Elections: Observations on Wait Times for Voters on Election Day 2012
Published: 2014-09-30T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Millions turn out to vote in U.S. general elections, and there were reports of long wait times at some polling places on Election Day in 2012. The authority to regulate elections is shared by federal, state, and local officials; however, responsibility for conducting federal elections primarily resides with about 10,500 local election jurisdictions. GAO was asked to examine voter wait times for the November 2012 election.
This report addresses (1) the extent to which local election jurisdictions collected data to measure voter wait times and had long wait times on Election Day 2012, and (2) the factors that affected wait times and their impacts across jurisdictions. GAO surveyed officials from a nationwide generalizable sample of 423 local election jurisdictions, excluding jurisdictions with populations of 10,000 or fewer and in the vote-by-mail states of Oregon and Washington, to obtain information on voter wait times (80 percent responded). Estimates from the survey are subject to sampling error and are reported with 95 percent confidence intervals. GAO also interviewed election officials from 47 of 50 states and the District of Columbia to obtain their views on wait time issues. GAO also selected 5 local jurisdictions based on, among other things, demographic characteristics and estimated wait times to examine in more detail their Election Day 2012 experiences. The results from these 5 jurisdictions are not generalizable, but provide insights into jurisdictions' experiences. GAO also reviewed literature on wait times and interviewed 14 election researchers selected based on their work on election wait times.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: On the basis of GAO's nationwide generalizable survey of local election jurisdictions, GAO estimates that 78 percent (from 74 to 83 percent) of jurisdictions did not collect data that would allow them to calculate wait times, primarily because wait times have not been an issue, and most jurisdictions did not have long wait times on Election Day 2012. Specifically, GAO estimates that 78 percent (from 73 to 83 percent) of local jurisdictions nationwide had no polling places with wait times officials considered to be too long and 22 percent (from 17 to 27 percent) had wait times that officials considered too long at a few or more polling places on Election Day 2012. Jurisdiction officials had varying views on the length of time that would be considered too long—for example, some officials considered 10 minutes too long, while others considered 30 minutes too long. Because there is no comprehensive set of data on wait times across jurisdictions nationwide, GAO relied on election officials in the jurisdictions it surveyed to estimate wait times based on their perspectives and any data or information they collected on voter wait times.
Multiple factors affected voter wait times on Election Day 2012, and their impacts varied across jurisdictions. Specifically, GAO's survey of local election jurisdictions, review of wait time literature, and interviews with election officials and researchers identified nine common factors that affected wait times.
The specific impact of these nine factors depended on the unique circumstances in each of the 5 local jurisdictions GAO selected for interviews, leading to targeted approaches for reducing wait times where needed. For example, according to election officials in 2 jurisdictions, lengthy ballots were the primary cause of long wait times. In 1 of these jurisdictions, state constitutional amendments accounted for five of its eight ballot pages on average, and since the 2012 election, a state law was enacted that established additional word limits to such amendments, which officials said could help reduce wait times. Another jurisdiction that had ballots of similar length did not report long wait times.
In comments on draft report excerpts, 1 jurisdiction stated that our description of its experiences was accurate. The Election Assistance Commission and 4 other jurisdictions did not have comments.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Millions of individuals turn out to vote in U.S. federal elections, and there  were reports of voters who waited in long lines to vote at some polling  places on Election Day in November 2012. An estimated 153 million  individuals were registered to vote in this election, and an estimated 67  percent of Americans who voted did so in the traditional way by casting  ballots at their local polling places on Election Day. Reports of long wait  times at the polls also occurred in prior elections, including the 2008 and  2004 general elections. Long voter wait times have raised concerns  because, according to election administration researchers, they may  discourage some people from voting or impose hardships on some  voters, such as those who cannot afford to miss work or those with  disabilities who are physically unable to wait for long periods of time.  Researchers and others have defined long wait times in different ways,  such as 30 minutes or more or 120 minutes or more. For the purposes of  our review, we did not identify a specific amount of time as constituting or  defining a long wait time; rather, as discussed in our report, we obtained  views from state and local election officials, researchers, and others on  what they consider to be long wait times.
The authority to regulate elections in the United States is shared by  federal, state, and local officials. Deriving its authority from various  constitutional sources, depending upon the type of election, Congress  has passed legislation addressing major functional areas in the voting  process such as voter registration and prohibitions against discriminatory   Nevertheless, the responsibility for the administration of  voting practices.state and federal elections resides at the state level, and state statutes  regulate various aspects of elections, including registration and Election  Day procedures. Within each state, responsibility for managing, planning,  and conducting elections is largely a local process and resides with about  10,500 local election jurisdictions nationwide.
Since 2001, we have issued a number of reports on various aspects of  the election process, such as voting technology used in federal elections  and state laws addressing voter registration. In our reviews of both the  2004 and 2000 general elections, we noted that long lines were identified  as an Election Day issue by jurisdictions we surveyed. those elections, we noted some of the jurisdictions that reported long  lines were those jurisdictions that, for example, experienced higher than  expected voter turnout or had presidential races that were considered  close.
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), and Elections:  Perspectives on Activities and Challenges Across the Nation, GAO-02-3 (Washington,  D.C.: Oct.15, 2001). For our review of the 2004 general election, we surveyed a nationally  representative random sample of 788 local election jurisdictions nationwide, stratified by  population. For our review of the 2000 general election, we surveyed a random sample— stratified by type of voting method—of (1) all county election jurisdictions, or their  equivalents, in 39 states that delegate election responsibilities primarily to counties; (2) the  largest minor civil divisions, such as towns and townships, in each county in the 9 states  that delegate election responsibilities to these divisions; (3) the District of Columbia; and  (4) Alaska. We excluded the state of Oregon from both surveys because it was a vote-by- mail state for these general elections. The survey for the 2000 general election was  generalizable to this sample frame, which included 90 percent of the U.S. population.
You asked us to review voter wait times during the November 2012  general election and the factors that contributed to wait times, among  other things. This report addresses the following questions:  1.  To what extent did local election jurisdictions collect data to measure  voter wait times and have long voter wait times on Election Day 2012?  2.  What factors affected voter wait times on Election Day 2012, and what  were the impacts of these factors across jurisdictions?
To address these objectives, we conducted a web-based survey of  election officials from a nationally representative stratified random sample  of 423 local election jurisdictions, excluding jurisdictions with populations  of 10,000 or fewer and jurisdictions in Oregon and Washington. Officials  from 80 percent of these jurisdictions responded to our survey. In  stratifying our nationwide sample, we grouped jurisdictions by their 2010  U.S. Census population—small (10,001 to 100,000), medium (100,001 to  500,000), and large (more than 500,000). We surveyed officials about any  data their jurisdictions collected related to wait times on Election Day  2012, voter wait times in their jurisdictions on this day, and their views on  factors that affected long voter wait times. Responses about wait times  may be based on officials’ perspectives, data, or other information on wait  times. We also analyzed responses from the 2012 Cooperative  Congressional Election Study (CCES), a survey of U.S. citizens aged 18  and over, to obtain state-level estimates of wait times reported by voters  for in-person voting on Election Day 2012. To assess the reliability of  these data, we reviewed documentation related to the 2012 CCES and  interviewed researchers knowledgeable about the survey. We determined  that the CCES data used in this report were sufficiently reliable for our  purposes.
We also contacted election officials from the 3 remaining states, but they declined to be  interviewed. varying extents of long wait times and 1 reported not having long wait  times. In each jurisdiction, we interviewed the chief election official; other  officials from the elections office; and, if available, individuals who had  served as poll workers at polling locations in the jurisdiction on Election  Day 2012. While these 5 jurisdictions are not representative of all local  election jurisdictions nationwide, officials in these locations provided a  range of perspectives on voter wait times and information on how factors  affected wait times in practice and allowed us to compare Election Day  2012 experiences across jurisdictions. We corroborated the information  we gathered through these interviews by reviewing postelection reports,  relevant state statutes, and documentation that these jurisdictions  provided to us, such as data relating to voter wait times and poll worker  training materials.
In addition, we interviewed officials from the Election Assistance  Commission (EAC) and 14 researchers and representatives from  research organizations in the field of election administration to discuss  their perspectives on wait time measurement and voter wait times. We  selected these researchers and representatives based on our review of  voter wait time literature and their expertise and work in this area. The  information that we obtained cannot be generalized to other researchers;  however, these interviews provided a range of views on such areas as  practices for measuring wait times, the frequency of long voter wait times,  and factors affecting wait times. We also reviewed relevant literature on  voter wait times, such as studies on wait times by various researchers  and reports completed or sponsored by state or local governments in our  5 selected jurisdictions. A GAO social scientist and a statistician  reviewed the studies whose findings we cite in this report and determined  that the design, implementation, and analyses of the studies were  sufficiently sound to support the studies’ results and conclusions based  on generally accepted social science principles. See appendix I for  additional information on our scope and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2013 to September 2014  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.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Overview of Election Administration
paragraphs: Election authority is shared by federal, state, and local officials in the  United States, but election administration is highly decentralized and  varies among state and local jurisdictions. Federal election laws have  been enacted that include provisions pertaining to voter registration,  protecting the voting rights of certain minority groups, and other areas of  the elections process. States regulate various election activities, including  some requirements related to these laws, but generally delegate election  administration responsibilities to local jurisdictions.
subsections: section_title: Federal Roles and Responsibilities
paragraphs: Congressional authority to regulate elections derives from various  constitutional sources, depending upon the type of election, and  Congress has passed legislation in major functional areas of the voting  process, such as voter registration, as well as prohibitions against  discriminatory voting practices. For example, the Help America Vote Act  (HAVA)—enacted in October 2002—includes a number of provisions  related to voter registration, voting equipment, and other election  administration activities, and authorized the appropriation of funds to be   The act authorized  used toward implementing the law’s requirements. funding for states and jurisdictions to, among other things, meet the act’s  requirements, including replacing punch card and mechanical lever voting  equipment and creating and maintaining a centralized state voter  registration database.
Pub. L. No. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666 (2002) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C.  §§ 15301-545).
HAVA also established the EAC, an independent federal agency, to help  improve state and local administration of federal elections. The EAC is  charged with providing voluntary guidance to states regarding  implementing certain HAVA provisions and serving as a national  clearinghouse and resource for information with respect to the  administration of federal elections, among other things. For example, the  EAC issued guidelines that identified data that would be helpful in  conducting postelection analysis, such as the average wait time for  polling place voters by precinct, and best practices for designing ballots  and voter information materials.
