Elections: Views on Implementing Federal Elections on a Weekend
Published: 2012-01-12T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Many U.S. citizens who are eligible to vote in federal elections do not do so. For instance, in the 2008 general election, about 62 percent of eligible citizens voted. To increase voter turnout by enhancing convenience, some states have implemented alternative voting methods, such as in-person early votingcasting a ballot in person prior to Election Day without providing a reasonand no-excuse absentee votingcasting an absentee ballot, usually by mail, without providing a reason. In general, since 1845, federal law has required that federal elections be held on Tuesday.
The committees on appropriations directed GAO to study and report on costs and benefits of implementing H.R. 254the Weekend Voting Actincluding issues associated with conducting a weekend election. Specifically, this report addresses: (1) alternatives to voting on Tuesday that states provided for the November 2010 general election, (2) how election officials anticipate election administration and costs would be affected if the day for federal elections were moved to a weekend, and (3) what research and available data suggest about the potential effect of a weekend election on voter turnout. GAO reviewed H.R. 254 and analyzed state statutes and early voting turnout in the 2010 Maryland elections, which had early voting over weekdays and weekends. GAO interviewed election officials in nine states, the District of Columbia (District), and 17 local jurisdictions that were selected on the basis of geographic dispersion and experience with weekend voting, among other things. Though not generalizable, the interviews provide insights.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: For the 2010 general election, 35 states and the District provided voters at least one alternative to casting their ballot on Election Day through in-person early voting, no-excuse absentee voting, or voting by mail. Specifically, 33 states and the District provided in-person early voting, 29 states and the District provided no-excuse absentee voting, and 2 states provided voting by mail to all or most voters. Of the 9 states and the District where GAO conducted interviews, all but 2 states provided voters the option of in-person early voting in the 2010 general election, and 5 states and the District offered both early voting and no-excuse absentee voting. Implementation and characteristics of in-person early voting varied among the 7 states and, in some cases, among the jurisdictions within a state. For example, 5 states and the District required local jurisdictions to include at least one Saturday, and 2 states allowed for some jurisdiction discretion to include weekend days.
State and local election officials GAO interviewed identified challenges they would anticipate facing in planning and conducting Election Day activities on weekendsspecifically, finding poll workers and polling places, and securing ballots and voting equipmentand expected cost increases. Officials in all 17 jurisdictions and the District we contacted said they expected the number of poll workers needed for a 2-day weekend election would increase. Further, officials in 13 jurisdictions said that some poll workers would be less willing to work on the weekend because of other priorities, such as family obligations or attending religious services. Officials in 14 of the 17 jurisdictions and the District expected that at least some of the polling places they used in past electionssuch as churcheswould not be available for a weekend election, and anticipated difficulty finding replacements. Officials in all 9 states, the District, and 15 of the 17 local jurisdictions said ensuring the security of ballots and voting equipment over the Saturday night of a weekend election would be both challenging and expensive. Officials in 5 of the 7 states and the District that conducted early voting and provided security over multiple days explained that the level of planning needed for overnight security for a weekend election would far surpass that of early voting due to the greater number and variety of Election Day polling places. For example, officials in one state said that for the 2010 general election, the state had fewer than 300 early voting siteswhich were selected to ensure securitycompared to more than 2,750 polling places on Election Day, which are generally selected based on availability and proximity to voters. In addition, officials in all 9 states, the District, and 15 of the 17 local jurisdictions said they expected overnight security costs to increase.
Weekend elections have not been studied, but studies of other voting alternatives determined that voter turnout is not strongly affected by them. Since nationwide federal elections have never been held on a weekend, it is difficult to draw valid conclusions about how moving federal elections to a weekend would affect voter turnout. GAOs review of 24 studies found that, with the exception of vote by mail, each of the alternative voting methods was estimated to change turnout by no more than 4 percentage points. GAOs analysis of early voter turnout data in Maryland found that 1.5 percent of voters we analyzed cast ballots on the weekend during the 2010 general election.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Voting is fundamental to our democracy, yet many U.S. citizens who are  eligible to vote do not take advantage of their constitutional right to vote in  federal elections. For instance, about 62 percent of eligible citizens voted  in the November 2008 general election and about 42 percent voted in the  November 2010 general election. Policymakers, legislators, researchers,  and advocacy organizations have explored ways to make voting more  convenient with the goal of increasing voter turnout. Some states have  implemented alternative voting methods aimed at increasing convenience  by offering citizens an alternative to voting on Election Day. These include  in-person early voting—that is, casting a ballot in person prior to Election  Day without providing a reason, and no-excuse absentee voting—that is,  casting an absentee ballot, usually by mail, without providing a reason.
Since 1845, federal law has required that federal Election Day for the  offices of President and Vice President be held on Tuesday.
Subsequent  legislation extended the Tuesday Election Day to House and Senate  elections. Thus, while states or local jurisdictions may have held  nonfederal elections on a weekend or conducted early voting during a  period that included Saturdays or Sundays, nationwide general elections  for federal offices have been held on Tuesdays.
Various bills have been introduced in Congress since 1995 to increase  voter convenience by changing the day of presidential and congressional  elections from Tuesday to the weekend. Specifically, legislation has  been introduced to move the day for regularly scheduled federal elections  from the Tuesday after the first Monday in November to the Saturday and  Sunday after the first Friday in November, and to synchronize the opening  and closing times of polling places within the continental United States for  federal elections. As of December 2011, the most recent bill, introduced  in January 2009, was H.R. 254—the Weekend Voting Act. The  committees on appropriations directed us to study and report on costs  and benefits of implementing H.R. 254, including the anticipated costs to  state and federal election administration officials, the effects on polling  places, and the estimated increase in voter turnout.
Since 2001, we have issued a series of reports covering aspects of the  election process primarily with respect to federal elections. For example,  after the November 2000 and 2004 elections, we issued comprehensive  reports on processes involved in and challenges associated with  administering those elections. This report focuses on issues related to implementing weekend elections as described in H.R. 254. Specifically, it  addresses the following questions:
What alternatives to voting on Tuesday did states provide for the  November 2010 general election?
How, if at all, do election officials anticipate election administration  and associated costs would be affected if the day for federal elections  were moved to a weekend?
What do research and available data suggest about the potential  effect of a weekend election on voter turnout?
To address our objectives, we reviewed H.R. 254, the U.S. Election  Assistance Commission’s (EAC) study of Alternative Voting Methods and  2010 Statutory Overview report, the Center for Democracy and Election  Management’s Election Administration Profiles of All Fifty States, and  states’ and local jurisdictions’ election websites. We also conducted  interviews with election officials in a nonprobability sample of nine states  and the District of Columbia (District), and a nonprobability sample of 17  local jurisdictions within those states, about if and how they implemented  alternative voting methods and their views on how election administration  and voter turnout would likely be affected in their state or jurisdiction if the  day for regularly scheduled federal elections were moved to a weekend.  To obtain a range of perspectives, we selected states that varied  according to, among other things, geographic region, experience with  voting on weekends (such as with early voting on Saturdays or Sundays)  and alternative voting methods in federal elections, and the level of local  government responsible for administering elections (e.g., county or  township). To obtain different perspectives at the local level, we selected  17 jurisdictions to reflect variation in factors including demographics (e.g.,  population and median household income), experience with weekend  voting, and other characteristics such as having a large military or student  population. Appendix I provides information about the states and 17 local  jurisdictions we selected. The results of our interviews cannot be  generalized to all states and local election jurisdictions; however, they  provide important information about how alternative voting methods were  implemented in different states and local jurisdictions. They also provide  perspectives on how, if at all, elements of elections administration (e.g.,  voter registration, poll worker recruitment, security of voting equipment,  and costs) or voter turnout might be affected if the day for regularly  scheduled federal elections were on a weekend.
Moreover, to address objective 1, we analyzed state statutes regarding  three such methods—in-person early voting, no-excuse absentee voting,  and voting by mail. Specifically, we assessed which of the 50 states and  the District provided these methods for the November 2010 general  election. We used EAC’s 2010 Statutory Overview as a source for the  state statute references, as well as our own research, and also reviewed  information provided about these three methods from organizations that  have compiled election information—the EAC, Early Voting Information  Center (EVIC), National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), and  National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). If we needed  clarification regarding a state statute, we called the relevant Secretary of  State’s or election office. To see whether and how the number of states  that provided each alternative voting method changed between  November 2004 and 2010, we compared the results of our analysis with  information we previously reported on the 2004 general election. We  supplemented information on the 50 states with additional details, such as  whether the early voting period included weekend hours, which we  obtained from election Web sites of the selected states and local  jurisdictions as well as interviews with and documents provided by those  election officials.
To address objective 2, we interviewed state and local election officials.  When available, we obtained information on costs, such as poll worker  costs, that jurisdictions incurred for the 2010 general election, as well as  officials’ estimates of what their costs might be if the day for federal  elections were moved to a weekend. However, because no state or  jurisdiction had experience with conducting a federal general election on  a weekend, the estimates we obtained are uncertain. To obtain additional  views, we attended conferences and meetings held by the National  Association of State Election Directors, Joint Election Officials Liaison  Committee, and National Association of Counties, and solicited views of  attending members. We also interviewed representatives of these  organizations as well as elections experts and researchers from the EAC,  Election Center, EVIC, Pew Center on the States, NCSL, League of  Women Voters, Why Tuesday?, and the University of Maryland.
