Weekend Voting in the 2010 Maryland State Elections 46

Appendix III Alternative Voting Methods Provided in 50 States and the District 

for the 2004 and 2010 November General Elections 54

Appendix IV Selected Details of Early and No-Excuse Absentee Voting for the 2010 

General Election in States We Contacted 56

Appendix V Selected Details of Early Voting for the 2010 General Election in Local 

Jurisdictions We Contacted 58

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 60

Bibliography 61

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

Related GAO Products 64

Tables

Table 1: Estimated Impacts of Alternative Voting Methods on Voter 

Turnout 36

Table 2: Turnout and Use of Saturday Poll Hours in the 2010 

Maryland General Election 40

Table 3: Selected Information about the States and the District We 

Contacted 42

Table 4: Selected Information about the Local Election 

Jurisdictions and the District We Contacted 44

Table 5: Turnout and Use of Weekend Poll Hours in 2010 Maryland 

General Election, by Demographic Group 51

Table 6: Selected Details of Early and No-Excuse Absentee Voting 

Implementation for the November 2010 General Election 

in States We Contacted 56

Table 7: Selected Details of Early Voting Implementation for the 

November 2010 General Election in Local Jurisdictions We 

Contacted 58

Figures

Figure 1: The Election Process Involves the Integration of People, 

Process, and Technology 9

Figure 2: Thirty-Five States and the District Provided at Least One 

Alternative to Voting on Tuesday in the November 2010 

General Election 15

Figure 3: Early Voting in Maryland’s November 2010 General 

Election 48

Figure 4: In-person Early Voting and No-excuse Absentee Voting in 

50 States and the District for the 2004 and 2010 General 

Elections 55
Page iii GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

Abbreviations

District District of Columbia

DRE direct recording electronic

EAC Election Assistance Commission

EVIC Early Voting Information Center

HAVA Help America Vote Act

NASS National Association of Secretaries of State

NCSL National Conference of State Legislatures

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548

January 12, 2012

The Honorable Richard Durbin

Chairman

The Honorable Jerry Moran

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Jo Ann Emerson

Chairwoman

The Honorable José Serrano

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

Voting is fundamental to our democracy, yet many U.S. citizens who are 

eligible to vote do not take advantage of their constitutional right to vote in 

federal elections. For instance, about 62 percent of eligible citizens voted 

in the November 2008 general election and about 42 percent voted in the 

November 2010 general election.1

Since 1845, federal law has required that federal Election Day for the 

offices of President and Vice President be held on Tuesday.

Policymakers, legislators, researchers, 

and advocacy organizations have explored ways to make voting more 

convenient with the goal of increasing voter turnout. Some states have 

implemented alternative voting methods aimed at increasing convenience 

by offering citizens an alternative to voting on Election Day. These include 

in-person early voting—that is, casting a ballot in person prior to Election 

Day without providing a reason, and no-excuse absentee voting—that is, 

casting an absentee ballot, usually by mail, without providing a reason.

2

 

1

Voter turnout varies, and in general is lower in midterm election years than in presidential 

election years. These turnout rates reflect total turnout (or total ballots counted) divided by 

the voting-eligible population. U.S. Elections Project.

Subsequent 

2

More specifically, the 1845 federal law first established a uniform date—the Tuesday next 

after the first Monday in the month of November of the year in which they are to be 

appointed—for the appointment of Presidential and Vice Presidential electors. (January 

23, 1845, ch. 1, 5 Stat. 721. The current provision is codified at 3 U.S.C. § 1.)

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

legislation extended the Tuesday Election Day to House and Senate 

elections.3

Various bills have been introduced in Congress since 1995 to increase 

voter convenience by changing the day of presidential and congressional 

elections from Tuesday to the weekend.

Thus, while states or local jurisdictions may have held 

nonfederal elections on a weekend or conducted early voting during a 

period that included Saturdays or Sundays, nationwide general elections 

for federal offices have been held on Tuesdays.

4 Specifically, legislation has 

been introduced to move the day for regularly scheduled federal elections 

from the Tuesday after the first Monday in November to the Saturday and 

Sunday after the first Friday in November, and to synchronize the opening 

and closing times of polling places within the continental United States for 

federal elections. As of December 2011, the most recent bill, introduced 

in January 2009, was H.R. 254—the Weekend Voting Act. The 

committees on appropriations directed us to study and report on costs 

and benefits of implementing H.R. 254, including the anticipated costs to 

state and federal election administration officials, the effects on polling 

places, and the estimated increase in voter turnout.5

Since 2001, we have issued a series of reports covering aspects of the 

election process primarily with respect to federal elections. For example, 

after the November 2000 and 2004 elections, we issued comprehensive 

reports on processes involved in and challenges associated with 

administering those elections.6

 

3

In 1872, the same (Tuesday after the first Monday in November) date was established as 

the day for the election of Representatives to the Congress. (February 2, 1872, ch. 11, § 

3, 17 Stat. 28. The current provision is codified at 2 U.S.C. § 7.) After ratification of the 

Seventeenth Amendment establishing the direct popular election of Senators, a federal 

law in 1914 established the same date for the election of Senators to the Congress. (June 

4, 1914, ch.103, § 1, 38 Stat. 384. The current provision is codified at 2 U.S.C. § 1.)

This report focuses on issues related to 

4

See, for example, H.R. 254, 111th Cong. (2009); S. 149, 111th Cong. (2009); H.R. 7034, 

110th Cong. (2008); H.R. 6240, 110th Cong. (2008); S. 2638, 110th Cong. (2008); S. 144, 

109th Cong. (2005); S. 1320, 107th Cong. (2001); S. 1463, 105th Cong. (1997); and H.R. 

1367, 104th Cong. (1995). 

5

H.R. Rep. No. 111-202, at 60 (2009).

6

See for example, GAO, Elections: The Nation’s Evolving Election System as Reflected in 

the November 2004 General Election, GAO-06-450 (Washington, D.C.: June 6, 2006). 

See the Related GAO Products list for reports issued on elections since 2001. 
 

Page 3 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

implementing weekend elections as described in H.R. 254. Specifically, it 

addresses the following questions:

• What alternatives to voting on Tuesday did states provide for the 

November 2010 general election?

• How, if at all, do election officials anticipate election administration 

and associated costs would be affected if the day for federal elections 

were moved to a weekend?

• What do research and available data suggest about the potential 

effect of a weekend election on voter turnout?

To address our objectives, we reviewed H.R. 254, the U.S. Election 

Assistance Commission’s (EAC) study of Alternative Voting Methods and 

2010 Statutory Overview report,7 the Center for Democracy and Election 

Management’s Election Administration Profiles of All Fifty States,8 and 

states’ and local jurisdictions’ election websites. We also conducted 

interviews with election officials in a nonprobability sample of nine states 

and the District of Columbia (District), and a nonprobability sample of 17 

local jurisdictions within those states, about if and how they implemented 

alternative voting methods and their views on how election administration 

and voter turnout would likely be affected in their state or jurisdiction if the 

day for regularly scheduled federal elections were moved to a weekend.9

 

7

The EAC is an independent, bipartisan commission created by the Help America Vote 

Act of 2002 (HAVA) to assist state and local election officials with the administration of 

federal elections. See U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Alternative Voting Methods

(Washington, D.C.: September 2008) and U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2010 

Statutory Overview (Washington, D.C.: May 2011). 

To obtain a range of perspectives, we selected states that varied 

according to, among other things, geographic region, experience with 

voting on weekends (such as with early voting on Saturdays or Sundays) 

and alternative voting methods in federal elections, and the level of local 

government responsible for administering elections (e.g., county or 

township). To obtain different perspectives at the local level, we selected 

17 jurisdictions to reflect variation in factors including demographics (e.g., 

population and median household income), experience with weekend 

voting, and other characteristics such as having a large military or student 

8

Center for Democracy and Election Management, Election Administration Profiles of All 

Fifty States (Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2009). 

9

The 9 states are California, Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, New Hampshire, 

North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin. 
 

Page 4 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

population. Appendix I provides information about the states and 17 local 

jurisdictions we selected. The results of our interviews cannot be 

generalized to all states and local election jurisdictions; however, they 

provide important information about how alternative voting methods were 

implemented in different states and local jurisdictions. They also provide 

perspectives on how, if at all, elements of elections administration (e.g., 

voter registration, poll worker recruitment, security of voting equipment, 

and costs) or voter turnout might be affected if the day for regularly 

scheduled federal elections were on a weekend.

Moreover, to address objective 1, we analyzed state statutes regarding 

three such methods—in-person early voting, no-excuse absentee voting, 

and voting by mail.10 Specifically, we assessed which of the 50 states and 

the District provided these methods for the November 2010 general 

election. We used EAC’s 2010 Statutory Overview as a source for the 

state statute references, as well as our own research, and also reviewed 

information provided about these three methods from organizations that 

have compiled election information—the EAC, Early Voting Information 

Center (EVIC), National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), and 

National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). If we needed 

clarification regarding a state statute, we called the relevant Secretary of 

State’s or election office. To see whether and how the number of states 

that provided each alternative voting method changed between 

November 2004 and 2010, we compared the results of our analysis with 

information we previously reported on the 2004 general election.11

To address objective 2, we interviewed state and local election officials.

When available, we obtained information on costs, such as poll worker 

costs, that jurisdictions incurred for the 2010 general election, as well as 

We 

supplemented information on the 50 states with additional details, such as 

whether the early voting period included weekend hours, which we 

obtained from election Web sites of the selected states and local 

jurisdictions as well as interviews with and documents provided by those 

election officials.

 

10Throughout this report, we use the term “voting by mail” to refer to a process where all 

votes are cast by mail. 

11We previously reported the results of web-based survey we conducted in 2005 of the 50 

states and the District regarding the November 2004 general election. See GAO, 

Elections: 2005 Survey of State Election Officials, GAO-06-451SP (Washington, D.C.: 

June 6, 2006).
 

Page 5 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

officials’ estimates of what their costs might be if the day for federal 

elections were moved to a weekend. However, because no state or 

jurisdiction had experience with conducting a federal general election on 

a weekend, the estimates we obtained are uncertain. To obtain additional 

views, we attended conferences and meetings held by the National 

Association of State Election Directors, Joint Election Officials Liaison 

Committee, and National Association of Counties, and solicited views of 

attending members. We also interviewed representatives of these 

organizations as well as elections experts and researchers from the EAC, 

Election Center, EVIC, Pew Center on the States, NCSL, League of 

Women Voters, Why Tuesday?,12

To address objective 3, we (1) identified methodological challenges one 

would encounter when determining the effect; (2) reviewed what 

researchers have concluded about how alternative voting methods have 

influenced voter turnout; and (3) analyzed voter turnout in Maryland, 

which conducted early voting on weekdays and weekends in the 

November 2010 elections. To describe challenges, we identified 

jurisdictions in the United States that have experimented with weekend 

voting and assessed the availability of their voter turnout and 

demographic data. However, because federal elections nationwide have 

never been held on a weekend, we could not use historical data to 

directly estimate how changing the day of federal elections would affect 

voter turnout. To review research on how voting methods affect turnout, 

we searched databases of political science journals and reports of 

foundations and think tanks with expertise in election reform published 

since 1985.

and the University of Maryland.

13

 

12Why Tuesday? is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization founded in 2005 to find 

solutions to increase voter turnout and participation in elections. 

We identified 24 studies that estimated how alternative 

voting methods have affected turnout in state and local elections in the 

United States from 1972 through 2008 and collected the estimates from 

13We selected 1985 because alternative voting methods, such as no-excuse absentee 

voting and in-person early voting, were generally not available prior to this time. Thus, 

applicable research on their effect on voter turnout was not widely conducted.
 

Page 6 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

each study.14

We conducted this performance audit from December 2010 to January 

2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

To analyze voter turnout, we estimated how turnout varied 

in Maryland between weekday and weekend early voting periods and 

whether certain demographic groups of voters, such as those who voted 

in previous elections, were more likely to vote on the weekend. We 

selected Maryland for our analysis from among the nine states where we 

conducted interviews because they maintained reliable and detailed 

electronic data on voter turnout and voter registration. We interviewed 

state election officials responsible for maintaining the data and conducted 

electronic tests for logic and accuracy, and we determined that the data 

were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. However, the experiences of 

Maryland do not predict how turnout would change if federal elections 

were held on weekends nationwide. Further, our analysis was unable to 

account for several factors, including differences in polling hours across 

jurisdictions and voter demographics, such as education, not measured 

by state voter databases. Appendix II describes our data analysis.

The basic goal of the elections system in the United States is that all 

eligible voters have the opportunity to cast their vote and have their valid 

ballot counted accurately. Election authority is shared by federal, state, 

 

14Specifically, we conducted an initial search of political science journals and conference 

proceedings for research on alternative voting methods. Senior social scientists with 

training and experience in evaluation research methods or political science subsequently 

assessed the studies found to determine whether the methods used met generally 

accepted social science standards. We then used a data collection instrument to 

systematically collect information from the 24 identified studies about their methods and 

conclusions. Each study was read and coded by a senior social scientist and a second 

senior social scientist then reviewed each completed data collection instrument to verify 

the accuracy of the information included. See the bibliography of this report for a listing of 

the studies we reviewed.

Background

Election Authority
 

Page 7 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

and local officials, and the election system is highly decentralized. States 

are responsible for the administration of their own elections as well as 

federal elections, and states regulate various aspects of elections 

including registration procedures, absentee voting requirements, 

alternative voting methods, establishment of polling places, provision of 

Election Day workers, testing and certification of voting equipment, and 

counting and certification of the vote.15

As the U.S. election system is highly decentralized, primary responsibility 

for managing, planning, and conducting elections resides locally with 

about 10,500 local election jurisdictions nationwide. In most states, 

election responsibility resides at the county level, although some states 

have delegated election responsibility to subcounty governmental units, 

such as cities, villages, and townships.16

However, Congress has authority to affect the administration of elections 

in certain ways. Congress’ authority to regulate elections derives from 

Local election jurisdictions vary 

widely in size and complexity, ranging from small New England townships 

to Los Angeles County, where the number of registered voters exceeds 

that of 42 states. Some states have mandated statewide election 

administration guidelines and procedures that foster uniformity in the way 

local jurisdictions conduct elections. Others have guidelines that generally 

permit local election jurisdictions considerable autonomy and discretion in 

the way they run elections. Although some states bear some election 

costs, it is local jurisdictions that pay for elections. According to the 

Executive Director of the EAC, costs are not tracked in uniform ways 

because of the decentralized nature of elections and the variation in state 

and jurisdiction size and funding structures.