In addition to HAVA, federal laws have been enacted in other areas of the  voting process. For example, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993  expanded the opportunities for eligible citizens to apply to register to vote  in federal elections by requiring states to allow registration by mail using  the federal voter registration form and at state motor vehicle agencies and   Also, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as  other specified public agencies. amended, contained, among other things, provisions designed to protect  the voting rights of U.S. citizens of certain ethnic groups whose command  of the English language may be limited. Language minority provisions in  the act require covered states and covered jurisdictions to provide written  materials—such as sample ballots or registration forms—in the language  of certain “language minority groups” in addition to English, as well as  other assistance, such as bilingual poll workers.
section_title: State and Local Roles and Responsibilities
paragraphs: The responsibility for the administration of elections resides at the state  and local levels. States regulate various aspects of elections including, for  example, registration procedures, absentee and early voting  requirements, and Election Day procedures. Further, states are required  by HAVA to implement a single, uniform, centralized, computerized  statewide voter registration list to serve as the official voter registration list  for conducting all elections for federal office in each such state.
Within each state, responsibility for managing, planning, and conducting  elections is largely a local government process, residing with about  10,500 local election jurisdictions nationwide. mandated statewide election administration guidelines and procedures  that foster uniformity among the ways 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, local  jurisdictions generally pay for elections. Local jurisdictions have discretion  over such activities as training election officials and the purchase of  voting technology (if not mandated by the state). Among other things,  local election officials register eligible voters and maintain voter  registration lists; design ballots; educate voters on how to use voting  technology and provide information on the candidates and ballot  measures; 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.
States 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  District of Columbia is included in this group of states. The second group contains 9 states  that delegate election responsibilities principally to subcounty governmental units. These  local election jurisdictions vary widely in size and complexity, ranging from small New  England townships to Los Angeles County, whose number of registered voters exceeds  that of many states.
section_title: The Voting Process
subsections: section_title: Voting before Election Day
paragraphs: States have established alternatives for voters to cast a ballot other than  at the polls on Election Day, including absentee voting and early voting.  All states and the District of Columbia have provisions allowing voters to  cast their ballots before Election Day by voting absentee, with variations  on who may vote absentee, whether the voter needs to provide an  excuse for requesting an absentee ballot, and the time frames for  applying for and submitting absentee ballots. Some states also permit  registered voters to apply for an absentee ballot on a permanent basis so  that those voters automatically receive an absentee ballot in the mail prior  to every election without providing an excuse or reason for voting  absentee. In addition to absentee voting, some states allow early voting.  In general, early voting allows voters from any precinct in the jurisdiction  to cast their vote in person without providing an excuse before Election  Day either at one specific location or at one of several locations.
section_title: In-person Voting on Election Day
paragraphs: For the purposes of in-person voting on Election Day, election authorities  subdivide local election jurisdictions into precincts. Voters generally cast  their ballots at the polling places for the precincts to which they are  assigned by election authorities. Within the polling place, there are three stages in the voting process—arrival, check-in, and marking and  submitting ballots—and poll workers have roles and responsibilities  associated with each of them.voting process.
section_title: Election Administration Research and Data Sources on Voter Wait Times
paragraphs: Various studies and research have been conducted on voter wait times.  In general, these studies and research have used voter surveys, data on  voter check-in and polling place closing times in individual jurisdictions,  and the experiences of local jurisdictions to examine issues of voter wait  times. For example, the Presidential Commission on Election  Administration (Presidential Commission)—established by executive  order in March 2013—issued a report in January 2014 identifying best  practices in election administration and making recommendations to  improve the voting experience and ensure that all eligible voters have the  opportunity to cast their ballots without undue delay. In conducting its  work, the Presidential Commission held public hearings that included  academic researchers in the field of election administration and state and  local election officials, among others, and surveyed local election officials  nationwide regarding a number of issues, including voter wait times.
Moreover, various researchers have used postelection voter survey data  to examine wait time issues, as there is currently no comprehensive set of  data that tracks Election Day wait times across precincts nationwide. Two  nationwide postelection public opinion surveys in particular have included  questions on wait times experienced by voters. The Survey of the  Performance of American Elections (SPAE), conducted in 2008 and  2012, is an Internet survey of 200 registered voters in each of the 50  states and the District of Columbia. their experiences voting—in person on Election Day, in person prior to  Election Day, and absentee—including, for those who reported voting in  person, the length of time they recalled waiting in line to vote. The CCES,  an Internet survey of U.S. citizens aged 18 and over, has been  administered since 2006.surveys to estimate individual voter wait times by state, the effect of wait  times on the voter experience, and the relationship between demographic  characteristics and wait times, among other things.
Researchers have used data from these  In addition, some researchers have conducted postelection studies of  wait time issues for specific states. For example, researchers have  assessed the extent of long voter wait times in Maryland, Florida, and  other states using data such as voter check-in times, polling place closing  times, and information from voter surveys.
The SPAE is conducted by Charles Stewart III, Professor of Political Science at the  Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The total sample size for the 2012 SPAE survey  was 10,200 people.
section_title: On the Basis of Our Survey, We Estimate That Most Jurisdictions Did Not Collect Data for Calculating Wait Times or Have Long Voter Wait Times on Election Day 2012
paragraphs: Estimates from our nationwide survey of local election jurisdictions  indicate that most jurisdictions did not collect data that would allow them  to calculate voter wait times at individual polling places on the November  2012 General Election Day. Our survey found that jurisdictions did not  collect these data primarily because wait times have not been an issue.  However, some jurisdictions nationwide did collect selected types of wait  time data that election officials and researchers have identified would be  helpful in measuring wait times. Officials in the jurisdictions we selected  for interviews and researchers have measured wait times using various  practices, such as the length of time polling places remained open after  designated closing times. In addition, estimates from our survey indicate  that a small percentage of jurisdictions nationwide had long voter wait  times at more than a few polling places on Election Day 2012.
subsections: section_title: Most Jurisdictions Did Not Collect Data for Calculating Wait Times, Primarily because Wait Times Have Not Been an Issue, but Some Have Made Estimates Using Various Practices
paragraphs: On the basis of our survey, we estimate that 78 percent (from 74 to 83  percent) of local jurisdictions nationwide did not collect, receive, or have  available information that would allow them to calculate voter wait times  that occurred at individual polling places on Election Day 2012. Of these  jurisdictions, we estimate that 79 percent (from 73 to 84 percent) did not  collect this information because, as discussed later in this report, voter  wait times have not been an issue.
Some jurisdictions did collect some types of wait-time-related information  that election administration researchers and state and local officials have  said could be helpful in measuring wait times. On the basis of our survey,  we estimate that officials in jurisdictions nationwide most commonly  collected, received, or had available the types of information for Election  Day 2012 shown in table 1, such as the number of votes cast at a  precinct during a specified time period. These jurisdictions may not have  collected these data across all individual polling places. In addition, most  of these data may need to be used together or with other information to  measure wait times. We estimate that data collection, where it did occur,  varied across jurisdictions, with large jurisdictions more likely than small  jurisdictions to collect these data. For example, 43 percent of large  jurisdictions—those with populations greater than 500,000—collected  data on voter complaints about wait times, while 14 percent (from 9 to 19  percent) of small jurisdictions—those with populations between 10,001  and 100,000—collected the same type of data.
In addition to surveying local election jurisdictions nationwide, we also  discussed data collected and practices used for estimating wait times with  officials from the 5 jurisdictions we selected for interviews. Officials from  these jurisdictions told us that they have estimated wait times at some or  all polling places using the data discussed above and other information.  For example,
Officials we interviewed at 4 selected jurisdictions stated that they  used the time between when the polls closed and when the last voter  cast a ballot to estimate wait times. While this technique does not  provide information on wait times for the entire voting period,  according to researchers we interviewed and studies we reviewed, it  could provide reasonable wait time estimates for a small group of  voters.
Officials from 1 of the jurisdictions said that they also surveyed polling  place supervisors on election night regarding the length of voter wait  times. Officials from another jurisdiction said that they used election  officials traveling across polling locations and precinct poll worker  observations to monitor and estimate wait times. Officials from this  jurisdiction told us that if these officials or poll workers report problems  with voter wait times, actions are taken to address the issue, such as  providing additional poll workers or other resources.
Officials at 2 of the 5 selected jurisdictions said that, since the 2012  general election, they have collected wait time data by distributing  time-stamped cards to voters upon arrival. In at least one election, 1  of these jurisdictions distributed time-stamped cards to every 15th  voter upon arrival. Poll workers then recorded the time on each card  at various stages of the voting process and collected the cards when  voting was complete. In the other jurisdiction, officials stated that they  began measuring wait times from arrival to check-in in the August  2014 election by distributing cards to voters upon arrival and then  collecting those cards at the check-in station, where they recorded the  time of check-in in an electronic poll book.
Some researchers have noted that the study of voter wait times is  relatively new because measures of times spent waiting to vote are still  being developed. These researchers have used a variety of practices to  measure wait times, such as polling place closing times—similar to 4 of  our 5 selected jurisdictions—or surveys of voters, and primarily have  relied on a single type of data.
Other researchers have measured wait times using multiple sources of  data. For example, Maryland’s State Board of Elections commissioned a  study of Election Day 2012 wait times in jurisdictions within the state,  which used available electronic poll book and DRE systems data  combined with historical voter turnout information to estimate voter wait   Specifically, the study used the average time to check in voters  times.(recorded via electronic poll books), the number of votes cast per voting  machine at a polling place over a fixed time period, and other variables  such as expected voter turnout at different times of the day and ballot  length to perform a simulation of wait times at all polling places in the  state. According to the study’s authors, election administrators with  access to these types of data could use the simulation results, which  provided precinct-level information, to see where there are potential  problem areas and move resources accordingly when planning for future  elections. However, on the basis of our survey, we found that the  technologies to generate these types of data are either not available or  not being used in many jurisdictions. For example, from our survey, we  estimate that electronic poll books were used in 29 percent (from 24 to 34  percent) of local jurisdictions nationwide for the 2012 general election and  DRE systems were used in 51 percent (from 45 to 57 percent) of  jurisdictions on Election Day.
section_title: We Estimate That a Small Percentage of Jurisdictions Had Long Voter Wait Times at More than a Few Polling Places on Election Day 2012, and Wait Times Were Believed to Be the Same or Shorter than Those in 2008
subsections: section_title: Analysis of Our Survey of Local Jurisdictions
paragraphs: Estimates from our nationwide survey of local election jurisdictions  indicate that a small percentage of all jurisdictions had long voter wait  times at more than a few polling places or long average wait times across  polling places on Election Day 2012. In our survey, we defined wait time  as the time from when a voter entered the first line to when he or she  began filling out a ballot, and we asked jurisdiction officials to estimate (1)  how many polling places had wait times that officials considered to be too  long, (2) the average voter wait time for all polling places at three times of  day, and (3) how many polling places had wait times of greater than 60  minutes at any time during Election Day. Because there is no  comprehensive set of data on voter wait times across jurisdictions  nationwide and we estimate that most jurisdictions did not collect data on  wait times based on our survey of election jurisdictions, we relied on  election officials in the jurisdictions we surveyed to estimate wait times for  these measures based on their perspectives, data, or other information  on wait times.
