increasing voter participation - lwvny of women voters of new york state increasing voter...

Increasing Voter ParticipationOPPORTUNITIES IN NEW YORK STATEA Briefing Paper Prepared by the League of Women Voters of New York State Education Foundation and the League of Women Voters of New York State

League of Women Voters of New York State Increasing Voter Participation

December 2011 Page | 1

Increasing Voter Participation

Opportunities in New York State Introduction and Executive Summary

New York State has often been recognized as one of the most progressive states in the country. For example, passage of the Marriage Equality Act on June 24, 2011 made New York the sixth, largest, and arguably the most influential state to enact such landmark legislation. However, one area in which New York has not been a leader is election reform. While other states have been experimenting for the last three decades with ways to increase opportunities to vote, New York’s policies and laws have remained largely unchanged and the state’s voter turnout rates have likely suffered as a result.

Over the last three federal elections, New York had the 47th lowest voter participation rate of the 50 states and Washington, D.C.1 This low ranking can partially be explained by New York’s paper-based registration system, early registration deadline and other outdated voter registration policies, including the state’s long waiting period for changing party affiliation. Even in comparison to other inflexible states, New York has some of the most rigid voter registration policies in the country. In addition, it is one of only fifteen states that both do not allow any form of early in-person voting and require an excuse for absentee ballots.2 New York also has a number of out-dated requirements for ballot design that may contribute to voter confusion and errors.

There are many possible opportunities to increase rates of voter participation in New York State through common sense solutions that have been implemented, to varying degrees of success, in other states beginning in the 1980s. These fall into three general categories:

• Voter registration modernization. Paperless forms of voter registration have

decreased costs and increased accuracy of the voter roles in a number of other states. Registering and voting on the same day is a proven method of increasing voter participation.

• Early voting. Many voters across the country now cast their votes before the

traditional “Election Day” marked by the Tuesday following the first Monday in November. While the impact of early voting on turnout has been debated, it has become popular for its convenience as voters chose to vote to suit their own schedule.

• Better ballot design, poll worker training and voter education. Improving the

often confusing design of New York’s ballots, improving and standardizing



• the training of poll workers, as well as providing such basic voter education as online ballots, could improve the voting experience of New Yorkers.

This paper and the accompanying Power Point presentation are intended as an overview on strategies other states have used to make voting more flexible and accessible, and some of the considerations for potentially implementing them in New York. It does not intend to suggest that every voting innovation mentioned should be adopted in New York. However, by putting this information together in one place, we hope to facilitate conversations about which of these methods, individually or in combination, might help raise levels of voter participation in our state. Some of the reforms mentioned below may not be feasible for the demographic or geographical makeup of New York. Others could be expanded, scaled down, or modified to meet the specific needs of our state. Acknowledgements This paper was written by Sally Robinson, Issues and Advocacy Vice President, League of Women Voters of New York State, with the help of interns Jeffrey Blauvelt and Hanna Birkhead, whose contributions were made possible by the generous support of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The author also thanks Laura Bierman, Executive Director of the League of Women Voters of New York State (LWVNYS) for her able assistance in many ways as well as Adrienne Kivelson, Aimee Allaud, and Rachel Fauss, for their helpful suggestions. Thanks also to Jennie Bowser of the National Council of State Legislatures and that organization for their help with obtaining the most recent information possible on election innovations in other states as well as the useful reports contained in the Appendices to this paper. The material contained in this paper is based on publicly available materials, including several recent reports issued by the Brennan Center for Justice, a 2010 Voter Survey conducted by LWVNYS and recent discussions of some of these proposals by the LWVNYS with the Executive Directors of the New York State Board of Elections (BOE).



