Elections: Issues Related to Registering Voters and Administering Elections
Published: 2016-06-30T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Since the enactment of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, there have been notable changes in how states and local election jurisdictions conduct key election activities, such as registration and voting. States regulate some aspects of elections, but the combinations of election administration policies can vary widely across the country's approximately 10,500 local election jurisdictions.
GAO was asked to examine the benefits, challenges, and other considerations of various election administration policies. This report addresses the following questions: (1) What are the reported benefits and challenges of efforts to collect and share voter registration information electronically? (2) What is known about the effect of selected policies on voter turnout? (3) What is known about the costs of elections?
To address these three questions, GAO reviewed and analyzed relevant literature from 2002 through 2015. GAO identified 118 studies that examined the effect of selected policies that have been or could be implemented by state or local governments on voter turnout. GAO reviewed the studies' analyses, and determined that the studies were sufficiently sound to support their results and conclusions. In addition, GAO conducted visits and interviewed state and local election officials from five states that had implemented efforts and policies relevant to GAO's research questions to varying degrees, and provided geographic diversity. The results from these five states are not generalizable, but provide insight into state and local perspectives.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: According to GAO's literature review and election officials interviewed, the benefits of collecting and sharing voter registration information electronically include improved accuracy and cost savings; while challenges include upfront investments and ongoing maintenance, among other things. For example, establishing infrastructure for online registration requires time and money, but can generate savings and enhance accuracy by, for instance, reducing the need for local election officials to manually process paper registration forms. The upfront costs of online registration are generally modest and quickly surpassed by savings generated after implementation.
GAO reviewed research to identify 11 election administration policies that had each been studied multiple times in connection with voter turnout and found varying effects. For example:
The majority of studies on same day registration and all vote-by-mail found that these policies increased turnout.
Vote centers (polling places where registrants can vote regardless of assigned precinct) and the sending of text messages to provide information about registration and elections have not been studied as much as some of the other policies, but almost all of the studies reviewed on these policies reported increases in turnout.
Some studies of mailings to provide information and no-excuse absentee voting also found that these policies increased turnout, while other studies reported mixed evidence or no evidence of an effect.
Most studies of e-mail and robocalls to provide information reported no evidence of an effect on turnout.
Most studies of early in-person voting reported no evidence of an effect on turnout or found decreases in turnout, while the remaining studies reported mixed evidence.
Distinguishing the unique effects of a policy from the effects of other factors that affect turnout can be challenging, and even sufficiently sound studies cannot account for all unobserved factors that potentially impact the results. Additionally, research findings on turnout are only one of many considerations for election officials as they decide whether or not to implement selected policies.
States and local election jurisdictions incur a variety of costs associated with administering elections, and the types and magnitude of costs can vary by state and jurisdiction. Further, quantifying the total costs for all election activities is difficult for several reasons, including that multiple parties incur costs associated with elections and may track costs differently. Although some parties' costs can be easily identified in cost-tracking documents, other costs may be difficult to attribute to election activities. Additionally, voters' costs can also be difficult to quantify because each voter's costs vary based on factors such as method of voting, or time required to travel to polling places, among other things.
The Election Assistance Commission did not have any comments on this report, and GAO incorporated technical comments provided by state and local election officials and DMV officials as appropriate.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 includes a number of  provisions related to voter registration, voting equipment, and other  election administration activities. The act authorized the appropriation of  funds to be used toward implementing the law’s requirements. Among  other things, HAVA required states to create statewide computerized  voter registration lists to serve as official rosters of legally registered  voters for elections for federal office. It also provided funding to improve  election administration, including funding to replace punch card and lever  voting equipment. Since the enactment of HAVA, states and local  elections jurisdictions have made other changes to registration and  voting. For example, by 2008, Arizona and Washington had begun  offering voters the option to complete an online application to register to  vote, and since that time 29 additional states and Washington, D.C., have  implemented similar online registration options. Additionally, since  HAVA’s enactment, Washington and Colorado have joined Oregon in  implementing statewide vote-by-mail systems. Decisions regarding these  and other election administration policies—including policies for providing  information to voters, registering voters, and providing voting  opportunities—involve consideration of various benefits and challenges,  including costs to states and local jurisdictions, as well as costs to voters.
States regulate various aspects of elections, including, for example,  registration procedures, absentee voting requirements, and establishment  of polling places. States are required under the National Voter  Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993 to provide certain registration  opportunities, such as when individuals obtain a driver’s license.  However, states can determine whether to provide additional  opportunities, such as registering online. States also establish policies for  how voters can cast their ballots—including opportunities to vote in  person on Election Day, in person in advance of Election Day (early  voting), by mail under certain circumstances (absentee voting), by mail  under any circumstances (no-excuse absentee or all vote-by-mail)—and  states can choose to implement a combination of such policies. Although  some election policy decisions are made at the state level, election  administration within each state is largely a local responsibility. Thus local  factors can also affect election administration—such as the designation of  specific polling places. The combinations of election administration  policies can vary widely across the country’s approximately 10,500 local  election jurisdictions. When considering whether to implement changes to  election policies, state and local election officials may consider  implementation costs, the availability of funds or other resources at the  state or local level, administrative efficiencies, additional voter  convenience, and anticipated effects on voter turnout, among other  factors.
You asked us to examine the benefits, challenges, and other  considerations of various election administration policies. This report  addresses the following questions:  1.  What are the reported benefits and challenges of efforts to collect and  share voter registration information electronically?  2.  What is known about the effect of selected policies and practices on  voter turnout?  3.  What is known about the costs of elections?
In addition, we reviewed information related to the use of provisional  ballots. This information can be found in appendix I.
To address these questions, we reviewed and analyzed relevant literature  from scholarly and peer reviewed publications; government reports;  dissertations; conference papers; books; association, think tank, and  other nonprofit organizations’ publications; working papers; and general  news articles published from 2002 through 2015 to identify publications  that were potentially relevant to the topics in question. The literature  search produced over 1,000 publications related to the topics in our three  questions. For publications relevant to efforts to collect and share voter  registration information electronically, we cataloged information regarding  benefits or challenges associated with these efforts. Among the over 400  publications from our search related to voter turnout, we limited our scope  to those publications that examined policies or practices that have been  or could be implemented by a state or local government. Within this  framework, we further limited the scope to publications that (1) contained  quantitative analysis of the effect of a given policy or practice on turnout  and (2) used sufficiently sound methodologies for conducting such  analyses. Specifically, two GAO social scientists, and a GAO statistician  when necessary, reviewed the studies within the publications produced  from our searches to determine those for which the design,  implementation, and analyses of the studies were sufficiently sound to  support their results and conclusions and were based on generally  accepted social science principles. Our report presents the findings for  any policy we found to have been studied at least twice within this  resulting set of publications. As a result of this process, we included in our  review the results of 118 studies found within 53 publications. For  publications relevant to election-related costs, we identified examples of  the types of costs and corresponding amounts, where available.
Additionally, to address all three questions, we visited and conducted  interviews with state and local jurisdiction election officials from five  selected states (Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Oregon, and Rhode Island)  to obtain the perspectives of state and local election administrators  regarding the policies, practices, and efforts in use in their respective  states and jurisdictions that corresponded with the scope of our review.  We selected these states primarily based on the statewide  implementation of the registration and turnout policies in the scope of our  review, prioritizing states that had more policies in place than others.  Specifically, we considered states that had implemented online voter  registration, data-sharing efforts between the state election office and the  state motor vehicle agency or through interstate data-sharing efforts,  Election Day or same day registration, vote-by-mail as their selected  voting method, and requirements for informational mailings to voters.  Finally, we considered geographic diversity, when possible, in making  state selection decisions in order to capture possible regional differences  in election administration practices.
Within each of the five states identified above, we selected two local  election jurisdictions to visit in order to obtain different perspectives at the  local level within a state. We selected jurisdictions based on  recommendations from state election officials and varying degrees of  population size and density. While the perspectives of officials from our  selected states and local jurisdictions cannot be generalized to other  states and local election jurisdictions, officials in these locations provided  a range of perspectives on the topics within the scope of our review.  During each visit we met with the state election director (or equivalent)  and election officials from two local jurisdictions. We also met with  officials from state motor vehicle agencies to get their perspectives on  voter registration data-sharing programs with the state election office. We  corroborated the information we gathered through these interviews by  reviewing relevant state statutes and documentation that these  jurisdictions provided to us, such as cost data. For examples of election  costs provided in this report based on literature we reviewed or  documents provided to us by state and local election officials, a GAO  economist reviewed the source material to assess data reliability. To the  extent that the source documentation included information about how cost  estimates were derived, the economist reviewed the methodology to  ensure reliability, but we did not independently assess the internal  controls associated with state or local financial systems or other means  for calculating such costs. We determined that these data were  sufficiently reliable for providing illustrative examples of the costs for  election activities.
For the question regarding voter registration efforts, we also analyzed  data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS)  Voting and Registration Supplement for general elections occurring from  2008 through 2014 to determine the extent to which policies to collect and  share voter information electronically may improve the quality of voter  registration lists. We reviewed documentation describing steps taken by  the CPS data managers to ensure data reliability and tested the data for  anomalies that could indicate reliability concerns. We determined that the  CPS data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this analysis. More  information on our objectives, scope, and methodology can be found in  appendix II.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2015 to June 2016 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: Election Administration Roles and Responsibilities
paragraphs: In the United States, authority to regulate elections is shared by federal,  state, and local officials. 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. However, the responsibility for the  administration of state and federal elections resides at the state level, and  states regulate various aspects of elections including, for example,  registration procedures, absentee and early voting requirements, and  Election Day procedures. Within each state, responsibility for managing,  planning, and conducting elections is largely a local process, residing with  about 10,500 local election jurisdictions nationwide. Some states have  mandated statewide election administration guidelines and procedures  that foster uniformity in the way their local jurisdictions conduct elections,  whereas other states have guidelines that generally permit local election  jurisdictions considerable autonomy and discretion in the way they run  elections. Along with the various ways that states and local election  jurisdictions may share election policy responsibilities, there are a variety  of cost-sharing arrangements between state and local election offices.  The result is that elections can be administered differently across states  and local jurisdictions.
The offices that administer elections in states and local jurisdictions can  be organized in different ways, and in some cases offices with primary  responsibility for elections (referred throughout this report as election  offices) may have responsibility for other areas of government as well.  For example, in Rhode Island, the Secretary of State’s office oversees the  Elections Division as well as other divisions and offices responsible for  public records, business services, the state library, and the state archives.  In contrast, in Delaware, the State Election Commissioner has a more  singular focus of overseeing the Department of Elections. Similarly, local  election offices may include a Board of Elections or Board of Canvassers  that are specifically responsible for elections, or a county clerk’s office  that may also have responsibility for public records, licenses, or other  activities.
section_title: Voter Registration
paragraphs: As election officials manage voter registration processes and voter lists,  they must balance two important goals. First, officials seek to minimize  the burden on eligible people registering to vote. Additionally, they seek to  ensure that the voter lists are accurate, a task that involves including the  name of each eligible voter on the voter list, removing names of ineligible  voters, and having safeguards in place so that names of voters are not  removed in error from the list.
States have established a variety of mechanisms for registering voters  and confirming the identity and registration of those who seek to vote,  whether at the polls on Election Day or by absentee ballot. Two key  pieces of federal legislation require states to take certain measures  addressing voter registration—NVRA and HAVA. In addition to any other  method of voter registration provided for under state law, NVRA  prescribes three methods of registering voters for federal elections: (1)  when they obtain a driver’s license, (2) by mail using the federal voter  registration form prescribed by the Election Assistance Commission  (EAC), or (3) in person at offices that provide public assistance and  services to persons with disabilities and other state agencies and  offices.
Certain states are exempt from NVRA—specifically those states that  allowed Election Day registration at polling places at the time that NVRA  was enacted and North Dakota, which does not require registration to  vote. This means that in those exempted states voters can register to  vote and vote on Election Day pursuant to state requirements and the  states are not required to provide the NVRA registration methods noted  above. Lastly, NVRA also establishes requirements to ensure that state  programs that identify and remove from voter registration rolls the names  of individuals who are no longer eligible to vote are uniform,  nondiscriminatory, and do not exclude a voter from the rolls solely  because of his or her failure to vote.
HAVA required states to each establish a single, uniform, statewide,  computerized voter registration list for conducting elections for federal  office. To assist with those and other elections efforts addressed in  HAVA, Congress authorized more than $3 billion in funding to be  distributed to the states to fund compliance with HAVA requirements, and  to generally improve the administration of elections for federal office.  According to researchers, HAVA, and the funding Congress provided to  implement HAVA, played a major role in removing barriers associated  with paperless registration.
Increasingly, voters in many states can register or update their  registration information online, in addition to other available registration  options required by NVRA or established by the states. As shown in  figure 1, Arizona was the first state in the nation to implement online voter  registration, in 2002, the same year as the passage of HAVA. As of May  2016, 31 states and Washington, D.C., offer online voter registration. In  some of these states, the online registration option is only available to  citizens who have a driver’s license or state-issued identification (ID)  card. In these states, individuals who do not have either of these forms of  ID may fill out the registration form online, print, sign, and mail it to the  election office.
Furthermore, with increased access to information online, states have  also developed elections websites that provide electronic customer  service for voters. Among other things, voters can view their polling  locations, apply for an absentee ballot, or access other information that  can assist voters in casting their ballots, including registering online.
States have also begun implementing data-sharing efforts within their  states to support the work of maintaining accurate voter registration lists.  For example, election offices in some states are collaborating with their  state’s motor vehicles agencies—such as a Department of Motor Vehicles  (DMV), and hereafter we refer to motor vehicles agencies as DMVs—to  share data, such as addresses and identifying information, electronically  between the agencies. These systems establish a connection between  the DMV and the state’s voter registration database, enabling the  electronic transmission of information to election offices when individuals  register to vote or update their registration when visiting the DMV.  Election officials then process the data received—for example, they may  add a new registration record for an eligible individual who applied while  obtaining a driver’s license or update an existing registrant’s address if  the individual moved to a new residence and provided the DMV with an  updated address.
States also use multiple sources—including collaboration with other  states to share voter registration information across multiple states—to  maintain accurate registration lists given that individuals may move  across state lines without cancelling their registrations at their previous  addresses. For example, the Electronic Registration Information Center  (ERIC), founded in 2012 as a project between the states and The Pew  Charitable Trusts, was organized to address the challenge of incomplete  and inaccurate voter registration lists. Since shortly after ERIC’s founding,  state election officials have overseen and managed the program to  organize the collection, analysis, and distribution of data among member  states. The organization uses automated data-matching software to  produce reports for member states, with the goal of helping state and  local officials maintain accurate registration lists.
section_title: Voter Turnout
paragraphs: Researchers calculate turnout using different methods, based on  available data and the purpose of their research. Specifically, turnout is  expressed as a percentage, but the numerator and denominator used  may differ. For instance, the numerator may represent the number of  votes for the highest office on the ballot or total ballots cast (regardless of  whether or not individuals voted for the highest office). Similarly, the  denominator may represent the voting-age population (everyone 18 years  of age and older), the voting-eligible population (the voting-age population  adjusted for segments of the population that are not eligible to vote, such  as non-citizens), or registered voters. Additionally, data may come from  official voter records or from surveys—which rely on self-reported  information—and political scientists have found that surveys produce  higher estimates of turnout than official records maintained by election  administrators. Possible explanations for this discrepancy between survey  responses and actual records include memory limitations and  respondents indicating they had voted when they had not, because of  positive social attitudes toward voting among some groups of  respondents. However, weaknesses in how voter records are  maintained can also cause error and can lead to an underestimation of  turnout when calculated as a proportion of registered eligible voters.  Measurements of voter turnout can vary based on the calculation and  data used.
According to CPS data for the voting-age population, national turnout  rates in presidential and midterm elections have declined slightly over the  past three-and-a-half decades (see fig. 2). Although states and local  election jurisdictions have implemented policies that seek to make voting  more convenient, and thus less costly to voters, broad academic research  on voter turnout has concluded that individual differences among  citizens—such as age and political interest—and the competitiveness of  elections are more strongly and consistently associated with the decision  to vote than interventions that seek to increase convenience.  Demographic differences may be strongly and consistently associated  with differences in turnout rates, and to illustrate this, we have included  figures in appendix III that show differences in turnout over time related to  age, race and ethnicity, and educational attainment.
section_title: Electronically Collecting and Sharing Voter Registration Information Involves Investments but Can Provide Efficiencies
paragraphs: States have implemented efforts to collect and share voter registration  information electronically—specifically through (1) online registration, (2)  sharing voter registration information between DMVs and election offices,  and (3) sharing registration data among multiple states. According to  literature on these efforts and election officials we spoke with, these  efforts involve initial investments and implementation challenges, but they  can provide efficiencies, such as improved accuracy of voter registration  records, cost savings, and improved voter experience.
subsections: section_title: Online Registration
paragraphs: States that adopt online registration create a web-based system or portal  that takes applicants through the registration process enabling them to  register and make updates to their registration online. For individuals  who are not already registered, the system collects the required  information that individuals would have otherwise provided on a paper  registration form. Those who have already registered in the state may  make changes online to their registration, for example by updating their  address or changing their party affiliation. As of May 2016, 31 states and  Washington, D.C., offer online registration, including four of the five states  we visited—Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, and Oregon. In three of these  four states, online registration is an option for individuals who have a  driver’s license or state-issued ID card. Other registrants in these states  can access a form online to print, sign, and mail to the election office or  register through other methods available in their state.
subsections: section_title: Investments and Challenges
paragraphs: Investments of time and money are involved in implementing online  registration, and the process can include technological challenges,  according to election officials we spoke with and our literature review.  Generally, state election offices are responsible for designing and  implementing online registration systems that voters in any local  jurisdiction within the state can use, and thus state offices incur the costs  of these investments. However, the upfront costs of online registration are  generally modest and quickly surpassed by the savings generated after  implementation. A 2015 review by The Pew Charitable Trusts found that  while the creation of an online registration system involved some initial  expenditure, the reported average cost to design, build, and implement a  system was $249,005, based on survey results from 14 states that  implemented online registration as of November 2014. Additionally,  among the states we visited that have online registration systems— Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, and Oregon—most state officials we spoke  with did not mention costs when asked what, if any, challenges they faced  when implementing online registration. Officials from one state, Illinois,  cited the lack of additional funding for designing their online registration  system as a challenge of implementing the effort. The costs states incur  result from activities such as building the online registration infrastructure  and performing ongoing maintenance. State personnel or outside  specialists under contract from the state may complete these activities.  For example, in Illinois, state officials reported that the State Board of  Elections Information Technology Department designed the online  registration system. The state’s total costs for fiscal years 2013 and 2014,  including the salaries of the individuals who designed the system, were  reported to be approximately $600,000. Similarly, state officials we spoke  with in Oregon noted that the state developed its online registration  system in house, and thus there was no additional expense resulting from  the upfront costs for implementation, beyond staff time for the Information  Services Division of the Office of the Secretary of State and the DMV.  However, Oregon officials reported that there are monthly and annual  costs associated with vendors who provide continual maintenance of the  system.
Election officials from three states we visited also said they needed to  overcome multiple technical challenges when implementing online  registration in their respective states. In particular, developing an online  registration system includes the creation of a secure application for  collecting registration information and transferring the information to local  election offices, and this technical capability can be challenging to design.  Illinois election officials said that in designing their state’s online  registration system, they faced technical challenges because the system  needed to interface with various systems that local jurisdictions use for  processing and maintaining registration records. Thus, state officials  designing the online registration system had to work with multiple vendors  for the local jurisdictions’ systems to ensure the state’s online form could  transmit data to the local jurisdictions.