We selected 1985 because alternative voting methods, such as no-excuse absentee  voting and in-person early voting, were generally not available prior to this time. Thus,  applicable research on their effect on voter turnout was not widely conducted. each study.in Maryland between weekday and weekend early voting periods and  whether certain demographic groups of voters, such as those who voted  in previous elections, were more likely to vote on the weekend. We  selected Maryland for our analysis from among the nine states where we  conducted interviews because they maintained reliable and detailed  electronic data on voter turnout and voter registration. We interviewed  state election officials responsible for maintaining the data and conducted  electronic tests for logic and accuracy, and we determined that the data  were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. However, the experiences of  Maryland do not predict how turnout would change if federal elections  were held on weekends nationwide. Further, our analysis was unable to  account for several factors, including differences in polling hours across  jurisdictions and voter demographics, such as education, not measured  by state voter databases. Appendix II describes our data analysis.
To analyze voter turnout, we estimated how turnout varied  We conducted this performance audit from December 2010 to January  2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Election Authority
paragraphs: The basic goal of the elections system in the United States is that all  eligible voters have the opportunity to cast their vote and have their valid  ballot counted accurately. Election authority is shared by federal, state,  and local officials, and the election system is highly decentralized. States  are responsible for the administration of their own elections as well as  federal elections, and states regulate various aspects of elections  including registration procedures, absentee voting requirements,  alternative voting methods, establishment of polling places, provision of  Election Day workers, testing and certification of voting equipment, and  counting and certification of the vote.
As the U.S. election system is highly decentralized, primary responsibility  for managing, planning, and conducting elections resides locally with  about 10,500 local election jurisdictions nationwide. In most states,  election responsibility resides at the county level, although some states  have delegated election responsibility to subcounty governmental units,  such as cities, villages, and townships. widely in size and complexity, ranging from small New England townships  to Los Angeles County, where the number of registered voters exceeds  that of 42 states. Some states have mandated statewide election  administration guidelines and procedures that foster uniformity in the way  local jurisdictions conduct elections. Others have guidelines that generally  permit local election jurisdictions considerable autonomy and discretion in  the way they run elections. Although some states bear some election  costs, it is local jurisdictions that pay for elections. According to the  Executive Director of the EAC, costs are not tracked in uniform ways  because of the decentralized nature of elections and the variation in state  and jurisdiction size and funding structures.
States can be divided into two groups according to how election responsibilities are  delegated. The first group contains 41 states that delegate election responsibilities  primarily to the county level, with a few of these states delegating election responsibilities  to some cities, and 1 state that delegates these responsibilities to election regions. The  second group contains 9 states that delegate election responsibility principally to  subcounty governmental units. various constitutional sources, depending upon the type of election.  Federal legislation has been enacted in major functional areas of the  voting process, such as voter registration, absentee voting requirements,  accessibility provisions for the elderly and voters with disabilities, and  prohibitions against discriminatory voting practices. With regard to the  administration of federal elections, Congress has constitutional authority  over both presidential and congressional elections, including the timing of  federal elections. Under federal statute, the Tuesday after the first  Monday in November in an even-numbered year is established as the day  for federal congressional elections. Federal statute also sets this same  day for the selection of presidential electors—the Tuesday after the first  Monday in November in every 4th year succeeding every election of a  President and Vice President. In general, these are the federal statutes  that the previously pending weekend voting bills would have amended to  move the November Tuesday federal Election Day to Saturday and  Sunday. Such a change in federal law would, in effect, likely require  states to change their laws and regulations governing the implementation  of federal elections to mirror the day(s) established in federal law. Current  federal law does not dictate the hours that polling places are required to  be open on Election Day.
The timing of state and local elections is not mandated by the federal  election calendar. Nevertheless, many state and local government  officials are also elected on federal Election Day as a matter of  convenience and to save costs. According to the EAC, some states and  local jurisdictions have held nonfederal elections or primaries on  Saturdays, believing that it might be more convenient for voters and, in  turn, might increase voter turnout. For example, in Louisiana, all  nonfederal elections take place on Saturdays and, in Texas, some  nonfederal elections such as general elections for cities and schools take  place on Saturdays. From 1978 through 2006, Delaware held local  elections, including primaries, on Saturdays. It held its first Saturday  presidential primary in 1996. However, according to the EAC, because  the Jewish Sabbath is on Saturday and, additionally, the state’s 2002  primary fell on the Jewish New Year, Delaware moved the presidential  primary to Tuesday in 2004 and the state primary to Tuesday in 2006.
section_title: Election System Elements
paragraphs: The U.S. election system is based on a complex interaction of people  (voters, election officials, and poll workers), process, and technology that  must work effectively together to achieve a successful election, as shown  in figure 1.
The election process is dependent on the citizens who cast ballots;  however, election officials and poll workers are also essential to making  the system work. State and local election officials are either elected or  appointed and are responsible for carrying out federal and state election  requirements. This can be a year-round effort. Among other things,  election officials register eligible voters and maintain voter registration  lists; design ballots; educate voters on how to vote; arrange for polling  places; recruit, train, organize, and mobilize poll workers; prepare and  test voting equipment for use; count ballots; and certify the final vote  count. However, elections also depend on an army of poll workers—about  2 million for a federal election—who are willing to staff the polls on  Election Day. Some poll workers are elected, some are appointed by  political parties, and some are volunteers. Compensation varies by the  level of responsibility of the poll worker and the state or jurisdiction in  which they work. As we reported in 2006, increasingly, poll workers are  needed with different skills, such as computer or technical skills, and  across the country jurisdictions have faced challenges finding poll  workers.
Voting methods and related technology also play a critical part in the  success of an election. Voting methods are tools for accommodating the  millions of voters in our nation’s approximately 10,500 local election  jurisdictions. Since the 1980s, ballots in the United States, to varying  degrees, have been cast and counted using five methods: paper ballots,  lever machines, punch cards, optical scan, and direct recording  electronic (DRE) machines. Four of these methods involve technology;  only the paper ballot system does not. For example, many DREs use  computers to present the ballot to the voter, and optical scan and DRE  systems depend on computers to tally votes. The way voting systems are  designed, developed, tested, installed, and operated can lead to a variety  of situations where misunderstanding, confusion, error, or deliberate  actions by voters or election workers can, in turn, affect the equipment’s  performance in terms of accuracy, ease of use, security, reliability, and  efficiency.
Each of the 50 states and the District has its own election system with a  somewhat distinct approach. While election systems vary from one local  jurisdiction to another, all involve people, process, and technology, and  most have the following elements:
Voter registration. Voter registration is not a federal requirement.
However, except for North Dakota, all states and the District generally  require citizens to register before voting. The deadline for registering  and what is required to register varies. At a minimum, state eligibility  provisions typically require a person to be a U.S. citizen, at least 18  years of age, and a resident of the state, with some states requiring a  minimum residency period. Citizens apply to register to vote in various  ways, such as at motor vehicle agencies, by mail, or at local voter  registrar offices. Some states allow citizens to register at a polling  place on Election Day. Election officials process registration  applications and compile and maintain the list of registered voters to  be used throughout the administration of an election.
Absentee and early voting. Absentee voting is a process that allows  citizens the opportunity to vote when they are unable to vote at their  precinct on Election Day and is generally conducted by mail. All states  and the District have provisions allowing voters to cast their ballot  before Election Day by voting absentee with variations on who may  vote absentee, whether the voter needs an excuse, and the time  frames for applying and submitting absentee ballots. In addition,  some states also allow in-person early voting, as discussed later in  the report. In general, early voting allows voters from any precinct in  the jurisdiction to cast their vote in person without an excuse before  Election Day either at one specific location or at one of several  locations. Early voting locations have a registration list for the  jurisdiction and ballots specific to each precinct. The voter is provided  with and casts a ballot designed for his or her assigned precinct. As  with absentee voting, the specific circumstances for in-person early  voting—such as the dates, times, and locations—are based on state  and local requirements.
Planning and conducting Election Day activities. Election officials  perform a range of activities in preparation for and on Election Day  itself. Prior to an election, officials recruit and train poll workers to  have the skills needed to perform their Election Day duties, such as  opening and closing the polls and operating polling place equipment.  Where needed and required, election officials must also recruit poll  workers who speak languages other than English. Officials also  locate polling places that are to meet basic standards for accessibility  and have an infrastructure to support voting machines as well as voter  and poll worker needs. They design and produce ballots to meet  state requirements and voter language needs, and that identify all  election races, candidates, and issues on which voters in each  precinct in their jurisdiction will vote. Election officials seek to educate  voters on topics such as what the ballot looks like, how to use a voting  machine, and where their particular polling place is located. Finally,  election officials seek to ensure that voting equipment, ballots, and  supplies are delivered to polling places.
On Election Day, poll workers set up and open the polling places. This  can include setting up the voting machines or voting booths, testing  equipment, posting required signs and voter education information,  and completing paperwork such as confirming that the ballot is correct  for the precinct. Before a voter receives a ballot or is directed to a  voting machine, poll workers typically are to verify his or her eligibility.
Provisional voting. Federal law requires that an individual asserting  to be registered in the jurisdiction for which he or she desires to vote  and is eligible to vote in a federal election—but whose name does not  appear on the official list of eligible voters for the polling place—be  provided a provisional ballot. In addition, provisional ballots are to be  provided in elections for federal office to individuals whom an election  official asserts to be ineligible to vote, and for court-ordered voting in a  federal election after the polls have closed. If individuals are  determined to be eligible voters, their provisional ballots are to be  counted as votes in accordance with state law, along with other types  of ballots, and included in the total election results.