Voter Registration Modernization Getting Rid of the Paper Not being registered to vote is the number one barrier to voting. Modernizing and automating state voter registration at state agencies and Boards of Election would save money, increase accuracy of the voter rolls and increase participation. New York currently uses a paper-based system for voter registration that is cumbersome and prone to error. You can register in person at any board of elections or at any New York State agency-based voter registration center such as the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). You can also download a PDF version of the registration form from the BOE, enter your name in a database to have one sent to you, or fill out a PDF form online which can be printed and mailed to the BOE. All of these methods require the voter to take an extra step, such as signing the form and mailing it to the BOE, if not registering in person. A number of states have replaced paper registration systems with automated registration systems, or “paperless” registration systems, in which state government agencies, primarily DMVs, collect and transfer voter registrations electronically and automatically. Under automated registration systems, states can also allow online voter registration by citizens. Once an eligible citizen is on a state’s voter rolls, that record is automatically updated when new information about the citizen appears in any state database. Eligible citizens can also correct errors on the voter rolls before and on Election Day. The seven states - Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Kansas, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Washington - that have adopted automated registration at DMVs all follow basically the same process:3 Step 1: When a customer wishes to register to vote and affirms her eligibility, DMV officials enter her information into the DMV database system. Step 2: The statewide voter registration database system collects voter registration information from the DMV system and sends it to local election officials for review. Step 3: Local officials review the new registrations. Step 4: When local officials accept the registrations, they are posted to the voter rolls. These states have fully automated systems for DMVs in which the entire process is paperless, so that all information election officials need is transmitted electronically in a format that can be uploaded into their databases. States that require a signature for voter registration can use a copy of the digitized signature that individuals submit for the driver’s license or photo I.D.4 At least ten other states now have partially automated systems in which agency officials transmit some information electronically, but have not completely eliminated the transmittal of paper forms (such as for signatures) or local data entry.5 During the LWVNYS meeting with the NYS BOE, it was pointed out that using DMV information to automatically register voters would not be as useful in New York, due to the abnormally high percentage of New York City residents who don’t have a driver’s license.6 New York may favor a plan where voter registration information is



transmitted electronically not just from the DMV, but from other agencies as well, as is currently done in Washington, Kansas and South Dakota.7

Nine states currently offer online registration, and two more, California and Maryland, have passed legislation to do so.8 However, all these states continue to offer paper-based registration through the mail or in-person since electronic registration is intended to extend access not limit it.9 For security purposes, online registrants are required to have a state issued driver’s license or I.D. which rules out some portion of the population. Other states have also adopted statewide permanent registration, a system in which voters stay registered and can easily update their information online without re-registering if they move anywhere within a state. By contrast, in New York, voters have to use the state’s voter registration form to update any change of name or address, and the form must be received 20 days before an election.

In 2010 the Brennan Center for Justice did the first in-depth study of paperless voter registration across the United States. It found that registration innovations have earned praise from both parties. Moreover, none of the state officials interviewed by the Brennan Center found any reliability or security problems with paperless registration.10 The Brennan Center study found that not only did paperless registration produce fewer errors initially, it also helped keep the voter rolls more accurate by making it easier for voters to update their information. More accurate voter rolls lead to less disenfranchisement through voter roll purges and decreased use of provisional ballots on Election Day. In fact, in most other major democracies around the world the government takes on the responsibility of compiling and updating voter registration lists instead of voters having to take the initiative to register.11

The Pew Center on the States has been working with state and local election

officials, as well as technology experts, to upgrade voter registration systems using technology. Part of their work, over several studies, highlights how modernizing voter registration systems can save significant amounts of money. In one Arizona County, costs were reduced to an average of 3 cents per voter for online registration versus 83 cents for paper registrations. Delaware saved $200,000 in labor costs in its Department of Elections, and $50,000 in its DMV budget, after it introduced its paperless eSignature system.12 The infrastructure for voter registration modernization is in place in every state, including New York. Every state now has a statewide voter registration database pursuant to the Help America Vote Act.13 Most other reliable government lists are also now in computerized databases. For example, the Selective Service has for a number of years built its registration lists largely through automated registration and data transfer from government, agencies. In LWVNYS conversations with the two Executive Directors of the New York State BOE, one key concern raised with automated and/or online registration is the requirement for a signature on the registration form.14 New York’s Electronic Signatures and Records Act allows electronic signatures to be accepted on some documents unless



the specific legislation for that department prohibits it. An additional concern is cost. Currently, the New York DMV prints out a voter registration applicant’s information and then sends it to the county BOE where staff manually enters the information into the database. Other state agencies are required to provide paper voter registration forms and assistance under the National Voter Registration Act. There would be some upfront costs involved in automating the process, including updating the DMV database to contain all the information, i.e. full names, that would be needed for voter registration. DMV has just instituted a new website, “MyDMV” which allows people to change addresses, get paperless reminders, etc. online; it should eventually be possible to transmit this information to the BOE for updating registration materials if the database improvements were made and online registrations and electronic signatures were accepted. The experiences of other states show that the ultimate cost savings could be significant and the accuracy of the system improved if New York moved to paperless registration.

