EAVS

Dive

Deep

The Election Assistance 

Commission (EAC) 

administers the biennial 

Election Administration and 

Voting Survey (EAVS) to 

collect state-by-state data 

on the administration of 

federal elections. In June 

of 2017, the EAC released 

the most recent survey with 

data from the 2016 election. 

This survey contains the 

most comprehensive data 

about trends in election 

administration in the United 

States and provides these 

numbers at the national, 

state, and local level. This 

brief is part of a series 

of “deep dives” into the 

EAVS data that will provide 

an in-depth look at a 

variety of issues related 

to administering elections 

and use data to help better 

understand these issues. 

Poll Workers and Polling Places 

Overview

• During the 2016 elections, local election officials operated 

116,990 polling places, including 8,616 early voting locations, 

across the country. These polling sites were operated by 

917,694 poll workers. 

• Nearly 65 percent of jurisdictions reported that it was “very 

difficult” or “somewhat difficult” to obtain a sufficient number 

of poll workers. 

• There has been a continued decrease in physical polling 

places, which can likely be explained by the expansion of 

alternative voting options, the increased use of these options 

by voters, and the corresponding decrease in in-person voters 

on Election Day. 

• More populous jurisdictions faced greater challenges when 

recruiting poll workers. 

• Of the age data reported for approximately 53 percent of poll 

workers who served in 2016, 24 percent of poll workers were 

71 or older and another 32 percent were between the ages of 

61 and 70. 

1
 

Polling places and the poll workers who 

run them are the front lines of American 

elections. According to the EAVS, during 

the 2016 elections, local election officials 

operated 116,990 polling places, including 

8,616 early voting locations, across the 

country. These polling sites were operated 

by 917,694 poll workers. 

Recreating this framework every election 

cycle is a massive undertaking, and election 

officials and policymakers are constantly 

looking for ways to strengthen the process. 

This EAVS deep dive examines data on poll 

workers and polling places from across the 

nation to support and inform these efforts. 

Poll Workers 

Recruitment, training, management, and 

retention of poll workers require constant and 

large-scale efforts by election officials. While 

EAVS data only scratches the surface of this 

challenge, the biennial survey does collect 

information in a few important areas, 

including the level of difficulty in obtaining poll 

workers and age of poll workers. 

Difficulty Obtaining Poll Workers 

Local election officials reported varying 

levels of difficulty obtaining poll workers for 

the 2016 elections. Of those who reported 

level of difficulty data on this question,

1 nearly 

65 percent of jurisdictions reported that it 

was “very difficult” or “somewhat difficult” to 

obtain a sufficient number of poll workers. 

Approximately 31 percent reported that it 

was “somewhat easy” or “very easy.” 

EAVS data shows that more populous 

jurisdictions faced greater challenges when 

recruiting poll workers. Of the 50 responding 

jurisdictions with the highest number of 

registered voters, 88 percent reported that it 

was “very difficult” or “somewhat difficult” to 

obtain a sufficient number of poll workers.

Only 12 percent of these jurisdictions

reported that it was “somewhat easy” or 

“very easy.” 

Comments from respondents also suggest 

that some local election officials faced 

difficulties recruiting poll workers in 

jurisdictions where party affiliation is a 

requirement for poll workers (e.g. finding

Democrats to serve with their Republican

counterparts in predominantly Republican 

areas and vice versa). Some local election 

officials also reported difficulties in 

recruiting poll workers with necessary 

language skills in jurisdictions that require 

or provide for poll workers who speak 

languages other than English. 

Age of Poll Workers 

EAVS respondents reported age data for 

approximately 53 percent of poll workers 

who served in 2016.2 Of those, the poll 

worker population is skewed towards older 

Americans, with 24 percent of poll workers 

aged 71 and older and another 32 percent

between the ages of 61 and 70. 