Our survey asked jurisdiction officials what amount of time they  considered to be too long for voters to wait to begin filling out a ballot.  On the basis of our survey, we estimate that officials in 24 percent (from  19 to 29 percent) of local jurisdictions nationwide believe that a voter wait  time of more than 10 minutes on Election Day is too long, officials in 30  percent (from 24 to 35 percent) of jurisdictions believe that a wait time of  more than 20 minutes is too long, and officials in 21 percent (from 17 to  26 percent) of jurisdictions believe that a wait time of more than 30  minutes is too long. We then asked jurisdiction officials how many of  their polling places had wait times that they considered too long on  Election Day 2012. The results are shown in figure 3. On the basis of  election officials’ survey responses, we estimate that 78 percent (from 73  to 83 percent) of jurisdictions nationwide had no polling places with wait  times they considered too long on Election Day 2012, 19 percent (from 15  to 23 percent) had a few polling places, and 3 percent (from 1 to 5  percent) had more than a few polling places.
We also asked jurisdiction officials nationwide to estimate the average  voter wait time for all polling places at three times of day on Election Day  2012. The results are shown in figure 4. On the basis of election  officials’ survey responses, we estimate that the percentage of  jurisdictions with wait times of 0 to 10 minutes during the first hour after  the polls opened, around lunchtime, and during the last hour before the  polls closed were 51 percent (from 45 to 56 percent), 49 percent (from 43  to 55 percent), and 45 percent, (from 39 to 51 percent) respectively. In  addition, we estimate that the percentage of jurisdictions nationwide with  wait times of over 20 minutes ranged from 5 percent (from 3 to 8 percent)  around lunchtime to 8 percent (from 5 to 12 percent) during the first hour  after the polls opened and the last hour before the polls closed.  According to our survey, in about a third of jurisdictions, officials did not  know average voter wait times for these times of day.
In addition, we asked jurisdiction officials nationwide to estimate how  many polling places had wait times of greater than 60 minutes at any time  on Election Day 2012. As shown in figure 5, on the basis of officials’  survey responses, we estimate that 79 percent (from 75 to 84 percent) of  local jurisdictions nationwide had no polling places, 9 percent (from 6 to  13 percent) had a few polling places, and 3 percent (from 1 to 5 percent)  had more than a few polling places with wait times of greater than 60  minutes on Election Day 2012.
Among the 338 jurisdictions that responded to our survey, 18 jurisdictions  reported having wait times of greater than 60 minutes at more than a few  polling places on Election Day 2012. We assessed these 18 jurisdictions  to determine the extent to which they shared any common selected  demographic characteristics by analyzing demographic data on these  jurisdictions from the U.S. Census. We selected the demographic  characteristics to include in our analysis based on those identified in our  interviews with researchers and the election administration literature we  reviewed as potentially affecting voter wait times. This analysis does not  indicate that these demographic characteristics caused voter wait times  because there could be other reasons why wait times occurred in these  jurisdictions. In addition, the common characteristics we identified apply  only to the 18 jurisdictions that reported wait times of greater than 60  minutes and cannot be generalized to the broader election jurisdiction  population. On the basis of our analysis, we identified that these 18  jurisdictions tended to have larger populations with lower median ages  than survey respondents overall and to have higher proportions of  residents who are nonwhite and speak English as a second language.  For example,
Twelve of the 18 jurisdictions had large populations (greater than  500,000), 5 had medium-sized populations (100,001 to 500,000), and  1 had a small population (10,001 to 100,000). All but 1 of these 18  jurisdictions had population sizes above the median population size of  all respondent jurisdictions.
The median age of the populations of respondent jurisdictions was  38.4 years. Fifteen of the 18 jurisdictions reporting voter wait times of  greater than 60 minutes at more than a few polling locations had  median ages that were lower than this median.
The median percentage of white residents for the respondent  jurisdictions in our sample was 76.4 percent, and 17 of the 18  jurisdictions reporting wait times of greater than 60 minutes at more  than a few polling places had white populations below that level, with  the lowest being less than 8 percent white. In addition, with regard to  the primary language spoken by residents in the jurisdiction, 11 of the  18 jurisdictions reporting long wait times had populations where  English is a second language for more than 20 percent of the  population, with the highest being 48 percent. The median value for all  respondent jurisdictions was a little over 10 percent of residents who  spoke English as a second language.
Last, we asked jurisdiction officials nationwide to compare typical voter  wait times in 2012 and 2008. Our survey results indicate that, according  to jurisdiction officials, typical voter wait times for the majority of  jurisdictions nationwide on Election Day 2012 were not longer than typical  voter wait times on Election Day 2008. We estimate that officials in 44  percent of jurisdictions (from 38 to 50 percent) believed typical wait times  were the same in 2012 as 2008, 19 percent (from 14 to 24 percent)  believed wait times were shorter in 2012, and 6 percent (from 3 to 9  percent) believed wait times were longer in 2012. In addition, we estimate  that in 31 percent (from 26 to 37 percent) of jurisdictions nationwide,  officials did not know or were unsure about how wait times in 2012  compared with those in 2008.
section_title: Our Analysis of Cooperative Congressional Election Study Data and Review of Other Wait Times Studies
paragraphs: In addition to analyzing the results of our survey of a nationally  representative stratified random sample of local election jurisdictions, we  analyzed voter survey data categorized by state on estimated voter wait  times from the CCES. Data from the CCES are segmented by state to  allow for the comparison of individual voter wait times among states. Our  analysis of CCES data demonstrates that, as with the results from our  survey of local jurisdictions, long voter wait times were limited on Election  Day 2012. Specifically, our analysis of CCES data found that average  voter wait times on Election Day 2012 varied across the nation, but few  states had average voter wait times of more than 20 minutes. On the  basis of this analysis, we estimate that average voter wait times ranged  from 1.4 minutes (from 0.7 to 2.1 minutes) in Alaska to more than 34  minutes (from 25 to 43 minutes) in Florida. Further, we estimate that in  3 states—Florida, Maryland, and Virginia—about 12 percent or more of  voters waited 61 minutes or more to vote. Appendix III provides more  detailed information on the results of our analysis of CCES data on voter  wait times in states.
In addition, some studies we reviewed that measured wait times at  national and state levels reported that national and statewide average  wait times in 2012 generally were not longer than those reported in 2008,  and may have been shorter in many cases. For example, one study that  used data from two nationally representative surveys of voters indicated  that the average wait times for early and Election Day voting combined  were lower in 2012 than in 2008 both nationally and in many states.  Furthermore, this study estimated that the percentage of respondents  reporting wait times of less than 10 minutes increased, while the  percentage of voters reporting wait times of greater than 60 minutes  decreased over the same period. Similarly, in a study conducted for the  Maryland State Board of Elections following the 2012 general election,  the study’s authors found that Maryland residents who reported voting in  previous presidential elections and 2012 in a statewide survey were more likely to say that it took less time to vote in 2012 than in earlier elections.
section_title: A Number of Factors Affected Voter Wait Times on Election Day 2012, and Their Impacts Varied across Jurisdictions
paragraphs: On the basis of our survey of local election jurisdictions, interviews with  election officials and researchers, and review of relevant literature, we  found that various factors, such as voting before Election Day and ballot  characteristics, affected voter wait times at different stages in the voting  process on Election Day 2012. These factors interacted to affect wait  times in the five jurisdictions we selected for interviews, and their impacts  varied depending on the unique circumstances in each of the  jurisdictions. This variation resulted in targeted approaches by these  jurisdictions for reducing wait times where needed and where resources  allowed.
subsections: section_title: Various Factors Affected Voter Wait Times
paragraphs: A combination of factors generally affected wait times on Election Day  2012, and these factors may interact to create unique effects on wait  times within a jurisdiction or polling place. For instance, one jurisdiction or  polling place may be able to manage lines caused by long ballots by  increasing the number of voting stations (booths or machines), whereas  another jurisdiction or polling place may be unable to set up additional  voting stations because it does not have any in reserve, or because there  is not enough room at one or more polling places. As a result, the  presence of a factor that could contribute to wait times does not  necessarily mean wait times will occur. Further, some factors may be  present in one election but not another, such as new types of voting  equipment, and some factors may be outside the control of local  jurisdictions, such as state laws allowing or limiting early in-person voting.  It is useful to consider the causes of and solutions for long wait times  across jurisdictions to identify common factors; however, it is also  important to consider causes and solutions within the unique  circumstances of each jurisdiction. The Presidential Commission reported  that election administration problems overlap and intersect, and literature  we reviewed and researchers we spoke with noted that multiple factors  may contribute to long lines, depending on the circumstances of local  jurisdictions.
As discussed earlier, on the basis of officials’ responses to our survey,  most local jurisdictions nationwide did not experience long voter wait  times on Election Day 2012, and we primarily focused on those that did in  assessing the factors involved. For example, we estimate that 22 percent  (from 17 to 27 percent) of all jurisdictions nationwide had wait times that  officials considered too long at a few or more polling places on Election  Day, and we asked officials in these jurisdictions to select which factors  they believed contributed to long voter wait times at polling places in their  jurisdiction. The studies we reviewed have also focused on the effect of  long wait times on voters in the 2012 and previous elections. For  example, studies found that some individuals were deterred from voting in  2012 and 2008 because of long wait times.
On the basis of our survey, interviews with state and local election  officials and election researchers, and review of literature related to voter  wait times, we identified nine key factors that affected wait times on  Election Day 2012: opportunities for voting before Election Day, type of poll books, determining voter eligibility, ballot characteristics, amount and type of voting equipment, number and layout of polling places, number and training of poll workers, voter education, and  resource availability and allocation.
These factors can affect voter wait times at different stages in the voting  process on Election Day—(1) arrival, (2) check-in, and (3) marking and  submitting the ballot. In addition, some of these factors, such as resource  availability and allocation, can cut across multiple stages in the process.  Figure 6 shows the voting process and factors that we identified.