The BOE Directors also discussed the requirement that submission of new voter registrations and changes to registrations be made at least 20 days before the election. The constitutional requirement is only 10 days, but because of the current system of mailing the forms to the counties and manually entering the data, 10 days provides too little time. With automated or online registrations, the updates may be able to be completed within the constitutionally required 10-day minimum period. Another issue discussed was the printing of the rolls for Election Day; again, 10 days is not sufficient for printing of the rolls but would be possible if the signatures were received electronically and the rolls were available on a terminal at the polling place, as is being piloted in two counties in NYS this year. In these trials, the voter provides his/her signature electronically on a signature pad and it is compared to the signature available on the terminal. In this process, the rolls are not printed on paper allowing for a shorter time from receipt of a registration to Election Day.

Election Day registration Election Day registration (EDR), or registering and voting on the same day, has been consistently found to increase turnout without imposing major costs since deadlines discourage citizens who would otherwise want to vote.15 Eight states currently have EDR and two more currently allow voters to register and cast a vote during the early voting period. 16 EDR is particularly useful to younger voters, first-time voters and the geographically mobile and results in a decreased use of provisional ballots. A 2007 study of voter fraud and EDR found that EDR did not increase the opportunity for voter fraud.17 States with EDR require identification and proof of residency on Election Day and utilize trained election personnel to supervise EDR, safeguards that are generally not otherwise present when EDR is not available. The New York state constitution requires a deadline for voter registration of 10 days prior to the election, so a change to EDR in New York would require both legislation and a constitutional amendment. Under New York’s Election Law, party affiliation has to be changed by 25 days prior to the date of the preceding general Election Day which means that a voter who changes party affiliation after that deadline must sit out one entire primary cycle. In the rest of the country, 20 of 25 states that



require party affiliation to vote in primaries allow changes within 30 days or less of the primary.18 Early Voting One tool that many states have used to improve voter participation is to provide opportunities for voters to cast their votes before Election Day in addition to completing traditional absentee ballots. Early voting has become so widespread throughout the United States that 30% of voters in the 2008 election cast their votes before Election Day. Early voting reforms generally seek to make the voting process easier and more convenient. However, academic studies have offered different opinions on the effect of early voting on voter turnout. While one study19 found that early voting increased voter turnout (after accounting for other variables), other studies have concluded that early voting either has no effect, may decrease turnout, or has only a small positive effect.20 With respect to mail ballots, four of the five states where the number of mail ballots exceeds half of all ballots cast have turnout rates above the median for all states.21 Some skeptics have also expressed concern that stretching out the voting period dilutes the special civic experience of one “Election Day.”22

There is agreement that early voting encourages turnout mainly in those demographics that are already likely to go out and vote – it simply provides them with more options for when to vote.23 Early voting can further mobilize these voters since it allows them to avoid the travel expenses and waiting time that having to vote at a specified polling place on the day of the election can cause. Implementing early voting also saves time and money for polling staff on Election Day by decreasing the numbers of voters on that day.24 Early voting also can lead to more accurate ballot counting since staff can begin to count the ballots early and not be as rushed at the end of the process and voters consistently express high levels of satisfaction with the system.25 Both of the main national organizations that deal with election administration in the states, the National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Association of Secretaries of State, issued reports in 2001 and 2003 urging states to consider early voting reforms.

There are three ways that early voting has been implemented in other states to varying degrees:

1. No-Excuse Absentee Voting 2. Early in-Person Voting 3. All Vote-by-Mail Voting

Critics of expanded early voting methods focus their arguments on its disparate impact on different demographic groups, voter fraud concerns and, with respect to early in-person voting, the cost of having election officials and equipment implement early in-person voting sites. During 2011, five states, Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia enacted laws reducing early/absentee voting opportunities. However, this partial withdrawal from early voting can be seen as part of a recent broader trend in which states have passed new government-issued photo ID laws for voting, new proof of citizenship laws, and laws restricting voting registration drives. A recent report by the



Brennan Center estimated that these restrictions will affect millions of Americans for the 2012 elections and will fall most heavily on young, minority and low-income voters.26 Implementing early voting in New York is complicated by the fact that no-excuse absentee voting and possibly other forms of early voting would require an amendment to the state constitution, a cumbersome and time-consuming process. A constitutional amendment in New York requires passage by two separately elected legislatures and then approval by the voters.

