Resources

This report examines election-related hurdles that hinder or prevent people with disabilities from participating fully in U.S. elections, including during the 2020 election cycle. It offers recommendations that policymakers can adopt to improve election accessibility for voters with disabilities.

This MIT Election Data + Science Lab analysis explains the 2020 “blue shift,” where later-counted ballots disproportionately favored Democrats, and why that pattern mattered for public interpretation of results.

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.

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 report / guidance examines election results communication in relation to the entry’s stated focus on election results; delays; public communication. It is relevant because trusted, timely, and nonpartisan communication is one of the main tools election officials and civic groups use to counter distrust.

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 report finds that the disinformation campaign surrounding the risk of voter fraud associated with mail-in ballots follows an elite-driven, mass media model.

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.

There is increasing evidence that voters’ confidence in the outcome of elections, and more specifically, that their vote was counted accurately, is dominated by the whether the voter supported the winning or losing candidate in an election. Authors ask whether this winner (loser) effect is consistent over time and parties. Additionally, they test whether the strength of this effect on voter confidence varies across electoral level (i.e., confidence in a county, state, and nations vote counting).

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.