 

15As described by the Supreme Court, “the States have evolved comprehensive, and in 

many respects, complex, election codes regulating in most substantial ways, with respect 

to both federal and state elections, the time, place, and manner of holding primary and 

general elections, the registration of voters, and the selection and qualification of

candidates.” Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 (1974). 

16States can be divided into two groups according to how election responsibilities are 

delegated. The first group contains 41 states that delegate election responsibilities 

primarily to the county level, with a few of these states delegating election responsibilities 

to some cities, and 1 state that delegates these responsibilities to election regions. The 

second group contains 9 states that delegate election responsibility principally to 

subcounty governmental units. 
 

Page 8 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

various constitutional sources, depending upon the type of election.17

Federal legislation has been enacted in major functional areas of the 

voting process, such as voter registration, absentee voting requirements, 

accessibility provisions for the elderly and voters with disabilities, and 

prohibitions against discriminatory voting practices. With regard to the 

administration of federal elections, Congress has constitutional authority 

over both presidential and congressional elections, including the timing of 

federal elections.18 Under federal statute, the Tuesday after the first 

Monday in November in an even-numbered year is established as the day

for federal congressional elections.19 Federal statute also sets this same 

day for the selection of presidential electors—the Tuesday after the first 

Monday in November in every 4th year succeeding every election of a 

President and Vice President.20

The timing of state and local elections is not mandated by the federal 

election calendar. Nevertheless, many state and local government 

officials are also elected on federal Election Day as a matter of 

convenience and to save costs. According to the EAC, some states and 

local jurisdictions have held nonfederal elections or primaries on 

Saturdays, believing that it might be more convenient for voters and, in 

In general, these are the federal statutes 

that the previously pending weekend voting bills would have amended to 

move the November Tuesday federal Election Day to Saturday and 

Sunday. Such a change in federal law would, in effect, likely require 

states to change their laws and regulations governing the implementation 

of federal elections to mirror the day(s) established in federal law. Current 

federal law does not dictate the hours that polling places are required to 

be open on Election Day.

 

17See GAO, Elections: The Scope of Congressional Authority in Election Administration, 

GAO-01-470 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 13, 2001). 

18Article II, Section 1, Clause 4, pertains to Congress’ power to set the time of choosing of 

presidential electors: “The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and 

the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the 

United States.” Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, known as the Elections Clause, provides 

Congress with broad authority to regulate congressional elections: “The Times, Places, 

and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in 

each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or 

alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” 

192 U.S.C. §§ 1, 7. 

203 U.S.C. § 1.
 

Page 9 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

turn, might increase voter turnout.21 For example, in Louisiana, all 

nonfederal elections take place on Saturdays and, in Texas, some 

nonfederal elections such as general elections for cities and schools take 

place on Saturdays. From 1978 through 2006, Delaware held local 

elections, including primaries, on Saturdays. It held its first Saturday 

presidential primary in 1996. However, according to the EAC, because 

the Jewish Sabbath is on Saturday and, additionally, the state’s 2002 

primary fell on the Jewish New Year, Delaware moved the presidential 

primary to Tuesday in 2004 and the state primary to Tuesday in 2006.

The U.S. election system is based on a complex interaction of people 

(voters, election officials, and poll workers), process, and technology that 

must work effectively together to achieve a successful election, as shown 

in figure 1.

Figure 1: The Election Process Involves the Integration of People, Process, and Technology

 

21U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Alternative Voting Methods.

Election System Elements
 

Page 10 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

The election process is dependent on the citizens who cast ballots; 

however, election officials and poll workers are also essential to making 

the system work.22 State and local election officials are either elected or 

appointed and are responsible for carrying out federal and state election 

requirements. This can be a year-round effort. Among other things, 

election officials register eligible voters and maintain voter registration 

lists; design ballots; educate voters on how to vote; arrange for polling 

places; recruit, train, organize, and mobilize poll workers; prepare and 

test voting equipment for use; count ballots; and certify the final vote 

count. However, elections also depend on an army of poll workers—about 

2 million for a federal election—who are willing to staff the polls on 

Election Day. Some poll workers are elected, some are appointed by 

political parties, and some are volunteers. Compensation varies by the 

level of responsibility of the poll worker and the state or jurisdiction in 

which they work. As we reported in 2006, increasingly, poll workers are 

needed with different skills, such as computer or technical skills, and 

across the country jurisdictions have faced challenges finding poll 

workers.23

Voting methods and related technology also play a critical part in the 

success of an election. Voting methods are tools for accommodating the 

millions of voters in our nation’s approximately 10,500 local election 

jurisdictions. Since the 1980s, ballots in the United States, to varying 

degrees, have been cast and counted using five methods: paper ballots, 

lever machines, punch cards, optical scan,24 and direct recording 

electronic (DRE) machines.25

 

22Jurisdictions call their poll workers by different titles, including clerks, wardens, election 

judges, inspectors, captains, and precinct officers. 

Four of these methods involve technology; 

only the paper ballot system does not. For example, many DREs use 

computers to present the ballot to the voter, and optical scan and DRE 

systems depend on computers to tally votes. The way voting systems are 

23GAO-06-450. 

24An optical scan voting system is composed of computer-readable ballots, appropriate 

marking devices, privacy booths, and a computerized tabulation machine. Voters record 

their choices using an appropriate writing instrument to fill in boxes or ovals or to complete 

an arrow next to the candidate’s name or the issue. 

25Voters make their selection on DREs by pressing a button or touching the screen next to 

the candidate’s name or ballot issue. When they are finished, they cast their votes by 

pressing a final “vote” button on the machine or screen. 
 

Page 11 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

designed, developed, tested, installed, and operated can lead to a variety 

of situations where misunderstanding, confusion, error, or deliberate 

actions by voters or election workers can, in turn, affect the equipment’s 

performance in terms of accuracy, ease of use, security, reliability, and 

efficiency.

Each of the 50 states and the District has its own election system with a 

somewhat distinct approach. While election systems vary from one local 

jurisdiction to another, all involve people, process, and technology, and 

most have the following elements:

• Voter registration. Voter registration is not a federal requirement. 

However, except for North Dakota, all states and the District generally 

require citizens to register before voting. The deadline for registering 

and what is required to register varies. At a minimum, state eligibility 

provisions typically require a person to be a U.S. citizen, at least 18 

years of age, and a resident of the state, with some states requiring a 

minimum residency period. Citizens apply to register to vote in various 

ways, such as at motor vehicle agencies, by mail, or at local voter 

registrar offices. Some states allow citizens to register at a polling 

place on Election Day. Election officials process registration 

applications and compile and maintain the list of registered voters to 

be used throughout the administration of an election.

• Absentee and early voting. Absentee voting is a process that allows 

citizens the opportunity to vote when they are unable to vote at their 

precinct on Election Day and is generally conducted by mail. All states 

and the District have provisions allowing voters to cast their ballot 

before Election Day by voting absentee with variations on who may 

vote absentee, whether the voter needs an excuse, and the time 

frames for applying and submitting absentee ballots.26

 

26Examples of excuses a voter may provide for not voting on Election Day include being 

sick, having a disability, being out of the country, or having religious commitments.

In addition, 

some states also allow in-person early voting, as discussed later in 

the report. In general, early voting allows voters from any precinct in 

the jurisdiction to cast their vote in person without an excuse before 

Election Day either at one specific location or at one of several 

locations. Early voting locations have a registration list for the 

jurisdiction and ballots specific to each precinct. The voter is provided 

with and casts a ballot designed for his or her assigned precinct. As 
 

Page 12 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

with absentee voting, the specific circumstances for in-person early 

voting—such as the dates, times, and locations—are based on state 

and local requirements.

• Planning and conducting Election Day activities. Election officials 

perform a range of activities in preparation for and on Election Day 

itself. Prior to an election, officials recruit and train poll workers to 

have the skills needed to perform their Election Day duties, such as 

opening and closing the polls and operating polling place equipment. 

Where needed and required, election officials must also recruit poll 

workers who speak languages other than English.27 Officials also 

locate polling places that are to meet basic standards for accessibility 

and have an infrastructure to support voting machines as well as voter 

and poll worker needs.28

On Election Day, poll workers set up and open the polling places. This 

can include setting up the voting machines or voting booths, testing 

equipment, posting required signs and voter education information, 

and completing paperwork such as confirming that the ballot is correct 

for the precinct. Before a voter receives a ballot or is directed to a 

voting machine, poll workers typically are to verify his or her eligibility. 

They design and produce ballots to meet 

state requirements and voter language needs, and that identify all 

election races, candidates, and issues on which voters in each 

precinct in their jurisdiction will vote. Election officials seek to educate 

voters on topics such as what the ballot looks like, how to use a voting 

machine, and where their particular polling place is located. Finally, 

election officials seek to ensure that voting equipment, ballots, and 

supplies are delivered to polling places.

 

27Known as the language minority provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, sections 

203 and 4(f)(4) of the act are designed to help members of applicable language minority 

groups to participate effectively in the electoral process. In general, under these 

provisions, covered jurisdictions must provide bilingual election materials and other 

assistance to protect the voting rights of U.S. citizens of certain ethnic groups whose 

command of the English language may be limited. For more on this subject, see GAO, 

Bilingual Voting Assistance: Selected Jurisdictions’ Strategies for Identifying Needs and 

Providing Assistance, GAO-08-182 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 18, 2008). 

28The Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act requires that, with a few 

exceptions, political subdivisions responsible for conducting elections ensure that polling 

places used in federal elections are accessible to voters with disabilities. HAVA 

established additional requirements. 
 

Page 13 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

• Provisional voting. Federal law requires that an individual asserting 

to be registered in the jurisdiction for which he or she desires to vote 

and is eligible to vote in a federal election—but whose name does not 

appear on the official list of eligible voters for the polling place—be 

provided a provisional ballot. In addition, provisional ballots are to be 

provided in elections for federal office to individuals whom an election 

official asserts to be ineligible to vote, and for court-ordered voting in a 

federal election after the polls have closed. If individuals are 

determined to be eligible voters, their provisional ballots are to be 

counted as votes in accordance with state law, along with other types 

of ballots, and included in the total election results.

• Vote counting and certification. Following the close of the polls, 

election officials and poll workers complete steps to count the votes 

and determine the outcome of the election. Equipment and ballots are 

to be secured, and votes are to be tallied or transferred to a central 

location for counting. The processes used to count or to recount 

election votes vary with the type of voting equipment used in a 

jurisdiction, state statutes, and local jurisdiction policies. Votes from 

Election Day, absentee ballots, early votes (where applicable), and 

provisional ballots are to be counted and consolidated for each race to 

determine the outcome. While preliminary results are available usually 

by the evening of Election Day, the certified results are generally not 

available until days later.
 

Page 14 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

For the November 2010 general election, 35 states and the District 

provided voters at least one alternative to casting their ballot on Election 

Day through in-person early voting, no-excuse absentee voting, or voting 

by mail. As shown in figure 2, 33 states and the District provided inperson early voting, 29 states and the District provided no-excuse 

absentee voting, and 2 states provided voting by mail to all or most 

voters.29

 

29In addition, other states might have had provisions that allowed certain counties or 

precincts to administer elections entirely by mail. For example, in California—one of nine

states in which we conducted interviews—state law authorizes election officials to 

designate precincts with 250 or fewer registered voters as “mail ballot precincts,” where

citizens who want to vote can only do so by mail. In California’s two least populous 

counties, all of the precincts contain fewer than 250 registered voters and, thus, all 

elections in these counties are conducted entirely by mail. All three of the local

jurisdictions where we conducted interviews in California had some precincts that were 

mail ballot precincts in the November 2010 general election. 

Most States Provided 

Early or No-Excuse 

Absentee Voting as 

Alternatives to Voting 

on Tuesday in the 

2010 General Election
 

Page 15 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

Figure 2: Thirty-Five States and the District Provided at Least One Alternative to Voting on Tuesday in the November 2010 

General Election

Note: The November 2010 election was conducted entirely by mail in Oregon and in 38 of 39 counties 

in Washington. In the remaining Washington county (Pierce County), voters were allowed to cast 

ballots in person at polling places on Election Day. Washington and Oregon are shown in figure 2 as 

vote by mail states but also had provisions that met our definition of no-excuse absentee voting and 

are included in our no-excuse absentee voting numbers. Both states also allowed voters to cast their 

vote-by-mail ballot in person at designated ballot deposit sites prior to Election Day without providing 

an excuse. 
 

Page 16 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

In addition, eight of the states and the District with no-excuse absentee 

voting permitted registered voters to apply for an absentee ballot on a 

permanent basis so those voters automatically receive an absentee ballot

in the mail prior to every election without providing an excuse or reason 

for voting absentee.30

Furthermore, the number of states providing these alternatives has 

increased in recent elections. We previously reported that for the 2004 

general election, 24 states and the District required or allowed in-person 

early voting, 21 states required or allowed no-excuse absentee voting, 

and 1 state—Oregon—required all voters to vote by mail.31

Of the nine states and the District where we conducted interviews, all but 

two states provided voters the option of in-person early voting in the 

November 2010 general election. Five of the seven states and the District 

offered both early voting and no-excuse absentee voting. Appendix IV 

provides additional details of how these seven states and the District 

implemented these two alternative voting methods for the 2010 general 

election. The two other states where we conducted interviews—Delaware 

and New Hampshire—did not provide voters with either of these 

alternatives, although they allowed voters to vote by absentee ballot if 

they provided a reason.

Appendix III 

compares the alternative voting methods for the 2004 and 2010 general 

elections, by state.

32

Although seven of the nine states and the District where we conducted 

interviews provided voters with some option for in-person early voting, as 

did the 14 jurisdictions we contacted within those states, not all 

 

30These eight states were Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, New Jersey, 

Utah, and Washington.

31See GAO-06-450. This information was based on the result of web-based surveys we 

conducted in 2005 of the 50 states and the District. See GAO-06-451SP for additional 

survey results.

32According to state election officials we interviewed from both of these states, there has 

been minimal interest by either state’s legislature in considering implementation of these 

alternative voting methods. According to a senior Delaware official, the state would face 

challenges conducting early voting or handling an increase in no-excuse absentee ballots 

because of limitations in their current voting technology. According to a senior New 

Hampshire official, the state’s culture supports the idea that election intensity (i.e., limiting 

voting options to Election Day) produces higher voter participation than other alternatives.
 

Page 17 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

characterized their process as early voting. Five states—California, 

Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, and Texas—as well as the District called 

their process “early voting,” but North Carolina called it “one-stop 

absentee voting” and Wisconsin called it “in-person absentee voting.” 

Moreover, implementation and characteristics of early voting also varied 

among the seven states and, in some cases, among the jurisdictions 

within a state.