No-Excuse Absentee Voting No-excuse absentee voting is the most widely used type of early voting reform. Every state in the United States, including New York, has some type of absentee voting (or operates on an all-mail system), with twenty-seven states plus the District of Columbia allowing specifically for no-excuse absentee voting.27 No-excuse absentee voting allows voters to obtain an absentee ballot without explaining why they will not be able to get to their polling place on Election Day. In some states, including New York, absentee ballots are available but obtaining one requires an excuse; in other words, voters must explain why they require an absentee ballot. This practice can lead to lower rates of using the absentee ballot system because some voters may be reluctant to tell the government about a health problem or any other type of personal issue that would keep them from voting on-site, or may just prefer the general convenience of effectively voting by mail through no-excuse absentee voting rather than having to show up at a voting booth. Absentee ballot applications in New York can also be intimidating, as they require the voter to sign an affidavit that false statements will subject the voter to penalties. In the twenty-seven states that allowed “no-excuse” absentee voting by mail in 2008, 22% of ballots were cast by mail. In the states that still require an excuse to vote absentee, only 6.0% of ballots were cast by mail.28 Allowing voters to obtain absentee ballots with no questions asked leads to higher rates of voters requesting these ballots, completing them, and sending them in.29

California in particular has become a national model for no-excuse absentee

voting. In 2002 and 2003, during two of California’s earliest elections using this reform, over 25% of the voting electorate cast their votes through the new absentee ballots.30 By the 2009 elections in California, over 62% of the voters cast their votes in this manner.31 This can partially be attributed to the fact that California, aside from just allowing no-excuse absentee balloting, also allows for “permanent absentee status,” which means that all voters can choose to send their ballots in permanently by mail, instead of having to fill out a new absentee ballot request form for every election. Still, some of the success can also be attributed to the simple fact that more citizens of California felt comfortable requesting an absentee ballot in the first place, since they did not have to provide an excuse. However, it is possible that California, along with Oregon and Washington, has expanded early voting in part because the ballot is so long with citizen initiatives that precinct-based voting becomes less attractive.32



Absentee voting greatly reduces the administrative costs on the day of an election by creating less demand on the polling sites and staffers. Fewer lines and fewer people using the voting machines reduce the stress on the voting facilities and associated costs. Under current New York law, there are built-in minimum staffing costs because four poll workers are currently mandated for each election district, but with changes in the law some election districts could be consolidated and assistance provided by other and fewer clerks to reduce costs. The longer period during which to record voters’ ballots provides for a more accurate count and increased security due to the substantial paper trail. Finally, the increased simplicity of the voting process for those voters who use absentee ballots and the reduced wait times on election day for those voters still choosing to vote on Election Day may further increase overall voter satisfaction.

Ever since absentee balloting first became an option in the early 20th century, the risks of fraud and coercion with this method have been debated. In particular, some critics think that a large expansion of absentee voting would threaten the security of the ballot.33 Though there is a solid paper trail left behind from this kind of voting and no chance of machine malfunction, this method is seen as being less secure because a voter’s identity is not verified in the same ways as in-person voting.34 There is no way of knowing whether a voter actually filled out a ballot by him or herself, or whether someone (e.g., a caretaker) filled it out for them, had the voter sign the form, and sent it in.

Early in-Person Voting

Another method that some states have implemented in order to raise their voting participation is early in-person (EIP) voting. Currently, thirty-two states plus the District of Columbia have implemented some type of early in-person voting program.35 In addition to traditional polling places, the majority of these states have set up polling sites that are in locations such as supermarkets and shopping malls. These locations are more heavily trafficked and convenient to voters than traditional polling places. In the 2008 election, 17 states allowed for both mail ballots and EIP voting, and out of those states, 11 states had a higher number of people vote EIP than by a mail ballot.36 When states choose to adopt EIP voting, it becomes a popular way for voters to cast their ballots.

