LA Votes: Vote Center Experience Data Brief – Final

Politics, Groups, and Identities

Public Opinion Quarterly, 2006

In the 2003 California gubernatorial recall election 2,775,785 absentee ballots were cast, representing about 30 percent of all voters statewide. Given the number of absentee ballots and the increasing propensity for voters in California and elsewhere to choose this voting method, we some basic questions: Who are absentee voters, and are they different from polling place voters? To answer these questions, we fielded a statewide survey of absentee voters in the days before the October 7 recall election, asking respondents why they voted absentee, their partisan and ideological preferences, demographic characteristics, and other relevant questions. We find that absentee voters do not differ significantly from the overall state electorate in terms of their vote preferences, despite being older and better educated. For example, 56 percent of absentee voters in our survey voted "yes" on the recall, compared with 55 percent for the entire state, according to official returns. Further, absentee voters favored Arnold Schwarzenegger over Cruz Bustamante by a considerable margin, similar to the overall election This project would not have been possible without the support and assistance of the Center for the Study of Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University. In particular, we are indebted to Xochitl Marquez, Chris Zepeda, and Sal Paniagua, who helped implement this project. In addition, we received valuable feedback on the questionnaire wording from Nathan Woods and Ricardo Ramírez, and we are grateful for the final review and comments from Peter Miller, which improved the overall article. For access to the data sets used here, please contact Fernando Guerra,

Research & Politics, 2019

The use of vote centers-specific locations in a county where all voters will vote-is on the rise nationwide, as more than a dozen states used this process by 2018. More states are moving toward using voting centers to remedy the problem of low voter turnout, with the assumption that the centralization of voting to several core county locations will increase voter accessibility. What we have less clear information about is the effect of vote centers on turnout in individual elections across several cycles. Using a natural experiment in Texas-a state that has three fixed election cycles-we find vote centers have a small positive impact on traditionally lower turnout elections but no effect on higher turnout elections. The cumulative impact of vote centers has a small effect on turnout over time. These results suggest a more cautious assessment is needed when considering the use and impact of vote centers.

American Politics Research, 2008

The experiences in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 demonstrate that the election process can fall short of voters' expectations. In the wake of reforms, such as the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002, scholars have attempted to identify ways in which the objective conditions in polling places shape citizens' experiences and overall confidence in the electoral system. Early studies reveal that poll workers play a major role in the way voters feel about their voting experience. Using exit poll data on the delivery of service at the polling locations, we study the determinants of reactions to poll workers. We find poll worker evaluations are responsive to wait times, feelings of privacy while voting, poll worker training, and special poll worker recruiting efforts, to name a few. When voters feel good about their interactions with poll workers, they feel better about their voting experience and more confident about the electoral system.

2011

We present here a final analysis of voters' usage of the ranked choice ballot in the 2011 San Francisco Municipal Election. Unlike our previous report, which concentrated primarily on political outcomes, this paper focuses on voters' usage of the ballot and tendencies to overvote, undervote, and rank candidates for three citywide offices: Sheriff, District Attorney, and Mayor. This study combines individual ballot records with county voter file data to allow for a systematic analysis of the relationship between various demographic factors and variations in observed voting behaviors. Additional data are presented in the appendix, including voter turnout by neighborhood in comparison to previous citywide elections in 2008 and 2010. Our analysis indicates that overall, the vast majority of voters in San Francisco cast valid ballots in the 2011 election and most voters utilized the full complement of available rankings. However, we find substantial and statistically significant differences in rates of overvotes (voter errors that can invalidate a ballot) and undervotes (effectively skipping a race), and the usage of rankings by precinct that correlate with demographic factors. More specifically, precincts with higher proportions of Asian and Pacific Islander, Latino, and older voters were disproportionately likely to make mistakes on the ballot. And more progressive precincts, as measured by the Progressive Voter Index, were also more likely to have ballots containing overvotes. Higher rates of rolloff (voting in the mayoral election but not the District Attorney or Sheriff race, respectively) were found in precincts with greater proportions of Asian and Pacific Islander voters and lower in precincts with higher proportions of African Americans. The results for the rankings are more mixed, however generally, precincts with higher concentrations of older voters, moderate voters, Latino, and Asian and Pacific Islander voters were more likely to vote for only one candidate rather than ranking up to the three allowable preferences. Voter turnout in San Francisco was generally low in 2011. And compared with previous citywide elections in 2010 and 2008, the electorate had a higher proportion of older voters and Asian and Pacific Islander voters.

