Resources

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

478 Resources

Thessalia Merivaki, Sean ConnerMississippi State University2018
Voter Registration Academic Papers

The analysis finds notable discrepancies in how voter registration data are reported by localities into Mississippi’s Statewide Election Management System (SEMS), as well as discrepancies in how such data are reported by the state to the EAC’s Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS). This suggests that some localities face more challenges in managing records under a hybrid structure than others, which can disproportionately impact voters on Election Day, depending on where they reside.

The Pew Charitable Trusts2018
Voter Registration Issue Briefs

Pew commissioned a 2016 survey of almost 3,000 citizens in five Great Lakes states—Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and Ohio—as they exited MVAs after completing licensing transactions in order to determine the extent to which their experience complied with the Motor Voter law. Their findings touch on whether voters were offered the opportunity to register to vote or update their registration, how voters registered, and the mean transaction time to register.

Center for Election Innovation and Research2018
Voter Registration Reports

CEIR has surveyed states about voter registration database security every two years since 2018. These surveys have demonstrated widespread best practices in respondent states.

Loren Collingwood, William McGuire, Benjamin Gonzalez O’Brien, Katherine E. Baird, Sarah Hampson2018
Voting by Mail Academic Papers

In Washington, the research finds that distance to the closest ballot drop box increases one's probability of voting but primarily in off-year elections and primaries.

John C. Fortier, Charles Stewart III, Stephen Pettigrew, Matthew Weil, Tim HarperBipartisan Policy Center2018
In-Person Voting Reports

This report provides practical recommendations for reducing polling place wait times by improving line measurement and the management of polling place resources.

Jacob Jaffe, Charles Stewart III, Jacob CoblentzCaltech-MIT Voting Technology Project2018
In-Person Voting Academic Papers

In this paper, authors develop models to estimate voter service times from voting machine log data, providing election officials with a scalable approach to analyze and improve polling place operations.

Natalie Adona, Paul Gronke2018
In-Person Voting Reports

This report surveys the public's views on election administration and reform, examining what voters value most in the voting experience and which changes they believe would improve it.

Center for Inclusive Democracy2018
In-Person Voting Tools

The Voting Location and Outreach Tool is a publicly available tool that allows users to visualize data on the number, location, and historical use of Election Day vote centers and polling places, and to project equitable distributions of locations for upcoming elections.

Paul Gronke, Paul Manson, Evan CrawfordElections & Voting Information Center2018
Workforce Reports

The inaugural 2018 Local Election Official Survey solicited opinions about election administration, access, integrity, and reform. In this survey, election officials highlight concerns regarding resources, staffing, and coordination between state and local officials.

Ronald L. RivestMIT Computer Science & Artificial Intelligence Laboratory2017
Audits & Validating Elections Academic Papers

In this paper, authors introduces ClipAudit, a simplified risk-limiting post-election audit method intended to make statistical audits more understandable and implementable.

Ronald L. Rivest, Philip B. Stark, Zara Perumal2017
Audits & Validating Elections Academic Papers

This paper explores voting-rule design choices that can reduce audit burden and improve auditability, with implications for post-election verification.

Ronald L. RivestMIT Computer Science & Artificial Intelligence Laboratory2017
Audits & Validating Elections Academic Papers

In this paper, authors explain what risk limiting audits do and do not verify, emphasizing paper-ballot examination and the distinction between outcome verification and other election processes.