Resources

Use our resource library to explore the latest research in the field of election science.

155 Resources

Lynn Baumeister, Whitney Quesenbery, Sharon J. LaskowskiNational Institute of Standards2023
Usability & Accessibility Reports

Accessible vote-by-mail is critical in enabling voters with disabilities to cast their ballot privately and independently. This report reviews current elections offices' practices in administering accessible vote by mail and considers their innovations and current challenges.

Marc Meredith, Lucy KronenbergUniversity of Pennsylvania2023
Voting by Mail Academic Papers

In the 2020 North Carolina general election, about 82 percent of the roughly 26,000 voters who submitted mail ballots eligible for a cure process ultimately cast a counted ballot. About 39 percent of these counted ballots were cured in-person, and greater access to in-person curing options increased the likelihood that a ballot was cured. Democratic and non-major party registrants cured their ballots more often than Republican registrants, particularly when they lived in a county in which the Democratic Party was running a coordinated campaign focused on curing. While election officials sometimes attempted to inform voters by phone about the need to cure, there was no clear relationship between having a phone number recorded in a registration record and the likelihood that a ballot was cured.

MIT Election Data + Science Lab2023
Voting by Mail Videos

In this video Paul Gronke, Director of the Elections and Voting Information Center, outlines the results of the 2023 white paper "An Overview: Vote By Mail in the United States." This paper documents the emergence and growth of mail balloting and details the unique administrative arrangements associated with this method of voting, related research and best practices, and areas where there is still more to learn.

Lisa Schur, Mason Ameri, Joseph Dietrich, Michael Herron, Douglas Kruse, Whitney Quesenbery, Melissa Rogers, Jean Schroedel, Daniel Smith, Cameron WimpyMIT Election Data + Science Lab2023
Usability & Accessibility Reports

This report examines barriers impacting voting access among groups such as people with disabilities, young voters, Native Americans, and rural residents. It puts forth several reforms such as expanded vote by mail policies and implementation of plain language in voter materials to address these barriers. Authors also highlight current research gaps and areas where further research is necessary.

Justin Grimmer, Eitan Hersh2023
Usability & Accessibility Academic Papers

Grimmer and Hersh assert that contemporary election reforms that are purported to increase or decrease turnout have negligible effects on election outcomes. They find that election policies have small effects on outcomes because they tend to target small shares of the electorate, have a small effect on turnout, and/or affect voters who are relatively balanced in their partisanship. These effects are not the result of countermobilization from political parties.

Whitney Quesenbery, Sharon J. LaskowskiNational Institute of Standards2023
Usability & Accessibility Reports

This document provides guidance and resources for how to test voting systems against the usability and accessibility requirements in the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) 2.0. The primary audiences for this guide are the voting system test laboratory organizations who perform certification testing.

Charlotte Hill, Jake Grumbach, Adam Bonica, Hakeem JeffersonEvans Policy Innovation Collaborative2023
Voting by Mail Academic Papers

Overall, 1.5 percent of all primary ballots cast and 1.1 percent of general election ballots cast were rejected across elections from 2012 to 2022 in Washington. There is evidence that voters of color have higher ballot rejection rates than White voters. Self-identifying male voters have slightly higher ballot rejection rates than self-identifying female voters in both primary and general elections. Younger voters have a much higher ballot rejection rate than older voters.

Voting by Mail Issue Briefs

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of absentee/mail voting and early in-person policies between January 2020 (pre-pandemic) and November 2022. This research highlights that most absentee/mail voting policies were not significantly affected by the pandemic. If changes were made to policies for the 2020 election, they reverted to the policy existing prior to the pandemic.

Whitney Quesenbery, Lynn Baumeister, Dana ChisnellNational Institute of Standards2023
Usability & Accessibility Reports

This document is the third part of a series of documents on the usability of electronic pollbooks and is supplementary to Part Two in the series, Usability Testing for E-pollbooks: A
Test Protocol.

Michael RitterWashington State University2023
Voting by Mail Academic Papers

This study demonstrates that the level of accessibility of state absentee and mail voting laws as well as their administration have significant effects on voter turnout. The results also reveal that higher performing U.S. Postal Service administration can enhance the impact of absentee and mail voting laws, particularly in states with the most restrictive mail voting laws.

Sarah Blahovec, Whitney Quesenbery, Sharon J. LaskowskiNational Institute of Standards2023
Usability & Accessibility Reports

This report is intended to assist election officials in developing poll worker training to support voters with disabilities at the polling place. This work is in response to the inconsistency of available training materials for poll workers on how to set up accessible voting systems and support voters in using them.

Paul Gronke, Mindy Romero, Enrijeta Shino, Daniel M. ThompsonMIT Election Data + Science Lab2023
Voting by Mail Issue Briefs

This brief documents the emergence and growth of mail balloting and details the unique administrative arrangements associated with this method of voting, related research and best practices, and areas where there is still more to learn. Voting by uniformed and overseas citizens—"UOCAVA” voters—is a special case not focused on in this report.