A key factor that could affect wait times at the arrival stage is
Opportunities for voting before Election Day. The availability of  opportunities to vote before Election Day, such as in-person early  voting and mail-in absentee voting, may have affected voter turnout  on Election Day 2012. Twenty-seven states and the District of  Columbia had laws in effect for the November 2012 election to allow  voters to cast an absentee ballot by mail without an excuse. These  states and the District of Columbia—as well as 6 additional states— also had laws providing for early voting.
Perspectives on Voting before Election Day
On the basis of our survey results, of the jurisdictions nationwide that had wait times  officials considered too long at a few or more polling places on Election Day, we  estimate that in 24 percent (from 15 to 37 percent), officials believe no or limited  opportunities for voting outside of Election Day was a contributing factor.  Election officials in 23 states reported that the availability of alternative voting  options, such as voting by mail or early voting can affect wait times.
Of the jurisdictions nationwide making changes to address the causes of long wait  times, we estimate that 30 percent (from 18 to 45 percent) are revising polices or  procedures related to options for voting outside of Election Day.
Key factors at the check-in stage that could affect wait times include
Type of poll books. A poll book is a list of eligible voters assigned to  a jurisdiction and is commonly organized alphabetically or by the  address of the voters. Poll workers use poll books, whether paper or  electronic, at polling place check-in stations to ensure voters are  registered, eligible to vote, and at the correct voting precinct. The  extent to which a poll book is easily and quickly searched affects the  poll worker’s ability to efficiently check in voters. On the basis of our  national survey of local jurisdictions, we estimate that 29 percent  (from 24 to 34 percent) of jurisdictions used electronic poll books and  77 percent (from 72 to 82 percent) used paper poll books on Election  Day 2012.
Perspectives on Poll Books
On the basis of our survey results, of the jurisdictions nationwide that had wait times  officials considered too long at a few or more polling places on Election Day, we  estimate that in 35 percent (from 26 to 47 percent), officials believe the use of paper  poll books was a contributing factor, and in 15 percent (from 7 to 26 percent),  officials believe the use of electronic poll books was a contributing factor.  Election officials in 10 states reported that either the state or jurisdictions within the  state used or planned to use electronic poll books in an effort to minimize wait times.  The studies we reviewed and researchers we interviewed provided varying  perspectives on electronic poll books. For example,  According to a report by the Presidential Commission, electronic poll books can  provide several benefits, such as the ability to search for voter information using  a variety of fields.  Some researchers noted that electronic poll books may not help with voter wait  times or may contribute to them. In particular, one researcher we spoke with  said that poll books with limited search capabilities may cause delays in finding  voters’ registration information. Another researcher noted that older poll workers  may not be comfortable with or proficient using the technology.
Determining voter eligibility. Poll workers must spend additional  time determining voter eligibility if the information they are provided at  check-in does not match the information in the poll book. This could  be due to first-time voters, voters with inactive registration status,  voters going to the wrong polling place, or inaccurate voter  registration information, among other things. First-time voters may  be more likely to arrive at the wrong polling place or be unfamiliar with  the check-in process. Voters may also arrive at the wrong polling  place because redistricting or precinct consolidations led to changes  to their polling place locations from previous years.determining voter eligibility can lengthen the transaction time at  check-in because poll workers may need to investigate the source of   Issues with  the problem and provide additional assistance, such as administering  a provisional ballot.
Perspectives on Determining Voter Eligibility
On the basis of our survey results, of the jurisdictions nationwide that had wait times  officials considered too long at a few or more polling places on Election Day, we  estimate that in 44 percent (from 32 to 56 percent), officials believe processing  provisional voters was a contributing factor.  Some studies we reviewed noted that the provisional ballot process resulted in  longer wait times on Election Day 2012. For example, one study found that voters  who cast provisional ballots were at the check-in table twice as long as voters using  traditional ballots.
Of the jurisdictions nationwide that had wait times officials considered too long at a  few or more polling places on Election Day, we estimate that  In 49 percent (from 37 to 61 percent), officials believe a large number of first- time voters was a contributing factor.  In 35 percent (from 24 to 48 percent), officials believe that a large number of  inactive voters was a contributing factor.  In 35 percent (from 24 to 46 percent), officials believe redistricting and in 28  percent (from 18 to 40 percent), officials believe that consolidation or changes  to polling places were contributing factors.  In 24 percent (from 14 to 36 percent), officials believe incorrect or inaccurate  voter registration information was a contributing factor.
Researchers and jurisdiction officials we spoke with said that modernizing voter  registration would reduce the potential for delays at the polling place. Suggestions  include using electronic registration and allowing voters to register and change  information online.
Key factors at the mark and submit stage that could affect wait times  include
Ballot characteristics. Ballot characteristics, such as their length and  design, vary across jurisdictions. These characteristics are subject to  state and federal requirements, such as the minority language  provisions of the Voting Rights Act and the type of the voting  equipment used.
Perspectives on Ballot Characteristics
On the basis of our survey results, of the jurisdictions nationwide that had wait times  officials considered too long at a few or more polling places on Election Day, we  estimate that in 71 percent (from 59 to 82 percent), officials believe a long ballot was  a contributing factor.
Officials in 15 of the 18 jurisdictions in our survey that reported wait times of greater  than 60 minutes at more than a few polling places believed a long ballot was a  contributing factor.  Election officials in 16 states and the District of Columbia reported that ballot  characteristics could affect wait times.
Amount and type of voting equipment. The amount of voting  equipment allocated to polling places can depend on the level of  funding available to jurisdictions to purchase equipment or replace or  repair broken equipment and resource planning by jurisdictions.  Further, the type of voting equipment can affect how efficiently voters  mark and submit their ballots, among other things. On the basis of our  survey, we estimate that 73 percent (from 68 to 78 percent) of  jurisdictions used paper ballots with optical/digital scan counting  devices, 51 percent (from 45 to 57 percent) used DRE machines, and  18 percent (from 13 to 24 percent) used paper ballots that were hand- counted on Election Day. Some jurisdictions combined methods.
Twenty-nine percent (from 17 to 44 percent) have revised or are revising polices  or procedures related to the number of voting machines.  Eighteen percent (from 9 to 31 percent) have revised or are revising policies or  procedures related to the type of voting method or machine used.
Officials in 18 states said that they used policies associated with voting equipment on  Election Day 2012 to minimize wait times. In particular, officials in 5 states noted  their decision to use optical scan machines to address wait times. According to  officials in 1 of these states, using such machines gave them additional flexibility in  managing wait times because they could set up additional privacy booths if needed.
A number of factors could affect voter wait times across more than one  stage of the voting process. Such crosscutting factors include
Number and layout of polling places. Polling places need to meet  numerous requirements, including being sizable enough to  accommodate the expected number of voters; having sufficient  parking available; and complying with federal and state accessibility  requirements, including those in the Americans with Disabilities Act.In addition, polling places can have differing layouts for moving the  voter from arrival to ballot submission.
Perspectives on Number and Layout of Polling Places
On the basis of our survey results, of the jurisdictions nationwide that had wait times  officials considered too long at a few or more polling places on Election Day, we  estimate that in 14 percent (from 6 to 24 percent), officials believe not having enough  polling places was a contributing factor, and in 33 percent (from 22 to 45 percent),  officials believe the design or layout of polling places was a contributing factor.
Of the jurisdictions making changes to address the causes of long wait times, we  estimate that 65 percent (from 50 to 78) have revised or are revising policies or  procedures related to the design or layout of polling places.  Election officials in 13 states and the District of Columbia reported that issues  associated with the polling place, such as location, size, and layout, contributed or  could contribute to longer than expected wait times on Election Day.  Some researchers have suggested that schools be used as polling places. For  example, the Presidential Commission recommended that states authorize the use of  schools as polling places because they typically are large, conveniently located, and  comply with federal accessibility requirements. The commission stated that security  concerns could be addressed by making Election Day an in-service day for students  and teachers.
Number and training of poll workers. Effective polling place  management requires having a sufficient number of poll workers to  serve voters and training these workers to efficiently move voters  through the voting process and resolve problems. According to our  survey, almost all jurisdictions provided standardized training for poll  workers. We estimate that the average training jurisdictions provided  for typical first-time poll workers was 2.9 hours (from 2.7 to 3.1 hours),  and the average training they provided for typical returning poll  workers was 2.6 hours (from 2.4 to 2.7 hours) for Election Day 2012.
Perspectives on Number and Training of Poll Workers
On the basis of our survey results, of the jurisdictions nationwide that had wait times  officials considered too long at a few or more polling places on Election Day, we  estimate that in 36 percent (from 25 to 48 percent), officials believe training of poll  workers was a contributing factor, and in 26 percent (from 16 to 38 percent), officials  believe not enough poll workers was a contributing factor.
Of the jurisdictions making changes to address the causes of long wait times, we  Seventy-four percent (from 60 to 86 percent) have revised or are revising  policies or procedures related to training of poll workers.  Sixty-seven percent (from 52 to 80 percent) have revised or are revising polices  or procedures related to the number of poll workers at polling places.
Election officials in 29 states and the District of Columbia said they used or plan to  use policies associated with poll workers to minimize wait times. In particular,  officials in 21 states emphasized poll worker training as something they used to  minimize wait times on Election Day 2012.
Voter education. Voter education encompasses providing voters with  the information they need to efficiently navigate the voting process.  According to our survey, the most common types of information that  jurisdictions provided to educate the public prior to the November  2012 general election were specific polling place location information,  sample ballots, and information about options to vote before Election  Day.
Perspectives on Voter Education
Of the 291 jurisdictions that responded to our open-ended survey question regarding  what policies and procedures were most important to minimizing wait times, 44 cited  practices related to voter education.  Election officials in 15 states and the District of Columbia reported that, in an effort to  minimize wait times, either the state or jurisdictions within the state took steps to  educate voters by, for example, providing sample ballots, polling place information,  or real-time information about wait times on Election Day 2012.