Election officials in the states we visited also noted that designing the  online registration system to capture a signature from registrants was a  challenge. According to The National Research Council, state DMV  databases generally provide the signature used for online registration.  In Colorado, to verify the identity and obtain a digitized signature for first  time registrants, the online system needs to connect to the DMV  database in real time; the state had to overcome initial technical  challenges with this connection when first implementing the system in  2010. In Delaware, state officials told us that a 2003 change in state law  made online registration possible by permitting the election office to  accept electronic signatures—a registrant can either access the system  on a tablet and provide a signature using a stylus pen or upload a scan of  his or her signature—if the registrant does not already have a signature  on file in the elections or DMV databases.
section_title: Efficiencies and Other Benefits
paragraphs: According to literature we reviewed and state and local election officials  we spoke with, the benefits of implementing an online registration system  include administrative efficiencies that can result in improved registration  accuracy and cost savings, including cost savings to voters in the form of  greater convenience. Online registration results in administrative  efficiencies, in part, by reducing the amount of manual data entry required  to input information from registrants into a computerized voter registration  database. Although state officials are generally responsible for the initial  investments to set up the online registration system, local election officials  may reap more of the benefits of online registration because they are  responsible for processing and certifying individual registration records,  and thus the local election officials benefit from being able to process  registrations more quickly. For example, in Illinois, officials said that  having the information electronically transferred has reduced processing  times to a few minutes, replacing a more time-consuming process that  required staff to open the envelope(s), date stamp each application, and  manually enter the data into their computer systems.
Officials from all four states we visited with online registration noted  improved accuracy of their registration rolls as a benefit of the system,  and local officials in Delaware cited this as the greatest benefit of the new  system. Local election officials in Colorado and Oregon noted that online  registration reduces the need to decipher illegible handwriting, which can  lead to errors when processing handwritten, paper registration forms.  Additionally, in Illinois, election officials said that the registration  information they receive is more complete because the online system  identifies when individuals have left a required field blank and does not  allow them to submit the application without completing all the required  fields. In contrast, if individuals submit paper forms with incomplete or  missing information, local officials processing the registrations would  need to contact the individuals to obtain the information required to  complete the registration process.
After implementing online registration, the administrative efficiencies  associated with processing registration forms can translate into cost  savings for election offices. Twelve out of 13 states with online  registration surveyed by Pew in 2013 reported that cost savings is one of  the key benefits of these systems. Officials in Maricopa County in  Arizona—the first state to have online registration—also reported that the  cost of registration dropped significantly since the implementation of  online registration, from $0.83 for a paper registration to $0.03 for an  online registration—a total savings of approximately $1.4 million between  2008 and 2012.
All local officials we spoke with in states with online registration noted that  the administrative efficiencies from online registration reduced the costs,  as well as time costs, associated with managing their registration lists. In  Delaware, election officials stated that staff now more efficiently process  registration applications, whereas officials previously had to work 10- to  12-hour shifts to process all incoming registration forms by the official  deadline. This has resulted in less use of overtime pay in the weeks  leading up to the state’s registration deadline, according to officials.  Delaware state election officials also noted that their staff spends less  time responding to phone calls from voters with registration questions  since the implementation of the state’s online registration system, which  has allowed election officials more time to do other elections related  tasks. Additionally, officials in one local jurisdiction reported they have  reduced their overall costs because they have fewer requests to mail  registration applications, which saves time, postage, and supplies.
In addition to these benefits for election offices, the election officials we  spoke with and the literature we reviewed noted that voters benefit from  the added convenience online registration provides, and added  convenience can translate to a decrease in the time cost to voters for  participating in the voting process. Specifically, officials from all four  states we visited with online registration noted that the system provides  added convenience to voters, and other benefits, such as the ability to  access other information related to an upcoming election. For example,  officials from one local jurisdiction said that online registration along with  their locally developed mobile application enables individuals to easily  register, change their party affiliation, and access other information to  participate in elections. Additionally, in the first year after implementation,  a study of Washington residents reported that nearly 70 percent of people  who had used the system reported that it was “very easy” to do so and 95  percent of those most informed about online registration agreed with the  statement, “if I had a son or daughter turning 18, I would encourage them  to register to vote online.”
section_title: Data-Sharing Efforts
paragraphs: State and local election officials use a variety of tools to maintain voter  registration lists. We reviewed two methods for sharing voter registration  data electronically: (1) data sharing between state DMVs and election  offices and (2) data sharing among multiple states. Since the passage of  NVRA, DMVs have played a critical role in the voter registration process.  Therefore, they are sometimes able to provide more current and accurate  data about registered or potentially eligible voters. Moreover, in an effort  to improve the quality of voter registration lists, states may take additional  steps to share registration information with other states, thus helping to  identify duplicate and deceased registrants and update each state’s  registration rolls. Officials implementing DMV and interstate data-sharing  efforts, as well as the literature we reviewed, have noted that there are  investments and challenges to implementation, but generally these efforts  result in efficiencies and costs savings for voter registration activities.
subsections: section_title: DMV Data Sharing
paragraphs: NVRA requires that the DMV in every state give individuals applying for a  driver’s license or state ID card the opportunity to register to vote or  update their voter registration information. Some states have developed  systems that electronically collect and share information between the  DMV and election officials. As shown in table 1, all five states we visited  had, or were in the process of implementing, data-sharing efforts between  the DMV and election offices.
According to officials we spoke with, as well as literature we reviewed,  establishing a data-sharing program between the DMV and the election  office involves up-front investment costs associated with technology, as  well as continuous costs associated with staff time. Furthermore, the  implementation process can present technological challenges. The up- front costs for setting up a data-sharing program can include costs for  upgrading technology and for staff time implementing technological and  procedural changes. State election officials and DMV officials may have  to coordinate to upgrade their databases, software, and hardware, to  facilitate data sharing. Software changes may require additional  programming, which involves staff time from information technology staff  or contractors, according to officials. Furthermore, following  implementation of the program, officials who interact with applicants and  process registrations—specifically DMV customer service representatives  and local election officials—may need training on any new or changed  procedures.
According to a fiscal impact statement prepared by the Oregon State  Elections Division, the projected costs for implementing the state’s new  DMV data sharing program will be $796,000 for July 1, 2015 through  June 30, 2019, which includes initial implementation costs for software  and hardware upgrades to Oregon’s voter registration database as well  as hiring a project manager. According to this fiscal impact statement, the  Oregon Secretary of State anticipates using the state’s HAVA funds for  these costs. This statement also notes anticipated costs to the state  Department of Transportation of $33,200 for data system upgrades;  however, it states that savings from the data-sharing process in the 2015- 2017 biennial budget will offset the Department of Transportation’s costs.
Implementation of Delaware’s data-sharing program did not require hiring  additional staff; rather, existing staff from both the state election office and  DMV made the necessary programming and procedural changes.  According to state election officials, Delaware also used federal funds  provided through HAVA for some of the implementation costs, specifically  to make programming adjustments to automated kiosks at the DMV that  customers used prior to data sharing to update information on their  drivers’ licenses or state IDs. The state election office’s costs were  primarily to pay a vendor to make programming adjustments to the  proprietary software for the kiosks, to incorporate the voter registration  features.
In addition to the costs for technology and staff time, setting up  connections to share DMV data can be technologically challenging,  according to the literature and election officials we interviewed. For  example, a Pew Charitable Trusts report noted that compatibility between  data systems at election offices and DMVs is a technological challenge to  implementing data-sharing programs. Similarly, Colorado officials  reported challenges getting DMV and state elections systems to work  together, and officials plan additional changes through 2017 to improve  the compatibility of data shared between the agencies. In Delaware, DMV  officials told us that creating a web server link between the screen and  keypad devices that voters use to input their information and the DMV  computer system was the most difficult technical challenge. Lastly,  Oregon DMV officials reported having to create an entirely new  application in their system to share information with the election office.
Following implementation of a data-sharing process, there may also be  ongoing costs associated with processing an increased volume of  registrations. Officials we spoke with, as well as studies analyzing the  implementation of intrastate data-sharing efforts, note that the volume of  voter registration applications can increase from implementing efforts  such as DMV data sharing. Local election officials can face increased  workload as they maintain responsibility for processing and certifying  these registrations. For example, local officials in one state we visited told  us more individuals were registering after implementation of DMV data  sharing, and state officials in Delaware also reported increased  registration rates, though neither reported that processing increased  registrations presented a challenge. However, Oregon election officials  and DMV officials we spoke with anticipate that the state’s data-sharing  program—that registers DMV customers as of January 1, 2016, unless  they specifically opt out—will increase registration rates and result in  increased costs. Processing registrations includes the production and  mailing of confirmation notices to eligible individuals informing them that  election officials have certified their registration. Because of the  expected workload increase for county officials, Oregon state election  officials said the state plans to reimburse counties $0.15 per registered  voter over a 6- to 8-year phase-in period for the program.
The quality of registrants’ signatures collected at the DMV, and various  constraints on sharing signatures across agencies, can pose a challenge  for election officials when trying to verify a voter’s identity when  comparing a signature captured during the registration process with a  signature when the voter casts a ballot. While some state DMVs continue  to collect a signature on a paper form as part of their registration process,  others have installed new hardware to collect digital signatures, but an  election official in Oregon cited challenges with the quality of these  signatures, which can vary depending on the technology used. In Oregon,  the signature provided to the DMV is crucial because it will become the  official signature on file in the state’s voter registration system. As a vote- by-mail state, Oregon requires that the signature on file match the  signature provided on the voter’s mail ballot. Oregon officials are  considering installing signature pads at the DMV that will produce high  quality signatures, but as of May 2016 the DMV staff are scanning a  paper copy of the customer’s signature and transferring it to the state  elections office. In Delaware, officials implemented the data-sharing  program to collect two signatures, one for DMV transactions and one for  elections office transactions. Delaware officials explained that this was  necessary because, according to state law, DMV customers, in  conducting DMV transactions, did not consent to share their signature  with the Department of Elections.
According to literature we reviewed and DMV officials we spoke with,  DMV data-sharing programs can lead to cost savings and other  efficiencies for officials while also providing added convenience to voters.  Electronic data transmission can result in cost savings to DMV and  election officials because of administrative efficiencies—such as  eliminating physical transport—and improved data quality. For example,  in Delaware, officials reported that prior to implementation of the data- sharing program, election officials drove to their local DMVs every day to  pick up voter registration forms; and electronic transmission eliminated  these daily trips. In other states where the DMV previously mailed  registration forms to election offices, the electronic data transfer saves  mailing costs. According to one report, Washington’s DMV data-sharing  program saved $121,000 in mailing costs from January 2008 to July  2009. Furthermore, because electronic receipt of registration data  replaces manual data entry from paper registration forms, DMV data  sharing can reduce the amount of time elections officials spend  processing registrations. In Delaware, the state election office returned  full-time positions to the state because electronic application transmission  increased efficiency, according to state election officials.
Additionally, officials we spoke with stated that DMV data-sharing  programs likely increase accuracy, as election officials are no longer  deciphering illegible handwriting on paper forms. The literature also cites  accuracy and cost savings as the predominant benefits of DMV data  sharing. Among recommendations to improve states’ electoral systems  and implementation of HAVA, a report by The Century Foundation  Working Group on State Implementation of Election Reform encourages  data sharing from DMV data systems and other state databases. The  report cites examples from Kentucky and Michigan where data-sharing  efforts ensured that states’ voter registration lists automatically reflected  relevant updates, such as a change in address. Additionally, a Brennan  Center report notes that the Washington Secretary of State’s office saved  $126,000 in 2008 due to both online voter registration and DMV data  sharing. In Delaware, officials reported reducing DMV transaction time  by 1 minute per customer after the DMV customer service process  incorporated registration questions, because customers no longer have to  wait for representatives to print forms with their information in triplicate for  customers to sign.
DMV data sharing may also result in a more efficient experience for  voters, because they are not required to update their voter registration  records separately, as the DMV automatically forwards the information to  the election office. The literature also indicates that shifting the burden of  voter registration from the registrant to government agencies such as the  DMV and the election office is especially helpful for mobile, low-income,  and minority populations, who benefit from the added convenience, as  well as young voters, who may be able to preregister when they apply to  obtain a driver’s license. Rhode Island officials we spoke with also noted  cost savings for voters because registration at the DMV eliminates the  need for registrants to pay postage to mail a voter registration form to the  elections office.
section_title: Interstate Data Sharing
paragraphs: Various interstate data-sharing efforts help state and local election offices  maintain accurate voter registration lists, according to election officials  and literature. These efforts include, among others, state participation in  interstate exchanges—such as ERIC and the Interstate Voter Registration  Crosscheck Program—in which states compare information from their  voter registration lists, as well as individual states’ use of national  databases—such as the U.S. Postal Service’s National Change of  Address (NCOA) database or death records from the Social Security  Administration—to identify registrants who have moved to another  jurisdiction or state, or who have died. Researchers found that, in 2008  and 2010, approximately half of the states used checks against one or  more external databases that contained information across multiple states  to maintain the accuracy of their voter registration records. In a 2009  report, the National Research Council Committee on State Voter  Registration Databases made multiple recommendations aimed at  upgrading procedures to conduct data matching to enable election  officials to identify potential duplicate registrations across states’  registration databases. Similarly, the Presidential Commission on  Election Administration recommended that states should participate in  interstate exchanges of voter registration information, such as ERIC and  the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program, adding that such  efforts could result in more accurate registration lists, among other  benefits. Among such interstate data sharing efforts, we reviewed ERIC  in more detail, because it provides an illustrative example of such  interstate data-sharing efforts used by state and local election offices in  maintaining voter registration lists.
ERIC is a multistate partnership that uses data-matching technology to  compare member states’ voter registration lists, DMV records, and  nationally available lists from the U.S. Postal Service and the Social  Security Administration. ERIC administrators stated that the goal of the  partnership is to improve the accuracy and quality of voter registration  rolls, adding that this can increase voter turnout and decrease costs  associated with administering elections by enabling states to have more  up-to-date registration lists. ERIC was organized in 2012 with seven  states as founding members and has grown to include 19 member states  and Washington, D.C., as of June 19, 2016, including all five states we  visited.
Participation in the ERIC partnership places a number of requirements on  states to provide information to ERIC for data-matching purposes, and in  response, ERIC administrators provide regular reports to the states that  election officials may use to update their registration lists.
At least bi-monthly, member states are required to provide ERIC with  data from their voter registration lists and DMV records for individuals  with licenses or state IDs. These data include identifiers/data  elements such as name, address, date of birth, last four digits of a  Social Security Number, driver’s license or state ID number, and  citizenship, among others, when these data elements are available.
At least once per year—or more frequently if the member state  submits a request—ERIC administrators provide member states with  lists of cross state matches, in-state updates (where the DMV may  have a more up-to-date address than the election office), duplicate  registrations, and deceased voters. Within 90 days, states are  required to initiate contact with 95 percent of the voters whose  registration data ERIC’s data-matching process deemed to be  inaccurate or out-of-date, to begin registration list maintenance  activities.
At least every other year—or more frequently if the member state  submits a request—ERIC administrators provide states with a list of  possibly eligible, unregistered individuals—specifically, individuals  who have a driver’s license or state ID but have not registered to vote.  Using this information, states are required to establish a plan to  outreach to these individuals, such as by sending a mailing that  provides information on how these individuals can register if they are  eligible citizens, though the individual approaches and mailings may  vary by state.
Member states incur financial and staff time investments for joining ERIC,  as well as experience other challenges in leveraging the matched data  based on the quality of their own state’s data. Participation in ERIC  requires multiple fees, which can present a challenge according to state  election officials and our literature review. Upon joining ERIC, states pay  an initial $25,000 membership fee. States must also pay annual fees  based on the number of registered voters in the state and the number of  member states participating. State officials we spoke to report a range of  participation fees between $26,000 and $75,000 annually. Officials from  Delaware noted that they have used some of their remaining HAVA funds  to cover the cost of their annual fees.
Once states receive matched data from ERIC, election officials invest  time and other resources to review and process the results in a timely  manner. However, when asked about the challenges they faced from  joining ERIC, local officials from Delaware, Rhode Island, and Oregon,  who are responsible for processing the results, did not indicate that the  requirement to contact registered voters identified as having inaccurate or  out-of-date records within 90-days specifically posed an issue.
States can incur costs associated with mailings that are required by the  ERIC bylaws, in particular, the bi-annual mailings to all identified possibly  eligible, unregistered individuals. According to the state election director  in Oregon, ERIC identified about 795,678 possibly eligible, unregistered  individuals in 2014. State officials reported that the total associated  mailing cost was $123,767. However, new member states, or those  interested in joining ERIC, can apply to The Pew Charitable Trusts for  grants to help offset the costs associated with the required mailings. For  example, grant funds from The Pew Charitable Trusts covered  approximately three-quarters of Oregon’s $123,767 mailing to possibly  eligible, unregistered individuals. Although the first batch of possibly  eligible, unregistered individuals identified after a state joins ERIC can  require a large mailing, states only need to attempt contact with those  identified individuals once, according to the membership agreement.  Because subsequent state mailings can focus on only those newly  identified possibly eligible, unregistered individuals since the prior data  provided by ERIC, these mailings are therefore likely not to be as large or  costly.
States may also face challenges using information provided by ERIC  based on the reliability of underlying data provided, and the number and  geographic proximity of member states. For example, Colorado election  officials said that they are not confident in the quality of the state’s DMV  address data and thus the in-state updates list that state election officials  receive from ERIC are not always accurate. Colorado DMV officials  stated that, by 2017, they plan to complete upgrades to make their  system more compatible with the state’s voter registration database,  which election officials expect will make the DMV address data more  reliable and the ERIC matching process more useful.
Additionally, election officials in some of the states that we visited  reported that the absence of ERIC participation among neighboring states  limited ERIC’s ability to provide complete data to update registration lists.  Officials in Delaware and Rhode Island noted that participation by states  to which retirees commonly move (such as Florida) might result in  particularly useful information for updating registration lists.
According to election officials we spoke with, as well as officials’ views  cited in literature we reviewed, a state’s participation in ERIC leads to  more accurate voter registration lists and cost savings for state and local  election offices. State officials noted that ERIC data improve the accuracy  of voter registration lists by identifying registrants who elections  administrators should remove for various reasons, such as having moved  to another state or died. For example, local officials in Oregon noted that  ERIC lists identified over 900 registrants who died in another state,  enabling election officials to remove the majority of these registrants from  Oregon’s registration list. From our literature review, studies that  evaluated ERIC also identified increased accuracy as a benefit of the  program. For example, an RTI International report noted that all officials  interviewed for the study from states that had participated in ERIC were  confident in ERIC’s matching process to increase the accuracy of their  voter registration lists.
State officials in all states we visited, as well as multiple sources in the  literature we reviewed, reported that improved accuracy of registration  lists translates into cost savings from decreased mailing costs as well as  decreased staff time to maintain the voter registration lists. Vote-by-mail  states, such as Colorado and Oregon, have a heightened interest in  maintaining clean voter registration lists because of the costs associated  with mailing a ballot to an incorrect address. Election officials in both  states noted that the data provided by ERIC are among multiple tools  they use to maintain accurate registration rolls. Additionally, according  to a study by The Pew Charitable Trusts, King County, Washington,  which conducts elections entirely by mail, saw a drop in undeliverable  ballots from 17,911 in the 2013 primary to 11,174 in the 2014 primary,  which county election officials attributed to Washington’s participation in  ERIC.
States without all vote-by-mail elections cited similar benefits. For  example, according to election officials in Delaware, having more  accurate voter registration lists from participation in ERIC has resulted in  mailings that are more effective, because updates based on the  information provided by ERIC increase the likelihood that voters will  receive mailings while reducing the amount of undeliverable mail. Since  making ERIC updates, officials reported receiving about three bins of  returned postcards instead of eight bins from the state’s bi-annual mailing  to verify voters’ addresses, resulting in less money wasted on printing and  postage for mailings that do not reach the intended recipient. Elections  officials in Delaware and Rhode Island also reported that their staff spend  less time updating the voter registration lists in the months leading up to  an election, with the work of cleaning the registration list more evenly  distributed across the year. One local election official in Rhode Island,  which joined ERIC in July 2015, indicated that ERIC participation should  help to reduce the rate of duplicate registrations, resulting in reduced  printing costs at the local level for poll books. According to a Pew  Charitable Trusts report, the director of elections in Minnesota cited  approximately $116,250 in savings to counties since the state joined  ERIC in August 2014.
section_title: Our Review of Relevant Research Finds that Effects of Selected Policies and Practices on Voter Turnout Vary
paragraphs: State and local governing bodies and election officials are responsible for  selecting and implementing various policies and practices (hereafter  “policies”) to facilitate election administration. We systematically reviewed  literature to identify which of these policies researchers have studied for  potential effects on turnout and the findings from these studies. Through  our review we identified 11 policies that were each studied in multiple  publications. The research indicated these policies had varying effects on  turnout. For instance, the majority of studies we reviewed that assessed  the effect of same day registration and all vote-by-mail on voter turnout  found that these policies increased turnout. Additionally, some studies on  informational mailings and no-excuse absentee voting policies also found  that these policies increased turnout, but other studies associated with  these policies reported mixed evidence or no evidence of an effect. In  appendix IV, we summarize the detailed results of our literature review  and present contextual information related to each of the 11 policies.
subsections: section_title: Policies We Reviewed
paragraphs: Broad academic research on voter turnout has generally shown that  individual and demographic differences among populations—such as  political interest and age—and the competitiveness of elections are more  strongly and consistently associated with the decision to vote than  interventions that seek to make voting more convenient, and thus less  costly, to voters. Additionally, according to CPS data for the voting-age  population, national turnout rates in presidential and midterm elections  have declined slightly over the past three-and-a-half decades; at the  same time, state and local governments have implemented various  policies which, in many cases, have helped to expand options related to  when, where, and how individuals may register and vote.