• Method of voting. In three of the seven states (California, North 

Carolina, and Wisconsin) where we conducted interviews, voters were 

allowed to cast their vote in person by using vote-by-mail or absentee 

ballots during a specified period prior to Election Day. In these states, 

voters applied for an absentee or vote-by-mail ballot when they went 

to vote early, received a ballot on the spot, and could then cast their 

ballot. In contrast, in the other four states and the District, voters cast 

their ballots using the method voters generally use on Election Day 

(i.e., DRE or optical scan).

• Days of early voting. Although the length of the early voting periods 

ranged from 7 to 30 days in the states we contacted, five of the seven

states and the District required local jurisdictions to include at least 

one Saturday in their early voting period, and two states allowed for 

some jurisdiction discretion to include weekend days. Of the 14 

jurisdictions we contacted that offered an early voting period, 12 

included an option for voters to vote on at least one Saturday, and 6 

of those jurisdictions also included at least one Sunday. For example, 

jurisdictions in Maryland offered a 7-day early voting period that 

ended 4 days before Election Day and included Saturday, but not 

Sunday.33 On the other hand, California and Wisconsin allowed voters 

to cast ballots in person starting about 1 month before Election Day 

through Election Day, and it was up to local discretion whether to 

include weekends.

• Hours of early voting. Although seven of the nine states where we 

conducted interviews included at least 1 day of the weekend in their 

early voting period, in some jurisdictions the hours available to vote 

were the same for weekdays and weekends, whereas in some cases 

 

33Maryland early voting statutory provisions require the inclusion of Sunday hours 

between 12:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. in the early voting period for the 2012 presidential 

primary and general election.
 

Page 18 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

weekend hours were fewer. Sometimes the hours varied by the week 

of the month. For example, Louisiana, Maryland, and the District 

required all of their early voting sites to be open the same hours each 

day—9.5, 10, and 10.5 hours, respectively—Monday through 

Saturday. Four states—California, Illinois, North Carolina, and 

Wisconsin—allowed local jurisdiction discretion to determine the 

hours of operation for some or all of their early voting sites. Texas 

used a formula based on county population to determine the number 

of hours, in addition to the specific days, during which early voting 

sites must be open.34 In the two Texas jurisdictions where we 

conducted interviews, early voting sites were open Monday through 

Friday for 9 or 10 hours (depending on the county) during the first 

week of early voting; 12 hours the second week; 12 hours on 

Saturday; and 5 hours or 6 hours on Sunday (depending on the 

county).

• Number of early voting sites. The number of sites where voters 

could cast their ballots early, in person, also varied among the states 

and local jurisdictions where we conducted interviews. For example, 

in North Carolina there were 297 early voting sites across 100 

counties, whereas in Illinois there were 180 early voting sites across 

110 counties. Half of the 14 local jurisdictions we contacted that 

offered early voting provided voters with a single early voting site, with 

the size of these jurisdictions varying in terms of both registered voter 

population and square miles. In the 7 jurisdictions that offered more 

than one early voting site, voters from any precinct in the jurisdiction 

could cast their ballot at any of that jurisdiction’s early voting sites.

• Types of early voting sites. The 14 local jurisdictions we contacted 

also used a variety of facilities as early voting sites. In 7 of these 

jurisdictions, early voting locations included county clerk or election 

offices, schools, libraries, and community centers, as well as mobile 

locations. For example, in an effort to make early voting convenient, 

one county in Illinois provided 30 of the 180 total early voting sites 

used in the state, consisting of 2 permanent sites and 28 temporary 

sites. The 2 permanent early voting sites were county clerk offices 

and the remaining 28 temporary sites included community centers, 

libraries, senior living communities, and grocery stores, some of which 

 

34For example, in counties with populations of 100,000 or more, Texas early voting 

statutory provisions outline the minimum number of hours that early voting must be 

provided on both the last Saturday and Sunday of the early voting period.
 

Page 19 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

were serviced by “vote mobiles”—mobile units on wheels that moved 

from one location to another every few days. In contrast, in the 5 local 

jurisdictions we contacted in California and Wisconsin, their sole early 

voting site was located at the local election office.

See appendix V for additional details on how the local jurisdictions we 

contacted implemented in-person early voting for the November 2010 

general election.

State and local election officials we interviewed about implementing a 

weekend election most often identified challenges they would anticipate 

facing in planning and conducting Election Day activities—specifically, 

finding poll workers and polling places and securing ballots and voting 

equipment. Election officials told us that they expected few changes to 

how they register voters, conduct early voting, and provide voting with 

provisional ballots, but they did identify other challenges with 

implementing federal elections on a weekend.

Election officials we interviewed in all nine states, the District, and all 17 

local jurisdictions said they would expect more poll workers would be 

needed for a 2-day weekend election than for a Tuesday election and 

related costs would increase. Further, officials in 13 of those jurisdictions 

and the District expected it would be more difficult to recruit a sufficient 

number of poll workers for a weekend election.35

 

35In this section of the report, we discuss together responses from election officials we 

interviewed in the District and local election jurisdictions because the District’s 

responsibilities for conducting federal elections are generally similar to those of local 

jurisdictions. 

We reported in 2006 that 

even though the number of poll workers needed varies by jurisdiction, 

having enough qualified poll workers on Election Day is crucial to 

ensuring that voters are able to successfully cast a vote. Nationwide, the 

majority of jurisdictions rely on poll workers from past elections to meet 

their needs, but for each election, officials also recruit new poll workers 

Most Election 

Officials We 

Interviewed Expect 

Greater Difficulty and 

Costs Associated with 

a Weekend Election

Most Election Officials 

Anticipate Finding Poll 

Workers for a Weekend 

Election Would Be 

Difficult and Costly
 

Page 20 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

from other sources such as high schools and colleges, local businesses 

and organizations, and government agencies.36

Election officials in three jurisdictions described how changing the day for 

federal elections to a weekend would negatively affect their ability to draw 

from the poll workers and sources they have relied on in the past.37

Officials from 13 jurisdictions and the District discussed other reasons 

why it would be difficult to recruit poll workers on one or both days of a 

weekend rather than on a Tuesday. For example, officials in 6 

jurisdictions—including 3 jurisdictions with experience conducting 

weekend elections—and the District explained that some poll workers 

would be less willing to work on the weekend because they attend 

religious services or participate in church-related activities. Similarly, 

officials in 7 jurisdictions said they would expect other priorities, such as 

family obligations, sporting events, and weddings, to keep some poll 

For 

example, election officials in one local jurisdiction said that about onefourth of their approximately 23,000 poll workers for the 2010 general 

election were county employees and students. A weekend election would 

essentially end the incentives—paying county employees their salary and 

excusing students from classes—that the jurisdiction successfully used in 

the past to attract them to work at the polls on a Tuesday when they 

would normally be at work or at school. Similarly, election officials from 

two other jurisdictions that are required by law to provide language 

assistance to certain groups of voters said that they rely on younger 

volunteers, such as high school students, to make up the majority of their 

bilingual poll workers. These officials were concerned that these poll 

workers would be less likely to volunteer during a weekend election 

because the incentives used to attract them in the past—exemption from 

classes—would no longer be viable.

 

36In 2006 we reported that, based on a nationwide survey of local election jurisdictions we 

conducted in 2005, an estimated 89 percent of jurisdictions relied in part on lists or rosters 

of poll workers from past elections to recruit poll workers for the November 2004 general 

election. For more information, see GAO-06-450. 

37Election officials from the other 14 local jurisdictions we interviewed did not express 

views or provide information specifically on how moving the date of federal elections might 

affect their ability to recruit from the poll workers and sources they have relied on in the 

past. Although we asked election officials in nine states, the District, and 17 local 

jurisdictions about whether or not various aspects of the election process might be 

affected by changing Election Day to a weekend, not all expressed views or provided

information on every specific issue discussed throughout this report.
 

Page 21 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

workers from volunteering to work during a weekend election. Officials 

from one jurisdiction said that, based on their past experience with 

conducting an election on a Saturday, poll worker volunteers are less 

likely to report to work on the morning of a weekend election than they do 

for a Tuesday Election Day. Further, officials from 12 jurisdictions and the 

District said they would expect poll workers to be less willing or able to 

work 2 consecutive days of a weekend election due to fatigue, noting that 

many poll workers are elderly. Officials from one of these jurisdictions 

stated that many of the 2,350 poll workers who volunteered during the 

2010 general election were elderly and unlikely to have the stamina to 

work 2 consecutive days that could each be 14 or 15 hours long. These 

officials further voiced concern that poll worker fatigue can lead to 

increased mistakes.

In contrast, election officials we interviewed in 4 local jurisdictions did not 

anticipate difficulties finding the poll workers that would be needed for a 

weekend election. According to election officials in 3 of these jurisdictions, 

it might be easier to recruit poll workers for a weekend than for a Tuesday 

because a larger pool of volunteers who work Monday through Friday 

might be available. In a fourth jurisdiction with experience conducting 

state and local elections on Saturdays, officials said that while they may 

need to replace some poll workers that are only able or willing to work 

one day of a weekend election, they would expect that the compensation 

they offer would be sufficient to attract the number of poll workers needed 

to work over a weekend.

However, election officials from all 17 jurisdictions and the District stated 

that the costs associated with poll worker pay would increase for a 2-day 

election, and in all but one jurisdiction, officials anticipated such costs 

would at least double what they spent in the 2010 general election. In that 

one jurisdiction, the election official anticipated poll worker costs might 

increase by about half—but not double—because she expected voter 

activity would be spread over the course of Saturday and Sunday and, 

thus, she would need fewer poll workers each day than for a single-day 

election. Moreover, election officials from 10 of these jurisdictions noted 

that poll worker costs represented their greatest cost in administering the 

2010 general election. For example, officials from one local jurisdiction 

expected the number of needed poll workers and the related costs to 

double for a weekend election. They added that poll worker costs were 

already their greatest election expense, and that such an increase would 

significantly affect their overall election budget. Furthermore, election 

officials in this state said that a weekend election would at least double 

the $2.6 million the state incurred to help jurisdictions pay for nearly 
 

Page 22 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

54,000 poll workers statewide in the 2010 general election. Given its 

financial constraints, these officials questioned whether the state would 

be able to provide these payments to jurisdictions for the second day of a 

weekend election.

In addition, election officials in three states and 4 jurisdictions noted that 

they might have to increase the compensation they provide poll workers 

or consider paying overtime to attract a sufficient number to work during a 

weekend election. For example, officials from a jurisdiction with less than 

20 poll workers in the 2010 general election said that their costs for poll 

worker pay might double or triple for a weekend election because they 

would expect needing more poll workers as well as needing to increase 

compensation to successfully recruit them.

Election officials we interviewed in 14 of the 17 local jurisdictions—

including 5 jurisdictions with experience conducting elections on a 

Saturday—and the District expected that at least some of the polling 

places they used in past elections would not be available for a weekend 

election, and officials in all of those jurisdictions and the District 

anticipated difficulty finding replacements. Local election officials are 

responsible for selecting and securing a sufficient number of polling 

places that meet basic requirements and standards that include ensuring 

polling places are easily accessible to all voters, including voters with 

disabilities. They should also have a basic infrastructure capable of 

supporting voting machines and be comfortable for voters and poll 

workers, including offering sufficient indoor space and parking.38

 

38According to EAC, the following requirements apply to all polling places: (1) buildings 

should be located in close proximity to the voters who are served by the location; (2) 

property owners must grant permission for the use of their building for voting purposes on 

Election Day; (3) the buildings selected for use as polling places must meet federal and 

state accessibility requirements; (4) buildings must have an adequate-sized room or 

hallway sufficient to meet the needs for setting up equipment and voter check-in stations, 

including adequate space for voters to wait in line; (5) property owners may be requested 

to open the building for poll worker use the evening prior to Election Day, and must be 

willing to open the building in the early morning hours of Election Day until after the close 

of the polls; (6) the property must have sufficient parking available for voters’ use; and (7) 

traffic ingress/egress must be evaluated, based on the number of expected voters on 

Election Day.

The 

types of facilities used as polling places varied in the jurisdictions where 

we conducted interviews and included public and private facilities such as 

Most Election Officials 

Expect Difficulty and 

Some Increased Costs 

Finding Polling Places for 

a Weekend Election
 

Page 23 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

places of worship, schools, government buildings, fire departments, 

community centers, libraries, and residential facilities.

Election officials noted potential challenges associated with relying on 

commonly used polling places on the weekend. Of the 12 jurisdictions 

and the District that relied on churches or synagogues for at least some of 

their polling places, election officials in all but one said they would need to 

find other locations for a weekend election because the places of worship 

they have relied on as polling places for Tuesday elections are used for 

religious services or activities on the weekend and, thus, would not be 

available. For example, in 2 jurisdictions where about half of the 3,067 

and 200 polling places, respectively, were churches and synagogues, 

election officials said that they would not expect those facilities to be 

available on a weekend, and it would be difficult to find replacements. In 

contrast, in one jurisdiction with experience conducting state and local 

elections on a Saturday where about 15 percent of its 127 polling places 

were churches, election officials said they would expect the majority of 

those churches to remain available as polling places for a weekend 

election by using areas of the church not needed for religious services. 

However, they anticipated that churches would need to make special 

parking arrangements, as church goers and voters would be competing 

for parking spaces.

Officials from 9 jurisdictions and the District explained that other polling 

places, such as schools and community centers, would also be more 

difficult to use on the weekend because of scheduled events, such as 

athletic events, dances, or fairs. For example, officials from one 

jurisdiction with past experience conducting federal elections on a 

Saturday stated that they had a harder time finding enough polling places 

for Saturday voting because fewer locations, such as community centers, 

were available. Officials stated that due to conflicts that prevented the use 

of some facilities, some polling place locations had to change from the 

presidential primary to the general election in the same election year. 

They added that, as a result, voters had to be assigned to a different 

polling place for the general election which caused a problem on Election 

Day when some of those voters went to the wrong location. In another 

jurisdiction where almost 70 percent of the 249 polling places in the 2010 

general election were schools, officials said they would anticipate 

problems using schools as weekend polling places because of activities, 

such as athletic events, that might compete with a weekend election for 

space and parking. Furthermore, they found it difficult to think of any 

facilities that they might be able to use as replacements.
 

Page 24 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

In contrast, election officials from 5 jurisdictions with past experience 

conducting state or local elections on Saturdays noted that they might find 

it easier to use schools as polling places on a weekend than a Tuesday 

because students would not be attending classes and having students 

present on Election Day when campuses are open to the public has 

raised security concerns for some schools and jurisdictions. Officials from 

2 of these jurisdictions acknowledged that schools would still have 

competing activities on the weekend, but anticipated they could use a 

different part of the school and employ additional staff to assist with 

parking and traffic.