Resource availability and allocation. The amount of resources  available to jurisdictions and how these resources are allocated relate  to the other factors we have identified. For example, resource  availability and allocation influence the number of voting machines  and poll workers in each polling place, as well as jurisdictions’ voter  education efforts. Jurisdictions’ resource planning efforts can  encompass preparing for expected voter turnout and requesting and  distributing resources to help reduce voter wait times. According to  our survey, most jurisdictions had enough resources on Election Day  2012 and resource shortages were rare. We estimate that in 81  percent (from 77 to 85 percent) of jurisdictions, officials believe they  had enough resources to comfortably conduct operations on Election  Day; in 17 percent (from 13 to 22 percent), officials believe that  resources were tight but Election Day operations were conducted as  planned; and in 2 percent (from 1 to 4 percent), officials believe there  were resource shortages and some Election Day operations were  affected by these shortages. Our survey results also show that most  jurisdictions tended to use general types of data, such as the number  of registered voters, to inform their resource allocation among polling  places, and typically did not use more specific measures, such as the  estimated average time needed to check in voters. For example, we  estimate that 89 percent (from 84 to 92 percent) of jurisdictions used  the number of registered voters in each polling place to inform their  resource allocation, and 31 percent (from 25 to 36 percent) used the  estimated average time needed to check in voters.
Perspectives on Resource Availability and Allocation
Of the 291 jurisdictions that responded to our open-ended survey question  regarding what policies and procedures were most important to minimizing wait  times, 168—or over half—indicated areas related to Election Day resources,  such as better allocation or increasing the number of poll workers or voting  machines. In addition, of the 173 jurisdictions that responded to our open-ended  question regarding what the federal government could do to help address long  voter wait times, 100 mentioned providing funding or enacting policies related to  additional election resources, such as voting equipment.  Studies we reviewed and researchers we interviewed noted a relationship  between the allocation of resources and wait times. For example,  The Presidential Commission noted that it is usually the allocation of  resources between polling places, rather than the total resources available,  that causes long lines. The Presidential Commission and researchers with  whom we spoke suggested jurisdictions seeking to reduce voter wait times  use resource allocation methods that incorporate targeted inputs—such as  estimated turnout by hour and estimated average service times for voter  check-in and ballot completion.  The Brennan Center for Justice noted relationships between resource  shortages and voter wait times at the end of the day on Election Day 2012  after analyzing relevant data for studied counties in Florida, Maryland, and  South Carolina. The Brennan Center reported that for the selected counties  in Florida and South Carolina, the 2 states they examined that had data on  how poll workers were allocated, lines were generally longer when poll  workers had to serve more voters. The Brennan Center also reported that, in  general, for studied counties across all 3 states, the more registered voters a  machine had to serve, the longer the delay.
section_title: Impact of Factors Varied across Jurisdictions
paragraphs: Multiple factors affected wait times on Election Day 2012 in the 5 local  jurisdictions we selected for interviews. We selected these jurisdictions  based on wait times, election administration policies, and demographic  characteristics, among other things, to reflect a range of local experiences  and illustrate how factors affected wait times in practice. While the nine  factors we identified apply generally across all jurisdictions, their specific  impact on Election Day 2012 wait times depended on the unique  circumstances in each of our selected jurisdictions, leading to targeted  approaches for reducing wait times where needed and where resources  allowed. Table 2 summarizes reported wait times and election  administration characteristics related to these nine factors across our 5  selected jurisdictions.
Jurisdiction 1 reported in our survey that more than half of all its polling  places had wait times of greater than 60 minutes on Election Day 2012. In  addition, the last voter checked in over 2 hours after the precinct’s  designated closing time at 10 of the jurisdiction’s 77 precincts, according  to data provided by jurisdiction officials. The jurisdiction reported that  Election Day wait times in 2008 were about the same as those in 2012,  but officials said that the lines in 2008 were concentrated in the morning  with few lines at closing. Officials stated that the long lines on Election  Day 2012 were caused by a variety of factors.
According to jurisdiction officials, an insufficient number of voting  machines was a primary cause of long voter wait times. Officials said that  state laws (1) prohibited the jurisdiction from purchasing additional DRE  voting machines and (2) did not allow for the use of on-hand emergency  paper ballots that could be hand-counted in addition to the use of DRE  machines.DRE machines in 2012 as in 2008 despite a 14 percent increase in  Election Day votes cast, and was unable to deploy paper ballots to help  mitigate long lines. Officials stated that they were limited in their ability to  add voting capacity at polling places with the longest lines because all  DRE machines were already deployed and it was not practical to  reprogram the machines for use at precincts that may have had greater  needs.
As a result, the jurisdiction used roughly the same number of  Issues with determining voter eligibility, primarily resulting from the large  number of inactive voters, was another key factor that contributed to long  wait times.  Voters marked as inactive on the jurisdiction’s registration  rolls were required to fill out Affirmation of Eligibility forms to verify their  addresses, and the number of these forms filled out by voters on Election  Day 2012 was more than 12 times higher than in 2008. Further,  according to the jurisdiction’s postelection report, available data indicate  that every voter requiring an address confirmation using this process  resulted in three additional voters checking in after precinct closing time.
Jurisdiction officials explained that their policy was to move all voters with  check-in problems out of the main line and direct them to the precinct  supervisor for resolution. Officials said that this helped to alleviate wait  times at the main check-in line to some extent, but there were still delays  because of the time it took to identify issues and direct voters to the  supervisor, among other things. In addition, officials noted that these  voters diverted resources from voters without difficulties. Officials also  said that according to an analysis performed by the former Acting  Registrar and a postelection task force established by the jurisdiction, the  biggest factor in late precinct closing times was the number of voters with  issues requiring assistance from the precinct supervisor. In addition to  issues with determining voter eligibility, other matters that required  assistance from the supervisor included voters with disabilities or voters  over the age of 65 who chose to vote from their vehicles outside the  polling place (curbside voters), as allowed by state law, and voters who  brought their absentee ballots to precincts on Election Day. Officials  noted that when precinct supervisors called the registrar’s office to  resolve issues that required additional assistance, the office could not  keep up with demand.
The large numbers of voters in each precinct also contributed to long  lines. Specifically, according to the jurisdiction’s postelection report, there  was a high correlation between large precincts and the number of citizens  voting after precinct closing time, and two of the four precincts with over  5,000 registered voters checked in their last voter over 2-1/2 hours after  closing time.
Finally, jurisdiction officials said that recruitment and retention of poll  workers was challenging. According to these officials, poll worker  experience is important for managing polling locations on Election Day,  but there is a roughly 50 percent drop in retention from election to  election, and presidential elections generally require a large number of  poll workers to handle greater levels of voter turnout.
Jurisdiction officials stated that one precinct in particular faced a  confluence of factors that contributed to its remaining open nearly 4 hours  after its official closing time on Election Day 2012.
Example of How Factors Combined to Create Long Wait Times in an Individual  Precinct  Jurisdiction officials and a precinct official cited several factors that combined to create  long wait times:  Total turnout increased by 63 percent—from 2,104 in 2008 to 3,425 in 2012.  Large number of first-time and inactive voters who can take longer to check in and  vote.  Large number of curbside voters, which under state law required the assistance of  two poll workers when a portable electronic voting device was used.  Large number of voters needing language assistance. Such assistance required that  both the voter and the assisting poll worker fill out separate forms before the poll  worker provided translation services.
According to officials, jurisdiction 1 has made or is in the process of  making several changes to address the causes of long voter wait times  on Election Day 2012. The jurisdiction reported that it is replacing its DRE  voting machines with optical scanners (for scanning paper ballots), which  allow for more flexibility in adding voting station capacity. The jurisdiction  also plans on maintaining adequate scanners and personnel in reserve to  handle any equipment failures that might arise, and officials noted that  scanners can be easily transferred among precincts. In addition, the  jurisdiction reported that it is purchasing more electronic poll books to  help check in voters more efficiently and that its Electoral Board has  tested scanners (capable of scanning driver’s licenses and voter cards) to  be used with the electronic poll books for instantaneous and accurate  voter check-in. Additionally, the jurisdiction has added 14 precincts and  reduced the largest precincts to fewer than 4,000 registered voters,  according to jurisdiction officials. The jurisdiction’s Electoral Board  believes that these and other changes will allow it to meet the  jurisdiction’s newly established goal of having no voters expend more  than 30 minutes from the time they arrive at the polling place until they  cast their ballots.
subsections: section_title: Jurisdiction 2
paragraphs: Jurisdiction 2 reported in our survey that more than half of its polling  places had wait times of greater than 60 minutes on Election Day 2012. In  addition, it reported average wait times of more than 120 minutes in the  hour after polls opened and the hour before polls closed. Jurisdiction  officials stated that despite the long voter wait times in 2012, things went  more smoothly than in 2008. This was in part because of measures  implemented to address the issue, such as voter education and  increasing the number of voting stations at polling places, as advised by  state guidance distributed shortly before the 2012 presidential election.
According to jurisdiction officials, the length of the ballot—four 22-inch  pages—was the primary cause of long voter wait times. Officials noted  that ballot length, including the number of elected offices and ballot  questions, is outside of the jurisdiction’s control. Prior to the election, the  jurisdiction tested the time required to complete the ballot on a variety of  constituencies and found that it took voters unfamiliar with the ballot  between 12 and 15 minutes to complete it. implemented measures to try to alleviate the expected congestion at the  voting booths, such as increasing the number of booths at polling  locations, mailing sample ballots to registered voters, and employing line  monitors to help ensure that voters were prepared to vote immediately  after check-in.
According to jurisdiction officials, when they became aware of the length of the ballot for  the 2012 presidential election, testing was conducted on different constituencies, including  the elderly and groups with varying education levels, to determine the length of time it  might take voters in the jurisdiction to mark their ballots. line an average of 16 to 30 minutes to turn in their ballots after completing  them.
According to officials, the jurisdiction does not plan to make any changes  to its policies and procedures to address long wait times. They noted that  the long wait times in the 2012 election were primarily caused by a  lengthy ballot, which is outside of their control.
section_title: Jurisdiction 3
paragraphs: Jurisdiction 3 reported in our survey that about half of its polling places  had wait times of greater than 60 minutes on Election Day 2012, and that  typical wait times in 2012 were less than those in 2008. According to  jurisdiction officials, the additional time spent determining voter eligibility,  and issuing provisional ballots, as necessary, was the primary cause for  long lines in their jurisdiction. Key factors contributing to delays in  determining voter eligibility were
Redistricting. Jurisdiction officials stated that redistricting increased  the number of voters who went to the wrong polling location because  their polling place had changed from the previous election. These  officials explained that redistricting changed the location of all but one  of the voting precincts in their jurisdiction.Inactive voters. According to jurisdiction officials, there was a large  number of inactive voters who had not voted in at least two general  elections. Officials stated that delays were caused by time spent  assisting these voters—by, for example, calling the election office to  request further research—and updating their status on voter  registration lists.  Inaccurate voter registration information. According to jurisdiction  officials, inaccurate voter registration information may have also  caused delays in determining voter eligibility. An official stated that  poll workers directed most voters who said they were registered but  were not included in the state’s list of registered voters to the  jurisdiction’s central office, where Election Day registration was  conducted.found that some voter registration forms had not been forwarded to   An investigation initiated by the state after Election Day  the election office and a number of voter requests for registration  information had not been processed by a third-party state agency.  Jurisdiction officials believe that this contributed to the number of  individuals who thought they had submitted registration materials but  were not registered, leading to delays in checking in voters on  Election Day. In addition, officials noted that many voters were  unaware of the need to update their registration information with each  address change. This led to voters arriving at the wrong polling places  and requiring additional assistance during check-in.