Our review focused on policies that fall into three broad categories:
Providing information: State and local strategies for providing  information about registration and elections can vary in terms of the  methods used (e.g., websites, mail, etc.) and content, format, and  frequency of communications. Some informational policies are  determined by state law, regulation, or policy, and others are  determined by local jurisdictions.
Registering individuals: States vary with regard to where, when,  and how citizens may register to vote. For instance, some states  have registration closing dates in advance of Election Day while other  states allow citizens to register and vote on Election Day. Within state  requirements, local jurisdictions may have some discretion, such as in  selecting which locations may be available for citizens to register in  person.
Providing opportunities to vote: States also vary with regard to  where, when, and how registered individuals may cast a ballot. For  instance, states differ in the extent to which they allow voting prior to  Election Day (either in-person or by mail). Within state requirements,  local jurisdictions may have some discretion, such as in determining  which specific days they will allow early in-person voting, or in setting  polling hours.
We identified and reviewed literature that assessed the effects of a variety  of policies on voter turnout. Specifically, our literature search identified  over 400 journal articles, reports, or books published from 2002 through  2015 relevant to the topic of voter turnout. We used a systematic process  to conduct the review, which appendix II describes in more detail. We  ultimately identified and reviewed 118 studies within 53 publications that  (1) assessed policies that have been or could be implemented by a state  or local government, (2) contained quantitative analyses of the effect of a  given policy on turnout, and (3) used sufficiently sound methodologies for  conducting such analyses. As used in this report, a “study” is an  analysis or experiment with a unique sample of data.
Our synthesis of the research literature provides a high-level summary of  each policy’s general effect on turnout, as reported in recent research.
Although we found the studies we reference in our report to have used  sufficiently sound methods, the studies we reference were subject to  limitations. For instance, many of the policies we reviewed cannot easily  be evaluated using randomized controlled trials that often provide the  most persuasive evidence of program effects, and thus many of the  studies in our review used quasi-experimental approaches or statistical  analysis of observational data to examine the impacts of such policies.  With such designs, any observed differences in turnout across  jurisdictions, time periods, or groups could be caused or influenced by the  policy itself; by factors related to the jurisdiction’s decision to adopt the  policy; by differing demographic factors across voters; by the  contemporaneous implementation of other election policies; or by  unobserved or unmeasured factors—such as mobilization campaigns,  news media coverage, or social and psychological differences across  voters. As a result, distinguishing the unique effects of a policy from the  effects of other factors that affect turnout can be challenging. These  vulnerabilities can be mitigated, in part, with attention to research design,  including appropriate statistical analysis and interpretation. Nevertheless,  any policy evaluation in a non-experimental setting cannot account for all  unobserved factors that could bias or confound impact estimates with  certainty.
Our synthesis of the research literature also discusses additional  contextual information that may be related to a specific policy’s effect on  turnout. We recognize that variations in policy implementation exist—such  as differences between the number and type (weekday versus weekend)  of days early in-person voting may be available—and may have different  effects on turnout. We provide examples of studies that assessed some  of these variations in implementation, and their associated impacts on  turnout, in the individual policy summaries in appendix IV. Moreover, the  development and implementation of various election administration  policies are informed by a variety of factors at the state and local level,  and thus research findings on turnout may not be the only considerations  for election officials in deciding whether to implement changes to election  administration policies. We include a discussion of selected factors that  administrators may consider in the individual policy summaries in  appendix IV.
section_title: Observations from our Literature Review
paragraphs: We reviewed the research conducted on 11 policies that met the criteria  for inclusion in our literature review. Each of these 11 policies falls within  one of the three broad types of activities conducted by election  administrators: providing information, registering individuals, or providing  opportunities to vote. Figure 3 presents the total number of studies that  examined each policy’s impact on turnout, and summarizes the findings  of the studies. Some studies examined more than one policy and thus  appear more than once in figure 3. Additionally, some studies reported  more than one finding related to the effect of a given policy. For a given  policy, we categorize the findings for each study as follows:  Increased turnout: A study reported only statistically significant  positive effects (one or more).
Mixed evidence: A study reported one or more statistically significant  effects (positive or negative) and one or more findings that were not  statistically significant. Alternatively, a study reported one or more  statistically significant positive effects and one or more statistically  significant negative effects, with or without additional findings that  were not statistically significant.
No evidence of effect: A study reported no statistically significant  effects.
Decreased turnout: A study reported only statistically significant  negative effects (one or more).
As shown in figure 3, some policies have been studied more than others,  and the research on some policies resulted in more consistent findings  than on others. Taking both of these factors into consideration, we  observe that:
The majority of studies we reviewed on same day registration (21 of  33 studies) and all vote-by-mail (11 of 21 studies) found that these  policies increased turnout.
Vote centers (polling places where registrants can vote regardless of  assigned precinct) and the sending of text messages to provide  information about registration and elections have not been studied as  much as some of the other policies, but almost all of the studies we  reviewed on these policies (with the exception of one study on vote  centers) reported increased turnout.
Some studies of mailings to provide information and no-excuse  absentee voting policies also found that these policies increased  turnout, while other studies associated with these policies reported  mixed evidence or no evidence of an effect. In some cases, variations  in how these policies were implemented and unique contextual factors  associated with their implementation may, in part, account for this  varied evidence.
Most studies that examined e-mail and robocalls used to provide  information reported no evidence of an effect on turnout.
Most studies (15 of 20) associated with early in-person voting found  that the policy either had no effect on turnout (7 studies) or decreased  turnout (8 studies), and 5 studies reported mixed evidence.
In appendix IV we present additional information specific to each of the 11  policies. For each policy, we present (1) a summary of findings from the  literature related to the policy’s effects on voter turnout; (2) examples of  specific studies; (3) descriptions of variations in how the policy may be  implemented; and (4) information about the administrative costs of policy  implementation, effects on voter convenience (costs to voters), and other  considerations that election officials may wish to consider when deciding  whether and how to implement the policy (e.g., technological or legal  considerations).
section_title: Election Activities Result in Various Costs, and These Costs Can Be Difficult to Quantify
paragraphs: States and local election jurisdictions incur a variety of costs associated  with administering elections, and the types and magnitude of costs can  vary by state and jurisdiction. Further, quantifying the costs for all election  activities is difficult for several reasons, including that multiple parties  incur costs associated with elections and these parties may track costs  differently. Although some parties’ costs can be easily identified in state  and local budgets or other cost-tracking documents, other costs may be  difficult to break out or attribute to election activities. Additionally, voters’  costs are difficult to quantify and monetize because individual voters’  circumstances differ.
subsections: section_title: States and Local Jurisdictions Incur a Variety of Costs Associated with Administering Elections
paragraphs: Election officials are responsible for providing information, registering  individuals, and providing the opportunity to vote, but states and local  jurisdictions differ in how they administer the activities within these areas  of responsibility. The differences in election administration across  jurisdictions result in variations in the types and magnitudes of costs that  states and local jurisdictions incur for these activities. The following are  some examples of variations in cost for different aspects of election  administration.
subsections: section_title: Costs for Providing Information
paragraphs: State and local jurisdictions have different ways of informing residents  about registration requirements and the voting process, and the costs for  these efforts can vary. For example, communication efforts could include  speaking to civic groups, churches, unions, high schools, and other  interested groups; providing registration and voting information at  naturalization ceremonies; publishing information in newspapers, on  websites, or on social media; or mailing each household a voter guide.  The type and magnitude of costs for these outreach efforts can vary  because of the different methods states and local election jurisdictions  may use to provide information to residents. For example, speaking to  interested groups involves a time cost for the officials who speak at such  events, and this time cost may be considered part of an election official’s  regular salary and work schedule, whereas mailing voter guides involves  printing and postage costs. A state election official in Rhode Island noted  that he visits high schools to inform students about registration, and the  costs are staff time that fall within his regular salary, in addition to  transportation (mileage reimbursement).
According to the chief election official in one local jurisdiction we visited,  the election office spent about $7,000 to advertise elections information  (e.g., polling locations, deadlines related to the election) in newspapers  for the 2014 primary and general elections, in addition to about $12,000  for printing and mailing informational materials about state referenda on  the ballot to registered voters. Officials in another local election  jurisdiction said they send some voter information by e-mail, such as  reminders to update registration information or information about election  updates; although providing information by e-mail does not involve  printing or postage costs, it requires that the election office have access  to e-mail addresses. In some cases, election officials may be able to use  e-mail addresses provided through other local government activities—for  example, in one local jurisdiction we visited, the clerk includes election  information in a general community e-mail newsletter to individuals who  request the newsletter through the local government’s website. States  and local jurisdictions may consider these costs, as well as other factors,  such as the intended target audience or legal requirements, in selecting a  combination of outreach efforts to inform residents about registration and  voting processes.
In particular, information about registration requirements and processes  may need to be distributed in such a way to reach individuals who are not  registered or may need to update their registration. States and local  election officials may choose outreach methods that address the general  public to provide such information. In some cases, media may convey the  information as part of a local news segment without charging an  advertising fee. For example, Delaware election officials said that they  provide information to the local TV news network to promote National  Voter Registration Day, and officials in another local jurisdiction said they  shared information with media outlets when the state introduced online  registration. Officials may also use free-of-charge social media accounts  to provide information. Additionally, as noted earlier in this report, states  that participate in ERIC are required by the program to mail information to  potentially eligible, unregistered individuals to provide information about  opportunities to register. The costs of these mailings can be affected by  the format the state chooses for its mailing (e.g., postcard or letter) as  well as the number of potentially eligible, unregistered individuals ERIC  identifies in the state.
Other outreach efforts may be targeted at registered voters to inform  them about the particular details regarding an upcoming election. In some  cases, states or local jurisdictions are required by state law to provide  certain types of information to registered voters. For example, in  Colorado, both the state and local jurisdictions are required to mail  information to voters when there are ballot issues that affect debt or  taxes. In Rhode Island, the Secretary of State must mail a voter  information handbook that lists all state questions and explanations of the  subjects of these questions to each residence, while local jurisdictions,  prior to each local election at which public questions are on the ballot,  may mail similar voter information handbooks listing public questions and  explanations of the subjects of the questions to each residence in lieu of  posting the information in public locations and publishing it in a local  newspaper. One jurisdiction we visited spent about $75,000 for printing  and mailing a state-required notice for an election in 2013.
State election officials may also need to ensure that potential voters are  informed about, and have access to, forms of ID required to vote in that  state. In general, many states that require a government-issued photo ID  for voting offer some form of ID free of charge. However, voters may  incur costs—either monetary or time costs—for obtaining ID, as  discussed later in this report. States may make IDs available free of  charge for residents for voting purposes in a variety of ways—including  providing them through the DMV or through the state election office. For  example, in Rhode Island, the Secretary of State’s office purchased  equipment to produce voting ID cards, and individuals can obtain these  cards free of charge by visiting the Secretary of State’s office. The  equipment is portable, and staff from the Secretary of State’s office also  bring the equipment to various events to provide additional opportunities  to obtain a voting ID card. Therefore, in addition to the costs for the ID  equipment, the state incurs staff time cost for attending local events. The  National Conference of State Legislatures reported that Indiana’s  estimated production costs—including staff time, transaction time, and  manufacturing—for providing 168,264 IDs to voters in 2010 exceeded  $1.3 million. The Brennan Center reported that this estimate did not  include costs such as training and voter education and outreach. Some  states have prepared fiscal notes to accompany pending legislation that  demonstrate how much providing voters with free IDs could cost.  Although a proposed voter ID law did not pass in Minnesota, the state  estimated that providing voter ID at 90 locations across the state would  cost the state at least $250,000 in the first year of implementation, with  recurring costs in future years. The state noted that individuals who lack  ID tend to change residences more often than the average person, which  may affect supply costs. Minnesota’s estimate also noted that county  auditors would incur substantial expenses related to providing the IDs,  including designating and housing locations where voter ID could be  obtained, processing the applications for voter ID cards, issuing and  producing the cards, as well as receiving returned cards when residents  change their residence. Additionally, the state’s cost estimate noted that  municipal governments would need to hire additional poll workers to  accommodate the additional time needed for asking for an ID from each  voter as well as handling provisional ballots for individuals who did not  bring ID with them to the polls. The state estimated that the local  government costs for additional poll workers could range from $375,830  to $536,900 for each statewide election.
section_title: Costs for Registering Individuals
paragraphs: The different registration methods offered within states can influence  costs—the use of paper forms involves paper and printing costs, among  others, whereas an online registration option involves information  technology development and maintenance costs. The U.S. Public Interest  Research Group, a coalition of state public interest research groups,  released a study in 2009 of 100 counties of various sizes in 36 states that  estimated that these counties’ cost to conduct registration and run error- correction programs on the voter registration information was  $33,467,910 for the 2008 election. According to the report, in counties in  the survey with populations under 50,000, total expenditures were  estimated at $86,977 per county; in counties with population between  50,000 and 200,000 persons, the total expenditures were $248,091 per  county; and, in counties with total populations greater than 200,000 the  total expenditures per county were estimated to average $1,079,610. The  report also noted that in a survey of a subset of the 100 counties (9  counties from each of the three population ranges), most counties  reported that full-time registrar staff spent at least half their time on  registration issues. However, since the 2008 election, a total of 31  states and Washington, D.C., have implemented online voter registration  which, as discussed earlier in this report, may involve initial investments,  but may later result in time and cost savings to local election officials who  spend less time processing electronic registrations than paper  registrations. As reported earlier, improved efficiencies in processing  registration can reduce the number of staff needed to process registration  or may free up staff to attend to other responsibilities.
States and local jurisdictions can also incur costs for voter registration list  maintenance activities, and these activities vary across states and local  jurisdictions. For example, some states or local jurisdictions may send  mailings to all registered voters and use any returned undeliverable mail  as an indication that a voter is not currently residing at the address on the  voter’s registration record. States may also participate in the data-sharing  efforts mentioned earlier in this report or checks against other data  sources. For example, state and local election officials can compare their  voter registration lists against databases such as the U.S. Postal Service  NCOA database to determine whether an individual has moved to a new  address or Social Security Administration records to determine if an  individual is deceased.
section_title: Costs for Providing Voting Opportunities
paragraphs: States provide opportunities to vote, such as voting in-person on or  before Election Day or voting by mail (absentee options in all states and  vote-by-mail in three states). These different voting methods also result in  different types of costs—for example:
Polling Places. Election officials in jurisdictions that offer in-person  voting options locate and prepare polling places and organize and  deliver voting equipment and supplies to polling places. The costs for  establishing in-person polling locations can vary by state and local  jurisdiction. According to officials in one local jurisdiction we visited,  their office pays a $125 daily rental fee for polling places that are in  privately owned buildings and, for public buildings, the jurisdiction  pays only the marginal costs of keeping the buildings open before or  after regular hours for voting purposes. In contrast, in Delaware, the  fiscal year 2016 state appropriations act requires election jurisdictions  to pay owners of polling locations a $300 daily rental fee, regardless  of whether the building is publicly or privately owned. The total costs  for polling places can vary because of any fees to use the facility, the  number of days the facility is used for voting (e.g., early voting in  addition to Election Day), and the number of polling places in a given  jurisdiction. Among the jurisdictions we visited that primarily offer in- person voting opportunities, according to election officials in those  jurisdictions, the number of polling places ranged from 3 to about  1,800.
Election Workers. Costs for recruiting, training, and paying poll  workers at polling places can also vary—for example, election officials  in jurisdictions in the three states we visited that offer primarily in- person voting—Delaware, Illinois, and Rhode Island—cited poll  worker compensation ranging from $100 to $235 per day, with  variations across and within states and by level of responsibility.  Regardless of whether states offer voting in person or by mail,  election offices may need to hire temporary staff to assist with the  additional workload in the weeks leading up to or following an  election. For example, Colorado voters have the option of voting by  mail or in person at voter service and polling centers, which can be  partially staffed with permanent staff from election offices, but local  jurisdictions also hire additional workers to assist at these polling  locations or with other election activities. Similarly, Oregon does not  have in-person polling locations, yet local election officials we spoke  with said that they hire temporary staff to assist with a range of  elections responsibilities, including registration and ballot processing,  during the peak workload period surrounding an election.
Vote-by-Mail and Absentee Ballots. Preparing ballots to be mailed  to voters in vote-by-mail states, or to absentee voters in states that  continue to offer in-person voting, involves printing costs for ballots  and envelopes and postage costs for delivering the ballots to voters.  For example, in one large, urban local jurisdiction we visited in a vote- by-mail state, the ballot printing costs for a 2013 statewide election  were over $280,000, and according to officials, postage costs to mail  these ballots were about $32,000. In Rhode Island, which conducts  primarily in-person voting, the state assumes the costs for all  absentee ballots, including printing the ballots, mailing them to voters,  and processing the ballots. Rhode Island election officials said that  the use of absentee voting has increased since the state broadened  the allowed excuses for requesting an absentee ballot, and thus the  costs for absentee ballots have increased. However, to ensure that no  in-person polling place experiences a ballot shortage, the state has  continued to print enough ballots for in-person voting for all registered  voters in every precinct. The costs for mailed ballots may also include  return postage—for example, Rhode Island state election officials said  that the state pays return postage for absentee ballots for homebound  voters.
The magnitude of costs for any particular expense category can vary  based on the voting opportunities offered. For example, the total costs for  poll workers—who may be paid for each day of work—can increase if  early voting is offered and poll workers are needed to staff polling places  on days in addition to Election Day. Similarly, the total costs for polling  places can depend on the number and types of polling places within an  election jurisdiction. A state or local jurisdiction’s costs can also depend  on how many elections there are over a given period of time—although  some states have standardized election calendars that consolidate  federal, state, and local elections at the same times, other states may  have multiple elections at different times for different levels of  government. Special elections can also affect the total costs for  conducting elections by increasing the number of elections.
section_title: Election Costs are Difficult to Quantify
paragraphs: Quantifying the costs for all election activities is difficult for several  reasons, including that multiple parties incur costs associated with  elections and these parties may track costs differently. Although some  parties’ costs can be easily identified in state and local budgets or other  cost-tracking documents, other costs may be difficult to break out or  attribute to election activities. Therefore, adding up the budgets for all  election jurisdictions within a state together with the budget for the state  election office is not a comprehensive or accurate means for determining  the cost of elections within a given state. Such budget or cost-tracking  documents also do not include the cost to voters, and voters’ costs are  additionally difficult to quantify and monetize because individual voters’  circumstances differ.
States and local election jurisdictions have developed their own methods  of tracking election activities and associated costs through documents  such as budgets, accounting systems, or spreadsheets. The budgets for  state and local election offices are one way of identifying and tracking  costs associated with elections. However, there is no standard budget  scheme across all states or local election jurisdictions for categorizing the  various elections activities and their associated costs. For example, state  and local jurisdictions use different time frames for their budgeting  process. According to the National Association of State Budget Officers,  30 states prepare annual budgets, while 20 states prepare biennial  budgets, though the association reports that in practice, a number of  states use a combination of annual and biennial budgeting. The months  covered by budgets can also vary, which provides important context for  elections budgets because of how many elections fall within the period  covered by a budget. This can affect how costs for elections are  distributed across different fiscal years’ budgets. For example, two local  jurisdictions we visited in the same state have fiscal years that span  different periods such that their fiscal years cover a different number of  elections—for one jurisdiction, the presidential primary, general election  primary, and general election will occur in fiscal year 2016, and for the  other the presidential primary will occur in fiscal year 2016 and the  general election primary and general election will occur in fiscal year  2017.