Regardless of the type of facility that might be unavailable as a weekend 

polling place, officials in 14 jurisdictions and the District said that finding 

alternatives would be challenging if not impossible. In all but one of these 

jurisdictions, officials pointed out the difficulty in locating alternative 

polling places that would be accessible to voters with disabilities. For 

example, according to one local election official, in some precincts the 

only building that is accessible to voters with disabilities is a church that is 

already used as a polling place for Tuesday elections, but would not be 

available on a weekend. Officials in 4 jurisdictions and the District said 

that in order to provide for a sufficient number of polling places they might 

need to consolidate precincts, in which case some voters would likely 

need to travel further to vote.

However, in the three smallest jurisdictions in which we held interviews, 

election officials said they would expect the same polling places they 

used in past elections to still be available if the day of federal elections 

were moved to a weekend. In two cases, the jurisdictions had a single 

polling place—a municipal building—and officials would expect to use that 

building for a weekend election. Officials from the third jurisdiction that 

had experience conducting state and local elections on Saturdays, 

similarly stated that a weekend election would not present a challenge 

with respect to polling places, and they would expect to use the same 10 

facilities—mostly public buildings—as polling places regardless of the day 

of the week the election is held.

Election officials from 13 jurisdictions—including 5 jurisdictions with 

experience conducting elections on a Saturday—said they would expect 

costs associated with polling places to increase with a weekend election. 

Officials in 8 jurisdictions that pay for at least some of the facilities they 

use as polling places anticipated rental fees would double because of the 

2-day aspect of a weekend election. Other officials said they would 

expect at least some of the facilities that are available at no cost for a 
 

Page 25 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

Tuesday election to charge a rental fee on the weekend to compensate 

for potential revenue losses by, for example, not being able to rent their 

spaces for weddings or other private events. For example, officials from 

one jurisdiction said that to replace many of their 249 polling places that 

would be unavailable for a weekend election, they might need to offer 

higher compensation to attract private facilities that have not previously 

served as polling places. Furthermore, officials in 11 jurisdictions stated 

that other costs might increase with a weekend election if facilities that 

are normally closed on a weekend were opened for a weekend election. 

This might include charges for electricity or custodial and maintenance 

staff, who would need to be available or on the premises. In 6 of these 

jurisdictions, officials stated that paying for custodial or maintenance 

personnel might further entail overtime pay because they would be 

working on a weekend.

According to election officials we interviewed in all nine states, the 

District, and 15 of the 17 local jurisdictions, ensuring the security of 

ballots and voting equipment over the Saturday night of a weekend 

election would be both challenging and expensive. We have previously 

reported that secure voting systems are essential to maintaining public 

confidence in the election process.39

 

39

EAC election management 

guidelines further articulate that physical security safeguards are required 

for all voting equipment and ballots while stored, transported, and in place 

at polling places on Election Day, and until the time the vote is certified.

Officials we interviewed in 5 of the 7 states and the District that conducted 

early voting and provided security over multiple days explained that the 

level of planning and challenges needed for overnight security for a 

weekend election would be on a scale that would far surpass that of early 

voting due to the greater number and variety of polling places used on 

Election Day. For example, election officials in one state observed that for 

the 2010 general election, the entire state had fewer than 300 early voting 

sites compared to more than 2,750 polling places on Election Day, and 

the early voting sites were selected with the need for overnight security in 

mind. In contrast, Election Day polling places are precinct-based and 

generally selected based on factors that include availability and proximity 

to voters rather than overnight security.

GAO-06-450. 

Most Election Officials 

Said Ensuring Overnight 

Security of Ballots and 

Equipment Would Also Be 

Challenging and Costly
 

Page 26 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

In 15 of the local jurisdictions and the District, election officials said they 

anticipated challenges regarding the overnight security aspect of a 

weekend election and described the following approaches they would 

envision taking to ensure the security of ballots and voting equipment:

• Transporting and securing ballots at another location. Election 

officials in 8 jurisdictions said that to ensure the security and the 

integrity of the election results, they would likely have ballots 

transported from polling places to a secure location on the Saturday 

night of a weekend election and back again on Sunday morning. An 

election official from one jurisdiction stated that municipal law requires 

that deputy sheriffs pick up ballots at the polling places and bring 

them to the clerk’s office to secure them overnight during the 

jurisdiction’s early voting period. This official stated that the 

jurisdiction’s elections office currently employs approximately 120 

deputy sheriffs to do this on Tuesday night of Election Day, and they 

would likely be required to do the same on Saturday night in addition 

to Sunday night of a weekend election.

• Safeguarding voting equipment at polling places. Officials from 10 

jurisdictions and the District said that to ensure overnight security 

during a weekend election, they would likely hire security personnel 

for each polling place to safeguard voting equipment from the close of 

polls on Saturday night until they reopen on Sunday morning. For 

example, an election official in one jurisdiction explained that because 

some of the jurisdiction’s 27 polling places are located up to 100 miles 

from the election office, there is not enough time between polls 

closing Saturday night and reopening Sunday morning to transport the 

voting equipment to and from each polling place and the secure 

county office. Thus, this official said hiring security personnel and 

posting them at each polling place overnight would be the only viable 

option to ensure the security of the equipment. Officials in 3 other 

jurisdictions explained that two security personnel would likely be 

needed at each polling place not only to secure the equipment, but to 

provide a check and balance and safeguard the integrity of the 

election results. Although these officials believed that on-site security 

personnel would be needed, some questioned whether a sufficient 

number would be available. For example, officials in one jurisdiction 

said that even if they were to hire every off-duty police officer in their 

jurisdiction, they did not think they would have enough officers to 

secure all of their 249 polling places over the Saturday night of a 

weekend election. Officials from another jurisdiction anticipated that, 

rather than hiring security personnel, they would likely secure the 

voting machines on-site in a locked room to prevent tampering, 
 

Page 27 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

vandalism, or theft, but they would need to change the locks at all of 

their 23 polling places.

We have previously reported that larger, diverse jurisdictions can face 

more challenges than smaller jurisdictions, as the complexity of 

administering an election and the potential for challenges increase with 

the number of people and places involved and the scope of activities and 

processes that must be conducted.40

In contrast, election officials in the two smallest jurisdictions where we 

held interviews did not anticipate overnight security would be a challenge 

during a weekend election, as they use a single polling place—a 

municipal building—on Election Day. These officials said they would 

expect that ballot boxes would be secured in a safe located in the county 

office over the Saturday night of a weekend election, just as they are at 

the end of a Tuesday Election Day. They added that they might consider 

implementing additional security measures for a weekend election, such 

as having police patrol the building during the weekend, but they did not 

anticipate this would present a challenge or represent additional costs.

This might be the case with respect 

to ensuring overnight security during a weekend election. For example, at 

one extreme, election officials in the largest jurisdiction where we held 

interviews said they would likely employ some combination of on-site 

security and transporting of ballots to ensure overnight security if 

elections were held over 2 days. Officials explained that in their 

jurisdiction, which had more than 3,000 polling places on Election Day for 

the 2010 general election, ensuring the chain of custody of ballots on 

election night involved a complex logistical operation that included 

transporting ballots by helicopters to an estimated 70 to 80 secure 

locations. Given the size of their jurisdiction and the enormity of the task, 

these officials said they would need to assemble a task force and devote 

considerable resources to determine how to address Saturday night 

security during a weekend election since it would involve a completely 

new model for them and a fundamental change in procedures.

In addition to presenting planning and logistical challenges, election 

officials in all nine states, the District, and 15 of the 17 local jurisdictions 

where we conducted interviews said they expected the costs associated 

with implementing these overnight security measures to increase the cost 

of a weekend election. For example, in the jurisdiction that would employ 

 

40GAO-06-450. 
 

Page 28 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

deputy sheriffs to transport the ballots to the clerk’s office both nights of a 

weekend election, the election official said this would double the more 

than $210,000 in security-related costs incurred for the 2010 general 

election. In one of the jurisdictions where officials anticipated posting two 

overnight security guards at each polling place, officials estimated this 

would add about $100,000 to their cost of administering an election.41

In all 17 local jurisdictions and the District, election officials reported that 

they would expect few changes to how they register voters, conduct early 

voting, and provide voting with provisional ballots. However, election 

officials with whom we spoke identified other challenges related to 

operating voting systems and reconciling ballots in preparation for 

counting and certifying the total number of ballots cast over a 2-day 

election, as well as concerns with the effect of a weekend election on 

workload and the election calendar.

Voting technology challenges and related costs. Election officials we 

interviewed in 7 of the 17 local jurisdictions discussed technology-related 

challenges they foresaw with using their voting systems for a 2-day 

weekend election, and officials from 4 of these jurisdictions said they 

would expect addressing this to result in significantly higher costs than for 

a Tuesday election. According to officials, their voting systems are 

designed for all voting to take place in a single day and for equipment to 

be closed when polling places close that night. Officials explained that, to 

preserve the integrity of the vote in a weekend election, they would have 

to leave voting machines open Saturday night where polls are closed; 

however, the equipment could not simply be suspended Saturday night 

and started up again Sunday morning for a second day of voting.42

 

41Election officials arrived at this estimate based on hiring two private security guards for 

each of their 183 polling places for 9 hours (at a rate of $30 per hour) over the Saturday 

night of an election weekend, when they would expect polls would be closed. 

Rather, once closed, the equipment would, in effect, consider the election 

to be over and could not record additional votes. According to officials, to 

42Under the provisions of H.R. 254, for presidential and congressional general elections, 

polling places would have been required to be open beginning on Saturday at 10:00 a.m. 

eastern standard time and ending on Sunday at 6:00 p.m. eastern standard time. H.R. 254 

would have additionally authorized a polling place to close between the hours of 10:00 

p.m. local time on Saturday and 6:00 a.m. local time on Sunday as provided by the law of 

the state in which the polling place is located. 

Election Officials 

Expected Other 

Challenges with 

Implementing Federal 

Elections on a Weekend
 

Page 29 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

conduct a second day of voting, their equipment would either need to be 

(1) reprogrammed by the vendor in advance of the election and recertified 

or (2) reprogrammed Saturday night and retested before Sunday 

morning, which involves a lengthy process that cannot be completed in a 

single night. Alternatively, they could purchase additional memory cards 

or even a second set of voting machines.

Elections officials in the City and County of San Francisco anticipated 

facing such a challenge in planning for a November 2011 municipal 

election that was to take place on 2 days—a Saturday and the following 

Tuesday.43

Officials from another jurisdiction said they anticipate their voting 

machines would need significant changes, including changes to software, 

to suspend the election Saturday night and resume it on Sunday 

morning—changes that the officials expected would require EAC 

In consultation with the California Secretary of State’s office, 

they determined that their voting equipment could not be closed on 

Saturday night and restarted on Tuesday morning. Therefore, to address 

this issue, they intended to borrow voting machines from other 

jurisdictions and use different machines each day. However, they 

explained that borrowing voting equipment would not be an option if the 

day of general elections were moved to a weekend since every 

jurisdiction in the country would be using its own voting equipment on the 

same days. Thus, they stated that if federal elections were moved to a 

weekend, they would likely have to purchase a second set of voting 

equipment to use on Sunday at over 550 polling places, at an estimated 

cost of over $5.9 million. This alone would represent about 88 percent of 

the total costs the county incurred in administering the November 2010 

general election.

 

43In the November 2, 2010, Consolidated General Election, San Francisco voters adopted 

a ballot measure creating a Saturday Voting Pilot Program that required the Department of 

Elections to open voting locations for each precinct on Saturday, November 5, 2011, prior 

to Election Day on Tuesday, November 8, 2011, if sufficient funds to cover all Saturday 

costs were raised from private donations. Since no contributions were received by the set 

deadline, the Saturday portion of the election was cancelled. The department had 

estimated the cost of the 2-day election would be about $7.5 million, with the cost 

associated with opening all polling places on Saturday to be about $2.4 million.
 

Page 30 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

recertification.44

In addition, election officials in all nine states expected other related 

costs, such as for technology support—either in-house or contracted—

would be greater for a weekend election. They stated that cost increases 

would primarily be due to securing these services for a second day and 

potentially having to pay overtime or premium pay on a weekend. For 

example, based on their experience conducting nonfederal elections on a 

Saturday, officials from Louisiana said that they would expect to incur 

significant additional costs because they would need to hire more parttime election staff to load and reprogram a second set of memory cards 

into their electronic voting machines on Sunday morning at approximately 

3,000 polling places statewide. Moreover, the state normally pays to have 

technology vendors on call to troubleshoot equipment-related problems at 

polling places on Election Day, and would anticipate these costs would at 

least double with a 2-day election as premium pay might be involved for a 

weekend.

They estimated that the recertification process could take 

as long as 1 year and cost the manufacturer of their voting system 

hundreds of thousands of dollars, some of which might be passed on to 

them in the form of required software upgrades. Election officials in 

another state that used different voting equipment said they thought their 

equipment could suspend voting Saturday night and resume on Sunday 

morning if careful steps were taken by trained poll workers or technical 

staff on how to temporarily turn off voting machines without closing them 

and ending the vote. However, they would need technical staff or poll 

workers with more technical skills than those they have used in the past 

to accomplish this without ending the entire voting process by mistake.

Ballot reconciliation on Saturday and Sunday nights. Election officials 

from six states, the District, and 12 of the 17 local jurisdictions said that 

they would likely need to reconcile ballots—the process of accounting for 

 

44EAC, among other things, is responsible for testing, certifying, decertifying, and 

recertifying voting system hardware and software. In 2007, EAC established and began

implementing its voting system certification program. State participation in this certification 

program is optional. According to EAC, some states, through legislation or administrative 

rules, mandate participation to varying degrees. EAC certification means that a voting 

system has been successfully tested by an accredited voting system test laboratory, 

meets requirements set forth in a specific set of federal voting system standards, and 

performs according to the manufacturer’s specifications. A previously certified voting 

system must be recertified when a modification is made that would require further testing 

and review by the EAC. 
 

Page 31 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

the numbers of ballots issued, unused, and spoiled and ensuring that the 

number of ballots cast matches the number of voters who cast ballots—

on both Saturday and Sunday night of a weekend election. Officials in 

three of these states and 2 of these jurisdictions anticipated challenges 

with having to do this on 2 consecutive nights. For example, officials from 

one state said that in jurisdictions that use paper ballots, reconciling them 

on Saturday night might be difficult because it takes more time to 

reconcile paper ballots than other voting methods and there might not be 

sufficient time to complete the process before opening the polls again on 

Sunday morning. Election officials from another state and 2 local 

jurisdictions added that the work associated with reconciling ballots both 

nights would lengthen what is already a long day for poll workers, 

contribute to their fatigue, and might result in more errors in the 

reconciliation process.