EIP voting helps increase voter satisfaction in large part because it is more

convenient and decreases wait times on Election Day. In Texas during one of their first elections that allowed EIP voting, more people voted early than on the day of the election.37 Before the 2004 Presidential Election, election officials in the state of Nevada set up eight ‘permanent’ early voting sites (and many other non-permanent early voting sites) throughout the state at malls, supermarkets, libraries and community center and other similar places. During that election, over 270,000 voters chose to cast their votes at one of these sites. Forty thousand of those voters voted at the early voting center set up in the Galleria at Sunset, a mall that has become “a wildly popular place to vote” and shop alike in Nevada.38



Early voting comes with a variety of concerns with respect to providing fair and equal voting opportunities and meeting new demands on elections systems. Early voting centers must be established in appropriate locations, which can be difficult to find and establish. Each early voting location must draw enough voter traffic to compensate for the additional costs of having election officials and voting equipment at the sites full-time for several weeks. Enough trained people must be available to staff polling places that are open for longer periods of time. EIP voting also does not address accessibility, economic or demographic barriers that may keep a voter from reaching a polling site and does not appear to necessarily draw new voters into the system. Not surprisingly, some studies show that the types of voters who are more likely to use these early voting places are essentially identical demographically to those who will usually vote on the day of the election. Thus, EIP may not significantly change the demographics of the electorate compared to traditional election-day voting methods.39 However, EIP voting could be helpful in reducing barriers to ballot access in the “mobile population,” i.e., college students or residents of urban areas who might not know where their polling place is or are not registered with the proper polling place. Ideally any system of EIP voting would equally advantage all income, demographic and ethnic groups, and not reduce voting opportunities for “less mobile” seniors and urban residents. All Vote-By-Mail Voting A third early voting approach is to shift an entire state or county to an all vote-by-mail (VBM) system. All VBM entirely eliminates polling sites with in-person voting machines and instead mandates that all voters submit their ballots by mail. VBM voting is convenient, fast, and doesn’t require personal transportation to a far away polling site. Oregon is the only state to have entirely shifted to all VBM voting. The state’s decision to go entirely VBM was made after twenty years of slow change in that direction, beginning with absentee ballots and progressing until more voters were sending in their ballots than going to their polling places.40 Now, every voter in Oregon casts his or her ballot through the mail. Washington State has had a similarly gradual shift towards all VBM voting. In 1967, any precinct in Washington with fewer than 100 registered voters was designated as a mail ballot precinct. By 2005, the state allowed any county the option to conduct all elections by mail. As of today, all but one of Washington’s 39 counties have elected to shift to all VBM voting.

All VBM systems allow for a complete paper trail and enable random ballot auditing. Since there are no polling sites in this type of election, the administrative costs associated with staff and voting machines, including their upkeep, are very low. All VBM also eliminates the need to hire poll-workers and give them adequate training. Oregon officials have estimated that they have saved 17% on overall election costs by switching to an all VBM system.41 However, despite these positive outcomes of all-VBM voting, the VBM switch in the state of California demonstrates that this type of system, if implemented improperly, can actually have the negative effect of lowering voter participation rates. Unlike Oregon and Washington, which put VBM voting into practice gradually and with the support of



local officials, some districts in California abruptly mandated that voters had to use an all VBM system without adequate voter education and local support, and saw their voter participation rates drop by over 13%.42 One commentator also attributed the different impact of all VBM by noting that Oregon is a state that did not have “the challenges posed by population demographics, high density, or language diversity” that California did. 43 The California experience shows that the switch to an all VBM system must be made carefully.44

As with no-excuse absentee balloting, shifting to an all VBM system in New York State would require a constitutional amendment. All VBM systems have the same security and fraud concerns as other vote by mail systems. Finally, although an all VBM system may increase voter participation by those voters who are already registered to vote, mail-ballot elections do not appear to increase registration according to a report made by the City of San Diego Office of the City Clerk.45 Still, as one commentator observed, “mail-ballot elections do appear to retain voters by removing obstacles such as illness, traffic or busyness, which might reduce one’s likelihood of voting on a given election day.”46 Better Ballot Design, Voter Education and Poll Worker Training Fixing the Ballot

Another avenue to improve New York’s low rate of voter participation is to create a better ballot design since the design of a ballot can have a significant impact on the outcome of any given election. A poorly designed ballot can contribute to errors in voting, when citizens mistakenly cast their ballot for a candidate for whom they did not mean to vote, and in tallying the final votes, when the officials tallying the votes have trouble reading the ballot and record the wrong vote. Furthermore, poorly designed ballots and the confusion associated with them can lead to a distrust of the voting system by the electorate, in turn leading to lower rates of voter participation.47