Vote counting and certification. Following the close of the polls,  election officials and poll workers complete steps to count the votes  and determine the outcome of the election. Equipment and ballots are  to be secured, and votes are to be tallied or transferred to a central  location for counting. The processes used to count or to recount  election votes vary with the type of voting equipment used in a  jurisdiction, state statutes, and local jurisdiction policies. Votes from  Election Day, absentee ballots, early votes (where applicable), and  provisional ballots are to be counted and consolidated for each race to  determine the outcome. While preliminary results are available usually  by the evening of Election Day, the certified results are generally not  available until days later.
section_title: Most States Provided Early or No-Excuse Absentee Voting as Alternatives to Voting on Tuesday in the 2010 General Election
paragraphs: For the November 2010 general election, 35 states and the District  provided voters at least one alternative to casting their ballot on Election  Day through in-person early voting, no-excuse absentee voting, or voting  by mail. As shown in figure 2, 33 states and the District provided in- person early voting, 29 states and the District provided no-excuse  absentee voting, and 2 states provided voting by mail to all or most  voters.
In addition, eight of the states and the District with no-excuse absentee  voting permitted registered voters to apply for an absentee ballot on a  permanent basis so those voters automatically receive an absentee ballot  in the mail prior to every election without providing an excuse or reason  for voting absentee.
Furthermore, the number of states providing these alternatives has  increased in recent elections. We previously reported that for the 2004  general election, 24 states and the District required or allowed in-person  early voting, 21 states required or allowed no-excuse absentee voting,   Appendix III  and 1 state—Oregon—required all voters to vote by mail. compares the alternative voting methods for the 2004 and 2010 general  elections, by state.
Of the nine states and the District where we conducted interviews, all but  two states provided voters the option of in-person early voting in the  November 2010 general election. Five of the seven states and the District  offered both early voting and no-excuse absentee voting. Appendix IV  provides additional details of how these seven states and the District  implemented these two alternative voting methods for the 2010 general  election. The two other states where we conducted interviews—Delaware  and New Hampshire—did not provide voters with either of these  alternatives, although they allowed voters to vote by absentee ballot if  they provided a reason.
See GAO-06-450. This information was based on the result of web-based surveys we  conducted in 2005 of the 50 states and the District. See GAO-06-451SP for additional  survey results. characterized their process as early voting. Five states—California,  Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, and Texas—as well as the District called  their process “early voting,” but North Carolina called it “one-stop  absentee voting” and Wisconsin called it “in-person absentee voting.”  Moreover, implementation and characteristics of early voting also varied  among the seven states and, in some cases, among the jurisdictions  within a state.
Method of voting. In three of the seven states (California, North  Carolina, and Wisconsin) where we conducted interviews, voters were  allowed to cast their vote in person by using vote-by-mail or absentee  ballots during a specified period prior to Election Day. In these states,  voters applied for an absentee or vote-by-mail ballot when they went  to vote early, received a ballot on the spot, and could then cast their  ballot. In contrast, in the other four states and the District, voters cast  their ballots using the method voters generally use on Election Day  (i.e., DRE or optical scan).
Days of early voting. Although the length of the early voting periods  ranged from 7 to 30 days in the states we contacted, five of the seven  states and the District required local jurisdictions to include at least  one Saturday in their early voting period, and two states allowed for  some jurisdiction discretion to include weekend days. Of the 14  jurisdictions we contacted that offered an early voting period, 12  included an option for voters to vote on at least one Saturday, and 6  of those jurisdictions also included at least one Sunday. For example,  jurisdictions in Maryland offered a 7-day early voting period that  ended 4 days before Election Day and included Saturday, but not  Sunday. On the other hand, California and Wisconsin allowed voters  to cast ballots in person starting about 1 month before Election Day  through Election Day, and it was up to local discretion whether to  include weekends.
Hours of early voting. Although seven of the nine states where we  conducted interviews included at least 1 day of the weekend in their  early voting period, in some jurisdictions the hours available to vote  were the same for weekdays and weekends, whereas in some cases  weekend hours were fewer. Sometimes the hours varied by the week  of the month. For example, Louisiana, Maryland, and the District  required all of their early voting sites to be open the same hours each  day—9.5, 10, and 10.5 hours, respectively—Monday through  Saturday. Four states—California, Illinois, North Carolina, and  Wisconsin—allowed local jurisdiction discretion to determine the  hours of operation for some or all of their early voting sites. Texas  used a formula based on county population to determine the number  of hours, in addition to the specific days, during which early voting  sites must be open. In the two Texas jurisdictions where we  conducted interviews, early voting sites were open Monday through  Friday for 9 or 10 hours (depending on the county) during the first  week of early voting; 12 hours the second week; 12 hours on  Saturday; and 5 hours or 6 hours on Sunday (depending on the  county).
Number of early voting sites. The number of sites where voters  could cast their ballots early, in person, also varied among the states  and local jurisdictions where we conducted interviews. For example,  in North Carolina there were 297 early voting sites across 100  counties, whereas in Illinois there were 180 early voting sites across  110 counties. Half of the 14 local jurisdictions we contacted that  offered early voting provided voters with a single early voting site, with  the size of these jurisdictions varying in terms of both registered voter  population and square miles. In the 7 jurisdictions that offered more  than one early voting site, voters from any precinct in the jurisdiction  could cast their ballot at any of that jurisdiction’s early voting sites.
Types of early voting sites. The 14 local jurisdictions we contacted  also used a variety of facilities as early voting sites. In 7 of these  jurisdictions, early voting locations included county clerk or election  offices, schools, libraries, and community centers, as well as mobile  locations. For example, in an effort to make early voting convenient,  one county in Illinois provided 30 of the 180 total early voting sites  used in the state, consisting of 2 permanent sites and 28 temporary  sites. The 2 permanent early voting sites were county clerk offices  and the remaining 28 temporary sites included community centers,  libraries, senior living communities, and grocery stores, some of which  were serviced by “vote mobiles”—mobile units on wheels that moved  from one location to another every few days. In contrast, in the 5 local  jurisdictions we contacted in California and Wisconsin, their sole early  voting site was located at the local election office.
See appendix V for additional details on how the local jurisdictions we  contacted implemented in-person early voting for the November 2010  general election.
section_title: Most Election Officials We Interviewed Expect Greater Difficulty and Costs Associated with a Weekend Election
paragraphs: State and local election officials we interviewed about implementing a  weekend election most often identified challenges they would anticipate  facing in planning and conducting Election Day activities—specifically,  finding poll workers and polling places and securing ballots and voting  equipment. Election officials told us that they expected few changes to  how they register voters, conduct early voting, and provide voting with  provisional ballots, but they did identify other challenges with  implementing federal elections on a weekend.
subsections: section_title: Most Election Officials Anticipate Finding Poll Workers for a Weekend Election Would Be Difficult and Costly
paragraphs: Election officials we interviewed in all nine states, the District, and all 17  local jurisdictions said they would expect more poll workers would be  needed for a 2-day weekend election than for a Tuesday election and  related costs would increase. Further, officials in 13 of those jurisdictions  and the District expected it would be more difficult to recruit a sufficient  number of poll workers for a weekend election. We reported in 2006 that  even though the number of poll workers needed varies by jurisdiction,  having enough qualified poll workers on Election Day is crucial to  ensuring that voters are able to successfully cast a vote. Nationwide, the  majority of jurisdictions rely on poll workers from past elections to meet  their needs, but for each election, officials also recruit new poll workers  from other sources such as high schools and colleges, local businesses  and organizations, and government agencies.
Election officials in three jurisdictions described how changing the day for  federal elections to a weekend would negatively affect their ability to draw  from the poll workers and sources they have relied on in the past. example, election officials in one local jurisdiction said that about one- fourth of their approximately 23,000 poll workers for the 2010 general  election were county employees and students. A weekend election would  essentially end the incentives—paying county employees their salary and  excusing students from classes—that the jurisdiction successfully used in  the past to attract them to work at the polls on a Tuesday when they  would normally be at work or at school. Similarly, election officials from  two other jurisdictions that are required by law to provide language  assistance to certain groups of voters said that they rely on younger  volunteers, such as high school students, to make up the majority of their  bilingual poll workers. These officials were concerned that these poll  workers would be less likely to volunteer during a weekend election  because the incentives used to attract them in the past—exemption from  classes—would no longer be viable.
Election officials from the other 14 local jurisdictions we interviewed did not express  views or provide information specifically on how moving the date of federal elections might  affect their ability to recruit from the poll workers and sources they have relied on in the  past. Although we asked election officials in nine states, the District, and 17 local  jurisdictions about whether or not various aspects of the election process might be  affected by changing Election Day to a weekend, not all expressed views or provided  information on every specific issue discussed throughout this report. workers from volunteering to work during a weekend election. Officials  from one jurisdiction said that, based on their past experience with  conducting an election on a Saturday, poll worker volunteers are less  likely to report to work on the morning of a weekend election than they do  for a Tuesday Election Day. Further, officials from 12 jurisdictions and the  District said they would expect poll workers to be less willing or able to  work 2 consecutive days of a weekend election due to fatigue, noting that  many poll workers are elderly. Officials from one of these jurisdictions  stated that many of the 2,350 poll workers who volunteered during the  2010 general election were elderly and unlikely to have the stamina to  work 2 consecutive days that could each be 14 or 15 hours long. These  officials further voiced concern that poll worker fatigue can lead to  increased mistakes.
In contrast, election officials we interviewed in 4 local jurisdictions did not  anticipate difficulties finding the poll workers that would be needed for a  weekend election. According to election officials in 3 of these jurisdictions,  it might be easier to recruit poll workers for a weekend than for a Tuesday  because a larger pool of volunteers who work Monday through Friday  might be available. In a fourth jurisdiction with experience conducting  state and local elections on Saturdays, officials said that while they may  need to replace some poll workers that are only able or willing to work  one day of a weekend election, they would expect that the compensation  they offer would be sufficient to attract the number of poll workers needed  to work over a weekend.