Election offices may also maintain accounting records, spreadsheets, or  other documents that provide varying levels of detail on elections costs.  Within these cost-tracking documents, state or local jurisdictions can use  different categories to organize their elections expenses. For example,  across three local jurisdictions we visited in different states, all three local  jurisdictions track costs in a postage category but use varying categories  to capture the costs for supplies. Specifically, one jurisdiction has a single  category for “signage, forms, and all other supplies,” whereas the other  two jurisdictions have additional categories—one jurisdiction has  categories for office supplies and toner cartridge and ribbons, and the  other jurisdiction has categories for computer supplies, map supplies,  office supplies, and supplies and equipment. As such, cost information  may not be standardized across or within states, and thus it may not be  possible to calculate the costs for a particular election activity or expense  across jurisdictions because the information is captured or reported in  different ways.
Some states have implemented efforts to standardize cost tracking for  elections across local election jurisdictions in their states. For example,  the Oregon and Colorado state election offices collect election cost data  from local jurisdictions within their states. Oregon state officials said that  the data they collect are used to summarize information about the costs  of an election—state officials compile the total costs for each county and  calculate, per county and statewide, the average cost per eligible voter  and the average cost per ballot cast for each statewide election and track  these costs over time. Colorado state officials explained that the state  developed a standardized cost tracking form to determine the costs of  elections for local jurisdictions, particularly given that the state is  statutorily required to reimburse local jurisdictions when there is a state  measure on a ballot. Although both states have developed methods of  collecting cost information from local jurisdictions in a standardized way,  the categories these two states use in their cost-tracking forms are  different. Other states collect information on certain expenses, but do not  standardize broad cost information across jurisdictions to calculate the  overall costs of an election—for example, state election officials in Illinois  said that local jurisdictions incur the majority of election-related costs, but  the state reimburses a portion of the poll worker cost and thus collects  limited cost information on poll workers from local jurisdictions for  reimbursement purposes.
Identifying elections costs can also be difficult when the office that is  tasked with administering elections responsibilities also has responsibility  for activities other than elections. Specifically, the cost information tracked  by such offices may include costs that are not related to elections, and  thus it may be difficult to separate elections costs from costs incurred for  other activities and responsibilities. For example, in some locations a  county, city, or town clerk is responsible for overseeing elections as well  as other functions. In one local jurisdiction we visited, the clerk’s office  was responsible for administering elections as well as issuing licenses  (marriage, dogs, yard sales, hunting, and fishing) and maintaining public  records (birth certificates, death certificates, and probate records). The  clerk for canvassing in this location is primarily responsible for  administering elections, but all staff within the clerk’s office assist with  elections activities such as answering phone calls from residents with  registration and voting questions.
Additionally, some elections-related activities may rely on support from  other state or local offices that do not have primary responsibility for  administering elections. For example, election offices may receive  support from offices that provide legal or information technology support.  In some cases, for these other offices, it may be possible to identify the  costs associated with elections-related activities, but in other cases, it  may be difficult to separate elections-related costs from regular operating  costs. For example, in one local jurisdiction we visited, all county offices  use the same accounting system, which enables offices other than the  Elections Division to charge expenses to the Elections Division  accounting code so those offices can be reimbursed for elections-related  expenses. In contrast, the state elections director in Rhode Island said  that during busy periods around Election Day, employees from divisions  of the Secretary of State’s office other than the Elections Division assist  state election officials, but the budgets for these other divisions do not  separate staff time by activity to identify what proportion of time is spent  on their primary activities in those other divisions and what proportion is  spent on election-related activities.
In addition to costs to state and local jurisdictions, voters also incur costs  associated with elections. Some costs to voters are monetary, though not  all voters will incur these costs to the same extent. Voters may incur  postage costs for submitting forms or returning a mail ballot. The cost for  a first-class stamp is $0.47, although additional postage may be required  if a ballot has numerous pages that exceed 1 ounce in weight. However,  not all voters rely on mail to submit their registration applications or cast a  ballot, and in some cases even those that do may not incur the cost  associated with postage. For example, in Rhode Island, absentee voters  who certify that they fit particular criteria receive an absentee ballot that  does not require return postage; rather, the state incurs the return  postage cost for those ballots. Additionally, voters can incur costs for  transportation to the designated registration and voting locations. This  can include public transportation fares as well as the cost of fuel/mileage  for the use of a private vehicle, and the amounts for these costs will vary  by voter. Further, some states require voters to show specific forms of ID  to be able to vote. Some voters may have the required ID for everyday  purposes—such as drivers’ licenses—whereas others may need to obtain  such ID specifically for the purposes of voting. For individuals who need  to obtain ID for voting purposes, the costs and requirements to obtain  certain forms of ID, including a driver’s license, nondriver state ID, or free  state ID, vary by state. For example, a voter may be required to present  documentation to obtain such IDs—including the free state IDs offered for  voting purposes—and the underlying documents, such as a birth  certificate, can result in costs to voters as well.
However, voters also incur costs associated with time, for which it may be  difficult to assign a dollar amount. For example, voters may spend time  registering to vote, researching candidates and issues, obtaining required  ID, traveling to a polling place, and casting a ballot. The time required for  these activities can vary based on the options available to the voter—for  example, voters who vote by mail (either as absentee voters or because  they are in a vote-by-mail state) receive their ballots by mail and do not  wait in line as voters who vote in person may have to do. The costs of  spending time on these voting processes rather than some other activity  result in an opportunity cost to voters, and these opportunity costs may  vary by voter based on numerous factors, including each voter’s  individual competing priorities as well as the range of options available for  how to register or vote. For example, options that increase voter  convenience reduce the amount of time a voter spends registering or  voting instead of engaging in some other activity, thus reducing the  opportunity cost of voting. Ultimately, an individual’s decision about  whether to participate in the voting process—first, deciding whether to  register to vote, then deciding whether to cast a ballot—can be seen as a  consideration of the costs and benefits of voting for that individual, and  not all individuals experience the same costs for participating.
section_title: Agency and Third Party Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the EAC and the state and local  election officials and DMV officials we met with in our five selected states.  The EAC had no comments on the draft report, as noted in an e-mail  received on June 23, 2016, from the commission’s Executive Director.
We incorporated technical comments received from other parties in the  report as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the EAC, appropriate  congressional committees and members, and other interested parties. In  addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this  report, please contact me 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  key contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI.
section_title: Appendix I: States’ Use of Provisional Ballots, 2008 – 2014
paragraphs: Section 302 of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) established provisional  voting requirements. Specifically, potential voters who declare that they  are registered to vote in the jurisdiction in which they desire to vote must  be permitted to cast provisional ballots in the event their names do not  appear on the registration list or the voters’ eligibility is challenged by an  election official. In general, the issuance of a provisional ballot can be  described as a safety net or fail safe for the voter, in that (1) it maintains  the person’s intent to vote and voting selections until election officials  determine that the person does or does not have the right to cast a ballot  in the election, and (2) it allows the determination of the voter’s eligibility  to be made at a time when more complete information is available either  from the voter or from the election jurisdiction. Election officials make the  decision on whether to count provisional ballots based on voter eligibility  standards established in state and federal law, including age, citizenship,  and residence requirements. The policies and procedures for  administering provisional voting vary across states. For example, in some  states, a person can cast a provisional ballot in any precinct in the state  regardless of where the person is registered. In other states, a person  must cast a provisional ballot in the precinct in which the person is eligible  to vote.
Data on the overall number of provisional ballots cast are available  through the Election Assistance Commission’s (EAC) Election  Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS), which the EAC administers to  states and U.S. territories after each general election. States report the  data at the level of individual election jurisdictions. Table 2 below  presents the percent of provisional ballots cast as a percentage of the  total number of participating voters. In some cases, states do not provide  data on the number of provisional ballots cast in some jurisdictions. To  ensure the reliability of the data we present, table 2 omits data from any  state where, in a given year, 20 percent or more of the local jurisdictions  within the state did not provide data on provisional ballot use. To further  assess the reliability of the 2008 through 2014 EAVS data, we  interviewed EAC officials regarding their data collection and quality  control processes. We found the data to be sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of our review.
section_title: Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This report addresses the following questions:  1.  What are the reported benefits and challenges of efforts to collect and  share voter registration information electronically?  2.  What is known about the effect of selected policies and practices on  voter turnout?  3.  What is known about the costs of elections?
For all three questions, we (1) reviewed and analyzed relevant literature  and (2) conducted interviews with state and local jurisdiction election  officials from five selected states, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Oregon,  and Rhode Island. For the question regarding voter registration efforts,  we also analyzed data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population  Survey (CPS) Voting and Registration Supplement for general elections  occurring from 2008 through 2014 to determine the extent to which  policies to collect and share voter information electronically may improve  the accuracy of voter registration lists.
We identified selected efforts and policies within the scope of each  question to examine in detail in this review. Specifically, in examining  efforts to collect and share voter registration information electronically, we  limited the scope of our review to online voter registration, data-sharing  efforts between the state election office and the state motor vehicle  agency, and interstate exchanges of voter registration information,  including states’ participation in the Electronic Registration Information  Center (ERIC). We selected ERIC as an illustrative example of such  interstate voter registration data-sharing efforts. We interviewed  representatives of ERIC and reviewed documentation regarding  requirements for participation. Regarding the effect of policies and  practices on voter turnout, we limited our review to policies and practices  that have been rigorously studied in academic and professional literature  and that election officials have implemented or could potentially  implement in their states or local jurisdictions. Additional information on  how we identified these policies through a literature review is discussed  below. In examining the costs of elections, we reviewed information about  the costs to states and local election jurisdictions, as well as the cost to  voters. We did not examine campaign or other third party costs.
subsections: section_title: Literature Review
paragraphs: We conducted a literature review of research related to our three  objectives. A GAO research librarian conducted searches of scholarly and  peer reviewed publications; government reports; dissertations;  conference papers; books; association, think tank, and other nonprofit  organizations’ publications; working papers; and general news articles  published from 2002 through 2015 to identify publications that were  potentially relevant to each objective. We also reviewed literature  recommended by experts and researchers affiliated with organizations  such as the Congressional Research Service, the National Conference of  State Legislatures, the National Association of Counties, and the  Bipartisan Policy Center. The literature search produced over 1,000  publications related to the topics in our three objective questions. GAO  analysts worked in pairs to complete the following steps:  1.  We reviewed each publication’s abstract and determined whether the  publication was potentially relevant to one or more of our objectives.  2.  For those publications we determined to be relevant, we reviewed the  full text, to determine whether the publication provided evidence that  could be used to directly address one of our objectives. Each analyst  reviewed the publication independently, then reached consensus  within the pair.
For each objective, we analyzed the evidence presented in the relevant  publications using a data collection instrument specific to each objective.
subsections: section_title: Literature on Voter Registration Efforts
paragraphs: Regarding efforts to collect and share voter registration information  electronically, we used a data collection instrument to catalog the benefits  and challenges of the efforts within the scope of our review. For every  publication determined to be relevant to this objective, one analyst  reviewed the full text version, highlighted the benefits and challenges that  the article identified, and entered that information into the data collection  instrument. A second analyst compared the information entered in the  data collection instrument against the original publication and noted any  discrepancies. The pair of analysts discussed any discrepancies noted  until they reached a consensus on the benefits and challenges identified  within that publication.
section_title: Literature on Voter Turnout
paragraphs: Research on voter turnout has examined a wide range of policies and  practices (hereafter “policies”), and in reviewing the over 400 publications  our search identified as related to voter turnout, we focused our review on  policies that have been or could potentially be implemented by a state or  local government. Thus, we excluded research on policies that could not  reasonably or feasibly be implemented by a state or local government,  including partisan policies—such as using partisan language in mailings  to potential voters—and policies that would be resource-intensive, such  as door-to-door canvassing. In order to provide a reasonable and useful  synthesis of the literature, we further limited our scope by excluding  research on policies that did not have a federal nexus to voting (such as  how turnout in local elections is affected by consolidating local elections  with state or federal elections), or examined alternative voting systems  (e.g., ranked-choice or compulsory voting), or voter identification laws.
The publications we reviewed often conducted multiple analyses or  experiments. As used in this report, a “study” is an analysis or experiment  with a unique sample. In some cases, authors presented their findings  broken down by type of election (e.g., presidential vs. midterm) or election  year (e.g., 2002 and 2004). In these instances, we considered the  findings related to the separate types of elections or time periods as  resulting from separate samples (thus, separate “studies,” as we use the  term in this report). In reviewing the results from our literature review, as  discussed in greater detail below, we excluded studies that assessed the  combined effect of two or more policies (because such studies would not  enable us to determine the effect of each policy independent of the other  or others), analyzed policies using data for elections outside of the United  States, or assessed a policy’s effect on over or under votes.  1.  Cataloguing publications based on policies within our scope: A  GAO analyst reviewed each publication, and recorded (a) what policy  or policies the publication addressed that were within our scope, (b)  whether the publication used one or more systematic quantitative  methodologies, and (c) whether or not the publication used original  data analysis in at least one or more analyses. A second GAO analyst  verified these determinations and worked with the first analyst to  ensure both analysts were in agreement. Based on these reviews, we  identified publications that analyzed one or more policies within our  scope, used one or more systematic quantitative methodologies, and  contained original analysis.  2.  Identifying specific studies that used sufficiently rigorous  methods: A GAO social scientist reviewed the publications identified  in the first step to identify studies within these publications for which  the design, implementation, and analyses were sufficiently sound to  support the results and conclusions, based on generally accepted  social science principles. Specifically, the social scientist examined  such factors as whether data were analyzed before and after policy  changes were made; how the effects of policy changes were isolated  (i.e., the use of groups or states not receiving the change, or statistical  controls); the appropriateness of sampling, if used; outcome  measures; and the statistical analyses used. A second GAO social  scientist verified these determinations and worked with the first social  scientist to ensure both were in agreement. A statistician reviewed  studies when additional expertise was necessary to interpret findings  from studies that used advanced statistical techniques or to ensure  that researchers who analyzed complex survey data employed  appropriate sample weights when reporting findings.
To ensure that there was a sufficient body of research on each policy we  selected, we excluded policies that were not examined in at least two  publications.
As a result of this process, from more than 400 publications we initially  identified related to voter turnout, we found 53 that studied policies within  the scope of our review and used sufficiently sound methodologies.  Within these publications, 118 studies examined a total of 11 policies.
The studies we reviewed used various quantitative approaches and data,  and covered different types of elections and time periods. Some studies  used randomized experiments or quasi-experimental research designs,  and some studies used non-experimental designs, such as statistical  analysis of observational data. Studies used both longitudinal and cross- sectional comparisons. Similarly, some studies used data obtained  directly from official state or local voter records (or from vendors or others  that compiled official voter records), and some used survey responses,  such as from the CPS Voting and Registration Supplement. The studies  we reviewed also covered different types of elections (e.g., presidential,  midterm, primary, statewide, local, or various combinations of these) and  time periods (with studies ranging from addressing one election to  multiple elections and ranging from 1920 to 2014).
Further, some studies examined the separate effects of more than one  policy on voter turnout, and some studies reported more than one finding  related to the effect of a given policy on turnout. For instance, some  studies analyzed turnout data using multiple statistical models, resulting  in multiple findings (one from each model). Additionally, other studies  reported more than one finding because they broke down their results by  subsamples, such as by race or by treatment groups associated with  variations in policy implementation. Where studies reported one or more  effects on turnout for a given policy, we reported a range of effects.
Moreover, not all studies reported findings that were statistically  significant (at least at the 0.10 level). Many studies did not detect a  statistically significant effect, or reported a finding that was not statistically  significant along with a statistically significant effect. When a study  reported one or more findings that were not statistically significant, this  did not mean that the policy examined did not have an effect on turnout,  only that the study could not affirmatively reject the possibility that the  policy had no effect on turnout.
For each of the 118 studies, a GAO social scientist reviewed each of the  study’s findings related to voter turnout and recorded key information on  each finding. If a study examined more than one policy, these findings  were recorded separately for each policy included in the study. For each  policy examined within a particular study, the social scientist categorized  the findings related to that policy as follows:  Increased turnout: Only statistically significant positive effects (one  or more).
Mixed evidence: One or more statistically significant effects (positive  or negative) and one or more findings that were not statistically  significant; or, one or more statistically significant positive effects and  one or more statistically significant negative effects, with or without  additional findings that were not statistically significant.
No evidence of effect: No statistically significant effects.
Decreased turnout: Only statistically significant negative effects (one  or more).
For each significant effect, the social scientist also recorded the  associated percentage point increase or decrease in voter turnout, when  possible. However, study authors oftentimes did not report one or more of  their effects in terms of a percentage point increase or decrease in  turnout; for instance, in some cases, authors reported effects in statistical  terms such as coefficients from a statistical model.
A second GAO social scientist verified these determinations and worked  with the first social scientist to ensure both were in agreement.
section_title: Literature on Election Costs
paragraphs: Regarding election costs, we used a data collection instrument to catalog  information in each of the relevant publications regarding (1) the types of  costs associated with elections activities and (2) examples of amounts  corresponding to these activities, where available. Of the over 150  publications from our search that identified costs associated with one or  more election activities, none of the publications we reviewed  comprehensively addressed all areas of election-related costs, and  oftentimes the publications identified by our search only identified costs  associated with one particular aspect of elections.
section_title: Interviews with State and Local Jurisdiction Election Officials
paragraphs: To obtain the perspectives of state and local election officials regarding  the policies, practices, and efforts in use in their respective states and  jurisdictions that corresponded with our objectives, we selected five states  to visit—Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Oregon, and Rhode Island. We  selected these states primarily based on the statewide implementation of  the registration and turnout policies in the scope of our review, prioritizing  states that had more polices in place than others. Specifically we  considered states that had implemented online voter registration, data- sharing efforts between the election office and the state motor vehicle  agency or through interstate data-sharing efforts, Election Day or same  day registration, vote-by-mail as their selected voting method, and  requirements for informational mailings to voters. Because all states and  local jurisdictions incur election-related costs and could provide  perspectives on the topic, considerations regarding elections-related  costs did not significantly affect our site selection decisions. Finally, we  considered geographic diversity (by selecting states from various regions  of the country), when possible, when making state selection decisions in  order to capture possible regional differences in election administration  practices.
Within the five states identified above, we selected two local election  jurisdictions to visit in order to obtain different perspectives at the local  level within a state. We selected jurisdictions based on (1)  recommendations from introductory teleconference meetings with state  election officials and (2) demographic factors, specifically population size  and density. The following is a list of the election jurisdictions we visited in  our five selected states:
Colorado: Denver City and County, Grand County
Delaware: Kent County, New Castle County, and Sussex County  Illinois: City of Chicago, Sangamon County
Oregon: Multnomah County, Yamhill County
Rhode Island: City of Pawtucket, Town of Scituate  While our selected states and local jurisdictions are not representative of  all states and jurisdictions nationwide and their responses cannot be  generalized to other states and local election jurisdictions, officials in  these locations provided a range of perspectives on efforts to collect and  share voter registration information electronically, the effect of selected  policies and practices on voter turnout, and elections-related costs.  During our visits, we met with state and local election officials, including  the state election director (or equivalent) and the chief election official in  each local jurisdiction. We also met with officials from state motor  vehicle agencies in Colorado, Delaware, Oregon, and Rhode Island to get  their perspectives on voter registration data-sharing programs with the  state election office. We corroborated the information we gathered  through these interviews by reviewing relevant state statutes and  documentation that these states and local election jurisdictions provided  to us, such as cost data. We conducted these interviews between  October and December 2015. For examples of election costs provided in  this report based on literature we reviewed or documents provided to us  by state and local election officials, a GAO economist reviewed the  source material to assess data reliability. To the extent that the source  documentation included information about how cost estimates were  derived, the economist reviewed the methodology to ensure reliability, but  we did not independently assess the internal controls associated with  state or local financial systems or other means for calculating such costs.  We determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for providing  illustrative examples of the costs for election activities.
section_title: Evaluation of Selected Policies on the Accuracy of State Voter Registration Lists
paragraphs: For the objective regarding voter registration, we analyzed data to  determine whether policies to collect and share voter information  electronically—specifically online voter registration and ERIC—improved  the quality of voter registration lists. We focused our data analysis on  these two efforts to collect and share voter information electronically  because, among the efforts within the scope of our objective on  registration, these efforts are fairly standardized in their implementation.  Specifically, it was possible for us to identify which states have  implemented online voter registration and ERIC and when they did so. In  contrast, states may have varying levels of data sharing between their  election offices and motor vehicles agencies. Therefore we could not  group states into definitive groups of those that had similarly implemented  DMV data sharing and those that had not.