The most famous example of poor ballot design impacting an election is probably

the 2000 presidential election in Florida, in which a flawed “butterfly ballot” in Palm Beach County may have been a source of errors in voting that affected the outcome of a Presidential election. Since then, a new government agency, the United States Election Assistance Commission, has been formed and has recommended many changes that could be made to ballots. In the Commission’s 2007 report, “Effective Designs for the Administration of Federal Elections,” it recommends, among other things: changing the ballot designs for elections, posting public samples of ballots on or before Election Day, publicly posting instructions for all voters, and only using one language at a time on any particular ballot wherever possible (while recognizing that two languages may be necessary in certain cases).48 The Commission’s goal was to create a ballot that is easily understood by voters (including those with vision and literacy issues), supports ease of use and confidence in the electoral process, and is easily translated and is sensitive to cultural differences in language and expression.49



The recommendations made by the Commission were only suggestions, however, and New York’s ballots have remained largely unchanged and do not address these recommendations. The current design of the ballot in New York, particularly in New York City, creates many troublesome areas where voters can (and do) easily make mistakes, leading to a high number of votes being either lost or miscast during a given election cycle.50 Voters may:

- Fill in the wrong bubble - Misunderstand which races allow voting for more than one candidate - Overlook the write-in area altogether

Furthermore, in the case of New York City ballots, instructions for filling out the ballot appear in the upper right hand corner, taking up a considerable amount of space on the ballots. New York City also includes multiple languages on the ballot instead of separate ballots for each of the four federally-mandated languages, despite the Commission’s recommendation having a maximum of two languages on any given ballot.51 In order to fit all of the necessary information, the writing on the ballots is very small. With each added language, the entire ballot becomes that much more difficult for the average voter to fill out correctly, without confusion and aggravation. Simplifying New York’s ballots and increasing the clarity of the voting system overall would make for more accurate elections. As the Brennan Center for Justice reports, “poor ballot design and instructions have caused the loss of tens and sometimes hundreds of thousands of votes in nearly every election year…All too often, the loss of votes and rate of errors resulting from [mistakes filling out the ballot] are greater than the margin of victory between the two leading candidates.”52 In addition, ballot simplification, by creating a simpler, less frustrating voting process, would improve voter satisfaction and trust in the electoral process. The problems raised by New York’s ballot design were highlighted in a statewide survey conducted by the LWVNYS in November 2010, on voters’ experiences with the new voting machines. Almost 20% of the approximately 1100 responses from 47 counties, including the 5 counties in New York City, indicated problems completing the paper ballot part of the voting process. Even survey respondents who did not have significant problems in filling out their ballot made comments that indicated the need for improvements to the ballot design, including:

• Need for better delineation between offices • Difficulty in filling out the ballot where the office required voting for more than

one candidate. • Print was too small; contrasting fonts and shades of black/grey should be used;

size of oval or square should be larger (difficult for persons with arthritis, etc.) • There should be one type of marking pen for the ballot (some counties used one

type for the front of ballot and another for the reverse side). • Some types of markers bled through the ballot, compromising privacy. • Voters were not told about magnifying lenses (where they were available). Voters

who were aware of the aids found them beneficial.



• Usability of marking areas on the ballot (squares vs. ovals and marking with an “X” vs. filling in the oval).

• Write-in space is not large enough Simplifying the design of the ballots need not be a lengthy or costly process. In 2008, based on the new ballot guidelines from the Election Assistance Commission, the American Institute for Graphic Arts (AIGA) started a project called “Design for Democracy.”53 Through using their knowledge of graphic arts and the ballot design guidelines, the AIGA came up with several easy changes to make to ballots. Among other things, they recommended: 1. Clarifying page numbers on the ballot and plainly showing when there is

another page to turn to; 2. Using clear and simple instructional language, based on a fourth-grade reading

level, for example: “Vote for 1” as opposed to “Vote for not more than one”;