Further, jurisdiction officials stated that redistricting required locating new  polling places to serve the new precincts and noted the challenges they  faced in doing so. Specifically, they said that it was difficult to find polling  places that had the necessary space and parking and were compliant  with federal and state polling place accessibility requirements. They noted  that they primarily try to use churches, community centers, and schools  as polling places. However, they said that while schools tend to have the  necessary space and layout to help process voters efficiently, using  schools has become more challenging in recent years because of  security concerns. In addition, principals are concerned about the  potential disruptions that the polling activities might have on students.  Jurisdiction officials noted that 9 schools were used as polling places in  2012, down from the 14 generally used during previous elections.
Jurisdiction officials said that their elections budget limits the changes  they can implement to address wait times. For example, officials stated  that additional voter education could help address some of the issues with  determining voter eligibility that were experienced on Election Day 2012,  such as voters arriving at the wrong polling place, but their jurisdiction  lacks the resources to provide this education.
section_title: Jurisdiction 4
paragraphs: Jurisdiction 4 reported in our survey that less than half, but more than a  few, of its polling places had wait times of greater than 60 minutes on  Election Day 2012. In addition, 26 percent of its precincts remained open  over 3 hours after the designated closing time, according to data provided  by jurisdiction election officials. These officials stated that the jurisdiction  did not have wait time issues in 2008 of which they were aware and that a  confluence of factors created the long wait times in 2012.
According to jurisdiction officials, lengthy ballots—an average of eight 17- inch pages—were the primary cause of long voter wait times. Factors  contributing to the long ballots included (1) 12 state constitutional  amendments that spanned five pages; (2) state requirements to include  special district races, such as fire control, mosquito control, and  community development districts, on the ballots; and (3) the Voting  Rights Act requirement to include both English and Spanish on the  ballots. Officials said that voters took a significant amount of time to fill  out their ballots, which resulted in congestion at voting booths in some  polling places. In addition, these officials stated that the long ballots led to  paper jams when voters scanned their ballots, contributing to average  wait times of more than 30 minutes to turn in ballots after completing  them. According to jurisdiction officials, the length of the ballot for the  November 2012 election was not determined until mid-June because of  the timing for determining qualifying candidates and state amendments.  Officials said that they sent out sample ballots to help educate voters, but  did not have sufficient time to effectively plan or take additional actions to  help mitigate the effects.
Jurisdiction officials said that the second key cause of long wait times on  Election Day was state-wide reductions in the number of days and limited  locations available for in-person early voting. State legislation changed  the number of allowable early voting days from 14 days in 2008 to 8 days   In addition, officials said that existing state law limited the sites  in 2012.that could be used for early voting to a few types of public buildings,  which created challenges with finding locations that could conveniently  and effectively serve voters. Election officials reported that while there  were about 5,500 fewer total voters in 2012 compared with the 2008  general election (a 2 percent decrease), approximately 14,500 fewer  people voted early (a 22 percent decrease). As a result, more voters than  expected came to the polls on Election Day and the jurisdiction did not  have enough resources to effectively accommodate them, according to  officials. For example, officials stated that there was an insufficient  number of voting booths and scanners in some polling locations because  of both the larger than expected turnout and the time needed to fill out  and scan long ballots.
Jurisdiction officials said that other factors also contributed to wait times.  For example, they stated that redistricting and precinct consolidations  may have increased the number of voters who went to the wrong polling  location because their polling place had changed from the previous  election.number from 171 in 2008 to 125 in 2012—in an effort to lower election  expenditures, but that this may have contributed to long lines by  increasing the number of voters in certain polling locations. Further,  officials said that heavy rain on Election Day led to line management  issues in some locations because poll workers were checking in more  voters than their polling place could accommodate to get voters out of the  rain. This contributed to the congestion at the voting booths and scanning  machines.
Officials stated that they consolidated precincts—reducing the  Jurisdiction officials said that a number of changes have been made since  the 2012 election to address long wait times. For example, state laws  established additional word limits to state constitutional amendments on  the ballot, restored the allowable number of early voting days to 2008  levels, and expanded the types of sites that can be used for early voting  locations. In addition, the jurisdiction has replaced the paper poll books  used in 2012 with electronic poll books, which officials anticipate will help  expedite the check-in process; better estimate voter turnout for resource  allocation; and allow them to post current wait times for each precinct  online, which would help voters identify times to go to the polls if they do  not want to wait. According to officials, the jurisdiction also purchased an  additional 100 optical scanners so that each precinct will have 2  scanners. In addition, officials said that they have launched voter  education efforts, such as public service announcements on radio,  television, and other forms of media, to encourage mail-in voting and  inform voters about how to access voter registration and polling place  information. Further, these officials noted that as of 2014, the jurisdiction  began paying the return postage on mail-in ballots.
section_title: Jurisdiction 5
paragraphs: Jurisdiction 5 reported in our survey that it had no polling places with wait  times of greater than 60 minutes on Election Day 2012 and that typical  wait times in 2012 were less than those in 2008. This jurisdiction had  ballots that were seven pages long on average and a high percentage of  provisional voters but reported that it did not experience long voter wait  times.
Jurisdiction officials said that the county provided sufficient resources for  conducting the 2012 general election, which helped ensure that long wait  times did not occur. According to officials, this allowed election planners  to include a safety margin when allocating resources in case of a larger  than expected turnout and deploy large amounts of additional resources  to polling places that were expected to have higher numbers of voters or  substantial issues with determining voter eligibility on Election Day 2012.
Jurisdiction officials reported that provisional voting accounted for 12  percent of total in-person voting on Election Day 2012. These officials  said that the jurisdiction’s practice of taking individuals whose eligibility to  vote is unclear out of the main check-in line and administering provisional  ballots, if needed, in another area of the polling place was important to  reducing wait times. They also noted that the jurisdiction’s policy of  permitting all voters experiencing eligibility issues to vote provisionally  and not adjudicating these issues at the polling place reduced the time  and resources expended on problems at check-in. In addition, state law  allowed individuals to vote provisionally in precincts other than the one to  which they were assigned and have applicable votes on their ballots   This helped expedite the processing of individuals whose  counted.eligibility to vote was unclear and reduced wait times, according to  jurisdiction officials.
Jurisdiction officials stated that a number of other policies and practices  helped minimize wait times on Election Day 2012. For example,
Officials said that limiting the number of voters in each precinct helped  prevent overcrowding and congestion at polling places. State law  mandates a maximum of 1,000 registered voters per precinct.  Officials noted that they need to ensure the jurisdiction has sufficient  polling places, poll workers, and voting equipment to support the  number of precincts required to meet this requirement.
According to jurisdiction officials, mailing sample ballots to registered  voters helped to shorten the time it took to fill out ballots in the voting  booth. A polling place inspector—who supervises polling place  operations and staff—we interviewed said that the lengthy ballot did  not result in long wait times at her polling place on Election Day 2012  because many voters brought in their sample ballots and knew how  they would vote. She also noted that this helped facilitate check-in  because voters’ names and addresses were on the sample ballot.
Officials said that permanent absentee voting and no-excuse  absentee voting by mail, permitted by state law, reduced the number  of voters on Election Day.
Officials also stated that poll worker training, which includes how to  assist provisional voters and what to do if wait-time-related issues  arise, and having experienced poll workers were important to ensuring  minimal lines at polling places. According to officials, the majority of  poll workers have served in previous elections. In addition, officials  said that having a pool of reserve poll workers who can fill in at  locations that need additional staff was essential to reducing wait  times.
The jurisdiction deployed mobile units that travel to polling places and  distribute additional ballots and other supplies if needed, according to  officials.
section_title: Agency and Third- Party Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the EAC for review and comment.  The EAC had no comments on the draft report, as noted in an e-mail  received on September 17, 2014, from the commission’s Acting Executive  Director. We also provided excerpts of the draft report to the chief election  officials of each of the 5 local election jurisdictions that we selected for  interviews. The excerpts for each of these jurisdictions included findings  that pertained specifically to the individual jurisdiction and a description of  the methodology we employed to select the 5 jurisdictions. One  jurisdiction provided written comments on the excerpts provided for  review, which are reproduced in full in appendix IV. The chief election  official from this jurisdiction stated that our description of the jurisdiction’s  experiences was accurate, noted that a series of issues contributed to the  long wait times in the jurisdiction on Election Day 2012, and noted the  actions the jurisdiction had taken to address them. One jurisdiction  provided technical comments, which we incorporated in the report as  appropriate. Three jurisdictions reviewed the excerpts and indicated that  they had no comments in e-mails received from the jurisdictions’ chief  election officials on September 8, September 17, and September 22,  2014.
We are sending copies of this report to the Election Assistance  Commission, election offices in the 5 selected local jurisdictions that  participated in our research, appropriate congressional committees and  members, and other interested parties. In addition, this report is available  at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions, please contact Rebecca Gambler  at (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made significant contributions to this report  are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This report addresses the following questions:  1.  To what extent did local election jurisdictions collect data to measure  voter wait times and have long voter wait times on Election Day 2012?  2.  What factors affected voter wait times on Election Day 2012, and what  were the impacts of these factors across jurisdictions?