We analyzed data to determine whether these two policies—online voter  registration and ERIC—affected the proportion of individuals surveyed  who did not vote because there was a problem with their registration, as  reported in the biennial CPS Voting and Registration Supplement from  2008 through 2014. Specifically, the CPS Voting and Registration  Supplement asks respondents who indicated that they were registered  but did not vote the main reason why they did not vote. These  respondents are presented with 11 possible choices, one of which is  “Registration problems (i.e. didn’t receive absentee ballot, not registered  in current location).” We considered this measure—the proportion of  registered non-voting individuals who responded to this question by  selecting the choice for registration problems—to be a proxy-indicator of  registration list quality because problems with registration can indicate  that registration data are inaccurate. We reviewed documentation  describing steps taken by the CPS data managers to ensure data  reliability and tested the data for anomalies that could indicate reliability  concerns. We determined that the CPS data were sufficiently reliable for  the purposes of this analysis.
For our analysis, we used the difference-in-difference modeling approach  to attempt to identify what effect, if any, states’ adoption of online voter  registration or ERIC had on our proxy measure of the quality of state  voter registration lists. The difference-in-difference estimation strategy  compares the difference in the average outcome between two time  periods among a “treatment” group (in this case, states that adopted a  given policy in-between the two time periods) and a “control” group  (states whose policies did not change between the two time periods). The  approach is designed to account for both pre-existing differences  between treatment and control groups, as well as changes over time that  affect states in both groups. In order to make appropriate comparisons,  we modeled presidential (2008 and 2012) and midterm (2010 and 2014)  years separately. The policy “treatments” of interest are states’ adoption  of online voter registration and ERIC.
As noted in our report, our analysis did not find statistically significant  reductions in reported registration problems in states that had  implemented online voter registration between the two presidential  elections or the two midterm elections, compared to those states that had  not. Similarly, our analysis did not find statistically significant reductions in  reported registration problems in states that joined ERIC compared to  states that had not. Thus, we cannot conclude based on the evidence  from this analysis that states that adopted online voter registration or  ERIC saw changes in our proxy measure of registration list quality.
However, despite the advantages of our estimation approach, a number  of limitations are associated with the data and methods we employed for  this analysis. First, our outcome variable was not a direct measure of  registration list accuracy, and there could have been other factors  responsible for respondents reporting registration problems besides the  quality of a state’s registration list. Second, our analysis did not control for  any variables that may have been associated with the adoption of online  registration or ERIC, and this could have affected our results. Finally,  given the type of analysis we conducted, the number of states that had  online registration during this time period as well as the relatively small  size of our analysis sample may have affected our ability to detect a  statistically significant relationship.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2015 to June 2016 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 III: Voter Turnout for Selected Demographic Characteristics
paragraphs: Broad academic research on voter turnout has generally found that  individual differences among citizens may be strongly and consistently  associated with differences in turnout rates. To illustrate, we have  included figures 4 through 6 that show differences in turnout over time  related to age, race and ethnicity, and educational attainment.  Presidential and midterm elections are presented separately, since as  noted earlier in this report, nationwide turnout has been consistently  higher in presidential elections than midterm elections since 1972. The  figures below report voter turnout estimates based on the percentage of  individuals in a given demographic that voted among the total voting-age  U.S. population in that demographic group, as reported by the U.S.  Census Bureau, from the Current Population Survey (CPS) Voting and  Registration Supplement.
section_title: Appendix IV: Review of Research on Effects of Eleven Selected Election Administration Policies on Voter Turnout
paragraphs: From more than 400 publications we initially identified related to voter  turnout, we identified and reviewed 118 studies within 53 publications that  (1) assessed policies that have been or could be implemented by a state  or local government (11 such policies in total across the 118 studies), (2)  contained quantitative analyses of the effect of a given policy on turnout,  and (3) used sufficiently sound methodologies for conducting such  analyses. This appendix presents additional information specific to each  of these 11 policies. Each policy summary contains the following sections:
Literature review results. This section includes a summary of  findings from the literature related to a policy’s effects on turnout. It  also includes a figure showing the specific findings reported by each  study that examined the policy. As previously discussed, each study  may contain more than one finding related to a given policy’s effect on  voter turnout, such as when findings were broken down by race or  treatment groups associated with variations in policy implementation.  Where studies reported more than one statistically significant effect on  turnout for a given policy, we reported the range of effects. Where  studies reported effects in terms of percentage point differences— which allow for comparisons of effects on the same scale—we report  those differences. However, not all studies reported statistically  significant effects—and studies that reported such effects did not  always do so in units of percentage point differences. We use  symbols in each figure to communicate these various types of  findings, as shown in figure 7.
Examples of specific studies. This section includes a description of  selected individual studies, including the specific findings, data  analyzed, the population studied, any variations in policy  implementation that were examined, and other contextual  information—such as what specific election or elections were studied,  among other things.
Variations in implementation. This section includes descriptions of  variations in how a policy may be implemented. For instance,  jurisdictions may implement same-day registration at all polling places  or at a limited number of them, or jurisdictions may send mailings in  different formats, including as postcards or voter guides, among  others.
Observations on cost, voter convenience, and other  considerations. This section includes information about the  administrative costs of policy implementation, effects on voter  convenience (costs to voters), and other considerations that election  officials may wish to consider when deciding whether and how to  implement these policies (e.g., technological or legal considerations).  Some of these observations come from election officials we met with  during our state and local visits.
Third party groups and local governments sometimes send e-mail  messages to inform potential voters about dates or other aspects of  upcoming elections and encourage them to register or vote.
Variations in implementation  The nature of e-mail would allow for  variations in:    Content. E-mails may vary in the  type of information provided, the  tone of the message, and may or  may not include website links to  access other content. Additionally,  e-mail messages may include a  variety of presentation styles (e.g.,  font, color, pictures, and  organization). They may also  communicate information in one or  more languages. Lastly, they may  contain appeals for individuals to  take action, such as to register or to  vote.
We reviewed 18 studies in 4 publications, and 13 studies were from the  same publication and had the same author. In total, 15 of the 18 studies  found no evidence of an effect on turnout and 3 studies reported mixed  evidence—all 3 reported no evidence of an effect for one treatment group  and statistically significant positive effects for another treatment group.    Studies 1, 2, and 3 (from one publication and with the same authors)  attempted to assess whether varying the source of unsolicited e-mail  messages (official governmental source versus fictional voter  mobilization organization) had differing effects on turnout. All three  studies were conducted in cooperation with the San Mateo County,  California, Registrar, in connection with a 2009 local election, the  June 2010 statewide primary election, and the November 2010  general election, respectively. All three studies found statistically  significant, albeit small, effects on turnout (0.7, 0.5, 0.5 percentage  point increases) for e-mail messages sent from the Registrar's office,  as compared to the control groups (which did not receive e-mail  messages). Using separate treatment groups, all three studies also  assessed the effect of identical e-mail messages sent from a fictional  voter mobilization organization, and each study found no statistically  significant effect on turnout resulting from these messages—even  though the content and the timing of the messages were the same as  those sent from the Registrar's office. The authors noted that  participants in their studies only included individuals who had  provided an e-mail address at the time of registration (about 20  percent of all registered individuals). These individuals tended to be  younger and less likely to have voted in previous elections than other  registrants in the county.     Studies 4 through 16 (from one publication and with the same author)  found no evidence of an effect on turnout for e-mail messages,  despite using different strategies to recruit study participants. The  author partnered with three nonpartisan organizations to design,  implement, and analyze the results of 13 studies examining the effect  of e-mail communication on turnout.    o  One organization conducted five studies (studies 4 through 8) at  five different universities (across four states) during the 2002  congressional election. Student names and e-mail addresses  were purchased from or provided by the five universities. For each  university, students with valid e-mail addresses were randomly  divided into a treatment group (which received e-mail messages)  and a control group (which did not receive e-mail messages).  Students in each treatment group received a series of unsolicited  e-mails encouraging registration and voter turnout. The author  noted that the percentage of e-mails that were actually opened  averaged only 20 percent across the five universities.   o  Another organization conducted a study (study 9) among  registered individuals under the age of 26 in the city of Houston,  Texas, during a 2003 mayoral race. This study targeted those  registrants who had indicated that they were willing to receive   e-mail messages from third parties and did not opt-out after  receiving an e-mail invitation to participate in the study. The study  included a treatment group of 6,386 that received a brief welcome  e-mail and three additional e-mail messages leading up to the  election, and a control group of the same size that only received  the welcome e-mail. E-mails (other than the welcome e-mail)  typically began with a short quiz and an invitation to explore a  website, and concluded with a brief blandishment to vote. The  percentage of e-mails that were opened was not available.   o  A third organization conducted the remaining seven studies  (studies 10 through 16) in connection with the 2004 presidential  election. These studies differed from the other six studies  because e-mail messages were only sent to individuals who came  to the organization's website and specifically requested to join the  e-mailing list reminding individuals to register and vote. Individuals  who signed up were assigned to either a treatment or a control  group in each of the seven study locations (California; Colorado;  Michigan; Minnesota; Missouri; North Carolina; and Clark County,  Nevada). Study participants in the treatment groups were sent a  series of e-mail messages encouraging registration and turnout.  E-mail message open rates were not recorded for these studies.
Observations on cost, voter convenience, and other considerations    One publication we reviewed noted that e-mail communication has  low transactions costs and large economies of scale, compared to  direct mail. However, there may be costs associated with obtaining  e-mail addresses for the target population.     The voter registration forms of the five states we visited all asked for,  but did not require, e-mail addresses. As a result, in these states   e-mail contact information for registered individuals is dependent on  whether a registrant chooses to provide this information.    States or localities may have privacy laws or regulations associated  with the storage and use of voter information, including e-mail  addresses. Officials in one local jurisdiction said that, upon receiving  a voter registration application that includes an e-mail address, they  retain the e-mail address for potential outreach purposes, but they do  not import the e-mail address into their state’s voter registration  database along with the other required registration information (such  as name and address). Officials said they do this to protect the  privacy of these individuals—because once an e-mail address is  imported into the state’s official voter registration database, it  becomes part of the public record, and campaigns and other parties  can use it to contact registered individuals.
State or local governments sometimes send mailings to inform potential  voters about upcoming elections or encourage them to register or vote.
Potential variations in mailings fall into  five broad categories:    Format. Mailings may be sent as  postcards, brochures, pamphlets,  booklets, or in other formats.  Additionally, they may include a  variety of presentation styles (e.g.,  font, color, pictures, and  organization), and they may  communicate information in one or  more languages.
We reviewed 36 studies in 16 publications. We found that the results of  the studies were mixed, with most studies reporting no evidence of an  effect (13 studies), an increase in turnout (9 studies), or a combination of  the two (12 studies), as shown in figure 9 below.    Study 1 found mixed results for mailings among the groups studied,  and reported that mailings may have differing effects on turnout  among registered individuals, based on their propensity to vote. The  study reported the results of a field experiment conducted in  Brownsville, Texas, prior to the 2004 presidential election.  Specifically, study authors obtained a list of all registered individuals  from the Cameron County Elections Department, and randomly  assigned participants to a mailing group and a control group.  Postcards were sent to 3,794 registered individuals 8 days prior to the  election encouraging them to vote. After the election, the Cameron  County Elections Department provided validated voter turnout  information for those in the mailing and control groups. The authors  reported an increase in turnout of 5.5 percentage points among  “regular” and “occasional” voters and 5.6 percentage points among  “rare” voters, compared to similarly classified individuals in the control  group, who did not receive postcards. The authors also reported no  statistically significant effects for mailings among other subgroups  (habitual voters and registered nonvoters). The authors suggested  that the unusually high effects on turnout they found in their study  might have been because of the lack of other mobilization efforts,  thus their mailer appeared more visible.     Study 5 tested the effects on voter turnout of five different variations  of postcard mailings, and found mixed results among the groups  studied. The postcards contained information about either (1) an  individual’s past voting record, (2) past turnout rates in their local  community, or (3) some combination of the two. Postcards were sent  to 5,000 registered individuals in Hawthorne, California,  approximately 5 days prior to a local election in November 2011. After  the election, the authors obtained validated voter turnout data from  the official Hawthorne, California voter file, and compared it across  the five treatment groups and the control group (which did not receive  a postcard). The authors found that only messages that included  information about the subjects’ own voting histories (whether or not  they voted in the 2006 and 2008 general elections) effectively  mobilized them to vote. Specifically, three of the five variations in  postcard content contained individuals’ personal voting history, and  for these variations, the authors reported turnout effects ranging from  1.4 to 3.1 percentage point increases, compared to the control group;  whereas the other two variations in postcards, which did not include  personal voter histories, resulted in no statistically significant effects  on turnout.     Studies 6 and 17 (from one publication and with the same authors)  found that sending postcards to eligible but unregistered individuals  encouraging them to register resulted in increases in turnout for all  groups studied. Study authors conducted their studies in partnership  with Delaware state election officials in connection with the 2012  general election (study 6), and in partnership with Oregon state  election officials in connection with the 2014 general election (study  17). Upon receiving contact information for eligible but unregistered  individuals in each state from the ERIC program, authors assigned  these individuals to treatment groups (who received different  variations of postcards) and a control group (who did not receive  postcards) in each state. Both states used a similar set of variations  in their communication—stressing either urgency, civic identity or  obligation, or plan making (prompting individuals to think about the  process of registering).  Study 36 assessed the effect of mailing Easy Voter Guides to 27,108  registered Asian-Americans in Orange County, California, prior to the  November 2006 general election. According to the authors of the  study, Easy Voter Guides included user-friendly information about  ballot items, including for and against arguments for ballot  propositions, and information about the candidates for office. These  guides were sent only to registered individuals with a “low-propensity”  for voting. Study authors reported statistically significant effects in  two of six groups studied, compared to the control group (which did  not receive a mailing). An organization serving Asian-Americans  mailed the guides prior to the November 2006 general election in  English to registered individuals who were U.S. born or were foreign  born and 35 years old or younger, and in Chinese, Korean, or  Vietnamese to registered individuals who were foreign born and older  than 35 years. The study found that mailing Easy Voter Guides in  English to Chinese-American and Vietnamese-American registered  individuals decreased turnout by 4.1 and 3.1 percentage points,  respectively. However, the guides had no statistically significant effect  on turnout among other language/ethnicity combinations (Chinese- Americans who were sent a guide in Chinese, Korean-Americans  who were sent a guide in Korean or English, and Vietnamese- Americans who were sent a guide in Vietnamese).
Observations on cost, voter convenience, and other considerations    To save on costs, state and local election officials may send eligible  mailings using U.S. Postal Service bulk mail, and in some instances  may use discounted nonprofit rates.
In some instances, local jurisdictions consolidate their mailings with  state mailings to save on costs. For example, the Colorado  Constitution allows local jurisdictions to combine the mailing of  required notices related to debt or tax ballot measures with the  mailing of the required ballot information booklet from the state in  order to save mailing costs.     Competing requirements can limit resource availability for  informational mailing efforts. For example, election officials in one  local jurisdiction we visited said they are already required to send  mailings for multiple purposes—such as to correct misinformation or  obtain additional information as part of the registration process.  These officials said they would like to send more mailings to inform  people of their options regarding how they may register and vote, but  said they are unable to do so because of the cost of the mailings they  are already required to send.     State laws may require that jurisdictions send mailings for various  reasons. For instance, Colorado’s Constitution requires that (1) the  state distribute an information booklet to registered voters prior to  each election in which a statewide issue will appear on the ballot, and  (2) local jurisdictions mail notices to inform registered voters about  upcoming ballot measures related to debt or taxes. Similarly, Rhode  Island state law requires that prior to each general election the state  mail each residence basic information pertaining to all ballot  questions, and specific information pertaining to questions involving  bonds, indebtedness, or any other long term financial obligations.
Specifically, all variations of postcards—for both Delaware and Oregon –included the  same basic information on the back of the postcards encouraging registration. However,  the pictures and wording on the front of the postcards varied. Delaware postcards  included four variations, which the authors referred to as “visualization/plan making,”  “urgency,” “national identity,” and “state identity;” Oregon postcards also included four  variations, which the authors referred to as “visualization/plan making,” “civic duty,” “state  identity”, and “placebo.” The “placebo” postcard variation in Oregon included a picture of  the same sticky note that is on the front of all other Oregon postcard variations and reads  “IMPORTANT! Don’t forget to register to vote before the deadline.” The placebo postcard,  however, had no other pictures on the front of the postcard (as the other variations did).
The lack of difference between the placebo variation and the other variations in Oregon  indicated that none of the postcard variations led to increases in turnout beyond the  common elements shared across all of the mailings.
Third party groups sometimes make “robocalls”—automated telephone  calls that deliver prerecorded messages—to inform potential voters about  dates or other aspects of upcoming elections and encourage them to  register or vote. State and local governments could also consider this  method.
Variations in implementation  The nature of robocalls would allow for  variations in:    Content. Robocalls may vary in the  type of information provided, the  tone of the message, the language  used (e.g., English, Spanish, etc.),  and may or may not include  information specific to the recipient  of the call—such as a recipient’s  polling place location. They may  also contain appeals for individuals  to take action, such as to register or  to vote.
We reviewed six studies in two publications, and five of the six studies  came from one publication and had the same author. All six studies  reported no statistically significant effects of robocalls on turnout,  although one study also found a statistically significant effect on turnout  ranging from 2.2 to 3.4 percentage points (as shown in figure 10). prerecorded messages from  different people, such as state or  local election officials or other  recognizable individuals. In the  studies we reviewed, robocalls  were placed by organizations other  than election jurisdictions. pressure” made prior to the August 2008 Michigan primary election  had turnout effects in that election and had persisting effects in the  subsequent November 2008 presidential election. Specifically,  registered individuals in the treatment group who had not voted in the  2006 primary election, received robocalls saying: “We are calling to  remind you to vote in tomorrow’s election. Primary elections are  important, but many people forget to vote in them. According to public  records, you did vote in both November 2004 and 2006, but you  missed the 2006 August primary. Please remember to vote tomorrow,  August 5th.” A control group of registered individuals with the same  voting history received a robocall encouraging them to recycle. Using  public records collected by registrars of voters to compare groups,  study authors reported that the treatment group turned out to vote by  2.2 percentage points more than the comparison group among one- voter households and 3.4 percentage points more than the  comparison group among two-voter households. Again using public  records, the authors followed-up to see if these turnout effects  persisted in the next election—the 2008 presidential election in  November. They reported that the differences between the treatment  and control groups found in the 2008 primary election did not persist  in the 2008 presidential election in November.     Studies 2 through 6 (from one publication and with the same author)  each found no effect on turnout from the use of robocalls. The studies  were all conducted in connection with the November 2002 midterm  election, and each study targeted registered individuals who resided  in precincts where Latinos made up at least 70 percent of those  registered to vote, and where turnout among registered individuals  was less than half the national average in the 2000 presidential  election. Each of the studies were conducted in precincts in one of  five locations nationwide: Los Angeles County, California; Orange  County, California; Harris County, Texas; the Denver, Colorado  metropolitan area; and the state of New Mexico. In each location,  registered individuals were randomly assigned to either a location- specific treatment group (which received robocalls) or a location- specific control group (which did not receive robocalls). In the two  California locations, the Texas location, and the New Mexico location,  those in the treatment groups received two calls in Spanish, read by a  prominent Spanish-language newscaster, encouraging them to vote  and saying “Your vote strengthens our communities and families with  better schools, better jobs and safer communities.” In the Denver  metropolitan area, a Denver city council member read a similar script  in English to those in the treatment group. The author reported no  statistically significant effects resulting from the robocalls in each  location (comparing turnout among those in the treatment group in  each location to turnout among those in the control group in each  location). The author highlighted challenges with robocalling,  including the inability to know with certainty the primary language of  the household, and difficulty obtaining current phone numbers. The  author suggested that future studies might find stronger effects of  robocalls on turnout by trying new or different messages, such as  messages that include each respondent’s polling location.