3. Adding accurate and meaningful images to the ballot (instead of confusing and unnecessary party logos);

4. Using a clear page design with starkly delineated columns that facilitate top- down and left-to-right reading, and creating a clear hierarchy of information through the use of differentiated headings, sub-headings, etc.;

and 5. Including summary versions of referenda (simple language) The New York Times interactive online article “How Design Can Save Democracy” provides a thorough overview of some of the issues with older ballots in direct comparison to the AIGA’s new recommendations.54 Voter Education and Poll Worker Training In addition to fixing the design of the ballot, reformers emphasize increasing voter education as well as better poll worker training to enable poll workers to provide more effective assistance to voters on Election Day. One argument for increasing voter education is that doing so may decrease the demographic disparities associated with voting in general. Elections should not be decided on the basis of whose supporters are better able to navigate the ballot. Providing voters with better education about the ballots and how to complete them effectively would likely result in a higher number of elderly, minority, disabled or less educated voters (who might otherwise have trouble filling out their ballots) understanding the nuts and bolts of the voting process before Election Day and voting more accurately.

Robert Richie, director of FairVote, an organization that researches electoral reforms and aims to increase voter turnout, argues that publishing a voter guide and sending it to all households of registered voters or putting it online in an interactive format could increase voter knowledge of the electoral system, the candidates, and how voting works, therefore making voters more confident in the process and eventually



causing an increase in rates of voter participation.55 These guides can inform citizens on everything from the mechanics of the election process to knowledge about the candidates or any ballot initiatives. Studies show that this method is especially effective in jurisdictions having a large number of complicated ballot measures.56 Many other countries and some states have published these voter guides to great effect, and it has become a trademark service provided by chapters of the League of Women Voters all over the country. New York City’s Campaign Finance Board, which administers a public financing program for New York City races, is required to publish a voter guide for city elections that is mailed to each registered household. In 2011 LWVNYS launched VOTE411.org, an online guide for election-related information.

Similarly, another method of simplifying the voting process on Election Day is to publish a sample ballot prior to the date of the election, whether online, in a newspaper, or through one of the voter guides mentioned above. A sample ballot that voters have reviewed at home can save time and confusion for voters at the polls on Election Day.57 These ballots could even be brought to the polls by the voters, therefore ensuring that they make their intended choice even under possibly stressful circumstances, with appropriate safeguards against attempted use as actual ballots. The Brennan Center for Justice supports publishing early ballots for the general public, since it gives voters time to become acquainted with potential problems on the ballot well before they cast their vote, leading to more accurate votes.58 Based on information received from the BOE, ballots should be available to voters from county boards in advance of elections, but not all counties currently have websites on which to post them. A November 2010 survey by Citizens Union of the City of New York showed the sample ballot practices in the county boards.59 Voter education can also help to simply remind voters of what day Election Day falls upon. Campaigns such as the “November 2” campaign of the 2004 election or the “Rock the Vote” campaigns of recent elections can move non-voters to action simply by making sure that they are aware of the election and its date.60 Through campaigns such as these, voters can take a step away from the constant barrage of red vs. blue rhetoric and simply be reminded of the importance of getting to the polls and voting. Finally, voter education is seen by many as a possible way to increase the number of minority voters registering to vote. As was mentioned in the previous section, many of the methods that have been implemented in order to increase voter participation may in fact increase participation for those voters already registered to vote while not significantly changing participation in those demographics with lower numbers of registered voters. Better voter education could serve the dual purpose of encouraging people of all demographics to register to vote, as well as encouraging those already registered to go out and exercise their right to vote. Better poll worker training can also be part of the effort to assist voter education on Election Day and improve elections. In the LWVNYS 2010 voter survey, many of the respondents felt that they did not receive adequate instructions on how to complete the ballot or the voting process; additional training of poll workers could facilitate the



process for voters. Survey respondents also raised the need for better-trained elections personnel, citing age or lack of experience as negative factors in the overall voting process.