Increased election and temporary staff workload and costs. Officials 

from all 17 jurisdictions and the District said that the workload of local 

election staff would increase with a 2-day weekend election and, in all but 

one of the jurisdictions, said this would significantly increase personnel 

costs.45

Effect on election calendar. Election officials in three states, the District, 

and all 17 jurisdictions also noted that moving the day of federal elections 

to a weekend could affect certain aspects of their entire election 

calendar—that is, dates associated with administering elections (e.g., 

candidates’ declarations, printing ballots, voter registration, absentee 

ballot deadlines, and certification of the vote). Officials in 12 jurisdictions 

For example, officials from one jurisdiction that employs eight fulltime and one part-time election staff said that a 2-day election would 

require that the staff work an additional 24 hours or more with a weekend 

election than a Tuesday election. Further, because staff are paid a 

premium for weekend overtime, the $10,500 incurred in overtime costs in 

the November 2010 general election would at least double. Election 

officials in 12 of the 13 jurisdictions and the District that used temporary 

workers for the 2010 general election anticipated they would either need 

to hire more temporary workers for a weekend election or have their 

temporary staff work more hours, which would also result in increased 

costs.

 

45Officials from one jurisdiction with two election staff said that while a weekend election 

would increase their workload, their associated costs would not increase because both 

staff are elected positions and therefore not eligible for overtime pay.
 

Page 32 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

did not anticipate this would create a particular problem in administering 

elections in their jurisdiction. However, a state election official in New 

Hampshire was concerned that a weekend election might, in effect, 

compel his state to move its congressional primaries earlier in the year. 

New Hampshire’s congressional primaries take place in September—

relatively late in the primary season. According to the state official, if a 

weekend election resulted in congressional elections being scheduled 

earlier than the Tuesday Election Day, the amount of time between the 

state’s congressional primary and Election Day would not be sufficient for 

election officials to create the Election Day ballot.

Also, officials in 3 jurisdictions and the District noted the effect that 

existing absentee ballot deadlines might have on voters if the day of 

federal elections were changed to a weekend. These officials explained 

that limited weekend post office hours and concerns that the U.S. Postal 

Service might further reduce weekend days or hours, could result in some 

voters—more than with a weekday election—not mailing their absentee 

ballots in time to be counted. For example, election officials in the District 

said they would expect mailed absentee ballots would need to be 

postmarked no later than the Saturday of a weekend election since post 

offices are closed on Sunday. They anticipated that under this scenario, 

some ballots mailed on the weekend might not be postmarked until after 

the election, resulting in rejected ballots.

Because nationwide federal elections have never been held on a 

weekend and we could identify few U.S. jurisdictions that have held 

weekend elections for state or local offices, it is difficult to draw valid 

conclusions about how moving federal elections to a weekend would 

affect voter turnout. In principle, a persuasive analysis of weekend 

Weekend Elections 

Have Not Been 

Studied, but Studies 

of Other Voting 

Alternatives Suggest

That Voter Turnout 

May Not Be Strongly 

Affected

Limited U.S. Experience 

with Weekend Elections 

Makes Evaluating Effect

on Voter Turnout 

Challenging
 

Page 33 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

elections would involve comparing voter turnout in jurisdictions that had 

moved their elections to a weekend to turnout in similar jurisdictions that 

continued to hold the same type of election on a Tuesday. However, 

since federal law requires federal elections in the United States be held 

on a specific Tuesday, it is not possible to use national data to estimate 

whether voter turnout would be different if voting took place on a weekday 

or weekend without making assumptions that cannot be verified.46

The experiences of certain state and local jurisdictions with weekend 

elections, as well as the experiences of other countries, might lead to 

speculation about how voter turnout in a weekend election in the United 

States would compare to turnout elsewhere. In fact, the experiences of 

state, local, and foreign jurisdictions do not provide good proxies for the 

likely U.S. experience with weekend elections for the following reasons: 

• State and local elections. According to the EAC, the states of 

Delaware, Louisiana, and Texas have had experience holding 

nonfederal elections or federal primaries on Saturday. However, these 

states’ experiences do not allow for an expedient and persuasive 

evaluation. Historical data on state and local elections in Delaware 

and Texas were not easily accessible in a reliable, electronic format

for the periods before, during, and after weekend elections occurred. 

In addition, comparing the experiences of these three states with 

other states would risk confusing differences in election schedules 

with other unobserved differences, such as state culture or campaign 

mobilization efforts. Further, the many unique features of each 

election jurisdiction limit the usefulness of this type of analysis for 

predicting the national effect of weekend elections.

• Elections in other countries. Although other countries have had 

experience conducting national elections on weekends, comparisons 

between the United States and these countries have limited value 

because of differences in election laws, requirements, and civic 

 

46One could make predictions about the possible effect by making assumptions about 

whether weekend elections would make voting more convenient, but the accuracy of 

these assumptions could not be directly verified using evidence from actual federal 

elections.
 

Page 34 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

responsibilities.47 For example, Australia and Brazil, which have held

federal elections during the weekend in the past 5 years, generally

require all eligible citizens to participate in the election process,48

Several other methodological challenges exist in evaluating the effect of 

alternative voting methods (e.g., in-person early voting, no-excuse 

absentee voting, and vote by mail), including weekend voting, on voter 

turnout.

whereas the United States makes voting optional. Differences in 

turnout between U.S. elections and elections in these countries may 

reflect different civic responsibilities in addition to different election 

schedules; however, it is difficult to assess which factor is actually 

responsible.

• Voting alternatives cannot easily be evaluated using randomized 

controlled trials that often provide the most persuasive evidence of 

program effect. Jurisdictions likely would not randomly assign citizens 

to one set of election laws without first examining potential equalprotection-type issues. 

• Political representatives and voters choose to adopt voting 

alternatives for various reasons, which might include increasing low 

turnout or maintaining high turnout. Consequently, the difference in 

turnout between jurisdictions that have or have not adopted a 

particular alternative could be caused by the alternative itself or by the 

reasons that led the jurisdiction to adopt it.

• The limited number of jurisdictions that have used a particular voting 

alternative, or the length of time it had been in use, limit evaluations to 

the elections in which these alternatives have been tried. For 

example, researchers have evaluated vote by mail in Oregon, 

Washington, and selected precincts in California, because these 

jurisdictions have regularly used vote by mail in recent years.

 

47According to a 2007 study commissioned by the Canadian government, at least 20 

countries, including Brazil, held federal elections on Sunday and at least 3 countries, 

including Australia, held federal elections on Saturday. See “Potential Impacts of 

Extended Advance Voting on Voter Turnout,” a report prepared at the request of Elections 

Canada (September 2007). 

48These two countries, among others, are often referred to as having “compulsory voting.” 

In Australia, for example, under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, an elector is 

required to, among other things, attend a voting place and receive and cast a ballot.
 

Page 35 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

• Distinguishing the effect of a voting alternative from other factors that 

affect turnout can be challenging. These other factors include 

demographic, social, and psychological differences across voters; 

other election practices, such as registration closing dates and 

distance to polling places; the intensity or closeness of a campaign; 

and the activities of political campaigns and the news media. For 

example, voters in jurisdictions with highly educated, older citizens 

might have higher turnout and a higher propensity to use voting 

alternatives designed to increase turnout. Turnout might be higher in 

these jurisdictions, but it is unclear whether the difference is caused 

by the voting alternative or by the citizen characteristics that are 

associated with a greater motivation to vote. Further, it is difficult to 

assess the effect of a specific change in election practices when more 

than one change is made at the same time. Thus, should states make 

several new changes concurrently, such as implementing voter 

identification requirements and allowing citizens to vote in early voting 

periods, it would be difficult to assess the unique effect of any one 

change on voter turnout.

Our review of 24 studies found that alternative voting methods have small 

and inconsistent effects on voter turnout, as compared to demographic 

differences among citizens.49 With the exception of vote by mail, each of 

the alternative voting methods we reviewed was estimated to increase or 

decrease turnout by no more than 4 percentage points. The studies 

disagreed about whether the methods would increase or decrease 

turnout, however, as the estimates for all methods except vote by mail 

varied from an increase of 2.8 percentage points to a decrease of 4 

percentage points, depending on the voting method and the study, as 

shown in table 1.50

 

49The studies we reviewed are listed in the bibliography to this report.

50The variety of methodologies used, in addition to chance variation, helps explain why 

the estimated effects varied across studies. The 24 studies used varied elections, 

jurisdictions, and time periods to evaluate the effect of alternative voting methods. 

Researchers analyzed turnout in elections for President, Congress, and state and local 

offices held in various periods from 1960 through 2008. Some researchers studied many 

elections across all 50 states, while others studied many voters or precincts in a smaller 

number of states or shorter time periods.

Research Finds Effect of 

Alternative Voting Methods 

on Turnout Are Small and 

Citizen Demographics Are 

More Consequential
 

Page 36 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

Table 1: Estimated Effects of Alternative Voting Methods on Voter Turnout

Alternative voting 

method

Number of 

studies 

reviewed a Range of 

years studied b Elections studied

Estimated effects of using 

the voting method on 

turnout (percentage points)

In-person early 

voting

8 c 1972 to 2008 Presidential and congressional -2.4 to 2.8 

Vote by mail 11 1960 to 2008 Presidential, congressional, state, 

primary, and special

-2.7 to 10.2

No-excuse absentee 6 1972 to 2008 Presidential and congressional -4.0 to 2.7

Vote centers 2 2003 to 2006 Presidential, congressional, and state -2.0 to -0.6

Longer poll hours 1 2000 Presidential 1.0 to 1.7

Source: GAO analysis of studies.

a

Whereas in-person early voting, vote by mail, and no-excuse absentee voting provide voters with 

alternatives for voting prior to Election Day, vote centers and longer poll hours seek to make voting 

more convenient on Election Day. We viewed the latter as alternatives to traditional precinct-place 

voting and, thus, included them in our review of academic research. 

b

Six of the 24 studies we reviewed assessed the effect of more than one alternative voting method. 

Eighteen of the 24 studies provided enough detail to identify an estimated effect on turnout in 

percentage points. 

c

No study of early voting assessed whether turnout was higher in jurisdictions that provided weekend 

polling hours, even though certain jurisdictions gave voters this option in the 2010 general election for 

federal offices. Some portion of the overall effect of early voting might be due to the provision of 

weekend polling hours, but the available research did not allow us to directly quantify this effect. 

The maximum estimated increase suggests that alternative voting 

methods other than vote by mail do not increase turnout by large 

amounts, contrary to the goals of these policy reforms.51 In contrast, the 

estimated effects of vote by mail were larger and less consistent, ranging 

from a 2.7 percentage point decrease to a 10.2 percentage point 

increase. The maximum effect of vote by mail decreased to 6.8

percentage points when we excluded one study whose results were 

challenged by another study.52

 

51For reviews of studies making similar conclusions, see Paul Gronke, et al., 

“Convenience Voting,” Annual Review of Political Science (2008), 437-455, and “Potential 

Impacts of Extended Advance Voting on Voter Turnout,” a report prepared at the request 

of Elections Canada, 25.

We were unable to identify any study that 

52See Priscilla L. Southwell and Justin I. Burchett, “The Effect of All-Mail Elections on 

Voter Turnout,” American Politics Quarterly, vol. 28 (2000), 72-79, and Paul Gronke and 

Peter A.M. Miller, “Voting by Mail and Turnout: A Replication and Extension,” paper 

presented at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 

Chicago, Ill. 
 

Page 37 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

directly estimated the effect of weekend elections on voter turnout in 

United States elections. 

The 24 studies showed that citizen demographics—age, education, race, 

income, and residential mobility—had stronger and more consistent 

associations with turnout than jurisdictions’ use of alternative voting 

methods. More specifically, the studies showed the following: 

• A 10 percentage point increase in the percentage of a jurisdiction’s 

population between the ages of 35 and 54 (in one study) and 45 to 64 

(in another study) increased turnout by 1 to 10 percentage points.

• A 10 percentage point increase in a jurisdiction’s population with 4-

year college degrees increased turnout by 1 to 6 percentage points.

• A 10 percentage point increase in a jurisdiction’s nonwhite population 

decreased turnout by 2 to 11 percentage points.

• A $40,000 increase in a jurisdiction’s median income increased 

turnout by 0 to 4 percentage points.

• A 10 percentage point increase in a jurisdiction’s renter population—a 

measure of residential mobility—decreased turnout by 8 percentage 

points.

The broader academic research on voter turnout has drawn conclusions 

that are consistent with those of the studies we reviewed. These studies 

have concluded that individual differences among citizens and electoral 

competition are more strongly and consistently associated with the 

decision to vote than interventions that seek to make voting more 

convenient for registered voters.

53 As a representative example, one 

study concluded that the association between voter age and turnout in 

presidential elections from 1956 through 1988 was more than five times 

larger than the association between voter registration closing dates prior 

to Election Day and turnout.

54

Our review found that alternative voting methods have not mobilized 

groups of citizens who are typically less likely to vote. Five of the 24 

 

53See, for example, Raymond E. Wolfinger and Stephen J. Rosenstone, Who Votes?

(New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1980); Steven J. Rosenstone and John Mark 

Hansen, Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America (New York, N.Y.: 

Macmillan Publishing, 1993); and Sidney Verba, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry E. 

Brady, Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics (Cambridge, Mass.: 

Harvard University Press, 1995).

54Rosenstone and Hansen, Mobilization, 273-275. 
 

Page 38 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

studies examined how the effect of alternative voting methods varied 

across particular groups of citizens. Four of those studies showed that the 

methods either did not increase turnout for citizens who were typically 

less likely to vote, or that the methods increased turnout for citizens who 

were already more likely to vote. For example, one study concluded that 

longer poll hours did not disproportionately benefit any demographic 

group, including farmers and employed people working more than 40 

hours per week.55 Another study concluded that vote by mail methods 

increased turnout among citizens who were well educated, older, and 

more interested in political campaigns.56

Similarly, our review showed that citizens who were typically more likely 

to vote were also more likely to take advantage of early voting when it 

was an option. Six of the 24 studies assessed which demographic groups 

were more likely to vote early. These studies showed that early voters are 

more likely to be older, better educated, more interested in politics, and 

more strongly identified with a political party, as compared to voters who 

used other voting methods. Because these groups of citizens are typically 

more likely to vote, the research suggests that alternative voting methods 

have been more popular among citizens who need less encouragement 

to vote.

These findings suggest that 

alternative voting methods are more effective at retaining existing voters 

than mobilizing citizens who do not vote.