2009

I. INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY The purpose of this final report on Indiana Vote Centers is twofold. First, is to provide a summary and update the information provided in the two interim reports with data from the November 4, 2008 general election. Second, a model checklist will be specified to assist election administrators who are planning to establish Vote Centers. 1 This project was undertaken to answer two specific research questions: 1) Do Vote Centers increase voter turnout? and 2) Do Vote Centers save money? Both of these research questions derive from the seeming advantage that Vote Centers have over traditional precincts; that is, by making the act of voting more convenient by allowing citizens to show up at any county Vote Center rather than having to go only to their precinct polling place, more voters will show up to cast their ballot. Moreover, by consolidating precincts into a relatively few Vote Centers, tax dollars can be saved because fewer locations have to be rented, staffed and provisioned. A final product of this research project is to provide a model checklist for election administrators to use if they are planning on adopting Vote Centers. This model is based on the best practices from the Indiana experiences as well as drawing on reported findings from other jurisdictions that implemented Vote Centers. This model will be based on the empirical data that has been gathered over three elections in the Indiana counties that are using Vote Centers. We summarize the model at the end of this report, with sample sections, and will continue developing the model as future conclusions are reached and resources are available. This introduction provides background on the Vote Center research project and summarizes the findings from the first two reports, which covered the municipal elections of 2007 and the primary elections on May 6, 2008. Two Indiana counties were authorized by the state election commission to operate Vote Centers during this period: Tippecanoe and Wayne. Tippecanoe County, located 60 miles

Medium, 2020

According to Pew Research, 41% of voters who identify as Democrats or with Democratic leanings are more likely to have a college degree versus 30% of Republican voters (Gramlich 2020). In our data, 33.6% of participants had a college degree or higher. After examining the relationship between voting and educational attainment, 53.4% of participants with a college degree or more said they voted in the last presidential election (p<0.001). This percentage decreases with the level of educational attainment: only 34.8% of those with a high school education voted in the last election, in addition to 31.8% of those with less than a high school education (p<0.001). Therefore, our data supports the notion that people with higher educational attainment are more likely to vote (Abraham, Helms, and Presser 2009). These voters are also more likely to vote Democrat than Republican, supporting the idea that a majority of El Pasoans voted for Joe Biden.

2004

The first collaboration between WSU CityLab and the WSU Spatial Labs, the report integrates voting data and demographic data in Arc GIS maps. An excerpt of a larger voter study, the report's major finding is that the method of counting voter turnout masks the actual number of qualified voters in the city. As such, the report provides a blueprint for ways to expand the franchise in Worcester. Dr. Thomas Conroy, the Director of CityLab, is Chair and Associate Professor of Urban Studies; Dr. William Hansen is a Professor of Geography and Chair of the Department of Earth, Environment, and Physics; John Holbrook is the Geoscience Lab Technician in the Department of Earth, Environment, and Physics.

California Journal of Politics and Policy

In its first year of implementation, did the Voter's Choice Act (VCA) change turnout patterns in the counties-Madera, Napa, Nevada, Sacramento, and San Mateo-that adopted this new reform? How did this reform affect the turnout of groups of Californians-young voters, Latinos, and Asian Americans-who have often participated in elections at lower rates than others? We address these questions by gathering data on turnout rates, voter demographics, and electoral competition from 2002 through the primary and general elections of 2018, comparing trends in the adopting counties to the rest of the state. The new voting system is designed to make the voting process more convenient for voters in California, while at the same time potentially increasing voter turnout and reducing the cost of conducting elections. The VCA has been implemented in phases, and mostly at each county's discretion. Of California's 58 counties, only 14 were eligible to opt into the VCA system during the 2018 election. Five did: Madera, Napa, Nevada, Sacramento and San Mateo Counties. All other California counties were eligible to adopt the model in 2020, and ten more chose to do so in the 2020 primary. All counties are mailing every voter a vote-by-mail ballot this fall in response to the threat of COVID-19, but this policy shift was unrelated to the VCA. In fact, most counties will not be using Vote Centers, but consolidated precincts that still serve particular communities within the county. Thus, full statewide VCA implementation is still an open policy question.