Observations on cost, voter convenience, and other considerations    There may be costs associated with (1) obtaining phone numbers for  the target population, (2) determining which phone numbers are  current and which numbers connect to landlines versus mobile  phones, and (3) placing robocalls. In one publication we reviewed, the  author reported that the total cost of a robocall campaign that  targeted 240,951 people was $23,725, making the cost per  participant about 10 cents.     Federal law does not prohibit non-commercial, informational robocalls  to landlines without prior consent. However, by regulation, prior  consent must be obtained, either orally or in writing, for similar calls to  wireless phones. States or localities may have privacy laws or  regulations associated with the storage and use of voter information,  including phone numbers.     The voter registration forms of the five states we visited all asked for,  but did not require, a phone number. As a result, in these states  phone contact information for registered individuals is dependent on  whether a registrant chooses to provide this information.
Third party groups sometimes send text messages to inform potential  voters about dates of upcoming elections and encourage them to vote. State  and local governments could also consider this method.
Variations in implementation  The nature of text messaging would  allow for variations in:    Content. Text messages may vary  in the type of information provided,  the tone of the message, the  language used (e.g., English,  Spanish, etc.), and may or may not  include website links to access  other content. They may also  contain appeals for individuals to  take action, such as to register or to  vote.   Source. In the studies we  reviewed, text messages were sent  by organizations other than election  jurisdictions. those who received text messages sent a day prior to the 2006  midterm election, compared to those who received no text messages.  The authors reported the results of a nationwide field experiment  wherein study participants were randomly divided into 4 treatment  groups of about 1,000 registered individuals each, and a control  group of about 4,000 registered individuals (control group participants  did not receive a text message). Individuals in all four treatment  groups received text messages that said: “A friendly reminder that  TOMORROW is Election Day.” Following this sentence in the text  message, treatment groups received different combinations of  information. Specifically, treatment groups one and two received a  “civic duty” message (“Democracy depends on citizens like you—so  please vote!), with treatment group two also receiving the phone  number for a national voter assistance hotline; and treatment groups  three and four received a “close election” message (“Elections often  come down to a few votes—so please vote!”), with treatment group  four also receiving the phone number for the hotline. The text  messages closed with the name of the organization that initially  registered the individual, as well as the name of the organization  responsible for sending the text message. The authors reported that  the results indicated no significant difference between the turnout  effects attributed to the two message appeals (civic duty vs. close  elections). They also concluded that adding a polling place hotline  number did not have an additional effect on turnout (beyond the  effects found for text messages generally).     Studies 2 and 3 (from one publication and with the same authors) had  different authors than study 1 but used a similar text message as  study 1. Study 2 reported an increase of 0.9 percentage points in  turnout among the study participants who received text messages a  day prior to the June 2010 statewide elections in California, compared  to those who did not. Specifically, individuals were divided randomly  into a treatment group and a control group. In the treatment group,  text messages were sent to 14,844 registered individuals in San  Mateo County who had provided valid cell phone numbers at the time  of registration; the control group included 14,829 registered  individuals who did not receive a text message, but who also provided  valid cell phone numbers at the time of registration. The text  messages were sent by a third party firm and included the same text  as the civic duty message in study 1 noted above: “A friendly  reminder that TOMORROW is Election Day. Democracy depends on  citizens like you—so please vote!” The authors noted that in study 1  (discussed above), people received texts from organizations that  registered them and in some cases gave permission to be contacted  via text message in the future. The authors distinguished their study  from the previous study by noting that their experiment sent “cold”  text messages—that is, the recipients did not receive text messages  from an organization that registered them in person and were not  asked for permission to receive text messages prior to Election Day.  In study 3 the same text messages were sent to a similar population  in San Mateo County, California, with a control group identified in the  same way as in study 2—but this study was conducted in connection  with a November 2009 local election. The authors reported a 0.8  percentage point increase in turnout associated with sending text  messages in connection with this election.
Observations on cost, voter convenience, and other considerations    There may be costs associated with (1) obtaining phone numbers for  the target population, (2) determining which phone numbers are  current, and which are landline versus mobile numbers, and (3)  sending bulk text messages. The three studies we reviewed used  phone numbers provided during voter registration. Two of these  studies used an outside firm to determine which numbers were  connected to mobile phones, and one study noted that this task was  performed, but did not say who performed it. All three studies used  third party groups to send the text messages.    Federal law prohibits text messages sent to mobile phones using an  automatic telephone dialing system unless the recipient previously  provided consent. For non-commercial, informational text messages,  prior consent may be given orally or in writing. Additionally, the  message must include a convenient way to “opt-out” of future  messages. Additionally, states or localities may have privacy laws or  regulations associated with the storage and use voter information,  including phone numbers.     The voter registration forms of the five states we visited all asked for,  but did not require, a phone number. As a result, in these states  phone contact information for registered individuals is dependent on  whether a registrant chooses to provide this information.
Some states’ laws require that individuals wishing to vote submit their voter  registration applications by a particular deadline before an upcoming  election.
We reviewed six studies from four publications. Four of the six studies  assessed the effect on turnout of moving the registration closing date  closer to Election Day, and two of the six studies assessed the extent to  which a requirement to register at least 28 days prior to an election  affected turnout. The results are shown in figure 12 below. a vote for President/Vice President. turnout in states without Election Day registration. register at least 15 days before  Election Day. However, California  residents who move to a new  county after this deadline can vote  at the polling place of their old  address (if they were already  registered). years from 1920 through 2000. This study found that for all states  combined as the period of time between registration closing and  Election Day decreased, turnout increased. However, when  examining states on the basis of geography, the effect of registration  closing dates on turnout depended on the group of states included in  the comparison. Study authors reported statistically significant effects  for all states combined and also for southern states, but not for non- southern states. For all states combined, the turnout increase was  estimated to be 0.021 percentage points for each one-day decrease  in the time between the registration deadline and Election Day, and  for southern states the turnout increase was 0.045 percentage points  per one-day decrease. So, for all states combined, a 10-day decrease  in the time between the registration deadline and Election Day  resulted in a 0.2 percentage point increase in turnout; and for  southern states, a 10-day decrease resulted in a 0.45 percentage  point increase in turnout.    Studies 5 and 6 (from one publication) assessed the effect of state  registration deadlines that required individuals to register at least 28  days before an election (compared to the effect of state registration  deadlines that were less than 28 days). Using U.S. Census Bureau’s  Current Population Survey (CPS) data, study 5 found no statistically  significant effect on turnout from having a deadline at least 28-days  before the 2008 presidential election, across four different models  (the models differed in the extent to which they controlled for different  early voting laws and other state-level reforms). Also using CPS data,  study 6 conducted a similar analysis in relation to the 2012 midterm  election and found a statistically significant decrease in turnout in one  model (not reported as a percentage point estimate) and no  statistically significant effects in the other three models.
Observations on cost, voter convenience, and other considerations    All five of the states we visited have registration deadlines prior to  Election Day; however, three of them (Colorado, Illinois, and Rhode  Island) also have some form of same day registration. State election  officials in four of these states generally said that having a deadline  provides time for local election officials to complete various election- related tasks, such as processing remaining registration applications  and updating registration rolls, preparing and printing poll books,  preparing ballots, and mailing ballots.   One publication we reviewed argued that voters’ interest in an  election builds progressively until Election Day, and so registration  closing dates can limit whether some interested citizens, who would  otherwise be eligible, register to vote in time and are then able to  vote. Similarly, a local election official we spoke with noted that  despite the jurisdiction’s efforts to announce and publicize upcoming  elections, many voters do not become interested in the elections until  a few weeks before Election Day, which is too late to register in that  jurisdiction’s state.    States may have different deadlines and rules related to third party  registration drives. For instance, in addition to having a separate  deadline for individuals who register through voter registration drives,  Colorado law requires that third party groups deliver completed  applications to the appropriate local jurisdiction no later than 15  business days after the application was signed (or postmarked by that  date, if mailed). Researchers at one organization we spoke with said  that third party registration groups often turn in many paper  registration forms at the same time close to the registration deadline,  increasing the burden on election officials who need to input the  information from the forms into their state’s voter registration  database.    Federal law requires that individuals who move to a new state within  30 days of a presidential election must be allowed to vote for  President and Vice President in their former state, either in-person or  by absentee ballot. Additionally, individuals who move within the  same local jurisdiction must be given the opportunity to update their  registration and vote even if they never notified the registrar of their  move.
Some state laws allow eligible individuals to register (or update their  registration) and vote on the same day.
Variations in implementation  Depending on the state, same day  registration may be offered on Election  Day, during an early voting period, or  both. Some states refer to this policy  as Election Day registration, and the  two terms (same day registration and  Election Day registration) are  sometimes used interchangeably.  When referring to findings in  publications and studies, we use the  terms used by the authors. county election office and all  permanent early voting and Election  Day polling places, while smaller  counties that use printed poll books  are only required to offer it at the main  election office and in any polling place  that serves 20 percent or more of the  county’s residents and is located in a  different municipality than the main  election office.
Some states limit the type of ballot  available to individuals who register  and vote on the same day. For  example, in Rhode Island, an  individual who has not registered to  vote can cast a ballot for President  and Vice President on Election Day at  his or her city or town hall or an  alternate location designated by the  local board of canvassers, and the  casting of the ballot begins the  process of voter registration. proximity of registration deadlines to Election Day affects voter  turnout, with Election Day registration being a registration deadline of  0 days before Election Day. Study 1 analyzed CPS data at the county  level for all presidential and midterm elections from 1992 through  2004 in which there was at least one statewide-office on the ballot.  The author analyzed the effect of the length of registration deadlines  (how far in advance an individual must register before an election) on  turnout and estimated that a change from a registration deadline 30  days in advance of the election to 0 days (the equivalent of Election  Day registration) would increase turnout by 8.7 percentage points.  Study 19 used individual-level CPS data from presidential and  midterm elections from 1994 through 2006 and estimated that  changing a registration deadline from 30 days before Election Day to  0 days (Election Day registration) would increase an individual’s  probability of voting by an estimated 7.3 percent.    Two studies (Studies 7 and 13) in another publication assessed the  effect of Election Day registration in presidential and midterm  elections, respectively, from 1980 through 2006. Using one model,  Study 7 found that the policy increased turnout by 4.5 percentage  points, on average, in presidential election years, and Study 13 found  that the policy increased turnout by 2 percentage points, on average,  in midterm election years. The authors also presented alternative  models in each study that controlled for the interaction between  Election Day registration and the competitiveness of key races  (presidential races in the presidential election years and state  gubernatorial races in midterm election years) and found no  statistically significant effects of Election Day registration alone in  these models. However, study 13 found that states with Election Day  registration that had competitive gubernatorial elections had  significantly higher midterm turnout than did states with only Election  Day registration or just competitive gubernatorial races. The authors  concluded that with less information generally available for midterm  elections, electoral competition along with Election Day registration  may combine to increase turnout.    Study 9 examined Wisconsin’s initial implementation of Election Day  registration as a natural experiment because the policy was  implemented in different municipalities throughout the state at  different times. Specifically, municipalities that previously required  voters to register before voting were required to implement the policy,  whereas municipalities that did not have a registration requirement  did not change their procedures. As a result, a county could have  some municipalities that implemented Election Day registration and  some that continued without a registration requirement. Using county- level data from the Wisconsin Election Board for the number of votes  cast in presidential elections from 1972 through 1980 and the  proportion of a county’s population affected by the adoption of  Election Day registration, the authors estimated that if a county were  to move from no population covered by Election Day registration to  having all of its population covered by Election Day registration,  turnout would increase by about 3.0 percentage points.
Observations on cost, voter convenience, and other considerations  Implementing same day registration can have cost implications. To  avoid the potential for longer lines at polling places resulting from the  additional step to register and possible confusion over the process,  some jurisdictions may hire additional poll workers to assist those  who need to register as well as vote. For example, the Office of Policy  Analysis within the Maryland Department of Legislative Services  reported that the main additional cost of implementing Election Day  registration, as it was being considered in proposed legislation, would  be hiring additional staff to process registrations at polling places.  Additionally, officials from one large urban jurisdiction told us they had  purchased electronic poll books in anticipation of offering same day  registration, which was a cost to the jurisdiction. However, electronic  poll books may reduce costs in other areas, specifically eliminating  the need to print paper poll books for each polling place.    Literature that we reviewed indicated that same day registration can  provide convenience for voters, including those who missed a  registration deadline as well as particular subsets of voters, such as  young voters or those who move frequently.    The Pew Center on the States reported that allowing for registration  on Election Day can provide a failsafe option for eligible individuals  whose registration information is inaccurately listed despite their own  best efforts. Similarly, the Government Accountability Board of  Wisconsin—a state that has had Election Day registration since  1976—noted that Election Day registration offers an eligible individual  the opportunity to correct administrative mistakes made by the  individual or election officials.    The National Conference of State Legislatures reported that same  day registration can result in administrative burdens for election  officials, given that eligibility must be verified at the same time that the  registrant provides his or her information. In general, states with  same day registration require applicants to provide some form of  identification and proof of residency. One case study across multiple  states noted that the Election Day registration process and  requirements can result in confusion for poll workers and long lines.    Literature we reviewed cited concerns about potential fraud  associated with registering individuals and immediately allowing them  to cast a ballot, because there may be challenges to verifying an  individual’s eligibility at the polling place. For example, polling places  that use printed precinct-specific poll books may not have resources  available for poll workers to be able to confirm that the individual is  not already registered in another location. However, the literature and  officials we spoke with noted that there are methods for limiting the  potential for fraud. In Colorado, all jurisdictions in the state use  electronic poll books that are connected in real-time via the internet to  the state’s voter registration system, and the Colorado election  director said that this technology helps officials or poll workers at the  polling place determine if a person is already registered elsewhere in  the state, which can mitigate fraud concerns. In Illinois, which recently  began to implement same day registration, state officials said that  local jurisdictions will be responsible for determining how to verify  eligibility and prevent fraud—they noted that some may use tools  connected to the internet to verify potential registrants against the  state’s registration system, while others may require voters to sign an  affidavit that they will not vote again at another location.
Some states and local jurisdictions conduct elections by mail, such that all  registered individuals receive ballots in the mail prior to Election Day and  may return the ballots by mailing them or dropping them off at one or more  designated locations.
We reviewed 21 studies in 12 publications. We found that 11 studies  reported an increase in turnout, 3 studies reported no evidence of an  effect on turnout, 4 studies reported a combination of these (increases  and non-significant findings), 1 study reported a combination of a  decrease in turnout and no evidence of an effect on turnout, and 2  studies reported decreases in turnout.    Study 1 examined turnout patterns in all statewide elections in  Oregon from 1960 through 2010 to test the extent to which elections  conducted using all vote-by-mail procedures affected turnout  compared to elections that used polling places and absentee vote-by- mail. This was possible because Oregon adopted all vote-by-mail as  a method of voting in all elections in 1998. Using Oregon’s official  turnout data, the authors examined the extent to which all vote-by- mail had turnout effects on different types of elections and assessed  how long any effects persisted over time. They reported no  statistically significant effects on turnout associated with conducting  all vote-by-mail elections beyond the first three elections in which it  was used and beyond certain types of low-interest special elections.  However, they reported effects ranging from an increase of 8.4  percentage points to an increase of 15.5 percentage points  associated with the first three elections conducted using all vote-by- mail. Specifically, the 8.4 percentage point increase was associated  with all types of elections. It was calculated using the voting-eligible  population as the denominator for turnout. The 15.5 percentage point  increase was associated only with the special and primary elections  that were among the first three elections using all vote-by-mail. It  used registered individuals as the denominator for turnout.   Additionally, the authors reported that using all vote-by-mail resulted  in an 11 percentage point increase in turnout in low-profile, low  interest elections—which they defined as special elections that  included only ballot initiatives and referenda, and did not include  candidate races. The authors concluded that the introduction of all  vote-by-mail in Oregon led to a novelty effect that dissipated after  three subsequent elections. Additionally, they concluded that any  lasting turnout effects of all vote-by-mail are most likely limited to  subfederal contests, precisely where voter interest is lowest and the  relative impact of lowering of the costs of voting would be greatest.     Study 7 assessed the extent to which Colorado’s adoption of all vote- by-mail in 2013 affected turnout in the 2014 midterm election. The  authors noted that when Colorado adopted all vote-by-mail, it retained  all previously available voting options (i.e., voting in-person prior to or  on Election Day). Thus, the authors asserted, their results reflect the  effect of adding vote-by-mail as an option, rather than switching to  vote by mail as the only option. Using county-level data from the  Election Assistance Commission for all presidential and midterm  elections from 2004 through 2014 and multivariate linear regression  models, the authors estimated the effect of an all vote-by-mail  election on turnout among registered individuals. Because same day  registration was adopted at the same time as the all vote-by-mail  policy, the authors excluded all individuals who voted using same day  registration from their analysis. They reported that the all vote-by-mail  system implemented in the 2014 election was associated with  increases in turnout across all four models they used, ranging from  2.5 percentage points to 5.1 percentage points.        Studies 20 and 21 (from one publication) found that turnout was lower  in California precincts that conducted elections exclusively by mail  compared to California precincts that used polling places in  combination with the opportunity to cast absentee ballots. The  authors took advantage of a “natural experiment” created by a state  law in California that allows county registrars to designate any  precinct with fewer than 250 registrants as an all vote-by-mail  precinct. The authors noted that since this natural experiment did not  perfectly mimic random assignment, they used matching methods to  pair each all vote-by-mail precinct with precincts where elections were  conducted using polling places and absentee ballots, and contained  populations with similar demographic and political attributes (e.g.,  similar partisanship balances among the electorate and similar  margins of victory between the top two contestants). Study 20  assessed turnout differences between the two groups across 9  counties in the 2002 midterm election. Study 21 assessed differences  between the two groups across 18 counties in connection with the  2000 presidential election. Using precinct-level data, the authors  reported that turnout among voters in all vote-by-mail precincts was  1.5 and 2.7 percentage points lower than turnout among voters in  polling place precincts for the 2002 midterm election and 2000  presidential election, respectively. The authors concluded that shifting  elections from the polling place to the mailbox risks producing a  decline in turnout for regularly scheduled general elections.
Observations on cost, voter convenience, and other considerations    State and local election officials we met with in Colorado and Oregon  generally agreed that all vote-by-mail elections save on costs and are  easier to administer than elections where votes are cast at polling  places. For instance, according to the Colorado Director of Elections,  many Colorado counties reported that the change to all vote-by-mail  (which Colorado did in 2013) saved their jurisdictions money in the  administration of elections. Further, this official said that counties  reported that the primary area of cost savings was personnel costs,  due to not having to staff as many locations. Additionally, officials in  one local jurisdiction said that they believed that the all vote-by-mail  system they use saves money because they do not have to maintain  as much voting equipment, hire as many poll workers, or rent polling  places.     Chief election officials from three local jurisdictions stated that voting  by mail allows voters whatever time they need to research the  relevant issues and cast a ballot. On the other hand, the chief local  election official from one local jurisdiction noted that filling out a ballot  in one’s own home may compromise privacy or allow for coercion in  the voting process (for example, from other family members).    The Presidential Commission on Election Administration reported  several challenges associated with conducting elections by mail. For  instance, the Commission reported that voting by mail requires  successful delivery and receipt of the ballot at many stages in the  voting pipeline. Thus, ballots can be lost in the mail or can be mailed  out or received too late for timely voting. They also reported that  voters occasionally make mistakes in complying with various  signature and other requirements in order for their mail ballots to be  counted. Nevertheless, the Commission reported that appropriate  safeguards could mitigate these risks—such as establishing  communication with the local Postmaster and implementing ballot  tracking mechanisms.       The state election directors in both Colorado and Oregon—which  conduct all vote-by-mail elections—reported having little concern with  the security and integrity of administering all vote-by-mail elections.  These officials noted that their states require one or more local  election officials to compare signatures on the ballots with signatures  in their states’ respective voter registration databases and validate  each signature individually. Additionally, one local jurisdiction we  visited implemented a ballot tracking system that uses postal  barcodes to track mail ballot envelopes from the time they are printed  through every stage of the postal process, up to the time when they  have been delivered to the local jurisdiction. This system provides  reports to local election officials about the status of all mail ballots and  can be used by individual voters to obtain status updates, including  notifications that their ballots have been accepted for counting (or  rejected due a signature discrepancy).