Election officials in the nine states and the District where we conducted 

interviews said that they expected moving Election Day from a Tuesday 

to a Saturday and Sunday would have little to no effect on total voter 

turnout. In four of the states, officials said that a weekend election might 

lead to more voters voting early or absentee, but they did not think total 

turnout would be affected. This view was shared by officials in states that 

had experience in early voting, including weekend early voting, as well as 

states with considerable experience in holding local elections on 

Saturday. Their comments are generally consistent with the studies we 

reviewed, which assessed the effects of alternative voting methods on 

 

55Raymond E. Wolfinger, Benjamin Highton, and Megan Mullin, “How Postregistration 

Laws Affect the Turnout of Citizens Registered to Vote,” State Politics and Policy 

Quarterly, vol. 5 (2005), 1-23.

56Adam J. Berinsky, Nancy Burns, and Michael W. Traugott, “Who Votes By Mail? A 

Dynamic Model of the Individual-Level Consequences of Voting-By-Mail Systems,” The 

Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 65 (2001), 178-197.
 

Page 39 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

turnout using larger, more-representative samples of elections, 

jurisdictions, and time periods.

Our analysis of voter turnout data from the early voting period during the 

2010 general election in Maryland showed that voters were not very likely 

to vote on the weekend days provided. Maryland offered early voting for 

the first time in the 2010 primary and general elections. Of the voters we 

analyzed, 1.1 percent cast ballots on the weekend during the early voting 

period when they had this option during the primary election, and 1.5 

percent of voters did so during the general election.57 The turnout rate for 

the general election did not increase during weekend periods of early 

voting, as compared to weekday periods and Election Day. About 81 

percent of voters voted in person on Election Day and about 6 percent 

voted by absentee ballot. A total of about 11.8 percent of voters voted in 

person on a weekday during the state’s 7-day early voting period (the 

second Friday through the first Thursday prior to Election Day), and about 

1.5 percent voted on the Saturday of that period.58

Those who voted early on Saturday were generally more likely to be 

members of demographic groups who, according to academic research, 

are typically more likely to vote—that is, those who are older, less mobile, 

and more politically engaged. The length of registration and prior voting 

experience approximate a voter’s residential mobility and long-term level 

of political engagement, respectively. However, the youngest and least 

experienced voters were relatively more likely to vote on Saturday, 

compared to voters who were slightly older and more experienced.

As shown in table 2, voters who were older than 40, had been registered 

for at least 10 years, and voted in at least 6 of the past 10 primary and 

general elections were more likely to vote on Saturday in Maryland’s 2010 

general election than voters in other subgroups. For example, 1.4 percent 

of the registrants who were older than 65 and voted, voted on Saturday, 

compared to 1 percent of the registrants between the ages of 25 and 39 

 

57The turnout statistics discussed here may not match certified vote totals for Maryland 

jurisdictions because we analyzed a custom database of citizens registered for the 2010 

general election. 

58These comparisons do not account for the fact that Maryland offered 5 days of weekday 

voting but only 1 day of weekend voting in 2010. See app. II for a more-detailed analysis 

of how the turnout varied through the voting period. 

Turnout Did Not Increase 

during the Weekend Early 

Voting Period in 

Maryland’s 2010 General 

Election
 

Page 40 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

who voted. Although this change is small on an absolute scale, it is larger 

when expressed as a ratio of turnout rates for the two groups—a 

proportional difference of 45 percent. In addition to these differences, 

registered Democrats were 0.4 percentage points more likely than 

registered Republicans to have voted on the weekend—a proportional 

difference of 33 percent—but 6.3 percentage points less likely to have 

voted at all.

Table 2: Turnout and Use of Saturday Poll Hours in the 2010 Maryland General 

Election

Voter characteristic

Percent of 

registrants voting

Percent voting on Saturday, 

among registrants who voted

Age

Younger than 25 26.6% 1.31%

25-39 35.2 0.96 

40-64 59.1 1.75

65 or older 63.6 1.39

Years registered

Less than 2 36.3 1.87

2-9 38.9 1.33 

10-29 57.8 1.59

30 or more 75.1 1.55

Number of elections voted, 

2000–2008

0 14.2 1.73

2 35.9 1.14

4 59.7 1.20

6 77.9 1.36

8 87.7 1.75

10 95.0 2.56

Party registration

Democrat 52.0 1.69

Other 35.0 1.28

Republican 58.3 1.27

Source: GAO analysis of Maryland early voting turnout data for the November 2010 general election.

Note: Turnout statistics here may not match certified vote totals for Maryland jurisdictions because we 

analyzed a custom database of citizens registered for the 2010 general election. 

Saturday turnout was slightly higher among the youngest and leastexperienced subgroups of voters, as compared to voters in the subgroups 
 

Page 41 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

immediately above them, and the most recently registered had the 

highest Saturday turnout of all registration groups. Because academic 

research has generally found that older, less mobile, and more politically

engaged citizens are more likely to vote, early weekend voting appears to 

have been slightly more popular among Maryland citizens who need the 

most encouragement to vote in the first place. However, the small size of 

this increase suggests that Saturday poll hours did not meaningfully 

increase overall turnout or draw a large number of new or infrequent 

voters to the polls. Apart from this group, the likelihood of voting on 

Saturday generally increased with age, length of registration, and prior 

voting experience. Appendix II describes our more-detailed statistical 

analysis of voter turnout in Maryland.

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees and the EAC. In addition, the report will be available at no 

charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please 

contact me at (201) 512-8777 or jenkinswo@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs can be found on 

the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in 

appendix VI.

William O. Jenkins, Jr.

Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues
Appendix I: Selected Characteristics of States 

and Local Election Jurisdictions We Contacted 

Page 42 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

States are responsible for the administration of their own elections as well 

as federal elections, and states regulate various aspects of elections 

including registration procedures, absentee voting requirements, 

alternative voting methods, establishment of polling places, provision of 

Election Day workers, testing and certification of voting equipment, and 

counting and certification of the vote. However, local election 

jurisdictions—counties and subcounty governmental units, such as cities, 

villages, and townships—have primary responsibility for managing, 

planning, and conducting elections. We conducted interviews with 

election officials in a nonprobability sample of nine states and the District 

of Columbia (District), and a nonprobability sample of 17 local 

jurisdictions within those states, about if and how they implemented 

alternative voting methods and their views on how election administration 

and voter turnout would likely be affected in their state or jurisdiction if the 

day for regularly scheduled federal elections were moved to a weekend. 

To obtain a range of perspectives, we selected states that varied 

according to, among other things, geographic region, alternative voting 

methods provided in federal elections, experience with voting on 

weekends, and the level of local government responsible for 

administering elections (e.g., county or township) as shown in table 3.

Table 3: Selected Information about the States and the District We Contacted

Alternative voting method 

provided in 2010 elections 

Experience with voting on 

weekends

State 

Early 

voting

No-excuse 

absentee 

voting a

Vote by 

mail 

only b c Experience with a weekend election

Weekend 

voting offered 

during early 

voting period d Local election responsibility e

Provides 

same-day 

voter 

registration f

Election 

Day is a 

state 

holiday g

Calif. Yes Yes No No Yes County No No

Del. No No No Yes. Primaries held 

on Saturday, 1978-

2006

N/A State 

administration at 

county level

No Yes

D.C. Yes Yes No No Yes N/A Yes No

Ill. Yes Yes No Yes. Special 

congressional 

election held on 

Saturday, 2008

Yes County No Yes

La. Yes No No Yes. All nonfederal 

elections held on 

Saturday since 

1959

Yes County No Yes

Md. Yes Yes No No Yes County No Yes

N.H. No No No No N/A Subcounty Yes No

Appendix I: Selected Characteristics of States 

and Local Election Jurisdictions We 

Contacted 
Appendix I: Selected Characteristics of States 

and Local Election Jurisdictions We Contacted 

Page 43 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

Alternative voting method 

provided in 2010 elections 

Experience with voting on 

weekends

State 

Early 

voting

No-excuse 

absentee 

voting a

Vote by 

mail 

only b c Experience with a weekend election

Weekend 

voting offered 

during early 

voting period d Local election responsibility e

Provides 

same-day 

voter 

registration f

Election 

Day is a 

state 

holiday g

N.C. Yes Yes No No Yes County No No

Tex. Yes No No Yes. Some 

statewide elections 

held on Saturday

Yes County No No

Wis. Yes Yes No No Yes Subcounty Yes No

Sources: GAO analysis of state statutes and data. 

Notes: N/A = Not applicable. 

Some of the data are from GAO synthesis of documents provided by and interviews with state 

election officials. 

a

In general, early voting allows voters from any precinct in the jurisdiction to cast their vote in person 

without providing a reason before Election Day either at one specific location or at one of several 

locations. 

b

No-excuse absentee voting is a process that allows citizens to cast an absentee ballot, usually by 

mail, without providing a reason. 

c

Voting by mail only is a process in which all elections are conducted solely by mail. Oregon and 38 of 

the 39 counties in Washington administered the 2010 general election solely by mail. 

d

Indicates states that have experience in conducting a federal (primary) or state election during the 

weekend. 

e

Indicates states that offered early voting in the November 2010 general election on a Saturday, 

Sunday, or both. 

f

In most states, election responsibility resides at the county level, although some states have 

delegated election responsibility to subcounty governmental units, such as cities, villages, and 

townships. 

g

Indicates states that allowed voters to register to vote at their polling place on Election Day. 

In addition, we conducted interviews with election officials in a 

nonprobability sample of 17 local election jurisdictions within the nine

states. We selected jurisdictions to reflect variation in factors including 

demographics, applicable bilingual voting assistance requirements,1

 

1

Known as the language minority provisions of the Voting Rights Act, sections 203 and 

4(f)(4) of the act are designed to help members of applicable language minority groups to 

participate effectively in the electoral process. In general, under these provisions, covered 

jurisdictions must provide bilingual election materials and other assistance to protect the 

voting rights of U.S. citizens of certain ethnic groups whose command of the English 

language may be limited. 

and 

voting methods used, as shown in table 4. In addition, we considered 

other factors specific to the jurisdiction—such as for Los Angeles County, 

which is the largest election jurisdiction in the United States, or for San 
Appendix I: Selected Characteristics of States 

and Local Election Jurisdictions We Contacted 

Page 44 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

Francisco, which had developed an implementation plan for a Saturday 

voting pilot program for a November 2011 municipal election—in making 

our selections.

Table 4: Selected Information about the Local Election Jurisdictions and the District We Contacted

Local jurisdiction Population

Percent 

nonwhite 

population

Median income 

as a percent 

of national 

median income a b Bilingual voting assistance requirements

Voting method(s) 

used c

Los Angeles County, 

Calif.

d

9,785,295 71 107 Yes—Asian (Asian-Indian, 

Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, 

Korean, Vietnamese and Other 

Asian–Not specified), Hispanic

Optical scan

Modoc County, Calif. 9,162 20 66 No Optical scan

City and County of 

San Francisco, Calif. 

797,271 55 136 Yes—Asian (Chinese), Hispanic Optical scan

New Castle County, 

Del.

527,774 35 123 No DRE

D.C. 588,433 68 110 No DRE & Optical Scan

Kane County, Ill. 494,371 37 133 Yes—Hispanic DRE

Shelby County, Ill. 21,854 2 88 No DRE & Optical Scan

Orleans Parish, La. 328,669 71 71 No DRE

Tensas Parish, La. 5,798 59 59 No DRE

Montgomery County, 

Md.

946,172 47 179 Yes—Hispanic DRE

Town of Charlestown, 

N.H.

4,872 2 104 No Hand-counted paper 

ballot

City of Concord, N.H. 42,397 7 102 No Optical Scan

Mecklenburg County, 

N.C.

861,189 45 108 No DRE

Sampson County, 

N.C.

62,996 46 68 No DRE & Optical Scan

Bexar County, Tex. 1,584,817 68 89 Yes—Hispanic DRE & Optical Scan

Webb County, Tex. 231,035 95 70 Yes—Hispanic DRE & Optical Scan

City of Madison, Wis. 229,051 21 100 No Optical Scan

Town of Minocqua, 

Wis.

4,935 2 84 No Optical Scan

Sources: Statutes, states and local jurisdictions, and GAO analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data.

Notes: Bilingual voting assistance coverage determinations under sections 4(f)(4) and 203 of the 

Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, are reflected at 28 C.F.R. Part 55, Appendix (Jurisdictions 

Covered Under Sections 4(f)(4) and 203(c) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended) with the 

most recent section 203 coverage determinations published in October 2011 at 76 Fed. Reg. 63,602-

63,607 (2011); state or local jurisdiction election data are from their websites; U.S. Census Bureau 

data are from the American Community Survey. 
Appendix I: Selected Characteristics of States 

and Local Election Jurisdictions We Contacted 

Page 45 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

a

Based on analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey data. Indicates the 

percentage of the population that is either (1) Hispanic and any race, or (2) non-Hispanic and any 

race other than white. 

b

Represents the median household income of the jurisdiction as a percentage of the national median 

household income. 

c

Indicates whether or not a jurisdiction is required under section 203 or 4(f)(4) of the Voting Rights Act 

of 1965, as amended, to provide bilingual election materials and assistance and, if so, the language 

minority group(s) covered. 

d

In general, there are five methods for casting votes: paper ballots, lever machines, punch cards, 

optical scan, and direct recording electronic (DRE) machines. An optical scan voting system is 

composed of computer-readable ballots, appropriate marking devices, privacy booths, and a 

computerized tabulation machine. Voters record their choices using an appropriate writing instrument 

to fill in boxes or ovals or to complete an arrow next to the candidate’s name or the issue. Voters 

make their selection on DREs by pressing a button or touching the screen next to the candidate’s 

name or ballot issue. When they are finished, they cast their votes by pressing a final “vote” button on 

the machine or screen. 
Appendix II: Analysis of Weekend Voting in the 

2010 Maryland State Elections 

Page 46 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

The state of Maryland provided its citizens the option of in-person early 

voting for the first time in the 2010 primary and general elections. Polls 

were open for early voting on a total of 6 days, beginning the second 

Friday prior to Election Day (September 14 or November 2, respectively, 

for the primary and general elections) and extending through the first 

Thursday prior to Election Day. Early voting hours were provided on 

Saturday, but not on Sunday, of each 7-day early voting period. State 

statute required counties to establish early voting centers, with the 

number of early voting locations based on the county’s number of 

registered voters. Each county had at least one location, plus three to five 

additional locations if they had more than 150,000 registered voters.1

Maryland’s experience with early voting allowed us to analyze how voters 

used weekend poll hours when they were available. Voter registration and 

turnout data in Maryland are sufficiently detailed and reliable to allow for 

statistical analysis of citizens who were registered for the 2010 general 

election. This appendix presents our analysis of (1) whether the turnout 

rate during the early voting period was higher or lower on Saturday as 

compared to weekdays and (2) which groups of citizens used weekend 

poll hours in the 2010 general election. Specifically, we assessed whether 

citizens who belonged to groups that typically vote less frequently, such 

as younger and more-recently registered voters, were more likely to use 

weekend poll hours. While our analysis describes the use of weekend poll 

hours, it does not seek to estimate the causal effect of providing these 

voting methods or holding Election Day on Saturday and Sunday.