Young Poll Workers 

Recruiting young poll workers has been 

a focus of policymakers and election 

EAVS 2016: Difficulty Obtaining

Poll Workers 

2

Level of difficulty % 

Very difficult 

Somewhat difficult 

of jurisdictions 

13.9%

50.7% 

Neither difficult nor easy 4.2% 

Somewhat easy 19% 

Very easy 12.2%
EAVS 2016: Age of Poll Workers 

5% 

8 

26% 

32% 

24% 

5% 

8% 

Under 1

18 - 25 

26 - 40 

41 - 60 

61 - 70 

71+ 

administrators for many years. The Help

America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) sought to 

encourage high school and college 

students to serve as poll workers, and the 

EAC has supported these efforts since its 

inception.3 As highlighted in the EAC’s 

Election Workers: Successful Practices 

manual, young poll workers bring multiple 

benefits to polling operations. In addition 

to representing the next generation of poll 

workers, young poll workers are generally 

more comfortable with new technology, 

their energy and enthusiasm is often well 

received by older poll workers, and 

exposure to the voting process can 

stimulate interest in elections and help 

create lifelong voters. 

Inclusive of jurisdictions that reported age 

data for their poll workers in 2016, nearly 

10 percent of poll workers were aged 25 

years and younger. At least five states 

exceeded this national average, including 

California where roughly a quarter of its 

poll workers were 25 and younger, as well 

as Delaware, Michigan, Ohio, and 

Washington, D.C., where between 10 and 

14 percent of poll workers were 25 and 

younger in each state.

Polling Places 

As discussed in the EAVS Deep Dive on

Early, Absentee, and Mail Voting, the 

“where” and “how” of voting in the U.S. is 

changing considerably. As states and 

individual election jurisdictions adopt 

alternatives to in-person voting on Election 

Day (i.e. early, absentee, and mail voting) 

and/or shift from traditional precinct-based 

polling places to “vote centers,” 

In 2016, the EAC recognized

Hamilton County Board of

Elections in Ohio with an Election 

Clearinghouse Award (a “Clearie”)

for its “Youth at the Booth”

program that recruited high

school students to serve at the 

polls. Hamilton County officials

credit these young poll workers as 

playing an important role in the 

county’s recent successful

transition to electronic pollbooks. EAVS data shows that 

Hamilton County reported having

only four poll workers under the

age of 18 in 2012, representing

one-tenth of one percent of its

total. By 2016, the county had

increased this figure to 295 such

poll workers, representing nearly

12 percent of its total. 

The EAC expects to share

additional good practices in this

area later this year from winners

of the 2017 “Clearies” competition

that includes a category for

recruiting, training, and retaining

election workers. 

3
EAVS 2016: Number of Registered

Voters per Polling Place*

25% 

48% 

27% 

1 - 999 

1,000 - 1,999 

2,000+ 

*

excludes CO, OR, and WA (vote-by-mail states).

the concept of the polling place itself is 

evolving.4 EAVS data can help paint a picture 

of this evolving landscape. 

Number and Types of Polling Places 

Local election officials operated more than 

116,990 polling places during the 2016 

elections.5 This represents a continued 

decrease from recent presidential election 

years, falling from more than 119,968 

polling places operated in 2012 and more 

than 132,237 polling places in 2008. This 

decrease can likely be explained by the 

expansion of alternative voting options 

(e.g. absentee, early, and mail voting), the 

increased use of these options by voters, 

and the corresponding decrease in in-person 

voters on Election Day. The percentage 

of voters who cast ballots in ways other 

than in-person on Election Day more than 

doubled from 2004 to 2016, rising from 

one in five of all ballots cast to two in five 

of all ballots cast. The expanded use of 

“vote centers” in multiple states has also 

presumably contributed to the decreasing 

numbers of polling stations. 