For both objectives, we (1) conducted a web-based survey of election  officials from a nationally representative stratified random sample of 423  local election jurisdictions, excluding jurisdictions with populations of  10,000 or fewer and jurisdictions in Oregon and Washington; (2)  analyzed responses from the 2012 Cooperative Congressional Election  Study (CCES), a survey of U.S. citizens aged 18 and over; (3)  interviewed state election officials from 47 states and the District of  Columbia, as well as local election administration officials, on-site or by  phone, from 5 selected local jurisdictions—Detroit, Michigan; Hartford,  Connecticut; Lee County, Florida; Los Angeles County, California; and  Prince William County, Virginia; and (4) interviewed officials from the  Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and 14 researchers and  representatives from research organizations in the field of election  administration. We also reviewed relevant literature on voter wait times,  such as studies on wait times by various researchers and reports  completed or sponsored by state or local governments in our 5 selected  jurisdictions.studies whose findings we cite in this report and determined that the  design, implementation, and analyses of the studies were sufficiently   A GAO social scientist and a GAO statistician reviewed the  sound to support the studies’ results and conclusions based on generally  accepted social science principles.
subsections: section_title: 2014 Survey of Local Election Jurisdictions
paragraphs: To obtain national information from local election officials on voter wait  times on Election Day 2012, we conducted a web-based survey of  election officials from a stratified random sample of 423 local election  jurisdictions. We surveyed officials about any data their jurisdictions  collected related to wait times on Election Day 2012, voter wait times in  their jurisdictions on this day, and their views on factors that affected long  voter wait times, among other things. We defined wait time as the time  from when a voter entered the first line to when he or she began filling out  a ballot. Reported wait times may be based on officials’ perspectives,  data, or other information on wait times. Our survey period was from  March 20, 2014, through June 6, 2014, and we received 338 completed  surveys for an overall response rate of 80 percent.
Overall, there are about 10,500 local government jurisdictions responsible  for conducting elections nationwide. States can be divided into two  groups according to how they delegate election responsibilities to local  jurisdictions. The first group is composed of 41 states that delegate  election responsibilities primarily to counties, with a few of these states  delegating election responsibilities to some cities, and 1 state that  delegates these responsibilities to election regions. We included the  District of Columbia in this group of states. The first group contains about  one-fourth of the local election jurisdictions nationwide. The second group  is composed of 9 states that delegate election responsibilities to  subcounty governmental units, known by the U.S. Census Bureau as  minor civil divisions (MCD). This group of states contains about three- fourths of the local election jurisdictions nationwide. The categorization of  the 50 states and the District of Columbia by how election responsibilities  are organized is as follows (states in bold delegate election  responsibilities to some cities independently from counties):
County-level states: Alabama, Alaska (four election regions), Arizona,  Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia,  Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,  Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,  Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North  Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,  South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia,  Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming
Minor civil division–level states: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,  Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, and  Wisconsin  While only about one-fourth of election jurisdictions nationwide are in  states that delegate election responsibilities primarily to counties,  according to the 2010 Census, 88 percent of the U.S. population lived in  these states. The U.S. population distribution between the two state  groups is shown in table 3.
Our sampling unit was the geographically distinct local election  jurisdiction at the county, city, or MCD level of local government (or, in  Alaska, the election region). The initial list of jurisdictions for each state  group above was constructed from the 2010 decennial Census data.  Census population data were available for all counties, county  equivalents, and MCDs.
We excluded the states of Oregon and Washington because, as of the  November 2012 general election, they both were vote-by-mail states  where individuals generally do not go to polling places to vote. As a  result, our sample frame included jurisdictions in 48 states and the District  of Columbia. In addition, we excluded about 7,600 jurisdictions with  populations of 10,000 or fewer because, on the basis of our review of wait  time research, jurisdictions of this size were unlikely to have experienced  long voter wait times.
We divided each state group—county-level and MCD-level—into strata  according to jurisdiction population size. We used jurisdiction population  size, rather than the number of eligible or registered voters, to define  sample strata because these Census data were readily available for all  counties and MCDs nationwide. County-level states were divided into six  strata, and MCD-level states were divided into five strata. The allocation  of units, or jurisdictions, to strata is shown in table 4. We included all 108  jurisdictions in strata with populations of greater than 500,000—strata 1,  2, and 7—in our sample because, on the basis of our review of wait time  research, the largest jurisdictions were most likely to have experienced  long voter wait times. We then selected random samples of jurisdictions  in each of the remaining strata, applying a minimum allocation of 20  jurisdictions per stratum. This resulted in a total sample of 423  jurisdictions. Our sample allocation also allowed us to have a random  sample of local jurisdictions nationwide according to population size— large, medium, and small. To group jurisdictions by population size, we  combined jurisdictions in like-sized population strata in county-level and  MCD-level states. We defined large jurisdictions as those with a  population greater than 500,000 (strata 1, 2, and 7), medium jurisdictions  as those with a population of more than 100,000 to 500,000 (strata 3 and  8), and small jurisdictions as those with a population of more than 10,000  to 100,000 (strata 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11). Upon completion of the survey,  we adjusted the sampling weights for nonresponse.
We analyzed survey responses to provide nationwide estimates for  Election Day 2012 of any data collected on wait times, voter wait times,  views on the factors that affected long wait times, policies and practices  used, and any revisions to policies to address the possible causes of long  wait times, among other things.sampling error—that is, the extent to which the survey results differ from  what would have been obtained if the whole population had been  observed. Because we followed a probability procedure based on random  selections, our sample is only one of a large number of samples that we  might have drawn. As each sample could have provided different  estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of our particular  sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence interval (e.g., from x to y  percent). This is the interval that would contain the actual population   All sample surveys are subject to  value for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn. As a result, we  are 95 percent confident that each of the confidence intervals based on  our survey includes the true values in the sample population.
In addition to the reported sampling errors, the practical difficulties of  conducting any survey may introduce other types of errors, commonly  referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, differences in how a  particular question is interpreted, the sources of information available to  respondents, or the types of people who do not respond can introduce  unwanted variability into the survey results. We took numerous steps in  questionnaire development, data collection, and the editing and analysis  of the survey data to minimize nonsampling errors. For example, a social  science survey specialist designed the draft questionnaire for local  jurisdictions in close collaboration with GAO subject matter experts. We  also utilized information from prior GAO reports, our review of studies on  wait times, and interviews with election administration researchers,  discussed below, to help inform the development of the questionnaire.  In addition, we pretested the survey in person or by telephone with  officials in 7 election jurisdictions of various sizes in 5 states and made  revisions, as necessary. The survey questionnaire and aggregated  responses for each question are included in appendix II. Further, we  omitted responses on all completed surveys that fell outside of specified  limits, such as when the reported number of ballots cast was greater than  the reported number of registered voters in a jurisdiction, and called  respondents in some cases to obtain information where clarification was  needed.
section_title: Analysis of 2012 Cooperative Congressional Election Study Data
paragraphs: We analyzed responses from the 2012 CCES, a survey of U.S. citizens  aged 18 and over, to obtain state-level estimates of wait times reported  by voters for in-person voting on Election Day 2012. Specifically, CCES  respondents were asked to estimate wait times within specified response  categories for the 2012 general election. To estimate voter wait times on  Election Day 2012, we replicated an approach used by another  researcher and estimated average wait times by first recoding the  response categories to the midpoint of the category—for example, the  “none at all” response was coded as 0 minutes, and the “1-10” response   Respondents who waited more than  category was coded as 5 minutes.an hour were asked to provide wait times in minutes. To assess the  reliability of these data, we reviewed documentation related to the 2012  CCES and interviewed researchers knowledgeable about the survey. We  determined that the CCES data used in this report were sufficiently  reliable for our purposes.
section_title: Interviews with State and Local Jurisdiction Election Officials
paragraphs: We interviewed state election officials from 47 states and the District of  Columbia to obtain such information as the availability of data on voter  wait times in their states for Election Day 2012 and their views on policies  and procedures that may have affected voter wait times. Because of  differences in election administration across states, these officials were  located in various state offices, including state secretary of state or  commonwealth offices, boards of elections, and lieutenant governors’  offices. We corroborated the information we gathered through these  interviews by reviewing any documentation that these states provided,  such as guidance on planning elections and voter wait time reports.
We also interviewed local election officials, on-site or by phone, from 5  local jurisdictions—Detroit, Michigan; Hartford, Connecticut; Lee County,  Florida; Los Angeles County, California; and Prince William County,  Virginia—to perform a more detailed examination of their experiences on  Election Day 2012, including how, if at all, they measured wait times, their  views on the factors that affected wait times in their respective  jurisdictions on Election Day 2012, and their perspectives on the specific  impacts of these factors, among other things. We selected these  jurisdictions (1) to reflect variation in geographic location and  demographic characteristics, and (2) based on our survey results, CCES  results, and our review of the wait time literature, to include a range of  voter wait times and election administration policies and practices. For  example, in our survey, 4 of the 5 selected jurisdictions reported having  varying extents of long wait times and 1 reported not having long wait  times. In each jurisdiction, we interviewed the chief election official; other  officials from the elections office; and, if available, individuals who had  served as poll workers at polling locations in the jurisdiction on Election  Day 2012. While these 5 jurisdictions are not representative of all election  jurisdictions nationwide and their responses cannot be generalized to  other local election jurisdictions, officials in these locations provided a  range of perspectives on voter wait times and information on how factors  affected wait times in practice and allowed us to compare Election Day  2012 experiences across jurisdictions. We corroborated the information  we gathered through these interviews by reviewing postelection reports,  relevant state statutes, and documentation that these jurisdictions  provided to us, such as data relating to voter wait times and poll worker  training materials. We interviewed officials from these jurisdictions  between May and July 2014.
section_title: Interviews with Election Administration Researchers
paragraphs: We also interviewed officials from the Election Assistance Commission  and 14 researchers and representatives from research organizations in  the field of election administration to discuss their research and  perspectives on wait time measurement and voter wait times. We  selected these researchers and representatives based on our review of  voter wait time literature, their expertise and work in this area, and  recommendations from these and other researchers. The information that  we obtained cannot be generalized to other researchers; however, these  interviews provided a range of views on such areas as practices for  measuring wait times, the frequency of long voter wait times, and factors  affecting wait times.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2013 to September 2014  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.
section_title: Appendix II: Aggregated Results from Nationwide Survey of Local Election Jurisdictions
paragraphs: The questions we asked in our survey of local election jurisdictions are  shown below. Our survey was composed of closed- and open-ended  questions. In this appendix, we include all survey questions and  aggregate results of responses to the closed-ended questions; we do not  provide information on responses provided to the open-ended questions.  For a more detailed discussion of our survey methodology, see appendix  I.
Throughout this questionnaire, we use certain terms. For example:  The term "your jurisdiction" means your local election jurisdiction.
Also, when we refer to "voter wait time", we mean the time from when a  voter entered the first line to when they began filling out a ballot. We  recognize that the time spent filling out or submitting a ballot may affect  the wait time of later voters in line, but we would like you to consider the  voter wait time to be only the time a voter waits prior to filling out a ballot.  We have also included additional questions in this questionnaire about  the time it took to turn in a ballot.  1.  What is the name, title, and telephone number of the primary person  completing this questionnaire so that we may contact someone if we  need to clarify any responses?