Early voting hours were the same across counties, beginning at 10:00 

a.m. and ending at 8:00 p.m. each day.

 

1

Section 10.301.1(b) of the Maryland Election Law Code specifies the number of early 

voting centers for each county. If a county has less than 150,000 registered voters, the 

county shall have one early voting center. If a county has more than 150,000 but fewer 

than 300,000 registered voters, the county shall have three early voting centers. If a 

county has more than 300,000 registered voters, the county shall have five early voting 

centers.

Appendix II: Analysis of Weekend Voting in 

the 2010 Maryland State Elections
Appendix II: Analysis of Weekend Voting in the 

2010 Maryland State Elections 

Page 47 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

Our analysis of voter turnout data showed that only 1.5 percent of voters 

used Saturday poll hours during the early voting period of the 2010 

general election.2

As shown in figure 3, the proportion of Maryland voters—categorized into 

groups by age, length of registration, and participation in prior elections—

who cast ballots on a certain “poll day” during the early voting period did 

not substantially increase on Saturday. In our analysis, a poll day is a 24-

hour period when the polls were open during the early voting period. It 

equals the calendar days prior to Election Day when citizens were able to 

vote minus the subsequent time when the polls were closed.

To further examine how the turnout rate changed 

between the weekend and weekday periods, we analyzed the voting 

times for early voters. According to state officials, all counties in Maryland 

used the same computerized voter registration and election 

administration system in 2010, which recorded the date and time when 

each voter received a ballot. By estimating the turnout rate within small 

intervals during the early voting period, we assessed whether turnout 

meaningfully changed between the weekday and weekend periods.

3

 

2

The turnout statistics discussed here may not match certified vote totals for Maryland 

jurisdictions because we analyzed a custom database of citizens registered for the 2010

general election. 

For 

example, figure 3 shows that the first citizen to receive a ballot when the 

polls opened on Saturday of the early voting period voted 2.9 poll days 

prior to Election Day, even though Saturday, October 23, was the 10th 

calendar day prior to Election Day on Tuesday, November 2.

3

We rescaled calendar time to poll days to avoid analyzing periods when the polls were 

closed. In effect, this adjusts the voting duration times for the time “at risk” of voting. While 

Maryland standardized early voting poll hours across counties, we included voting times 

outside of the official poll hours, which may have represented citizens who were in line to 

vote when the polls closed. As a result, we defined the start and end of each poll day as 

the earliest and latest recorded voting time on a particular calendar day of early voting.

Turnout Did Not 

Substantially Increase 

during Weekend Poll 

Hours
Appendix II: Analysis of Weekend Voting in the 

2010 Maryland State Elections 

Page 48 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

Figure 3: Early Voting in Maryland’s November 2010 General Election

Note: A “poll day” is a 24-hour period when polls were open for early voting before Election Day. The 

dashed vertical lines in the figure show the start of each new calendar day, with the 1 day of Saturday 

voting in the early voting period labeled in the second interval. 
Appendix II: Analysis of Weekend Voting in the 

2010 Maryland State Elections 

Page 49 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

In figure 3, the turnout rate is roughly equal to the slope of the curves 

plotted, with a steeper curve meaning that more voters cast ballots at a 

certain time.4

Voters from different demographic groups used the Saturday voting 

period somewhat differently. Figure 3 plots turnout separately by age, 

length of registration (a proxy for residential mobility), and the number of 

statewide primary and general elections since 2000 in which the citizen 

voted. These are three variables typically associated with greater turnout. 

If citizens with different propensities to vote were equally likely to take 

advantage of weekend hours, the turnout curves should be roughly 

parallel on Saturday and across the boundaries between the weekday 

and weekend. In fact, the least-experienced citizens—those who were 

between the ages of 17 and 24, registered for no more than 1 year, or 

had never voted before—turned out at a slightly higher rate on Saturday 

than the other groups, and their turnout increased somewhat 

discontinuously between Friday and Saturday. However, the small size of 

this increase suggests that Saturday poll hours did not meaningfully 

increase overall turnout or draw a large number of new or infrequent 

voters to the polls. In subsequent days, however, the trend was reversed, 

with more-experienced citizens voting at higher rates until the middle of 

the final day of early voting. Less-experienced voters lagged behind and 

were much more likely to vote on the last day of early voting, particularly 

in the last half of the day.

If the appeal of voting on Saturday were much higher than 

voting on a weekday, we would expect a sharp, discontinuous change in 

the turnout rate between Friday and Saturday and Saturday and Monday, 

respectively. The data show no such pattern. The turnout rate was 

approximately the same when the polls closed on Friday afternoon as 

when they opened on Saturday morning. Turnout increased at the start of 

the next weekday period on Monday, and then it steadily increased until 

Election Day. This suggests that voters were not relatively more eager to 

take advantage of Saturday voting as compared to weekday voting.

An alternative way to analyze how voters used early poll hours is to 

estimate the “hazard” of voting prior to Election Day for those citizens who 

voted early. In this case, we interpret the hazard to be the number of 

 

4

The data represent the empirical cumulative distribution function of the voting times. This 

implies that the first derivative of the curve at voting time t equals the density, which can 

be interpreted as the instantaneous turnout rate at t or the probability of voting within an 

arbitrarily small neighborhood of t. 
Appendix II: Analysis of Weekend Voting in the 

2010 Maryland State Elections 

Page 50 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

voters casting ballots within a small interval of time, or the instantaneous 

turnout rate. A larger hazard at a certain time in the early voting period 

means that a citizen had a higher probability of voting in a small interval 

around that time. We estimated the hazard function for citizens who voted 

during the early voting period for each of the subgroups in figure 3, using 

Epinechnikov kernel-smoothed estimates of the Kaplan-Meier hazard 

function.

Estimates of hazard functions for each age group generally support 

similar conclusions as the simpler distributions of voting times shown in 

figure 3—the turnout rate was low until the fourth day of early voting, on 

Tuesday. At that time, the rates began to increase for all age groups, and 

then increased at a much larger rate on the final two days of early voting, 

on Wednesday and Thursday. There is no evidence that turnout 

increased by a large amount on Saturday. However, turnout for citizens 

younger than 25 increased by a slightly larger amount between Friday 

and Saturday than it did for citizens between the ages of 25 and 64, 

consistent with the evidence in figure 3.

In order to describe the patterns in figure 3 more precisely, we used 

several statistical methods to estimate how turnout and the use of 

Saturday voting varied across groups of citizens with different 

characteristics. These methods allowed us to estimate the association 

between a certain characteristic and outcomes of interest, such as age 

and prior turnout, while holding constant other characteristics, such as the 

length of registration.

Multivariate 

Statistical Analysis of 

Saturday Voting 

across Groups 

Produces Similar 

Results
Appendix II: Analysis of Weekend Voting in the 

2010 Maryland State Elections 

Page 51 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

In particular, we estimated two types of statistical models of the 

registrant’s decision to vote and the voter’s decision to vote on Saturday. 

The models were given by

E(Votei) = Λ (ß0 + Agei ß1 + Tenurei ß2 + Sexi ß3 + Partyi ß4 + Countyi ß5

E(Weekend

)

i | Votei = 1) = Λ (α0 + Agei α1 + Tenurei α2 + Sexi α3 + Partyi α4 + Countyi α5),

where Votei is a Bernoulli random variable indicating whether registrant i

voted; Λ is the logistic function; Weekendi indicates whether a voter voted 

on Saturday; and the remaining terms are vectors of parameters and 

indicator covariates as specified in table 5. (Countyi is a vector of 

indicators for each county.)5

Table 5: Turnout and Use of Weekend Poll Hours in 2010 Maryland General Election, by Demographic Group

 

Raw data Model estimates

Variable

Probability of 

registrant voting

Probability of voting on 

Saturday, given that 

registrant voted

Probability of 

registrant voting

Probability of voting on 

Saturday, given that 

registrant voted

Age

Younger than 25 26.6% 1.31% 34.0% 1.20%

25-39 35.2 0.96 40.6 1.03

40-64 59.1 1.75 57.9 1.80

65 or older 63.6 1.39 54.8 1.37

Years registered

Less than 2 36.3 1.87 45.7 2.23

2-9 38.9 1.33 43.5 1.45

10-29 57.8 1.59 53.6 1.54

30 or more 75.1 1.55 68.7 1.58

Number of elections voted, 

2000-2008

0 14.2 1.73 N/A N/A

1 26.6 1.05 N/A N/A

 

5

Instead of using hierarchical and multinomial models of the turnout and voting method 

decisions, we used simpler models with flexible response functions to simply quantify 

descriptive patterns in the raw data, in part due to the limited number of covariates 

available. For similar reasons, we did not include prior turnout as a covariate to avoid 

complications associated with lagged response variables.
Appendix II: Analysis of Weekend Voting in the 

2010 Maryland State Elections 

Page 52 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

Raw data Model estimates

Variable

Probability of 

registrant voting

Probability of voting on 

Saturday, given that 

registrant voted

Probability of 

registrant voting

Probability of voting on 

Saturday, given that 

registrant voted

2 35.9 1.14 N/A N/A

3 48.4 1.05 N/A N/A

4 59.7 1.20 N/A N/A

5 71.6 1.32 N/A N/A

6 77.9 1.36 N/A N/A

7 83.9 1.48 N/A N/A

8 87.7 1.75 N/A N/A

9 91.8 1.98 N/A N/A

10 95.0 2.56 N/A N/A

Party Registration

Democrat 52.0 1.69 52.1 1.71 

Other 35.0 1.28 40.0 1.30 

Republican 58.3 1.27 54.8 1.31 

Source: GAO analysis of Maryland early voting turnout data for the November 2010 general election.

N/A = Not applicable. 

To assess marginal effects, we estimated the in-sample mean predicted 

probabilities for each level of each covariate (though table 5 includes 

estimates only for the covariates of interest). We estimated robust 

standard errors of the parameters and predicted probabilities but do not 

report them here for simplicity. The standard errors were no more than 5 

percent of the estimated probabilities, which partially reflects sample 

sizes of 1,857,675 for the model of turnout and 927,774 for the model of 

weekend voting. For ease of computation, we estimated the models on a 

50 percent simple random sample of the population of registrants.

The model estimates support the patterns in the raw data. Relatively 

fewer young citizens chose to vote, and most of those who did were not 

more likely to have voted on Saturday. Similarly, the most recently 

registered voters were also less likely to vote; however, in contrast, they 

were more likely to vote on Saturday, holding constant differences 

associated with age. On an absolute scale, however, few voters used 

Saturday poll hours, and a far greater proportion of less-experienced 

voters either did not vote, voted late in the early voting period, or waited 

until Election Day.

Specifically, although our model estimates that no more than 2.2 percent 

of any subgroup of voters cast their ballots on Saturday, holding constant 
Appendix II: Analysis of Weekend Voting in the 

2010 Maryland State Elections 

Page 53 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

other group memberships, older voters were relatively more likely to do 

so than younger voters. The adjusted probability of voting on Saturday for 

voters who were between the ages of 40 and 64 was 1.8 percentage 

points, as compared to 1.2 percentage points for voters who were 

younger than 25—a difference of 50 percent expressed as a ratio. The 

analogous probabilities for voters registered less than 2 years ago and 

between 2 and 9 years ago were 2.2 and 1.5 percentage points, 

respectively, or a difference of 47 percent. The probability of voting on 

Saturday was slightly lower among citizens at least 65 years old, as 

compared to citizens between the ages of 40 and 64.

Less-experienced citizens were much less likely to have voted in the first 

place. Citizens younger than 25 were 37 percentage points less likely to 

vote than citizens 65 and older. Similarly, citizens who first registered 

within the past 2 years were 39 percentage points less likely to vote than 

citizens who had been registered for 30 years or more.

The national experience with holding regular elections on Saturday and 

Sunday might differ in meaningful ways from Maryland’s experience with 

allowing early voting on the weekend. Maryland citizens are not 

necessarily representative of the nation, and in 2010 the state’s early 

voting program was in its first year of operation. Voters may use weekend 

poll hours differently as they continue to learn about this option.

Moreover, early voter behavior may not resemble voter behavior in 

elections where Election Day falls on Saturday and Sunday. In the latter 

system, political campaigns and the news media may increase voter 

awareness of weekend poll hours, and voters would not be forced to 

choose between voting on the weekend and voting before the political 

campaigns have ended. 

Despite these limitations, our analysis suggests that relatively few voters 

used weekend poll hours when they were offered in the 2010 Maryland 

general election, and that most of the citizens in subgroups typically less 

likely to vote did not turn out at vastly higher rates during this period. If 

voters’ behavior can accurately reveal their preferences for different 

voting methods, the demand for weekend poll hours appeared to be 

modest in this election.
Appendix III: Alternative Voting Methods 

Provided in 50 States and the District for the 

2004 and 2010 November General Elections 

Page 54 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

The number of states providing alternative voting methods—that is, inperson early voting and no-excuse absentee voting—has increased, as 

shown in figure 4. Specifically, in 2006, on the basis of results from a 

survey of 50 states and the District of Columbia (District), we reported 

that 24 states and the District required or allowed in-person early voting 

and 21 states allowed or required no-excuse absentee voting by mail in 

the November 2004 general election.1

 

1

See

For the November 2010 general 

election, 33 states and the District provided in-person early voting and 29 

states and the District provided no-excuse absentee voting by mail.

GAO, Elections: The Nation’s Evolving Election System as Reflected in the 

November 2004 General Election, GAO-06-450 (Washington, D.C.: June 6, 2006). This 

information was based on the result of web-based surveys we conducted in 2005 of the 50 

states and the District. See GAO, Elections: 2005 Survey of State Election Officials, 

GAO-06-451SP (Washington, D.C.: June 6, 2006) for additional survey results.

Appendix III: Alternative Voting Methods 

Provided in 50 States and the District for the 

2004 and 2010 November General Elections
Appendix III: Alternative Voting Methods 

Provided in 50 States and the District for the 

2004 and 2010 November General Elections 

Page 55 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

Figure 4: In-person Early Voting and No-excuse Absentee Voting in 50 States and the District for the 2004 and 2010 General 

Elections

Notes: Data for 2004 are from GAO-06-451SP and data for 2010 are from state statutes. 
Appendix IV: Selected Details of Early and NoExcuse Absentee Voting for the 2010 General 

Election in States We Contacted 

Page 56 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

Of the nine states and the District of Columbia (District) we contacted, 

seven states and the District provided early voting. Of those seven states, 

five states and the District provided both early voting and no-excuse 

absentee voting. Two of the nine states where we conducted interviews—

Delaware and New Hampshire—did not provide voters with either of 

these alternatives, although they allowed voters to vote by absentee 

ballot if they provided a reason. Table 6 provides selected details on how 

early and no-excuse absentee voting were implemented during the 

November 2010 general election.

