Resources

In this paper, authors examine the effects of automatic voter registration (AVR) on both registration and turnout. They find that ind it does raise registration rates substantially, that the effect of AVR gradually builds the longer it is in place, and that the different types of AVR have significantly different effects on both registration and turnout.

This research analyzes registrants in Wisconsin who were identified as potential movers and did not respond to a subsequent postcard. At least 4% of these registrants cast a ballot at their address of registration, with minority registrants twice as likely as white registrants to do so.

This research develops and applies a method to estimate how many people voted twice in the 2012 presidential election. It estimates that about one in 4,000 voters cast two ballots, although an audit suggests that the true rate may be lower due to small errors in electronic vote records.

In this paper, authors analyze the targeted adoption of early in-person voting on public colleges and university campuses. Using data from the 2018 general election in Florida, authors find uneven effects of the policy reform on overall turnout, but consistent evidence that the adoption of on-campus early voting impacts the timing and volume of voter turnout among this group.

This research argues that local challenges remain when maintaining voters’ registration and voting history information, which undermines the quality of voter lists and the integrity of the electoral process. It analyzes Mississippi’s Statewide Election Management System (SEMS) records and finds that voter registration and voting history errors are linked to the county’s active and inactive registered voter rates and demographic characteristics.

This report highlights key trends in voter turnout among voters with disabilities in the 2020 election. Authors note a significant increase in turnout among these voters compared to the 2016 general election, reducing the turnout gap with voters without disabilities to 5.7 percentage points. However, approx. 11% of voters with disabilities reported some difficulties voting.

In this paper, authors examine whether use of vote by mail exacerbates existing inequalities in mail-in ballot rejection rates. They find that younger voters were more likely to have their vote by mail ballot rejected than older voters due to lack of timeliness or deficiencies with the return envelopes. These findings highlight potential adverse impacts of expanded vote by mail on certain groups.

This paper examines the barriers that Native Americans face
when trying to register and participate in elections. Through conducting several field hearings, authors uncover several important findings related to polling place access and first generation voting barriers that prevent them from casting a ballot.

This analysis focuses on whether counties that had previously been “covered” purged voters at a higher rate than noncovered counties after the coverage formula was struck down. It finds increases in purge rate of between 1.5 and 4.5 points in formerly covered jurisdictions post-Shelby, compared with counties that had not been subject to preclearance. Most of the increase came immediately, as the effect in 2014 is substantively and significantly higher than that in 2016.

Authors describe the difficulties that vote-by-mail presents for Native American voters. Specifically, “members of the 574 federally recognized tribes” face barriers to political participation to a greater degree than any other racial or ethnic group. The authors also define measures that can be taken to level the field, all while respecting social distancing.

Cantoni examines the effect of voting costs - specifically distance to a polling location - on ballots cast. He finds that small increases in distance to a polling location reduce ballots cast. He also finds that during non-presidential elections, these effects are three times larger in high-minority areas than in low-minority areas.

In this paper, Merivaki and Smith seek to examine who is more likely to cast a provisional ballot and why some provisional ballots are rejected. They suggest that beyond individual-level factors, there are administrative reasons why some prospective voters are more likely to be required to cast provisional ballots, and why some provisional ballots are rejected.