However, election officials from all 17 jurisdictions and the District stated  that the costs associated with poll worker pay would increase for a 2-day  election, and in all but one jurisdiction, officials anticipated such costs  would at least double what they spent in the 2010 general election. In that  one jurisdiction, the election official anticipated poll worker costs might  increase by about half—but not double—because she expected voter  activity would be spread over the course of Saturday and Sunday and,  thus, she would need fewer poll workers each day than for a single-day  election. Moreover, election officials from 10 of these jurisdictions noted  that poll worker costs represented their greatest cost in administering the  2010 general election. For example, officials from one local jurisdiction  expected the number of needed poll workers and the related costs to  double for a weekend election. They added that poll worker costs were  already their greatest election expense, and that such an increase would  significantly affect their overall election budget. Furthermore, election  officials in this state said that a weekend election would at least double  the $2.6 million the state incurred to help jurisdictions pay for nearly  54,000 poll workers statewide in the 2010 general election. Given its  financial constraints, these officials questioned whether the state would  be able to provide these payments to jurisdictions for the second day of a  weekend election.
In addition, election officials in three states and 4 jurisdictions noted that  they might have to increase the compensation they provide poll workers  or consider paying overtime to attract a sufficient number to work during a  weekend election. For example, officials from a jurisdiction with less than  20 poll workers in the 2010 general election said that their costs for poll  worker pay might double or triple for a weekend election because they  would expect needing more poll workers as well as needing to increase  compensation to successfully recruit them.
section_title: Most Election Officials Expect Difficulty and Some Increased Costs Finding Polling Places for a Weekend Election
paragraphs: Election officials we interviewed in 14 of the 17 local jurisdictions— including 5 jurisdictions with experience conducting elections on a  Saturday—and the District expected that at least some of the polling  places they used in past elections would not be available for a weekend  election, and officials in all of those jurisdictions and the District  anticipated difficulty finding replacements. Local election officials are  responsible for selecting and securing a sufficient number of polling  places that meet basic requirements and standards that include ensuring  polling places are easily accessible to all voters, including voters with  disabilities. They should also have a basic infrastructure capable of  supporting voting machines and be comfortable for voters and poll  workers, including offering sufficient indoor space and parking. The  types of facilities used as polling places varied in the jurisdictions where  we conducted interviews and included public and private facilities such as  places of worship, schools, government buildings, fire departments,  community centers, libraries, and residential facilities.
Election officials noted potential challenges associated with relying on  commonly used polling places on the weekend. Of the 12 jurisdictions  and the District that relied on churches or synagogues for at least some of  their polling places, election officials in all but one said they would need to  find other locations for a weekend election because the places of worship  they have relied on as polling places for Tuesday elections are used for  religious services or activities on the weekend and, thus, would not be  available. For example, in 2 jurisdictions where about half of the 3,067  and 200 polling places, respectively, were churches and synagogues,  election officials said that they would not expect those facilities to be  available on a weekend, and it would be difficult to find replacements. In  contrast, in one jurisdiction with experience conducting state and local  elections on a Saturday where about 15 percent of its 127 polling places  were churches, election officials said they would expect the majority of  those churches to remain available as polling places for a weekend  election by using areas of the church not needed for religious services.  However, they anticipated that churches would need to make special  parking arrangements, as church goers and voters would be competing  for parking spaces.
Officials from 9 jurisdictions and the District explained that other polling  places, such as schools and community centers, would also be more  difficult to use on the weekend because of scheduled events, such as  athletic events, dances, or fairs. For example, officials from one  jurisdiction with past experience conducting federal elections on a  Saturday stated that they had a harder time finding enough polling places  for Saturday voting because fewer locations, such as community centers,  were available. Officials stated that due to conflicts that prevented the use  of some facilities, some polling place locations had to change from the  presidential primary to the general election in the same election year.  They added that, as a result, voters had to be assigned to a different  polling place for the general election which caused a problem on Election  Day when some of those voters went to the wrong location. In another  jurisdiction where almost 70 percent of the 249 polling places in the 2010  general election were schools, officials said they would anticipate  problems using schools as weekend polling places because of activities,  such as athletic events, that might compete with a weekend election for  space and parking. Furthermore, they found it difficult to think of any  facilities that they might be able to use as replacements.
In contrast, election officials from 5 jurisdictions with past experience  conducting state or local elections on Saturdays noted that they might find  it easier to use schools as polling places on a weekend than a Tuesday  because students would not be attending classes and having students  present on Election Day when campuses are open to the public has  raised security concerns for some schools and jurisdictions. Officials from  2 of these jurisdictions acknowledged that schools would still have  competing activities on the weekend, but anticipated they could use a  different part of the school and employ additional staff to assist with  parking and traffic.
Regardless of the type of facility that might be unavailable as a weekend  polling place, officials in 14 jurisdictions and the District said that finding  alternatives would be challenging if not impossible. In all but one of these  jurisdictions, officials pointed out the difficulty in locating alternative  polling places that would be accessible to voters with disabilities. For  example, according to one local election official, in some precincts the  only building that is accessible to voters with disabilities is a church that is  already used as a polling place for Tuesday elections, but would not be  available on a weekend. Officials in 4 jurisdictions and the District said  that in order to provide for a sufficient number of polling places they might  need to consolidate precincts, in which case some voters would likely  need to travel further to vote.
However, in the three smallest jurisdictions in which we held interviews,  election officials said they would expect the same polling places they  used in past elections to still be available if the day of federal elections  were moved to a weekend. In two cases, the jurisdictions had a single  polling place—a municipal building—and officials would expect to use that  building for a weekend election. Officials from the third jurisdiction that  had experience conducting state and local elections on Saturdays,  similarly stated that a weekend election would not present a challenge  with respect to polling places, and they would expect to use the same 10  facilities—mostly public buildings—as polling places regardless of the day  of the week the election is held.
Election officials from 13 jurisdictions—including 5 jurisdictions with  experience conducting elections on a Saturday—said they would expect  costs associated with polling places to increase with a weekend election.  Officials in 8 jurisdictions that pay for at least some of the facilities they  use as polling places anticipated rental fees would double because of the  2-day aspect of a weekend election. Other officials said they would  expect at least some of the facilities that are available at no cost for a  Tuesday election to charge a rental fee on the weekend to compensate  for potential revenue losses by, for example, not being able to rent their  spaces for weddings or other private events. For example, officials from  one jurisdiction said that to replace many of their 249 polling places that  would be unavailable for a weekend election, they might need to offer  higher compensation to attract private facilities that have not previously  served as polling places. Furthermore, officials in 11 jurisdictions stated  that other costs might increase with a weekend election if facilities that  are normally closed on a weekend were opened for a weekend election.  This might include charges for electricity or custodial and maintenance  staff, who would need to be available or on the premises. In 6 of these  jurisdictions, officials stated that paying for custodial or maintenance  personnel might further entail overtime pay because they would be  working on a weekend.
section_title: Most Election Officials Said Ensuring Overnight Security of Ballots and Equipment Would Also Be Challenging and Costly
paragraphs: According to election officials we interviewed in all nine states, the  District, and 15 of the 17 local jurisdictions, ensuring the security of  ballots and voting equipment over the Saturday night of a weekend  election would be both challenging and expensive. We have previously  reported that secure voting systems are essential to maintaining public  confidence in the election process. EAC election management  guidelines further articulate that physical security safeguards are required  for all voting equipment and ballots while stored, transported, and in place  at polling places on Election Day, and until the time the vote is certified.  Officials we interviewed in 5 of the 7 states and the District that conducted  early voting and provided security over multiple days explained that the  level of planning and challenges needed for overnight security for a  weekend election would be on a scale that would far surpass that of early  voting due to the greater number and variety of polling places used on  Election Day. For example, election officials in one state observed that for  the 2010 general election, the entire state had fewer than 300 early voting  sites compared to more than 2,750 polling places on Election Day, and  the early voting sites were selected with the need for overnight security in  mind. In contrast, Election Day polling places are precinct-based and  generally selected based on factors that include availability and proximity  to voters rather than overnight security.
In 15 of the local jurisdictions and the District, election officials said they  anticipated challenges regarding the overnight security aspect of a  weekend election and described the following approaches they would  envision taking to ensure the security of ballots and voting equipment:
Transporting and securing ballots at another location. Election  officials in 8 jurisdictions said that to ensure the security and the  integrity of the election results, they would likely have ballots  transported from polling places to a secure location on the Saturday  night of a weekend election and back again on Sunday morning. An  election official from one jurisdiction stated that municipal law requires  that deputy sheriffs pick up ballots at the polling places and bring  them to the clerk’s office to secure them overnight during the  jurisdiction’s early voting period. This official stated that the  jurisdiction’s elections office currently employs approximately 120  deputy sheriffs to do this on Tuesday night of Election Day, and they  would likely be required to do the same on Saturday night in addition  to Sunday night of a weekend election.