Table 6: Selected Details of Early and No-Excuse Absentee Voting Implementation for the November 2010 General Election in 

States We Contacted

Early voting Absentee voting

State 

Year early 

voting began

Early voting 

calendar days a Include Saturday or Sunday

Number of 

locations

No-excuse 

absentee 

voting

Absentee ballot 

deadline

Calif.

b

1978 29 Up to local discretion.

County determines specific 

days and hours.

58 locations (one 

per county)

Yes Received by close 

of polls on 

Election Day 

D.C. 2010 14 Yes, two Saturdays.

District determines specific days 

and hours.

5 locations 

across 143 

precincts

Yes Postmarked on or 

by Election Day

Ill. 2006 18 Yes, state requires permanent 

locations to be open weekends 

and holidays. Days for 

temporary locations are up to 

local discretion.

180 locations 

across 110 

counties

Yes Postmarked by 

the day prior to 

Election Day

La. 2006 8 Yes, Saturday. State required 

the number of days and hours.

85 locations 

across 64 

parishes

No Received by 4:30 

p.m. the day prior 

to Election Day

Md. 2010 7 Yes, Saturday.

State required the number of 

days and hours.

46 locations 

across 24 

counties

Yes Postmarked on or 

by Election Day

N.C. 2000 17 Yes, state requires early voting 

be available the last Saturday 

prior to Election Day. Other 

days and hours up to local 

discretion.

297 locations 

across 100 

counties

Yes Postmarked on or 

by Election Day

Tex. 1988 12 Yes, Saturday and Sunday.

State requirement based on 

county population size.

938 locations 

across 254 

counties

No Received by close 

of polls on 

Election Day

Wis. 2000 30 Up to local discretion.

Municipality determines specific 

days and hours.

1,850 locations 

(one per 

municipality) 

Yes Received by close 

of polls on 

Election Day

Source: GAO analysis of state statutes and data as well as GAO synthesis of state data.

Appendix IV: Selected Details of Early and 

No-Excuse Absentee Voting for the 2010 

General Election in States We Contacted 
Appendix IV: Selected Details of Early and NoExcuse Absentee Voting for the 2010 General 

Election in States We Contacted 

Page 57 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

Notes: GAO synthesized data from documents provided by and interviews with state election officials. 

a

Represents the year early voting was first implemented. 

b

Indicates when domestic absentee ballots are due. Variation exists among states on how absentee 

ballots are delivered, such as by mail, in person, or by facsimile, among others. Absentee ballots 

must be either received or postmarked on or by Election Day.
Appendix V: Selected Details of Early Voting 

for the 2010 General Election in Local 

Jurisdictions We Contacted 

Page 58 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

Of the 17 local jurisdictions and the District of Columbia (District) we 

contacted, 14 jurisdictions and the District provided in-person early voting. 

Table 7 provides selected details regarding how early voting was 

implemented during the November 2010 general election.

Table 7: Selected Details of Early Voting Implementation for the November 2010 General Election in Local Jurisdictions We 

Contacted

Early voting hours

Jurisdiction

Number of 

locations

Include Saturday or 

Sunday Election/main office

Other 

locations

Los Angeles 

County, Calif.

a

1 (election/main 

office) 

Yes. Both Saturdays and 

Sundays were included 

during the last 2 weekends 

prior to Election Day.

9 hours on weekdays.

8 hours on weekends.

N/A

Modoc County, 

Calif.

1 (election/main 

office)

No 8 hours on weekdays. N/A

San Francisco 

County, Calif.

1 (election/main 

office)

Yes. Both Saturdays and 

Sundays were included 

during the last 2 weekends 

prior to Election Day.

9 hours on weekdays.

6 hours on weekends.

N/A

D.C. 5 Yes. Included Saturday. 10.5 hours on weekdays and Saturday. Same as main 

office.

b

Kane County, 

Ill.

30 Yes. Included Saturdays and 

Sundays.

For permanent locations, 8 or more hours on 

weekdays and 3 hours on weekends. For 

temporary locations, up to local discretion.

Hours varied.

Shelby County, 

Ill.

1 (election/main 

office)

Yes. Included Saturday. 8 hours on weekdays.

4 hours on Saturday.

N/A

Orleans Parish, 

La. 

3 Yes. Included Saturday. 9.5 hours on weekdays and Saturday. Same as main 

office.

Tensas Parish, 

La.

1 (election/main 

office)

Yes. Included Saturday. 9.5 hours on weekdays and Saturday. N/A

Montgomery 

County, Md.

5 Yes. Included Saturday. 10 hours on weekdays and Saturday. Same as main 

office.

Mecklenburg 

County, N.C.

16 Yes. Included 2 Saturdays 

and 1 Sunday.

9-11 hours on weekdays.

3 hours on Saturdays and Sunday.

8 hours on 

weekdays.

3 hours on 

Saturdays and 

Sunday.

Sampson 

County, N.C.

4 Yes. Included 3 Saturdays. 11 hours on weekdays.

5-7 hours on Saturdays.

6 hours on 

weekdays.

5-7 hours on 

Saturdays.

Appendix V: Selected Details of Early Voting 

for the 2010 General Election in Local 

Jurisdictions We Contacted 
Appendix V: Selected Details of Early Voting 

for the 2010 General Election in Local 

Jurisdictions We Contacted 

Page 59 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

Early voting hours

Jurisdiction

Number of 

locations

Include Saturday or 

Sunday Election/main office

Other 

locations

Bexar County, 

Tex.

a

40 Yes. Included Saturday and 

Sunday.

10-12 hours on weekdays.

12 hours on Saturday.

6 hours on Sunday.

Same as main 

office.

Webb County, 

Tex.

9 Yes. Included Saturday and 

Sunday.

9-12 hours on weekdays.

12 hours on Saturday.

5 hours on Sunday.

Hours varied 

with temporary 

and mobile 

locations.

City of Madison, 

Wis.

1 (election/main 

office)

Yes. Included Saturday. 8.5-11 hours on weekdays.

3 hours on Saturday.

N/A

Town of 

Minocqua, Wis.

1 (election/main 

office)

No. 8 hours on weekdays. N/A

Source: GAO interviews of local election jurisdiction officials.

Note: N/A = not applicable. 

a

Includes temporary or satellite locations, such as schools, libraries, and community centers, among 

others, that allowed early voting. 

b

Early voting was provided for 8 hours and 15 minutes at the main election office the last day of the 

early voting period (the day before Election Day). 
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 60 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

William O. Jenkins, Jr., (202) 512-8777 or jenkinswo@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Mary Catherine Hult, Assistant 

Director; David Alexander; Josh Diosomito; Geoffrey Hamilton; Lara 

Miklozek; Hugh Paquette; Jeff Tessin; and Lori Weiss made key 

contributions to this report.

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments
Bibliography 

Page 61 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

Bergman, Elizabeth, Philip Yates, and Elaine Ginnold. “How Does Vote 

by Mail Affect Voters? A natural experiment examining individual-level 

turnout.” The PEW Center on the States, Make Voting Work project. 

Accessed May 19, 2011. 

http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/report_detail.aspx?id=58252

Berinsky, Adam J., Nancy Burns, and Michael W. Traugott. “Who Votes 

By Mail? A Dynamic Model of the Individual-Level Consequences of 

Voting-By-Mail Systems.” The Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 65 (2001): 

178-197.

Burden, Barry C., David T. Canon, Kenneth R. Mayer, and Donald P. 

Moynihan. “Election Laws, Mobilization, and Turnout: The Unanticipated 

Consequences of Election Reform,” April 12, 2011. Social Science 

Research Network eLibrary. Accessed May 19, 2011. 

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1690723

Fitzgerald, Mary. “Greater Convenience but Not Greater Turnout—the 

Impact of Alternative Voting Methods on Electoral Participation in the 

United States.” American Politics Research, vol. 33 (2005): 842-867.

Giammo, Joseph D., and Brian J. Brox. “Reducing the Costs of 

Participation: Are States Getting a Return on Early Voting?” Political 

Research Quarterly, vol. 63 (2010): 295-303.

Gronke, Paul, and Daniel Krantz Toffey, “The Psychological and

Institutional Determinants of Early Voting.” Journal of Social Issues, vol. 

64 (2008): 503-524.

Gronke, Paul, Eva Galanes-Rosenbaum, and Peter A. Miller. “Early 

Voting and Turnout.” PS: Political Science and Politics, vol. 40 (2007): 

639-645. 

Gronke, Paul, Eva Galanes-Rosenbaum, and Peter A. Miller. “Early 

Voting and Voter Turnout.” In Democracy in the States: Experiments in 

Election Reform. Ed. Bruce E. Cain, Todd Donovan, and Caroline J. 

Tolbert. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2008.

Gronke, Paul, and Peter A.M. Miller. “Voting by Mail and Turnout: A 

Replication and Extension.” Paper presented at the 2007 Annual Meeting 

of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, Ill.

Bibliography 
Bibliography 

Page 62 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

Hanmer, Michael J., and Michael W. Traugott. “The Impact of Voting by 

Mail on Voter Behavior.” American Politics Research, vol. 32 (2004): 375-

405.

Hill, David, and Michael D. Martinez. “The Interactive Effects of Electoral 

Reform, Competitiveness and Age on Turnout.” Paper presented at the 

2008 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 

Boston, Mass.

Juenke, Eric Gonzalez, and Juliemarie Shepherd. “Vote Centers and 

Voter Turnout.” In Democracy in the States: Experiments in Election 

Reform. Ed. Bruce E. Cain, Todd Donovan, and Caroline J. Tolbert. 

Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2008.

Karp, Jeffrey A., and Susan A. Banducci. “Going Postal: How All-Mail 

Elections Influence Turnout.” Political Behavior, vol. 22 (2000): 223-239.

Kousser, Thad and Megan Mullin. “Does Voting by Mail Increase 

Participation? Using Matching to Analyze a Natural Experiment.” Political 

Analysis, vol. 15 (2007): 428-445.

Leighley, Jan E., and Jonathan Nagler. “Electoral Laws and Turnout, 

1972-2008.” Paper presented at the 4th Annual Conference on Empirical 

Legal Studies, Los Angeles, Calif., November 2009.

Magleby, David B. “Participation in Mail Ballot Elections.” The Western 

Political Quarterly, vol. 40 (1987): 79-91.

Miller, Peter A., and Neilan S. Chaturvedi. “Get Out the Early Vote: 

Minority Use of Convenience Voting in 2008.” Paper presented at the 

2010 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 

Washington, D.C.

Miller, Peter A.M., and Paul Gronke. “The Effect of Voting by Mail in 

Washington: 1960-2008.” Portland, Ore.: The Early Voting Information 

Center, Reed College. Accessed May 19, 2011. 

http://www.earlyvoting.net/research

Patterson, Samuel C. and Gregory A. Caldeira. “Mailing in the Vote: 

Correlates and Consequences of Absentee Voting.” American Journal of 

Political Science, vol. 29 (1985): 766-788.
Bibliography 

Page 63 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

Southwell, Priscilla L., and Justin I. Burchett. “The Effect of All-Mail 

Elections on Voter Turnout.” American Politics Quarterly, vol. 28 (2000): 

72-79.

Stein, Robert M. “Early Voting.” The Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 62 

(1998): 57-69.

Stein, Robert M., and Greg Vonnahme. “Engaging the Unengaged Voter: 

Voter Centers and Voter Turnout.” The Journal of Politics, vol. 70 (2008): 

487-497.

Stein, Robert M., and Patricia A. Garcia-Monet. “Voting Early but Not 

Often.” Social Science Quarterly, vol. 78 (1997): 657-671.

Wolfinger, Raymond E., Benjamin Highton, and Megan Mullin. “How 

Postregistration Laws Affect the Turnout of Citizens Registered to Vote.” 

State Politics and Policy Quarterly, vol. 5 (2005): 1-23.
Related GAO Products

Page 64 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

Elections: DOD Can Strengthen Evaluation of Its Absentee Voting 

Assistance Program. GAO-10-476. Washington, D.C.: June 17, 2010.

Elderly Voters: Information on Promising Practices Could Strengthen the 

Integrity of the Voting Process in Long-term Care Facilities. GAO-10-6. 

Washington, D.C.: November 30, 2009.

Voters with Disabilities: Additional Monitoring of Polling Places Could 

Further Improve Accessibility. GAO-09-941. Washington, D.C.: 

September 30, 2009.

Voters With Disabilities: More Polling Places Had No Potential 

Impediments Than in 2000, but Challenges Remain. GAO-09-685. 

Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2009.

Elections: States, Territories, and the District Are Taking a Range of 

Important Steps to Manage Their Varied Voting System Environments. 

GAO-08-874. Washington, D.C.: September 25, 2008.

Elections: Federal Program for Certifying Voting Systems Needs to Be 

Further Defined, Fully Implemented, and Expanded. GAO-08-814. 

Washington, D.C.: September 16, 2008.

Bilingual Voting Assistance: Selected Jurisdictions’ Strategies for 

Identifying Needs and Providing Assistance. GAO-08-182. Washington, 

D.C.: January 18, 2008.

Elections: Action Plans Needed to Fully Address Challenges in Electronic 

Absentee Voting Initiatives for Military and Overseas Citizens. 

GAO-07-774. Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2007.

Elections: The Nation’s Evolving Election System as Reflected in the 

November 2004 General Election. GAO-06-450. Washington, D.C.: June 

6, 2006.

Elections: Absentee Voting Assistance to Military and Overseas Citizens 

Increased for the 2004 General Election, but Challenges Remain. 

GAO-06-521. Washington, D.C.: April 7, 2006.

Elections: Views of Selected Local Election Officials on Managing Voter 

Registration and Ensuring Eligible Citizens Can Vote. GAO-05-997. 

Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2005.

Related GAO Products
Related GAO Products

Page 65 GAO-12-69 Weekend Voting

Elections: Additional Data Could Help State and Local Elections Officials 

Maintain Accurate Voter Registration Lists. GAO-05-478. Washington, 

D.C.: June 10, 2005.

Elections: Perspectives on Activities and Challenges Across the Nation. 

GAO-02-3. Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001.

Voters With Disabilities: Access to Polling Places and Alternative Voting 

Methods. GAO-02-107. Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001.

Elections: Voting Assistance to Military and Overseas Citizens Should Be 

Improved. GAO-01-1026. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2001.

Elections: The Scope of Congressional Authority in Election 

Administration. GAO-01-470. Washington, D.C.: March 13, 2001.

(440908)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.