Colorado, which enacted large-scale 

changes to its election processes in 

2013, has contributed to this trend. Under 

Colorado’s new model, all registered voters 

are mailed ballots for most elections and 

“vote centers” have replaced traditional 

polling places. Unsurprisingly, EAVS data 

shows a considerable decrease in polling 

locations utilized in Colorado in recent 

elections, dropping from 1,237 in 2012 to 

301 in 2014 and further to 288 in 2016. 

Local election officials operated more than 

8,616 early voting sites nationwide in 2016. 

This represented a more than two-fold 

increase from the 4,184 early voting sites 

reported in 2012. Jurisdictions reported 

operating 5,583 early voting sites in 2008. 

Registered Voters per Polling Place 

EAVS data can also show how voters are 

generally allocated among polling places. 

2016 data demonstrated wide variation 

among and within the states on this issue. 

For example, excluding the three states that 

send all voters a mail ballot (i.e. Colorado, 

Oregon, and Washington), 25 percent of 

reporting jurisdictions had an average of 

more than 2,000 registered voters per polling 

place, 27 percent had between 1,000 and 

2,000, and 48 percent had less than 1,000. 

The overall average of registered voters per 

polling station in these jurisdictions was 

1,547.6 

Further demonstrating polling place 

variation, 44 percent of the 6,060 

jurisdictions that responded to this 

question (outside of Colorado, Oregon, and 

Washington) reported operating only one 

4
polling place in their jurisdiction.7 By contrast, the largest jurisdiction (in terms of registered 

voters), California’s Los Angeles County, reported operating 4,535 polling stations alone. 

Looking Ahead 

EAVS data from 2016 and previous surveys revealed that poll worker recruitment is an 

enduring challenge for election officials. As policymakers and election officials work to 

address this challenge, including by encouraging young people to serve as poll workers, the 

EAVS will continue to capture data on these issues that can inform election administration 

efforts. 

EAVS data from 2016 has also helped illustrate the changing landscape of polling operations 

across the country, such as the decreasing number of polling stations used in presidential 

elections. Future surveys will continue to collect data on this issue and provide a better 

understanding of this emerging trend. 

1 Forty-nine percent of jurisdictions reported level of difficulty data to this EAVS question. The remaining jurisdictions 

responded that: the question was not applicable (18 percent); or they did not have enough information to answer or the 

data was not available (33 percent). 

2 While this represented a notable increase from 2012 (when 41 percent was reported), the incompleteness of this data 

has obvious limitations for analysis. The figures presented in this section do not necessarily reflect the entire country’s 

poll worker population nor lend themselves well to comparisons with past election cycles. 

3 See the history of the EAC’s Help America Vote College Program, as well as its more recent Election Workers: Successful Practices manual from 2016. 

4 The term “vote center” has emerged in recent years to describe centralized polling sites that consolidate multiple 

traditional precinct-based polling stations and allow voters to cast ballots at any vote center in the jurisdiction. See, for 

example, Indiana’s description of its vote centers. 

5 The vast majority of election jurisdictions reported data on this question, but the actual number of total polling places 

in 2016 is sure to be higher than this figure, as all jurisdictions in Iowa and a few other places reported no data on this 

question. Data on this question from 2008 and 2012 was also imprecise, as there were non-reporting jurisdictions these 

years as well, including the entire states of Tennessee in 2008, and Georgia and Utah in 2012. 

6 This figure is the average of reporting jurisdictions’ average registered voters per polling place. National-level analysis 

of registered voters per polling place is complicated by multiple factors, such as divergent practices among and within 

the states regarding alternative voting options (e.g. absentee, early, and mail voting) and list maintenance, as well as 

geographic issues (e.g. rural vs. urban). Further research and more localized comparisons (e.g. within individual states or 

certain types of jurisdictions) where these factors can be mitigated would be useful in better understanding the impact of 

the number of registered voters per polling place. 

7 Wisconsin alone accounted for 63 percent of these jurisdictions with a single polling place, as the state reports EAVS 

data at a municipal level (whereas most other states do so at the county level). 

5