Safeguarding voting equipment at polling places. Officials from 10  jurisdictions and the District said that to ensure overnight security  during a weekend election, they would likely hire security personnel  for each polling place to safeguard voting equipment from the close of  polls on Saturday night until they reopen on Sunday morning. For  example, an election official in one jurisdiction explained that because  some of the jurisdiction’s 27 polling places are located up to 100 miles  from the election office, there is not enough time between polls  closing Saturday night and reopening Sunday morning to transport the  voting equipment to and from each polling place and the secure  county office. Thus, this official said hiring security personnel and  posting them at each polling place overnight would be the only viable  option to ensure the security of the equipment. Officials in 3 other  jurisdictions explained that two security personnel would likely be  needed at each polling place not only to secure the equipment, but to  provide a check and balance and safeguard the integrity of the  election results. Although these officials believed that on-site security  personnel would be needed, some questioned whether a sufficient  number would be available. For example, officials in one jurisdiction  said that even if they were to hire every off-duty police officer in their  jurisdiction, they did not think they would have enough officers to  secure all of their 249 polling places over the Saturday night of a  weekend election. Officials from another jurisdiction anticipated that,  rather than hiring security personnel, they would likely secure the  voting machines on-site in a locked room to prevent tampering,  vandalism, or theft, but they would need to change the locks at all of  their 23 polling places.
We have previously reported that larger, diverse jurisdictions can face  more challenges than smaller jurisdictions, as the complexity of  administering an election and the potential for challenges increase with  the number of people and places involved and the scope of activities and  processes that must be conducted. This might be the case with respect  to ensuring overnight security during a weekend election. For example, at  one extreme, election officials in the largest jurisdiction where we held  interviews said they would likely employ some combination of on-site  security and transporting of ballots to ensure overnight security if  elections were held over 2 days. Officials explained that in their  jurisdiction, which had more than 3,000 polling places on Election Day for  the 2010 general election, ensuring the chain of custody of ballots on  election night involved a complex logistical operation that included  transporting ballots by helicopters to an estimated 70 to 80 secure  locations. Given the size of their jurisdiction and the enormity of the task,  these officials said they would need to assemble a task force and devote  considerable resources to determine how to address Saturday night  security during a weekend election since it would involve a completely  new model for them and a fundamental change in procedures.
In contrast, election officials in the two smallest jurisdictions where we  held interviews did not anticipate overnight security would be a challenge  during a weekend election, as they use a single polling place—a  municipal building—on Election Day. These officials said they would  expect that ballot boxes would be secured in a safe located in the county  office over the Saturday night of a weekend election, just as they are at  the end of a Tuesday Election Day. They added that they might consider  implementing additional security measures for a weekend election, such  as having police patrol the building during the weekend, but they did not  anticipate this would present a challenge or represent additional costs.
In addition to presenting planning and logistical challenges, election  officials in all nine states, the District, and 15 of the 17 local jurisdictions  where we conducted interviews said they expected the costs associated  with implementing these overnight security measures to increase the cost  of a weekend election. For example, in the jurisdiction that would employ  deputy sheriffs to transport the ballots to the clerk’s office both nights of a  weekend election, the election official said this would double the more  than $210,000 in security-related costs incurred for the 2010 general  election. In one of the jurisdictions where officials anticipated posting two  overnight security guards at each polling place, officials estimated this  would add about $100,000 to their cost of administering an election.
section_title: Election Officials Expected Other Challenges with Implementing Federal Elections on a Weekend
paragraphs: In all 17 local jurisdictions and the District, election officials reported that  they would expect few changes to how they register voters, conduct early  voting, and provide voting with provisional ballots. However, election  officials with whom we spoke identified other challenges related to  operating voting systems and reconciling ballots in preparation for  counting and certifying the total number of ballots cast over a 2-day  election, as well as concerns with the effect of a weekend election on  workload and the election calendar.
Voting technology challenges and related costs. Election officials we  interviewed in 7 of the 17 local jurisdictions discussed technology-related  challenges they foresaw with using their voting systems for a 2-day  weekend election, and officials from 4 of these jurisdictions said they  would expect addressing this to result in significantly higher costs than for  a Tuesday election. According to officials, their voting systems are  designed for all voting to take place in a single day and for equipment to  be closed when polling places close that night. Officials explained that, to  preserve the integrity of the vote in a weekend election, they would have  to leave voting machines open Saturday night where polls are closed;  however, the equipment could not simply be suspended Saturday night  and started up again Sunday morning for a second day of voting.Rather, once closed, the equipment would, in effect, consider the election  to be over and could not record additional votes. According to officials, to  conduct a second day of voting, their equipment would either need to be  (1) reprogrammed by the vendor in advance of the election and recertified  or (2) reprogrammed Saturday night and retested before Sunday  morning, which involves a lengthy process that cannot be completed in a  single night. Alternatively, they could purchase additional memory cards  or even a second set of voting machines.
Elections officials in the City and County of San Francisco anticipated  facing such a challenge in planning for a November 2011 municipal  election that was to take place on 2 days—a Saturday and the following  Tuesday. In consultation with the California Secretary of State’s office,  they determined that their voting equipment could not be closed on  Saturday night and restarted on Tuesday morning. Therefore, to address  this issue, they intended to borrow voting machines from other  jurisdictions and use different machines each day. However, they  explained that borrowing voting equipment would not be an option if the  day of general elections were moved to a weekend since every  jurisdiction in the country would be using its own voting equipment on the  same days. Thus, they stated that if federal elections were moved to a  weekend, they would likely have to purchase a second set of voting  equipment to use on Sunday at over 550 polling places, at an estimated  cost of over $5.9 million. This alone would represent about 88 percent of  the total costs the county incurred in administering the November 2010  general election.
Officials from another jurisdiction said they anticipate their voting  machines would need significant changes, including changes to software,  to suspend the election Saturday night and resume it on Sunday  morning—changes that the officials expected would require EAC  recertification.as long as 1 year and cost the manufacturer of their voting system  hundreds of thousands of dollars, some of which might be passed on to  them in the form of required software upgrades. Election officials in  another state that used different voting equipment said they thought their  equipment could suspend voting Saturday night and resume on Sunday  morning if careful steps were taken by trained poll workers or technical  staff on how to temporarily turn off voting machines without closing them  and ending the vote. However, they would need technical staff or poll  workers with more technical skills than those they have used in the past  to accomplish this without ending the entire voting process by mistake.
They estimated that the recertification process could take  In addition, election officials in all nine states expected other related  costs, such as for technology support—either in-house or contracted— would be greater for a weekend election. They stated that cost increases  would primarily be due to securing these services for a second day and  potentially having to pay overtime or premium pay on a weekend. For  example, based on their experience conducting nonfederal elections on a  Saturday, officials from Louisiana said that they would expect to incur  significant additional costs because they would need to hire more part- time election staff to load and reprogram a second set of memory cards  into their electronic voting machines on Sunday morning at approximately  3,000 polling places statewide. Moreover, the state normally pays to have  technology vendors on call to troubleshoot equipment-related problems at  polling places on Election Day, and would anticipate these costs would at  least double with a 2-day election as premium pay might be involved for a  weekend.
Ballot reconciliation on Saturday and Sunday nights. Election officials  from six states, the District, and 12 of the 17 local jurisdictions said that  they would likely need to reconcile ballots—the process of accounting for  the numbers of ballots issued, unused, and spoiled and ensuring that the  number of ballots cast matches the number of voters who cast ballots— on both Saturday and Sunday night of a weekend election. Officials in  three of these states and 2 of these jurisdictions anticipated challenges  with having to do this on 2 consecutive nights. For example, officials from  one state said that in jurisdictions that use paper ballots, reconciling them  on Saturday night might be difficult because it takes more time to  reconcile paper ballots than other voting methods and there might not be  sufficient time to complete the process before opening the polls again on  Sunday morning. Election officials from another state and 2 local  jurisdictions added that the work associated with reconciling ballots both  nights would lengthen what is already a long day for poll workers,  contribute to their fatigue, and might result in more errors in the  reconciliation process.
Increased election and temporary staff workload and costs. Officials  from all 17 jurisdictions and the District said that the workload of local  election staff would increase with a 2-day weekend election and, in all but  one of the jurisdictions, said this would significantly increase personnel  costs. For example, officials from one jurisdiction that employs eight full- time and one part-time election staff said that a 2-day election would  require that the staff work an additional 24 hours or more with a weekend  election than a Tuesday election. Further, because staff are paid a  premium for weekend overtime, the $10,500 incurred in overtime costs in  the November 2010 general election would at least double. Election  officials in 12 of the 13 jurisdictions and the District that used temporary  workers for the 2010 general election anticipated they would either need  to hire more temporary workers for a weekend election or have their  temporary staff work more hours, which would also result in increased  costs.
Effect on election calendar. Election officials in three states, the District,  and all 17 jurisdictions also noted that moving the day of federal elections  to a weekend could affect certain aspects of their entire election  calendar—that is, dates associated with administering elections (e.g.,  candidates’ declarations, printing ballots, voter registration, absentee  ballot deadlines, and certification of the vote). Officials in 12 jurisdictions  did not anticipate this would create a particular problem in administering  elections in their jurisdiction. However, a state election official in New  Hampshire was concerned that a weekend election might, in effect,  compel his state to move its congressional primaries earlier in the year.  New Hampshire’s congressional primaries take place in September— relatively late in the primary season. According to the state official, if a  weekend election resulted in congressional elections being scheduled  earlier than the Tuesday Election Day, the amount of time between the  state’s congressional primary and Election Day would not be sufficient for  election officials to create the Election Day ballot.