Telephone number: (      )
Part I: Local Jurisdiction Characteristics  2.  Approximately how many polling places and precincts were there in  your jurisdiction on the November 2012 General Election Day? [open  ended]  ____Number of precincts  3.  On the November 2012 General Election Day, what was the total  number of all registered voters in your jurisdiction?     ____Number of all registered voters  4.  Did your jurisdiction collect, receive, or have available information that  would allow you to calculate or estimate voter wait times that occurred  at individual polling places on the November 2012 General Election  Day? (Please check one response.)
5.  IF NO: Which of the following, if any, were reasons your jurisdiction  did NOT collect, receive, or have available information on voter wait  time? (Check all that apply.)
For what other reason(s) did your jurisdiction not collect, receive, or have  available information on voter wait times?   6.  Did your jurisdiction collect, receive, or have available any of the  following information for the November 2012 General Election Day?  (Check one response on each row.)
95 percent confidence  interval–lower bound  (percentage)
95 percent confidence  interval–upper bound  (percentage)  7.1  95 percent confidence  interval–lower bound  (percentage)
95 percent confidence  interval–upper bound  (percentage)
What other information did your jurisdiction collect, receive, or have  available on voter wait time?   7.  Did your jurisdiction make a formal calculation of voter wait times that  occurred on the November 2012 General Election Day?  (Please  check one response.)
8.  How did you calculate voter wait times? Please include the types of  data you collected that you used to calculate voter wait times as well  as the method you used to analyze the data.   9.  What type of polling place level data, if any, did your jurisdiction use  when allocating resources for the November 2012 General Election  Day? (Check one response on each row.)
95 percent confidence  interval–lower bound  (percentage)
95 percent confidence  interval–upper bound  (percentage)
Specific data for each  polling place  Estimate for each polling  place  Specific data for each  polling place  Estimate for each polling  place  Specific data for each  polling place  Estimate for each polling  place  Specific data for each  polling place  Estimate for each polling  place  Specific data for each  polling place  Estimate for each polling  place  10.0  95 percent confidence  interval–lower bound  (percentage)
95 percent confidence  interval–upper bound  (percentage)
What other polling place level data did your jurisdiction use?
Part II: Voter Wait Time on General Election Day November 2012   10. On average for all of the polling places in your jurisdiction for the  November 2012 General Election Day, how long did it typically take  for a voter to wait to begin filling out a ballot during the following times  of day? Please consider the time from when a voter entered the first  line to when they began filling out a ballot. (Please check one  response on each column.)
95 percent confidence  interval–lower bound  (percentage)
95 percent confidence  interval–upper bound  (percentage)
subsections: section_title: Response
paragraphs: 95 percent confidence  interval–lower bound  (percentage)
95 percent confidence  interval–upper bound  (percentage)
11. Would you say that the voter wait times you described in the previous  question were greater than, about the same as, or less than the  typical voter wait times for the November 2008 General Election Day?  (Please check one response.)
12. In your opinion, what would you consider to be a voter wait time on  Election Day that is too long? (Please check one response.)
13. How many polling places in your jurisdiction had voter wait times that  were too long on the November 2012 General Election Day? (Please  check one response.)
95 percent confidence  interval–lower bound  (percentage)
95 percent confidence  interval–upper bound  (percentage)
14. In thinking about the November 2012 General Election Day, how  much of a factor, if any, do you believe each of the following was to  long voter wait times at polling places in your jurisdiction?
95 percent confidence  interval–lower bound  (percentage)
section_title: Response
section_title: Response
paragraphs: 95 percent confidence  interval–lower bound  (percentage)  0  95 percent confidence  interval–upper bound  (percentage)  2.8  2.8  95 percent confidence  interval–lower bound  (percentage)
section_title: Response
paragraphs: What other aspect was a factor?   15. Does your jurisdiction have a formal goal for the maximum time that a  voter should wait to begin to fill out a ballot? (Please check one  response.)
16. IF YES: What is the maximum wait time goal? (Please check one  response.)
17. At about how many polling places did wait times of greater than 60  minutes occur at any time on either the November 2012 or November  2008 General Election Day?   (Please check one response.)
18. On the November 2012 General Election Day, did any voters have to  wait in line to turn in their ballot to a machine, poll worker, or ballot  box after completing their ballot? We understand that for DRE  machines, voters submit their ballots immediately after completing  them, but for other methods, such as optical/digital scan or paper  ballots, voters may have to wait in line to turn in their ballot to feed  through a machine or submit their ballot to a poll worker or ballot box.  (Please check one response.)
19. IF YES: On average, for all of the polling places in your jurisdiction for  the November 2012 General Election Day, how long did voters  typically have to wait in line to turn in their ballots for counting after  completing them? (Please check one response.)
20. Which of the following, if any, were reasons voters had to wait to turn  in ballots for counting after voters completed their ballots? (Please  check one response for each row.)
95 percent confidence  interval–lower bound  (percentage)
95 percent confidence  interval–upper bound  (percentage)
section_title: Response
paragraphs: What was the other reason that voters had to wait to turn in ballots for  counting?
Part III: Policies and Practices in Your Jurisdiction 21. Did your jurisdiction use any of the following policies or practices for  the November 2012 general election? (Please check one response for  each row.)
95 percent confidence  interval–lower bound  (percentage)
95 percent confidence  interval–upper bound  (percentage)  0.9  95 percent confidence  interval–lower bound  (percentage)
section_title: Response
paragraphs: What other policies or practices did your jurisdiction use?   22. Did your jurisdiction conduct a formal audit or investigation of the  possible causes of long voter wait times on the November 2012  General Election Day? (Please check one response.)
23. Has your jurisdiction revised or is it in the process of revising any of its  Election Day policies or procedures since the November 2012 general  election specifically to address any of the possible causes of long  voter wait times? (Please check one response.)
24. IF YES: which policies or procedures were revised or are in the  process of being revised specifically to address any of the possible  causes of long voter wait times on the November 2012 General  Election Day? (Please check one response on each row.)
95 percent confidence  interval–lower bound  (percentage)
95 percent confidence  interval–upper bound  (percentage)  17.9  95 percent confidence  interval–lower bound  (percentage)
95 percent confidence  interval–upper bound  (percentage)  18.7  95 percent confidence  interval–lower bound  (percentage)
95 percent confidence  interval–upper bound  (percentage)
What other policies or procedures were revised or are in the process of  being revised?   25. What policies and procedures are most important to minimize or  reduce voter wait time in your jurisdiction? Please answer this  question whether or not your jurisdiction has experienced long voter  wait times.   26. Which of the following best describes the resources that were  available to your jurisdiction for the November 2012 General Election  Day? (Please check one response.)
95 percent confidence  interval–lower bound  (percentage)
95 percent confidence  interval–upper bound  (percentage)
27. Which of the following activities, if any, were impacted by the  availability of resources? (Check all that apply.)
95 percent confidence  Interval–lower bound  (percentage)
95 percent confidence  Interval–upper bound  (percentage)
N/R  95 percent confidence  Interval–lower bound  (percentage)
95 percent confidence  Interval–upper bound  (percentage)
What other activities were impacted?
Part IV: 2012 General Election Characteristics  28. For the November 2012 General Election Day, which types of voting  methods were used? For those that were used, please provide the  numbers of machines and/or ballots cast. (Please check at least one  response on each row.)
95 percent confidence  interval–lower bound  (percentage)
95 percent confidence  interval–upper bound  (percentage)
What other type of voting method was used?   ____Number of ballots cast  29. For the November 2012 general election, how many votes were cast  through the following methods?   ____In-person voting on Election Day at a polling place (excluding          provisional voting)   ____Provisional voting on Election Day at a polling place (both          accepted and rejected ballots)   ____All voting that occurred outside of Election Day (e.g., any          type of early, absentee, and mail-in ballots, including mail-in          ballots that were submitted in person on Election Day)   30. On the November 2012 General Election Day, how many poll workers  were used in your jurisdiction? By poll workers, we mean those  individuals recruited specifically for the purpose of working at polling  places on Election Day.   ____ Number of poll workers   31. How many hours of election administration training did poll workers in  your jurisdiction receive in preparation for the November 2012 general  election? Providing an estimate is fine.   ____Hours of election administration training for typical first-time          poll worker  ____Hours of election administration training for typical returning          poll worker   ____Hours of election administration training for typical polling          place supervisor or presiding judge   32. What was the total number of ballot questions (propositions) and  elected offices (races) that your jurisdiction was asked to put on  applicable ballots in the November 2012 general election? [open  ended]  ____Ballot questions (propositions)  ____Elected offices (races)  33. How many pages or screens was an average ballot in your  jurisdiction?   34. Which of the following information, if any, did your jurisdiction provide  to educate the public prior to the November 2012 general election?  (Please check at least one response in each row.)
95 percent confidence  interval–lower bound  (percentage)
95 percent confidence  interval–upper bound  (percentage)
Other method(s)
Other method(s)
Other method(s)
Other method(s)
Other method(s)
11.6  95 percent confidence  interval–lower bound  (percentage)
95 percent confidence  interval–upper bound  (percentage)
Other method(s)
Other method(s)
Other method(s)
35. What, if anything, could the federal government do to help address  long voter wait times?
Part V: Other Comments  36. Do you have any other comments you feel are important about  Election Day 2012 processes that were not included above that may  be related to voter wait times?
section_title: Appendix III: Estimates of Average Wait Times by State on Election Day 2012 Based on Nationwide Public Opinion Survey
paragraphs: The Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) has been  conducted since 2006 to study congressional elections and  representation using large-scale national surveys. The 2012 CCES  surveyed 54,535 U.S. citizens aged 18 and over by Internet about their  views and experiences before and after Election Day 2012. Respondents  who reported voting in person (either prior to Election Day or on Election  Day) were asked about the length of time they recalled waiting in line to  vote. Figure 7 shows estimated average wait times by state on Election Day 2012 based on the data collected through the 2012 CCES survey.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Supervisor of Elections for Lee County, Florida
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Tom Jessor (Assistant Director),  David Alexander (Assistant Director), Carl Barden (Assistant Director),  Susan Czachor, Tony DeFrank, William Egar, Eric Hauswirth, Susan Hsu,  Jeff Jensen, Elizabeth Kowalewski, Amanda Miller, Jan Montgomery,  Rebecca Kuhlmann Taylor, Janet Temko-Blinder, Jeff Tessin, and  Johanna Wong made significant contributions to this report.
We gratefully acknowledge the substantial time and cooperation of the  state and local election officials and researchers whom we interviewed.