Some states or jurisdictions allow voters to cast their vote in-person without  an excuse before election day.
Variations in implementation  States use different terms for this  policy, such as early voting or in- person absentee voting, among  others.
Among states that allow for early  voting, the specific circumstances for  in-person early voting—such as the  dates, times, and locations—are  based on state and local  requirements. Implementation and  characteristics of early voting vary  among states and, in some cases,  among the jurisdictions within a state.  States vary in terms of the days and  locations provided for early in-person  voting, including the extent to which  voting is available on one or more  weekends prior to Election Day.  Additionally, states differ in terms of  the hours that polling locations are  open for early in-person voting. For  example, some states specify a  particular location or minimum number  of early voting locations, such as the  election office, and allow local election  officials discretion to expand the  locations or number of early voting  sites. Some states’ laws dictate the  number of early voting locations based  on the population of the relevant  jurisdiction.
We reviewed 20 studies from 12 publications, and these studies had  varied findings. Seven studies found no statistically significant effect,  another 8 studies found that the policy decreased turnout, and 5 studies  reported mixed evidence. Reported effects from these studies ranged  from a 3.8 percentage point decrease in turnout to a 3.1 percentage point  increase.    Study 1 used CPS and state turnout data from presidential elections  from 1972 through 2008 to assess the effect of the length of the early  voting period on turnout. The study estimated that early in-person  voting had no statistically significant effect on turnout if the early  voting period was less than 27 days, and that a voting period of at  least 27 days would be necessary to see any positive effect of early  in-person voting on turnout. Further, the authors estimated that a 45- day early voting period would lead to a 3.1 percentage-point increase  in turnout. However, the authors note that 45 days is a longer voting  period than most states allow.     Study 2 found that early in-person voting had mixed effects on  turnout, depending on how long the policy had been in place. Using  aggregate turnout data from 500 randomly selected counties  nationwide, the authors analyzed turnout in these counties for  presidential elections from 1972 through 2004 and examined the  change in turnout in each county before and after the county  implemented early in-person voting. The study found that the first  time early in-person voting was offered in a presidential election, it  increased county-level turnout by 1.5 percentage points compared to  the previous presidential election, but the second time early in-person  voting was offered in a presidential election, it decreased county-level  turnout by 2.4 percentage points (also compared to the previous  presidential election); the study found no statistically significant effect  of this policy in the third presidential election after it was introduced  (again, compared to the previous presidential election).     Study 10 used CPS data covering presidential and midterm elections  from 1980 through 2010 and found no statistically significant effects  of early in-person voting on turnout among Whites and Blacks, but  found evidence that early in-person voting decreased turnout among  Latinos in states that offered this policy compared to states that did  not, though the effect was not stated in terms of a percentage point  difference.    Studies 19 and 20, which are from one publication, analyzed the  effect of early in-person voting on county-level turnout across multiple  states (collected from several sources) in the 2012 and 2008  presidential elections, respectively. The studies found that the  statewide availability of this policy decreased turnout by 3.8  percentage points in the 2008 election and by 3.5 percentage points  in the 2012 election in counties that offered it in each election  compared to counties where it was not offered. The author suggested  that early in-person voting depresses turnout by decreasing the civic  energy traditionally associated with Election Day as well as get-out- the-vote (GOTV) efforts and media attention in the weeks before  Election Day. However, the author also included in his analysis a  variable that accounted for the number of early voting locations (per  1,000 voting-age residents) and found that a greater number of early  voting locations was associated with higher turnout. The author  concluded that while adopting early in-person voting at the state level  fails to increase turnout, adopting early voting and also providing an  ample number of locations could lower voters’ costs enough to  increase turnout.
Observations on cost, voter convenience, and other considerations    Although there can be costs associated with opening polling places  for additional days, the Presidential Commission on Election  Administration reported that these costs could be offset because  fewer polling places could be needed on Election Day, although the  Commission noted that adequate facilities should remain available on  Election Day to ensure reasonable wait times. Officials in one local  jurisdiction we visited said they were able to reduce Election Day  polling places by 20 percent because of early voting opportunities,  including early in-person voting and no-excuse absentee voting.    Officials from one local jurisdiction we visited said that early in-person  voting increases convenience for voters and reduces wait times on  Election Day. These officials noted that early in-person voting can  also reduce the effect of any problems that arise on Election Day—for  example, if there is inclement weather, individuals who vote early are  unlikely to be affected.
In a nationwide survey we conducted following the November 2012  election, officials in 23 states reported that the availability of  alternative voting options, including early in-person voting, can affect  wait times on Election Day. In some cases, officials reported that they  believed that no or limited opportunities for voting outside of Election  Day were a contributing factor to long wait times on Election Day.
States and local jurisdictions determine the hours available for voting on  Election Day or any available early voting days, and the number of hours  available for voting can be longer in some locations than others.
Variations in implementation  Current federal law does not dictate  the hours that polling places are  required to be open on Election Day.  Some states establish statewide  requirements for the times that voting  will be available, while other states  may allow for local discretion  regarding the opening and closing  times for the polls. For example,  Delaware state law requires polling  places to open at 7:00 a.m. and close  at 8:00 p.m. Kansas state law  establishes poll hours from 7:00 a.m.  to 7:00 p.m., unless different hours are  set and publicly announced by the  county election officer, and if different  hours are set state law requires the  polls to be open at least 12 continuous  hours (opening no earlier than 6:00  a.m., closing no earlier than 7:00 p.m.  and no later than 8:00 p.m.). In  Vermont, each town sets polling place  hours, though state law requires that  the polls open no earlier than 5:00  a.m. and no later than 10:00 a.m. and  that polls close at 7:00 p.m.
The literature we reviewed addressed  the hours for voting on Election Day,  but states and local jurisdictions may  also vary the hours available for voting  during early in-person voting. For  example, polling places can be open  different hours on weekdays  compared to weekends during the  early voting period. examined the effects of states having polling places open before 7:00  a.m. (compared to states that did not have polling places open before  that time) and the effects of having polling places open after 7:00 p.m.  (compared to states that did not have polling places open after that  time). The study reported an estimated 1.7 percentage point increase  in turnout from opening polling places before 7:00 a.m. and a 1.0  percentage point increase in turnout from keeping polling places open  after 7:00 p.m.    The authors of study 2 compiled an original data set of state turnout  rates for presidential elections from 1920 through 2000 using vote  totals provided by the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives and  population data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Statistical Abstracts  of the United States. The study uses three multivariate regression  models—one for all 50 states, one for 11 southern states, and one for  39 non-southern states to look at the effect of the varying number of  hours the polls are open, by state, on turnout. The study found that  the number of hours that polls were open did not have a statistically  significant effect in the models for all 50 states or southern states, but  the model for non-southern states indicated a statistically significant  relationship between the total number of hours that the polls are open  on Election Day and voter turnout particularly between non-Southern  states that had shorter polling days (4 to 5 hours) and those that had  longer polling days (9 to 10 hours). The authors noted a possible  decrease in turnout from having the polls open for more than 11  hours, and suggested that there is a point (around 10 hours) at which  state turnout rates are maximized.
Observations on cost, voter convenience, and other considerations    Keeping polling locations open for additional hours may have cost  implications. For example, election officials in one local jurisdiction we  visited said the election office must pay for the marginal cost of  having the facility open for the additional voting hours, which can  include costs such as utilities or building security. Similarly, states or  local jurisdictions that pay poll workers by an hourly rate would incur  additional costs from having polling places open additional hours.    Additional poll hours may provide additional convenience to some  voters. According to CPS data for general elections from 2000  through 2014, the most commonly reported reason among registered  voters for not voting was being too busy or having a conflicting  schedule. Extending voting hours may provide additional options for  some voters whose schedules conflict with existing available hours  for voting.    Election offices can face challenges in recruiting poll workers, partly  because of the hours workers are required to be at polling locations,  and election offices may face increased challenges in recruiting poll  workers for longer voting days. The EAC has reported that many  people find the long hours required of poll workers to be a deterrent to  serving as a poll worker. According to the EAC, to address the issue  that some individuals may not want to work long hours on Election  Day, some jurisdictions allow poll workers to work split shifts.  However the EAC notes that such split shifts are sometimes  controversial because they can create administrative difficulties; for  example, poll workers for later shifts may not show up to replace  those who are scheduled to leave. different hours are set and publicly announced by the county election officer, and if  different hours are set state law requires the polls to be open at least 12 continuous hours  (opening no earlier than 5:00 a.m., closing no earlier than 6:00 p.m. and no later than 7:00  p.m.). Kan. Stat. Ann. § 25-106.
Some states allow any registered individual to request an absentee ballot  and to vote by mail, without requiring that the individual state a reason for  doing so.
Variations in implementation  Some states with no-excuse absentee  voting require voters to submit an  application for an absentee ballot with  each election, whereas other states  permit any registered voter to join a  permanent absentee voting list. Once  voters opt into this list, they will, in  general, automatically receive an  absentee ballot for all future elections.
We reviewed 18 studies from 12 publications that had varied findings.  Reported effects from these studies ranged from a 3.2 percentage point  increase to a 4.0 percentage point decrease, with many studies (10 of 18)  reporting mixed evidence or no statistically significant effects.    Study 2 assessed the effect of expanding no-excuse absentee voting  in Colorado to include the option for joining a permanent absentee list  (Colorado adopted this policy in 2008). Using county-level data on  voting methods and turnout in Colorado for all presidential and  midterm elections from 2004 through 2014, the authors estimated an  associated increase in turnout of 1.8 to 2.3 percentage points among  registered individuals across four models (comparing turnout after the  adoption of the policy to turnout prior to the adoption of the policy).    Studies 4, 5, and 6 (from one publication) used CPS data to assess  the effects of both permanent no-excuse absentee voting and  nonpermanent no-excuse absentee voting on turnout in the 2000,  2004, and 2008 presidential elections, respectively. Each study found  that both forms of no-excuse absentee voting were associated with a  higher probability of voting among individuals in states that allowed  these voting options than in states that did not allow these options.  However, the authors did not report their findings in terms of  percentage point effects on turnout.     Studies 15 and 16 (from one publication) assessed the effect of no- excuse absentee voting in midterm and presidential elections,  respectively. These studies utilized state-level turnout data from all 50  states for elections held from 1980 through 2006. Study 15, related to  midterm elections, found no statistically significant effect on turnout  associated with no-excuse absentee voting (comparing turnout in  states that had no-excuse absentee voting to states that did not).  Study 16, related to presidential elections, estimated a decrease in  turnout of 1.1 percentage points in states that allowed no-excuse  absentee voting, compared to states that did not.     Study 17 attempted to determine the extent to which no-excuse  absentee voting affected turnout and the extent to which the effect  persisted in subsequent elections after its introduction. Using turnout  data from 500 randomly selected counties nationwide, and examining  turnout in presidential elections from 1972 through 2004, the authors  of this study reported that the policy had no statistically significant  effects on turnout in the first two presidential elections after it was  introduced. However, they estimated a 2.8 percentage point decrease  in turnout associated with the third presidential election after the  policy became available.
Observations on cost, voter convenience, and other considerations    The author of one publication reported cost savings associated with  administering permanent no-excuse absentee ballots versus  administering nonpermanent no-excuse absentee ballots.  Specifically, the author reported that in the 2008 presidential election,  Contra Costa County in California spent $1.37 per ballot to administer  about 215,000 permanent no-excuse absentee ballots versus $10.64  per ballot to administer about 40,000 nonpermanent no-excuse  absentee ballots. Some of the cost savings, the author explained,  come from not having to process individual requests for each ballot.  The author notes, however, that while the lower cost for administering  permanent absentee ballots is encouraging, it is important to  remember that mail ballots still represent additional costs in the  conduct of elections as long as a jurisdiction is also staffing polling  places.    Some jurisdictions may choose to pay for return postage on absentee  ballots, which transfers this cost from the voter to the jurisdiction. In  2010, the EAC reported that approximately 30 percent of survey  respondents in a nationwide EAC study believed that free postage  would make them more likely to vote in an election. However, only 9  percent of respondents indicated that without a free postage program  there was a significant chance they would not vote in an election.     Officials in one local jurisdiction we visited said that enabling more  people to vote by mail through no-excuse absentee voting can reduce  the number of people voting in person on Election Day. These  officials said they plan to send an absentee application to all  registered individuals with an active registration prior to the 2016  presidential election to encourage the use of absentee voting. They  said the amount of cost savings from this effort will depend on how  many people use this option. They anticipate an increase in the use  of absentee voting and expect some overall cost savings from this  effort, but noted that absentee mail voting also has labor costs—such  as costs associated with processing the requests, mailing the ballots,  and performing signature verifications, among other things.
Some states and local jurisdictions allow for the use of vote centers, which  are polling places strategically located throughout a political subdivision  where any registered individual may vote, regardless of the precinct in  which the individual resides.
Variations in implementation  Vote centers may be open during an  early voting period, on Election Day,  or both. They may be located at  shopping malls, grocery stores,  community centers, or a variety of  other locations, and may vary in the  number of registered individuals they  serve.
We reviewed six studies in four publications. Five of the six studies had  the same two co-authors, although one of the five studies included  additional co-authors. Most studies (five of six) reported that the use of  vote centers increased turnout.    Study 1 compared turnout among voters in Larimer County, Colorado  (which used vote centers in 2003 and 2004) to turnout among voters  in adjacent Weld County, Colorado (which did not use vote centers in  2003 and 2004). The elections examined included a November 2003  local election, an August 2004 state and federal primary election, and  the November 2004 presidential election. The authors noted that  Larimer and Weld counties are geographically proximate to each  other, shared elected representatives, and shared some demographic  characteristics among their populations. To make this comparison,  the authors matched 1,930 registered individuals in Larimer County  (who used vote centers) to 1,930 similarly-situated registered  individuals in Weld County (who did not use vote centers). The  authors found that turnout was 2.6 percentage points higher in the  treatment group than in the control group across the three elections,  and concluded that this difference suggested that vote centers had a  positive effect on turnout.    Study 2 compared turnout in Travis County, Texas—in elections that  occurred before and after the county adopted vote centers—and  found that the use of vote centers increased turnout by 1.4  percentage points. Specifically, the authors compared turnout in a  2009 statewide constitutional amendment election (before Travis  County adopted vote centers) to turnout in a 2011 statewide  constitutional amendment election (after the county adopted vote  centers). The authors noted that the elections were similar to one  another and there were no significant campaigns related to any of the  amendments in either election (11 amendments in 2009 and 10  amendments in 2011). To make the comparison, the authors obtained  the Travis County voter file and filtered it to exclude any individual  who was not eligible to vote in both elections. The authors explained  that in Travis County, most of the precinct polling sites used in the  2009 election continued to operate in the 2011 election but were  converted to vote centers, and the county also added six new vote  center locations for the 2011 election (for a total of 187 vote center  locations). As such, Travis County adopted the openness of vote  centers—so that anyone in the county could vote at any location— without centralizing the polling places. This, the authors asserted,  allowed them to isolate the effects of openness on turnout apart from  effects that might result from consolidating the total number of polling  places; however, the Travis County model likely differs from most  other vote center models where consolidation is a key aspect.     Study 6 assessed the effect of vote centers on turnout in the 2006  midterm election for 61 of Colorado’s 64 counties. Using county-level  turnout data, the authors compared turnout among counties that used  vote centers and counties that did not.  The authors used three  different models to assess the effect of vote centers on turnout and  the extent to which turnout also may have been influenced by  electoral competition. The authors reported decreases in turnout of 2  and 1.8 percentage points in counties using vote centers for two of  the models and no statistically significant effect in the third model.  The authors noted that these findings match some basic statistics  regarding which counties chose to make the switch to vote centers,  with counties that chose to make the switch having lower overall  turnout in both the 1998 and 2002 midterm elections also. Thus, the  authors concluded, the causal direction of the relationship between  vote centers and turnout remains unclear.
Observations on cost, voter convenience, and other considerations    A study sponsored by the Indiana Secretary of State and published in  2010 concluded that Election Day vote centers would likely produce  significant cost savings for all counties that might implement them  due to efficiencies gained from having fewer overall polling places  and poll workers on Election Day, and reducing the number of voting  machines necessary. Informed by a previous study relating  specifically to the implementation of Election Day vote centers at  three pilot sites, authors of this study developed a model that  estimated possible cost savings associated with implementing  Election Day vote centers in each county. Compared to a precinct- based process, the authors estimated that Election Day vote centers  would result in cost-per-vote savings ranging from 20 percent to 56  percent across Illinois counties.    The chief election official in one local jurisdiction we visited said that  vote centers are easier to manage and result in cost savings for the  jurisdiction, compared to managing traditional precinct locations.  Specifically, this official said that having a smaller number of locations  and not having to hire as many poll workers results in cost savings.  Additionally, the official said, vote centers provide a better experience  for voters because, in this jurisdiction, permanent elections office  staff, rather than temporary poll workers, are always present to  answer any questions or address any concerns.    According to one publication we reviewed, although vote centers are  typically fewer in number across jurisdictions and may be greater  distances from individuals’ residences than are precinct-based polling  places, they increase the number of sites available to potential voters,  and may be more complementary with people’s daily routines than  exclusive precinct locations. The authors note that having vote  centers available might be particularly important for those individuals  who commute longer distances to work, as precinct-based polling  locations might only be accessible to them in the mornings or  evenings, while other polling locations might be nearer to their  workplaces and more accessible throughout the day.    The EAC guidelines state that vote centers require the use of  electronic poll books and a secure real-time connection to a central  election office voter registration database to ensure that no voters can  vote twice in an election. Additionally, the National Conference of  State Legislatures reported that vote centers must be able to produce  the appropriate ballot for each voter. This requires either  touchscreen machines that can be reset for each voter, "print-on- demand" equipment, or sufficient quantities of paper ballots for every  ballot style. Thus, there may be initial investments required for some  jurisdictions wishing to convert to a vote center model.
section_title: Appendix V: Bibliography
paragraphs: This bibliography contains citations for the studies in the 53 publications  we reviewed regarding policies and practices that may affect voter  turnout. The publications listed below include one or more studies for  which the design, implementation, and analyses were sufficiently sound  to support the results and conclusions, based on generally accepted  social science principles. (See appendix II for more information about  how we made these determinations.) Publications may be listed multiple  times—once under each policy or practice within our scope that the  publication’s authors analyzed—and following the citation we include the  study numbers that correspond to content in the individual policy  summaries earlier in this report. For example, in the e-mail policy  summary, figure 8 in appendix IV depicts findings from 18 studies (each  numbered in the figure), and the numbers 1 through 18 in the figure  correspond to the numbers listed following citations for publications that  analyzed the effect of e-mail on voter turnout.