Also, officials in 3 jurisdictions and the District noted the effect that  existing absentee ballot deadlines might have on voters if the day of  federal elections were changed to a weekend. These officials explained  that limited weekend post office hours and concerns that the U.S. Postal  Service might further reduce weekend days or hours, could result in some  voters—more than with a weekday election—not mailing their absentee  ballots in time to be counted. For example, election officials in the District  said they would expect mailed absentee ballots would need to be  postmarked no later than the Saturday of a weekend election since post  offices are closed on Sunday. They anticipated that under this scenario,  some ballots mailed on the weekend might not be postmarked until after  the election, resulting in rejected ballots.
section_title: Weekend Elections Have Not Been Studied, but Studies of Other Voting Alternatives Suggest That Voter Turnout May Not Be Strongly Affected
subsections: section_title: Limited U.S. Experience with Weekend Elections Makes Evaluating Effect on Voter Turnout Challenging
paragraphs: Because nationwide federal elections have never been held on a  weekend and we could identify few U.S. jurisdictions that have held  weekend elections for state or local offices, it is difficult to draw valid  conclusions about how moving federal elections to a weekend would  affect voter turnout. In principle, a persuasive analysis of weekend  elections would involve comparing voter turnout in jurisdictions that had  moved their elections to a weekend to turnout in similar jurisdictions that  continued to hold the same type of election on a Tuesday. However,  since federal law requires federal elections in the United States be held  on a specific Tuesday, it is not possible to use national data to estimate  whether voter turnout would be different if voting took place on a weekday  or weekend without making assumptions that cannot be verified.
The experiences of certain state and local jurisdictions with weekend  elections, as well as the experiences of other countries, might lead to  speculation about how voter turnout in a weekend election in the United  States would compare to turnout elsewhere. In fact, the experiences of  state, local, and foreign jurisdictions do not provide good proxies for the  likely U.S. experience with weekend elections for the following reasons:
State and local elections. According to the EAC, the states of  Delaware, Louisiana, and Texas have had experience holding  nonfederal elections or federal primaries on Saturday. However, these  states’ experiences do not allow for an expedient and persuasive  evaluation. Historical data on state and local elections in Delaware  and Texas were not easily accessible in a reliable, electronic format  for the periods before, during, and after weekend elections occurred.  In addition, comparing the experiences of these three states with  other states would risk confusing differences in election schedules  with other unobserved differences, such as state culture or campaign  mobilization efforts. Further, the many unique features of each  election jurisdiction limit the usefulness of this type of analysis for  predicting the national effect of weekend elections.
Elections in other countries. Although other countries have had  experience conducting national elections on weekends, comparisons  between the United States and these countries have limited value  because of differences in election laws, requirements, and civic  responsibilities. For example, Australia and Brazil, which have held  federal elections during the weekend in the past 5 years, generally  require all eligible citizens to participate in the election process,  whereas the United States makes voting optional. Differences in  turnout between U.S. elections and elections in these countries may  reflect different civic responsibilities in addition to different election  schedules; however, it is difficult to assess which factor is actually  responsible.
Several other methodological challenges exist in evaluating the effect of  alternative voting methods (e.g., in-person early voting, no-excuse  absentee voting, and vote by mail), including weekend voting, on voter  turnout.
Voting alternatives cannot easily be evaluated using randomized  controlled trials that often provide the most persuasive evidence of  program effect. Jurisdictions likely would not randomly assign citizens  to one set of election laws without first examining potential equal- protection-type issues.
Political representatives and voters choose to adopt voting  alternatives for various reasons, which might include increasing low  turnout or maintaining high turnout. Consequently, the difference in  turnout between jurisdictions that have or have not adopted a  particular alternative could be caused by the alternative itself or by the  reasons that led the jurisdiction to adopt it.
The limited number of jurisdictions that have used a particular voting  alternative, or the length of time it had been in use, limit evaluations to  the elections in which these alternatives have been tried. For  example, researchers have evaluated vote by mail in Oregon,  Washington, and selected precincts in California, because these  jurisdictions have regularly used vote by mail in recent years.
Distinguishing the effect of a voting alternative from other factors that  affect turnout can be challenging. These other factors include  demographic, social, and psychological differences across voters;  other election practices, such as registration closing dates and  distance to polling places; the intensity or closeness of a campaign;  and the activities of political campaigns and the news media. For  example, voters in jurisdictions with highly educated, older citizens  might have higher turnout and a higher propensity to use voting  alternatives designed to increase turnout. Turnout might be higher in  these jurisdictions, but it is unclear whether the difference is caused  by the voting alternative or by the citizen characteristics that are  associated with a greater motivation to vote. Further, it is difficult to  assess the effect of a specific change in election practices when more  than one change is made at the same time. Thus, should states make  several new changes concurrently, such as implementing voter  identification requirements and allowing citizens to vote in early voting  periods, it would be difficult to assess the unique effect of any one  change on voter turnout.
section_title: Research Finds Effect of Alternative Voting Methods on Turnout Are Small and Citizen Demographics Are More Consequential
paragraphs: Our review of 24 studies found that alternative voting methods have small  and inconsistent effects on voter turnout, as compared to demographic  differences among citizens. With the exception of vote by mail, each of  the alternative voting methods we reviewed was estimated to increase or  decrease turnout by no more than 4 percentage points. The studies  disagreed about whether the methods would increase or decrease  turnout, however, as the estimates for all methods except vote by mail  varied from an increase of 2.8 percentage points to a decrease of 4  percentage points, depending on the voting method and the study, as  shown in table 1.
The maximum estimated increase suggests that alternative voting  methods other than vote by mail do not increase turnout by large  amounts, contrary to the goals of these policy reforms. In contrast, the  estimated effects of vote by mail were larger and less consistent, ranging  from a 2.7 percentage point decrease to a 10.2 percentage point  increase. The maximum effect of vote by mail decreased to 6.8  percentage points when we excluded one study whose results were  challenged by another study.
We were unable to identify any study that  directly estimated the effect of weekend elections on voter turnout in  United States elections.
The 24 studies showed that citizen demographics—age, education, race,  income, and residential mobility—had stronger and more consistent  associations with turnout than jurisdictions’ use of alternative voting  methods. More specifically, the studies showed the following:
A 10 percentage point increase in the percentage of a jurisdiction’s  population between the ages of 35 and 54 (in one study) and 45 to 64  (in another study) increased turnout by 1 to 10 percentage points.
A 10 percentage point increase in a jurisdiction’s population with 4- year college degrees increased turnout by 1 to 6 percentage points.
A 10 percentage point increase in a jurisdiction’s nonwhite population  decreased turnout by 2 to 11 percentage points.
A $40,000 increase in a jurisdiction’s median income increased  turnout by 0 to 4 percentage points.
A 10 percentage point increase in a jurisdiction’s renter population—a  measure of residential mobility—decreased turnout by 8 percentage  points.
The broader academic research on voter turnout has drawn conclusions  that are consistent with those of the studies we reviewed. These studies  have concluded that individual differences among citizens and electoral  competition are more strongly and consistently associated with the  decision to vote than interventions that seek to make voting more  convenient for registered voters. As a representative example, one  study concluded that the association between voter age and turnout in  presidential elections from 1956 through 1988 was more than five times  larger than the association between voter registration closing dates prior  to Election Day and turnout.
Our review found that alternative voting methods have not mobilized  groups of citizens who are typically less likely to vote. Five of the 24  studies examined how the effect of alternative voting methods varied  across particular groups of citizens. Four of those studies showed that the  methods either did not increase turnout for citizens who were typically  less likely to vote, or that the methods increased turnout for citizens who  were already more likely to vote. For example, one study concluded that  longer poll hours did not disproportionately benefit any demographic  group, including farmers and employed people working more than 40  hours per week. Another study concluded that vote by mail methods  increased turnout among citizens who were well educated, older, and  more interested in political campaigns. These findings suggest that  alternative voting methods are more effective at retaining existing voters  than mobilizing citizens who do not vote.
Similarly, our review showed that citizens who were typically more likely  to vote were also more likely to take advantage of early voting when it  was an option. Six of the 24 studies assessed which demographic groups  were more likely to vote early. These studies showed that early voters are  more likely to be older, better educated, more interested in politics, and  more strongly identified with a political party, as compared to voters who  used other voting methods. Because these groups of citizens are typically  more likely to vote, the research suggests that alternative voting methods  have been more popular among citizens who need less encouragement  to vote.
Election officials in the nine states and the District where we conducted  interviews said that they expected moving Election Day from a Tuesday  to a Saturday and Sunday would have little to no effect on total voter  turnout. In four of the states, officials said that a weekend election might  lead to more voters voting early or absentee, but they did not think total  turnout would be affected. This view was shared by officials in states that  had experience in early voting, including weekend early voting, as well as  states with considerable experience in holding local elections on  Saturday. Their comments are generally consistent with the studies we  reviewed, which assessed the effects of alternative voting methods on  turnout using larger, more-representative samples of elections,  jurisdictions, and time periods.
section_title: Turnout Did Not Increase during the Weekend Early Voting Period in Maryland’s 2010 General Election
paragraphs: Our analysis of voter turnout data from the early voting period during the  2010 general election in Maryland showed that voters were not very likely  to vote on the weekend days provided. Maryland offered early voting for  the first time in the 2010 primary and general elections. Of the voters we  analyzed, 1.1 percent cast ballots on the weekend during the early voting  period when they had this option during the primary election, and 1.5  percent of voters did so during the general election. The turnout rate for  the general election did not increase during weekend periods of early  voting, as compared to weekday periods and Election Day. About 81  percent of voters voted in person on Election Day and about 6 percent  voted by absentee ballot. A total of about 11.8 percent of voters voted in  person on a weekday during the state’s 7-day early voting period (the  second Friday through the first Thursday prior to Election Day), and about  1.5 percent voted on the Saturday of that period.
Those who voted early on Saturday were generally more likely to be  members of demographic groups who, according to academic research,  are typically more likely to vote—that is, those who are older, less mobile,  and more politically engaged. The length of registration and prior voting  experience approximate a voter’s residential mobility and long-term level  of political engagement, respectively. However, the youngest and least  experienced voters were relatively more likely to vote on Saturday,  compared to voters who were slightly older and more experienced.
As shown in table 2, voters who were older than 40, had been registered  for at least 10 years, and voted in at least 6 of the past 10 primary and  general elections were more likely to vote on Saturday in Maryland’s 2010  general election than voters in other subgroups. For example, 1.4 percent  of the registrants who were older than 65 and voted, voted on Saturday,  compared to 1 percent of the registrants between the ages of 25 and 39  who voted. Although this change is small on an absolute scale, it is larger  when expressed as a ratio of turnout rates for the two groups—a  proportional difference of 45 percent. In addition to these differences,  registered Democrats were 0.4 percentage points more likely than  registered Republicans to have voted on the weekend—a proportional  difference of 33 percent—but 6.3 percentage points less likely to have  voted at all.
Saturday turnout was slightly higher among the youngest and least- experienced subgroups of voters, as compared to voters in the subgroups  immediately above them, and the most recently registered had the  highest Saturday turnout of all registration groups. Because academic  research has generally found that older, less mobile, and more politically  engaged citizens are more likely to vote, early weekend voting appears to  have been slightly more popular among Maryland citizens who need the  most encouragement to vote in the first place. However, the small size of  this increase suggests that Saturday poll hours did not meaningfully  increase overall turnout or draw a large number of new or infrequent  voters to the polls. Apart from this group, the likelihood of voting on  Saturday generally increased with age, length of registration, and prior  voting experience. Appendix II describes our more-detailed statistical  analysis of voter turnout in Maryland.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional  committees and the EAC. In addition, the report will be available at no  charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please  contact me at (201) 512-8777 or jenkinswo@gao.gov. Contact points for  our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs can be found on  the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in  appendix VI.
section_title: Appendix I: Selected Characteristics of States and Local Election Jurisdictions We Contacted
paragraphs: States are responsible for the administration of their own elections as well  as federal elections, and states regulate various aspects of elections  including registration procedures, absentee voting requirements,  alternative voting methods, establishment of polling places, provision of  Election Day workers, testing and certification of voting equipment, and  counting and certification of the vote. However, local election  jurisdictions—counties and subcounty governmental units, such as cities,  villages, and townships—have primary responsibility for managing,  planning, and conducting elections. We conducted interviews with  election officials in a nonprobability sample of nine states and the District  of Columbia (District), and a nonprobability sample of 17 local  jurisdictions within those states, about if and how they implemented  alternative voting methods and their views on how election administration  and voter turnout would likely be affected in their state or jurisdiction if the  day for regularly scheduled federal elections were moved to a weekend.  To obtain a range of perspectives, we selected states that varied  according to, among other things, geographic region, alternative voting  methods provided in federal elections, experience with voting on  weekends, and the level of local government responsible for  administering elections (e.g., county or township) as shown in table 3.
In addition, we conducted interviews with election officials in a  nonprobability sample of 17 local election jurisdictions within the nine  states. We selected jurisdictions to reflect variation in factors including  demographics, applicable bilingual voting assistance requirements, and  voting methods used, as shown in table 4. In addition, we considered  other factors specific to the jurisdiction—such as for Los Angeles County,  which is the largest election jurisdiction in the United States, or for San  Francisco, which had developed an implementation plan for a Saturday  voting pilot program for a November 2011 municipal election—in making  our selections.
section_title: Appendix II: Analysis of Weekend Voting in the 2010 Maryland State Elections
paragraphs: The state of Maryland provided its citizens the option of in-person early  voting for the first time in the 2010 primary and general elections. Polls  were open for early voting on a total of 6 days, beginning the second  Friday prior to Election Day (September 14 or November 2, respectively,  for the primary and general elections) and extending through the first  Thursday prior to Election Day. Early voting hours were provided on  Saturday, but not on Sunday, of each 7-day early voting period. State  statute required counties to establish early voting centers, with the  number of early voting locations based on the county’s number of  registered voters. Each county had at least one location, plus three to five  additional locations if they had more than 150,000 registered voters.  Early voting hours were the same across counties, beginning at 10:00  a.m. and ending at 8:00 p.m. each day.
Maryland’s experience with early voting allowed us to analyze how voters  used weekend poll hours when they were available. Voter registration and  turnout data in Maryland are sufficiently detailed and reliable to allow for  statistical analysis of citizens who were registered for the 2010 general  election. This appendix presents our analysis of (1) whether the turnout  rate during the early voting period was higher or lower on Saturday as  compared to weekdays and (2) which groups of citizens used weekend  poll hours in the 2010 general election. Specifically, we assessed whether  citizens who belonged to groups that typically vote less frequently, such  as younger and more-recently registered voters, were more likely to use  weekend poll hours. While our analysis describes the use of weekend poll  hours, it does not seek to estimate the causal effect of providing these  voting methods or holding Election Day on Saturday and Sunday.
subsections: section_title: Turnout Did Not Substantially Increase during Weekend Poll Hours
paragraphs: Our analysis of voter turnout data showed that only 1.5 percent of voters  used Saturday poll hours during the early voting period of the 2010  general election. To further examine how the turnout rate changed  between the weekend and weekday periods, we analyzed the voting  times for early voters. According to state officials, all counties in Maryland  used the same computerized voter registration and election  administration system in 2010, which recorded the date and time when  each voter received a ballot. By estimating the turnout rate within small  intervals during the early voting period, we assessed whether turnout  meaningfully changed between the weekday and weekend periods.
As shown in figure 3, the proportion of Maryland voters—categorized into  groups by age, length of registration, and participation in prior elections— who cast ballots on a certain “poll day” during the early voting period did  not substantially increase on Saturday. In our analysis, a poll day is a 24- hour period when the polls were open during the early voting period. It  equals the calendar days prior to Election Day when citizens were able to  vote minus the subsequent time when the polls were closed. example, figure 3 shows that the first citizen to receive a ballot when the  polls opened on Saturday of the early voting period voted 2.9 poll days  prior to Election Day, even though Saturday, October 23, was the 10th  calendar day prior to Election Day on Tuesday, November 2.
We rescaled calendar time to poll days to avoid analyzing periods when the polls were  closed. In effect, this adjusts the voting duration times for the time “at risk” of voting. While  Maryland standardized early voting poll hours across counties, we included voting times  outside of the official poll hours, which may have represented citizens who were in line to  vote when the polls closed. As a result, we defined the start and end of each poll day as  the earliest and latest recorded voting time on a particular calendar day of early voting.
section_title: Multivariate Statistical Analysis of Saturday Voting across Groups Produces Similar Results
paragraphs: In order to describe the patterns in figure 3 more precisely, we used  several statistical methods to estimate how turnout and the use of  Saturday voting varied across groups of citizens with different  characteristics. These methods allowed us to estimate the association  between a certain characteristic and outcomes of interest, such as age  and prior turnout, while holding constant other characteristics, such as the  length of registration. )
Λ (ß + Age ß + Tenureß + Sexß + Partyß + Countyß) = 1) indicates whether a voter voted  on Saturday; and the remaining terms are vectors of parameters and  indicator covariates as specified in table 5. (County is a vector of  indicators for each county.)
To assess marginal effects, we estimated the in-sample mean predicted  probabilities for each level of each covariate (though table 5 includes  estimates only for the covariates of interest). We estimated robust  standard errors of the parameters and predicted probabilities but do not  report them here for simplicity. The standard errors were no more than 5  percent of the estimated probabilities, which partially reflects sample  sizes of 1,857,675 for the model of turnout and 927,774 for the model of  weekend voting. For ease of computation, we estimated the models on a  50 percent simple random sample of the population of registrants.
The model estimates support the patterns in the raw data. Relatively  fewer young citizens chose to vote, and most of those who did were not  more likely to have voted on Saturday. Similarly, the most recently  registered voters were also less likely to vote; however, in contrast, they  were more likely to vote on Saturday, holding constant differences  associated with age. On an absolute scale, however, few voters used  Saturday poll hours, and a far greater proportion of less-experienced  voters either did not vote, voted late in the early voting period, or waited  until Election Day.
Specifically, although our model estimates that no more than 2.2 percent  of any subgroup of voters cast their ballots on Saturday, holding constant  other group memberships, older voters were relatively more likely to do  so than younger voters. The adjusted probability of voting on Saturday for  voters who were between the ages of 40 and 64 was 1.8 percentage  points, as compared to 1.2 percentage points for voters who were  younger than 25—a difference of 50 percent expressed as a ratio. The  analogous probabilities for voters registered less than 2 years ago and  between 2 and 9 years ago were 2.2 and 1.5 percentage points,  respectively, or a difference of 47 percent. The probability of voting on  Saturday was slightly lower among citizens at least 65 years old, as  compared to citizens between the ages of 40 and 64.
Less-experienced citizens were much less likely to have voted in the first  place. Citizens younger than 25 were 37 percentage points less likely to  vote than citizens 65 and older. Similarly, citizens who first registered  within the past 2 years were 39 percentage points less likely to vote than  citizens who had been registered for 30 years or more.
The national experience with holding regular elections on Saturday and  Sunday might differ in meaningful ways from Maryland’s experience with  allowing early voting on the weekend. Maryland citizens are not  necessarily representative of the nation, and in 2010 the state’s early  voting program was in its first year of operation. Voters may use weekend  poll hours differently as they continue to learn about this option.  Moreover, early voter behavior may not resemble voter behavior in  elections where Election Day falls on Saturday and Sunday. In the latter  system, political campaigns and the news media may increase voter  awareness of weekend poll hours, and voters would not be forced to  choose between voting on the weekend and voting before the political  campaigns have ended.