Haenschen, Katherine. “@ The Vote: Four Experiments Using Facebook  & Email To Increase Voter Turnout.” Prepared for the American Political  Science Association Conference, September 2015. (Study 17)
Malhotra, Neil; Melissa R. Michelson; and Ali Adam Valenzuela. “Emails  from Official Sources Can Increase Turnout.” Quarterly Journal of Political  Science, vol. 7, no. 3, (2012): 321-332. (Studies 1–3)
Nickerson, David W. “Does Email Boost Turnout?” Quarterly Journal of  Political Science, vol. 2, no. 4, (2007): 369-379. (Studies 4–16)
Ulbig, Stacy G. and Tamara Waggener. “Getting Registered and Getting  to the Polls: The Impact of Voter Registration Strategy and Information  Provision on Turnout of College Students.” PS: Political Science and  Politics, vol. 44, no. 3, (2011): 544-551. (Study 18)
subsections: section_title: Mailings
paragraphs: Abrajano, Marisa and Costas Panagopoulos. “Does Language Matter?  The Impact of Spanish Versus English-Language GOTV Efforts on Latino  Turnout.” American Politics Research, vol. 39, no. 4, (2011): 643-663.  (Study 7)
Bedolla, Lisa Garcia and Melissa R. Michelson. “What Do Voters Need to  Know? Testing the Role of Cognitive Information in Asian American Voter  Mobilization.” American Politics Research, vol. 37, no. 2, (2009): 254-274.  (Studies 2, 34, and 36)
Davenport, Tiffany C.; Alan S. Gerber; Donald P. Green; Christopher W.  Larimer; Christopher B. Mann; and Costas Panagopoulos. “The Enduring  Effects of Social Pressure: Tracking Campaign Experiments over a Series  of Elections.” Political Behavior, vol. 32, no. 3, (2010): 423-430. (Studies  3, 8, 10, 13, 27, and 28)
Gerber, Alan S.; Gregory A. Huber; Daniel R. Biggers; and David J.  Hendry. “Ballot Secrecy Concerns and Voter Mobilization: New  Experimental Evidence about Message Source, Context, and the  Duration of Mobilization Effects.” American Politics Research, vol. 42, no.  5, (2014): 896-923. (Studies 4 and 14)
Mann, Christopher B. and Lindsay Pryor, 2013 ERIC Voter Registration  Outreach in Washington State. Accessed July 23, 2015,  http://www.sos.wa.gov/assets/elections/2013-ERIC-Voter-Registration-in- Washington-State-FINAL-3-20-2014.pdf. (Study 16)
Mann, Christopher B. and Lisa A. Bryant. “If You Ask, They Will Come (to  Register and Vote): Field Experiments with State Election Agencies on  Encouraging Voter Registration.” Prepared for the MIT Conference on  Election Administration, June 8, 2015. (Studies 6 and 17)
Matland, Richard E. and Gregg R. Murray. “An Experimental Test of  Mobilization Effects in a Latino Community.” Political Research Quarterly,  vol. 65, no. 1, (2012): 192-205. (Study 1)
Matland, Richard E. and Gregg R. Murray. “I Only Have Eyes for You:  Does Implicit Social Pressure Increase Voter Turnout?” Political  Psychology (2015). (Studies 11, 22–24, and 35)
Murray, Gregg R. and Richard E. Matland. “Mobilization Effects Using  Mail: Social Pressure, Descriptive Norms, and Timing.” Political Research  Quarterly, vol. 67, no. 2, (2014): 304-319. (Studies 20 and 21)
Panagopoulos, Costas. “I’ve Got My Eyes on You: Implicit Social- Pressure Cues and Prosocial Behavior.” Political Psychology, vol. 35, no.  1, (2014): 23-33. (Study 15)
Panagopoulos, Costas. “Raising Hope: Hope Inducement and Voter  Turnout.” Basic and Applied Social Psychology, vol. 36, no. 6, (2014):  494-501. (Studies 25 and 26)
Panagopoulos, Costas; Christopher W. Larimer; and Meghan Condon.  “Social Pressure, Descriptive Norms, and Voter Mobilization.” Political  Behavior, vol. 36, no. 2, (2014): 451-469. (Study 5)
Ramírez, Ricardo. “Giving Voice to Latino Voters: A Field Experiment on  the Effectiveness of a National Nonpartisan Mobilization Effort.” The  ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol.  601, no. 1, (2005): 66-84. (Studies 18, 19, and 30–33)
Trivedi, Neema. “The Effect of Identity-Based GOTV Direct Mail Appeals  on the Turnout of Indian Americans.” The ANNALS of the American  Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 601, no. 1, (2005): 115-122.  (Study 29)
Wolfinger, Raymond E; Benjamin Highton; and Megan Mullin. “How  Postregistration Laws Affect the Turnout of Citizens Registered to Vote.”  State Politics & Policy Quarterly, vol. 5, no. 1, (2005): 1-23. (Study 12)
Wong, Janelle S. “Mobilizing Asian American Voters: A Field Experiment.”  The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,  vol. 601, no. 1, (2005): 102-114. (Study 9)
section_title: Robocalls
paragraphs: Davenport, Tiffany C.; Alan S. Gerber; Donald P. Green; Christopher W.  Larimer; Christopher B. Mann; and Costas Panagopoulos. “The Enduring  Effects of Social Pressure: Tracking Campaign Experiments over a Series  of Elections.” Political Behavior, vol. 32, no. 3, (2010): 423-430. (Study 1)
Ramírez, Ricardo. “Giving Voice to Latino Voters: A Field Experiment on  the Effectiveness of a National Nonpartisan Mobilization Effort.” The  ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol.  601, no. 1, (2005): 66-84. (Studies 2–6)
section_title: Text Messages
paragraphs: Dale, Allison and Aaron Strauss. “Don’t Forget to Vote: Text Message  Reminders as a Mobilization Tool.” American Journal of Political Science,  vol. 53, no. 4, (2009): 787-804. (Study 1)
Malhotra, Neil; Melissa R. Michelson; Todd Rogers; and Ali Adam  Valenzuela. “Text Messages as Mobilization Tools: The Conditional Effect  of Habitual Voting and Election Salience.” American Politics Research,  vol. 39, no. 4, (2011): 664-681. (Studies 2 and 3)
section_title: Registration Closing Date prior to Elections
paragraphs: Leighley, Jan E. and Jonathan Nagler. Who Votes Now? Demographics,  Issues, Inequality, and Turnout in the United States. Princeton, New  Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2013. (Study 2)
McDonald, Michael P.; Enrijeta Shino; and Daniel A. Smith. “Convenience  Voting and Turnout: Reassessing the Effects of Election Reforms.”  Prepared for the New Research on Election Administration and Reform  Conference at MIT, June 8, 2015. (Studies 5 and 6)
Springer, Melanie J. “State Electoral Institutions and Voter Turnout In  Presidential Elections, 1920-2000.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly, vol.  12, no. 3, (2012): 252-283. (Study 3)
Vonnahme, Greg. “Registration Deadlines and Turnout in Context.”  Political Behavior, vol. 34, no. 4 (2012): 765-779. (Studies 1 and 4)
section_title: Same Day Registration
paragraphs: Alvarez, R. Michael; Stephen Ansolabehere; and Catherine H. Wilson.  “Election Day Voter Registration in the United States: How One-Step  Voting Can Change the Composition of the American Electorate.”  Working paper, Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project, June 2002.  (Study 20)
Burden, Barry C. “Registration and Voting: A View from the Top” in The  Measure of American Elections, ed. Barry C. Burden and Charles Stewart  III. New York, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014. (Studies 2  and 4)
Burden, Barry C.; David T. Canon; Kenneth R. Mayer; and Donald P.  Moynihan. “Election Laws, Mobilization, and Turnout: The Unanticipated  Consequences of Election Reform.” American Journal of Political  Science, vol. 58, no. 1, (2014): 95-109. (Studies 12, 16, and 25–27)
Fitzgerald, Mary. “Greater Convenience but Not Greater Turnout: The  Impact of Alternative Voting Methods on Electoral Participation in the  United States.” American Politics Research, vol. 33, no. 6, (2005): 842- 867. (Studies 8 and 15)
Fullmer, Elliott B. “Early Voting: Do More Sites Lead to Higher Turnout.”  Election Law Journal, vol. 14, no. 2, (2015): 81-96. (Studies 10 and 14)
Hanmer, Michael J. Discount Voting: Voter Registration Reforms and  Their Effects. New York, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.  (Studies 6, 24, 28 and 29)
Keele, Luke and William Minozzi. “How Much Is Minnesota Like  Wisconsin? Assumptions and Counterfactuals in Causal Inference with  Observational Data.” Political Analysis, vol. 21, no. 2, (2013): 193-216.  (Studies 30 and 31)
Larocca, Roger and John S. Klemanski. “U.S. State Election Reform and  Turnout in Presidential Elections.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly, vol.  11, no. 1, (2011): 76-101. (Studies 21–23)
Leighley, Jan E. and Jonathan Nagler. Who Votes Now? Demographics,  Issues, Inequality, and Turnout in the United States. Princeton, New  Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2013. (Study 3)
McDonald, Michael P.; Enrijeta Shino; and Daniel A. Smith. “Convenience  Voting and Turnout: Reassessing the Effects of Election Reforms.”  Prepared for the New Research on Election Administration and Reform  Conference at MIT, June 8, 2015. (Studies 17 and 18)
Neiheisel, Jacob R. and Barry C. Burden. “The Impact of Election Day  Registration on Voter Turnout and Election Outcomes.” American Politics  Research, vol. 40, no. 4, (2012): 636-664. (Study 9)
Pellissier, Allyson. “In Line or Online? American Voter Registration in the  Digital Era.” Working paper, Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project,  February 18, 2014. (Study 33)
Rocha, Rene R. and Tetsuya Matsubayashi. “The Politics of Race and  Voter ID Laws in the States: The Return of Jim Crow?” Political Research  Quarterly, vol. 67, no. 3, (2014): 666-679. (Study 32)
Springer, Melanie J. “State Electoral Institutions and Voter Turnout In  Presidential Elections, 1920-2000.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly, vol.  12, no. 3, (2012): 252-283. (Study 5)
Street, Alex; Thomas A. Murray; John Blitzer; and Rajan S. Patel.  “Estimating Voter Registration Deadline Effects with Web Search Data.”  Political Analysis, vol. 23, no. 2 (2015): 225-241. (Study 11)
Tolbert, Caroline; Todd Donovan; Bridgett King; and Shaun Bowler.  “Election Day Registration, Competition, and Voter Turnout” in  Democracy in the States: Experiments in Election Reform, ed. Bruce E.  Cain, Todd Donovan, and Caroline J. Tolbert. Washington, D.C.:  Brookings Institution Press, 2008. (Studies 7 and 13)
Vonnahme, Greg. “Registration Deadlines and Turnout in Context.”  Political Behavior, vol. 34, no. 4, (2012): 765-779. (Studies 1 and 19)
section_title: All Vote-by-Mail
paragraphs: Burden, Barry C. “Registration and Voting: A View from the Top” in The  Measure of American Elections, ed. Barry C. Burden and Charles Stewart  III. New York, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014. (Studies 3  and 16)
Gerber, Alan S.; Gregory A. Huber; and Seth J. Hill. “Identifying the Effect  of All-Mail Elections on Turnout: Staggered Reform in the Evergreen  State.” Political Science Research and Methods, vol. 1, no. 1, (2013): 91- 116. (Studies 4, 8, 9 and 10)
Gronke, Paul and Peter Miller. “Voting by Mail and Turnout in Oregon:  Revisiting Southwell and Burchett.” American Politics Research, vol. 40,  no. 6, (2012): 976-997. (Study 1)
Gronke, Paul; Eva Galanes-Rosenbaum; and Peter A. Miller. “Early  Voting and Voter Turnout” in Democracy in the States: Experiments in  Election Reform, ed. Bruce E. Cain, Todd Donovan, and Caroline J.  Tolbert. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2008. (Studies 6  and 18)
Kousser, Thad and Megan Mullin. “Does Voting by Mail Increase  Participation? Using Matching to Analyze a Natural Experiment.” Political  Analysis, vol. 15, no. 4, (2007): 428-445. (Studies 20 and 21)
Larocca, Roger and John S. Klemanski. “U.S. State Election Reform and  Turnout in Presidential Elections.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly, vol.  11, no. 1, (2011): 76-101. (Studies 12, 13, and 17)
Menger, Andrew; Robert M. Stein; and Greg Vonnahme. “Turnout Effects  from Vote by Mail Elections.” Prepared for the 2015 Annual Meetings of  the American Political Science Association, September 3-6, 2015.   (Study 7)
Pellissier, Allyson. “In Line or Online? American Voter Registration in the  Digital Era.” Working paper, Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project,  February 18, 2014 (Study 14)
Richey, Sean. “Voting by Mail: Turnout and Institutional Reform in  Oregon.” Social Science Quarterly, vol. 89, no. 4, (2008): 902-915.  (Studies 2 and 5)
Rocha, Rene R. and Tetsuya Matsubayashi. “The Politics of Race and  Voter ID Laws in the States: The Return of Jim Crow?” Political Research  Quarterly, vol. 67, no. 3, (2014): 666-679. (Study 19)
Southwell, Priscilla L. “Analysis of the Turnout Effects of Vote by Mail  Elections, 1980-2007.” The Social Science Journal, vol. 46, no. 1 (2009):  211-217. (Study 15)
Southwell, Priscilla L. “Voting Behavior in Vote-by-Mail Elections.”  Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, vol. 10, no. 1, (2010):   106-115. (Study 11)
section_title: Early In-Person Voting
paragraphs: Fitzgerald, Mary. “Greater Convenience but Not Greater Turnout: The  Impact of Alternative Voting Methods on Electoral Participation in the  United States.” American Politics Research, vol. 33, no. 6, (2005): 842- 867. (Studies 3 and 4)
Fullmer, Elliott B. “Early Voting: Do More Sites Lead to Higher Turnout.”  Election Law Journal, vol. 14, no. 2, (2015): 81-96. (Studies 19 and 20)
Giammo, Joseph D. and Brian J. Brox. “Reducing the Costs of  Participation: Are States Getting a Return on Early Voting.” Political  Research Quarterly, vol. 63, no. 2, (2010): 295-303. (Study 2)
Gronke, Paul; Eva Galanes-Rosenbaum; and Peter A. Miller. “Early  Voting and Voter Turnout” in Democracy in the States: Experiments in  Election Reform, ed. Bruce E. Cain, Todd Donovan, and Caroline J.  Tolbert. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2008.   (Study 6 and 7)
Larocca, Roger and John S. Klemanski. “U.S. State Election Reform and  Turnout in Presidential Elections.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly, vol.  11, no. 1, (2011): 76-101. (Studies 12–14)
Leighley, Jan E. and Jonathan Nagler. Who Votes Now? Demographics,  Issues, Inequality, and Turnout in the United States. Princeton, New  Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2013. (Study 1)
McDonald, Michael P.; Enrijeta Shino; and Daniel A. Smith. “Convenience  Voting and Turnout: Reassessing the Effects of Election Reforms.”  Prepared for the New Research on Election Administration and Reform  Conference at MIT, June 8, 2015. (Studies 5 and 11)
Pellissier, Allyson. “In Line or Online? American Voter Registration in the  Digital Era.” Working paper, Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project,  February 18, 2014 (Study 15)
Richey, Sean. “Voting by Mail: Turnout and Institutional Reform in  Oregon.” Social Science Quarterly, vol. 89, no. 4, (2008): 902-915.  (Studies 17 and 18)
Rocha, Rene R. and Tetsuya Matsubayashi. “The Politics of Race and  Voter ID Laws in the States: The Return of Jim Crow?” Political Research  Quarterly, vol. 67, no. 3, (2014): 666-679. (Study 10)
Springer, Melanie J. “State Electoral Institutions and Voter Turnout In  Presidential Elections, 1920-2000.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly, vol.  12, no. 3, (2012): 252-283. (Study 9)
Tolbert, Caroline; Todd Donovan; Bridgett King; and Shaun Bowler.  “Election Day Registration, Competition, and Voter Turnout” in  Democracy in the States: Experiments in Election Reform, ed. Bruce E.  Cain, Todd Donovan, and Caroline J. Tolbert. Washington, D.C.:  Brookings Institution Press, 2008. (Studies 8 and 16)
section_title: Hours Available for Voting
paragraphs: Springer, Melanie J. “State Electoral Institutions and Voter Turnout In  Presidential Elections, 1920-2000.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly, vol.  12, no. 3, (2012): 252-283. (Study 2)
Wolfinger, Raymond E; Benjamin Highton; and Megan Mullin. “How  Postregistration Laws Affect the Turnout of Citizens Registered to Vote.”  State Politics & Policy Quarterly, vol. 5, no. 1, (2005): 1-23. (Study 1)
section_title: No-Excuse Absentee Voting
paragraphs: Fitzgerald, Mary. “Greater Convenience but Not Greater Turnout: The  Impact of Alternative Voting Methods on Electoral Participation in the  United States.” American Politics Research, vol. 33, no. 6, (2005):   842-867. (Studies 10 and 11)
Giammo, Joseph D. and Brian J. Brox. “Reducing the Costs of  Participation: Are States Getting a Return on Early Voting.” Political  Research Quarterly, vol. 63, no. 2, (2010): 295-303. (Study 17)
Gronke, Paul; Eva Galanes-Rosenbaum; and Peter A. Miller. “Early  Voting and Voter Turnout” in Democracy in the States: Experiments in  Election Reform, ed. Bruce E. Cain, Todd Donovan, and Caroline J.  Tolbert. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2008.   (Studies 13 and 18)
Larocca, Roger and John S. Klemanski. “U.S. State Election Reform and  Turnout in Presidential Elections.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly, vol.  11, no. 1, (2011): 76-101. (Studies 4–6)
Leighley, Jan E. and Jonathan Nagler. Who Votes Now? Demographics,  Issues, Inequality, and Turnout in the United States. Princeton, New  Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2013. (Study 1)
Martinez, Michael D. and Daniel A. Smith. “Your Ballot’s in the Mail: The  Effects of Unsolicited Absentee Ballots.” Prepared for the 2015 Annual  Meetings of the American Political Science Association, September 3-6,  2015. (Study 3)
McDonald, Michael P.; Enrijeta Shino; and Daniel A. Smith. “Convenience  Voting and Turnout: Reassessing the Effects of Election Reforms.”  Prepared for the New Research on Election Administration and Reform  Conference at MIT, June 8, 2015. (Studies 8 and 12)
Menger, Andrew; Robert M. Stein; and Greg Vonnahme. “Turnout Effects  from Vote by Mail Elections.” Prepared for the 2015 Annual Meetings of  the American Political Science Association, September 3-6, 2015. (Study  2)
Pellissier, Allyson. “In Line or Online? American Voter Registration in the  Digital Era.” Working paper, Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project,  February 18, 2014 (Study 7)
Rocha, Rene R. and Tetsuya Matsubayashi. “The Politics of Race and  Voter ID Laws in the States: The Return of Jim Crow?” Political Research  Quarterly, vol. 67, no. 3, (2014): 666-679. (Study 9)
Springer, Melanie J. “State Electoral Institutions and Voter Turnout In  Presidential Elections, 1920-2000.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly, vol.  12, no. 3, (2012): 252-283. (Study 14)
Tolbert, Caroline; Todd Donovan; Bridgett King; and Shaun Bowler.  “Election Day Registration, Competition, and Voter Turnout” in  Democracy in the States: Experiments in Election Reform, ed. Bruce E.  Cain, Todd Donovan, and Caroline J. Tolbert. Washington, D.C.:  Brookings Institution Press, 2008. (Studies 15 and 16)
section_title: Vote Centers
paragraphs: Juenke, Eric Gonzalez and Julie Marie Shepherd. “Vote Centers and  Voter Turnout” in Democracy in the States: Experiments in Election  Reform, ed. Bruce E. Cain, Todd Donovan, and Caroline J. Tolbert.  Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2008. (Study 6)
Stein, Robert M. and Greg Vonnahme, “Effect of Election Day Vote  Centers on Voter Participation.” Election Law Journal, vol. 11, no. 3,  (2012): 291-301. (Studies 3–5)
Stein, Robert M. and Greg Vonnahme. “Engaging the Unengaged Voter:  Vote Centers and Voter Turnout.” The Journal of Politics, vol. 70, no. 2,  (2008): 487-497. (Study 1)
Vonnahme, Greg; Lonna Atkeson; Lisa Bryant; Christopher Mann; and  Robert Stein. “Election Day Vote Centers, Voter Participation, and the  Spatial Distribution of Voting.” Prepared for the 12th Annual Meeting of  the State Politics and Policy Conference, February 16-18, 2012.   (Study 2)
section_title: Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Tom Jessor (Assistant Director),  David Alexander, Carl Barden, Chuck Bausell, Colleen Candrl, Katherine  Davis, William Egar, Michele Fejfar, Alana Finley, Daniel Friess, Eric  Hauswirth, Jeff Jensen, Jan Montgomery, Heidi Nielson, Anna Maria  Ortiz, Amanda Parker, Kelsey Sagawa, Natalie Swabb, Janet Temko- Blinder, and Jeff Tessin made significant contributions to this report.