Despite these limitations, our analysis suggests that relatively few voters  used weekend poll hours when they were offered in the 2010 Maryland  general election, and that most of the citizens in subgroups typically less  likely to vote did not turn out at vastly higher rates during this period. If  voters’ behavior can accurately reveal their preferences for different  voting methods, the demand for weekend poll hours appeared to be  modest in this election.
section_title: Appendix III: Alternative Voting Methods Provided in 50 States and the District for the 2004 and 2010 November General Elections
paragraphs: The number of states providing alternative voting methods—that is, in- person early voting and no-excuse absentee voting—has increased, as  shown in figure 4. Specifically, in 2006, on the basis of results from a  survey of 50 states and the District of Columbia (District), we reported  that 24 states and the District required or allowed in-person early voting  and 21 states allowed or required no-excuse absentee voting by mail in  the November 2004 general election. For the November 2010 general  election, 33 states and the District provided in-person early voting and 29  states and the District provided no-excuse absentee voting by mail.
section_title: Appendix IV: Selected Details of Early and No-Excuse Absentee Voting for the 2010 General Election in States We Contacted
paragraphs: Of the nine states and the District of Columbia (District) we contacted,  seven states and the District provided early voting. Of those seven states,  five states and the District provided both early voting and no-excuse  absentee voting. Two of the nine states where we conducted interviews— Delaware and New Hampshire—did not provide voters with either of  these alternatives, although they allowed voters to vote by absentee  ballot if they provided a reason. Table 6 provides selected details on how  early and no-excuse absentee voting were implemented during the  November 2010 general election.
section_title: Appendix V: Selected Details of Early Voting for the 2010 General Election in Local Jurisdictions We Contacted
paragraphs: Of the 17 local jurisdictions and the District of Columbia (District) we  contacted, 14 jurisdictions and the District provided in-person early voting.  Table 7 provides selected details regarding how early voting was  implemented during the November 2010 general election.
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, Mary Catherine Hult, Assistant  Director; David Alexander; Josh Diosomito; Geoffrey Hamilton; Lara  Miklozek; Hugh Paquette; Jeff Tessin; and Lori Weiss made key  contributions to this report.
section_title: Bibliography
paragraphs: Bergman, Elizabeth, Philip Yates, and Elaine Ginnold. “How Does Vote  by Mail Affect Voters? A natural experiment examining individual-level  turnout.” The PEW Center on the States, Make Voting Work project.  Accessed May 19, 2011.  http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/report_detail.aspx?id=58252  Berinsky, Adam J., Nancy Burns, and Michael W. Traugott. “Who Votes  By Mail? A Dynamic Model of the Individual-Level Consequences of  Voting-By-Mail Systems.” The Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 65 (2001):  178-197.
Burden, Barry C., David T. Canon, Kenneth R. Mayer, and Donald P.  Moynihan. “Election Laws, Mobilization, and Turnout: The Unanticipated  Consequences of Election Reform,” April 12, 2011. Social Science  Research Network eLibrary. Accessed May 19, 2011.  http://ssrn.com/abstract=1690723  Fitzgerald, Mary. “Greater Convenience but Not Greater Turnout—the  Impact of Alternative Voting Methods on Electoral Participation in the  United States.” American Politics Research, vol. 33 (2005): 842-867.
Giammo, Joseph D., and Brian J. Brox. “Reducing the Costs of  Participation: Are States Getting a Return on Early Voting?” Political  Research Quarterly, vol. 63 (2010): 295-303.
Gronke, Paul, and Daniel Krantz Toffey, “The Psychological and  Institutional Determinants of Early Voting.” Journal of Social Issues, vol.  64 (2008): 503-524.
Gronke, Paul, Eva Galanes-Rosenbaum, and Peter A. Miller. “Early  Voting and Turnout.” PS: Political Science and Politics, vol. 40 (2007):  639-645.
Gronke, Paul, Eva Galanes-Rosenbaum, and Peter A. Miller. “Early  Voting and Voter Turnout.” In Democracy in the States: Experiments in  Election Reform. Ed. Bruce E. Cain, Todd Donovan, and Caroline J.  Tolbert. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2008.
Gronke, Paul, and Peter A.M. Miller. “Voting by Mail and Turnout: A  Replication and Extension.” Paper presented at the 2007 Annual Meeting  of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, Ill.
Hanmer, Michael J., and Michael W. Traugott. “The Impact of Voting by  Mail on Voter Behavior.” American Politics Research, vol. 32 (2004): 375- 405.
Hill, David, and Michael D. Martinez. “The Interactive Effects of Electoral  Reform, Competitiveness and Age on Turnout.” Paper presented at the  2008 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association,  Boston, Mass.
Juenke, Eric Gonzalez, and Juliemarie Shepherd. “Vote Centers and  Voter Turnout.” In Democracy in the States: Experiments in Election  Reform. Ed. Bruce E. Cain, Todd Donovan, and Caroline J. Tolbert.  Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2008.
Karp, Jeffrey A., and Susan A. Banducci. “Going Postal: How All-Mail  Elections Influence Turnout.” Political Behavior, vol. 22 (2000): 223-239.
Kousser, Thad and Megan Mullin. “Does Voting by Mail Increase  Participation? Using Matching to Analyze a Natural Experiment.” Political  Analysis, vol. 15 (2007): 428-445.
Leighley, Jan E., and Jonathan Nagler. “Electoral Laws and Turnout,  1972-2008.” Paper presented at the 4th Annual Conference on Empirical  Legal Studies, Los Angeles, Calif., November 2009.
Magleby, David B. “Participation in Mail Ballot Elections.” The Western  Political Quarterly, vol. 40 (1987): 79-91.
Miller, Peter A., and Neilan S. Chaturvedi. “Get Out the Early Vote:  Minority Use of Convenience Voting in 2008.” Paper presented at the  2010 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association,  Washington, D.C.
Miller, Peter A.M., and Paul Gronke. “The Effect of Voting by Mail in  Washington: 1960-2008.” Portland, Ore.: The Early Voting Information  Center, Reed College. Accessed May 19, 2011.  http://www.earlyvoting.net/research  Patterson, Samuel C. and Gregory A. Caldeira. “Mailing in the Vote:  Correlates and Consequences of Absentee Voting.” American Journal of  Political Science, vol. 29 (1985): 766-788.
Southwell, Priscilla L., and Justin I. Burchett. “The Effect of All-Mail  Elections on Voter Turnout.” American Politics Quarterly, vol. 28 (2000):  72-79.
Stein, Robert M. “Early Voting.” The Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 62  (1998): 57-69.
Stein, Robert M., and Greg Vonnahme. “Engaging the Unengaged Voter:  Voter Centers and Voter Turnout.” The Journal of Politics, vol. 70 (2008):  487-497.
Stein, Robert M., and Patricia A. Garcia-Monet. “Voting Early but Not  Often.” Social Science Quarterly, vol. 78 (1997): 657-671.
Wolfinger, Raymond E., Benjamin Highton, and Megan Mullin. “How  Postregistration Laws Affect the Turnout of Citizens Registered to Vote.”  State Politics and Policy Quarterly, vol. 5 (2005): 1-23.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Elections: DOD Can Strengthen Evaluation of Its Absentee Voting  Assistance Program. GAO-10-476. Washington, D.C.: June 17, 2010.
Elderly Voters: Information on Promising Practices Could Strengthen the  Integrity of the Voting Process in Long-term Care Facilities. GAO-10-6.  Washington, D.C.: November 30, 2009.
Voters with Disabilities: Additional Monitoring of Polling Places Could  Further Improve Accessibility. GAO-09-941. Washington, D.C.:  September 30, 2009.
Voters With Disabilities: More Polling Places Had No Potential  Impediments Than in 2000, but Challenges Remain. GAO-09-685.  Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2009.
Elections: States, Territories, and the District Are Taking a Range of  Important Steps to Manage Their Varied Voting System Environments.  GAO-08-874. Washington, D.C.: September 25, 2008.
Elections: Federal Program for Certifying Voting Systems Needs to Be  Further Defined, Fully Implemented, and Expanded. GAO-08-814.  Washington, D.C.: September 16, 2008.
Bilingual Voting Assistance: Selected Jurisdictions’ Strategies for  Identifying Needs and Providing Assistance. GAO-08-182. Washington,  D.C.: January 18, 2008.
Elections: Action Plans Needed to Fully Address Challenges in Electronic  Absentee Voting Initiatives for Military and Overseas Citizens.  GAO-07-774. Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2007.
Elections: The Nation’s Evolving Election System as Reflected in the  November 2004 General Election. GAO-06-450. Washington, D.C.: June  6, 2006.
Elections: Absentee Voting Assistance to Military and Overseas Citizens  Increased for the 2004 General Election, but Challenges Remain.  GAO-06-521. Washington, D.C.: April 7, 2006.
Elections: Views of Selected Local Election Officials on Managing Voter  Registration and Ensuring Eligible Citizens Can Vote. GAO-05-997.  Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2005.
Elections: Additional Data Could Help State and Local Elections Officials  Maintain Accurate Voter Registration Lists. GAO-05-478. Washington,  D.C.: June 10, 2005.
Elections: Perspectives on Activities and Challenges Across the Nation.  GAO-02-3. Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001.
Voters With Disabilities: Access to Polling Places and Alternative Voting  Methods. GAO-02-107. Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001.
Elections: Voting Assistance to Military and Overseas Citizens Should Be  Improved. GAO-01-1026. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2001.
Elections: The Scope of Congressional Authority in Election  Administration. GAO-01-470. Washington, D.C.: March 13, 2001.