Poll worker training and staffing is a key part of the election cycle that may cost money but clearly facilitates voter participation in the election. Although it may seem obvious that poll worker training is an important part of the electoral process, some states, including Virginia and Pennsylvania, do not have laws that require that poll workers be trained.61 Inadequate poll worker training can and has led directly to problems with elections. Even in some states where poll worker training is mandated, the training is often insufficient to actually inform the workers of what their options are in case of an emergency. For example, in Denver during the 2006 elections, the Internet-based poll book that the poll workers had been using to check in the voters failed. There was an alternative solution to this poll book, but the poll workers had not been trained on it.62 New York has a dedicated account of time-limited money appropriated through the Help America Vote Act for poll worker training by the county boards of election. Counties should be encouraged to take advantage of this money that could help them provide substantial training of the poll workers at little or no cost to the county. This could help to ensure that all poll workers receive uniform training in New York election law and procedures and in assisting voters. Next Steps Short-term Some of the ideas discussed in this paper can be implemented fairly quickly and easily. We anticipate that the reforms that have the greatest chance of being implemented quickly relate to ballot design. Many of the problems with ballot design, such as confusing layout, cramped fonts, and too many languages, can be changed easily according to the BOE within the current legislative parameters that the ballot must meet. An example of a change that could be made to the ballot is with respect to the number of languages. The BOE mandates that the ballots in other languages must follow the “English +1” rule in their layout – they must have English along with the other language on the ballot. However, there is no mandate that every single language must be printed on the same ballot. Having more than two languages on one ballot is a decision that was made by the New York City BOE.63 Having all of the languages on one ballot makes designing and printing the ballots easier, but unfortunately results in more confusing ballots for the voters. Some other changes, with respect to party emblems and capital letters, would require relatively straightforward legislation to change. Better voter education and poll worker training are additional changes that could be made within the existing legislative parameters. The importance of thorough and comprehensive poll worker training should not be underestimated in terms of ensuring that voters have an efficient and enjoyable voting experience. County BOEs currently have a certain amount of money at their disposal to educate the voters, but in most



counties it is not being fully used.64 Outside organizations such as the League could develop educational programs for poll workers and voters and bring them to county boards in order to help them decide how to use their resources more effectively. We also believe that in a world that is moving away from paper systems and towards electronic ways of doing business, one idea that has particular promise is moving the state to paperless registration, including the possibility of online registration. Although there would be up-front costs involved in upgrading technology, the experience of other states makes it clear that the electronically collecting voter registrations from the DMV and other state agencies and providing it to county BOEs would both ultimately save money and increase accuracy of the voter rolls. Long-term Enacting some of the more involved or ambitious reforms can and will take more time, energy, and political will. Changes that require more complex legislation or an amendment to the constitution, such as no-excuse absentee ballots, EDR, or some form of early voting, would take much longer and have greater risk of being lost in political battles and partisan rhetoric. We hope this process of public discussion is the first step in a long process to help New York State move towards the forefront of election reform. New York will require its own unique comprehensive reform effort in order to have the most effective system for its population.



Endnotes 1New York City. “2010 Mayor’s Report on Voter Access in New York.” 2010. Available at: http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov. Sourced from George Mason University Elections Project (Turnout defined as Votes for Highest Office divided by Voting Eligible Population). 2 National Conference of State Legislatures. “Absentee and Early Voting.” July 2011. Available at: http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=16604. National Conference of State Legislatures; “Electronic (or Online) Voter Registration.” October 2011. Available at: http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=18421; National Conference of State Legislatures. “Same Day Voter Registration.” September 2011. All three reports are attached in Appendices 1-3 below. 3 Ponoroff, Christopher. “Voter Registration In A Digital Age.” Wendy Weiser ed. The Brennan Center for Justice, 2010, page 3. DMV registrations constitute the largest number of states using automated registration. Seven states have fully automated their voter registration process at DMVs. Available at: http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/voter_registration_in_a_digital_age. 4 Ponoroff 4. 5 Ponoroff 5. 6 Notes from a League of Women Voters of New York State meeting with NYS BOE Directors Robert Brehm and Todd Valentine and staff John Conklin and Tom Connolly, 30 August 2011. 7 Benjamin, Gerald, Blair Horner, John Kaehny and Lawrence Norden. “Executive Orders: Actions the Governor can take to make New York government more open, accountable and democratic.” Reinvent Albany. November 2010, page 60, 61. Available at: http://reinventalbany.org/initiatives/executive-orders. 8 National Conference of State Legislatures. “Online Voter Registration: Coming Soon to a State Near You?” The Canvass States and Election Reform 21 (2011), page 2. Available at: www.ncsl.org/documents/legismgt/.../Canvass_June_2011_No21.pdf. Legislation providing for online registration passed in Hawaii was vetoed by the Governor on July 12, 2011. 9 supra 4. 10 Ponoroff 14. 11 Rosenberg, Jennifer S. and Margaret Chen. “Expanding Democracy: Voter Registration Around the World.” The Brennan Center for Justice, 2009, page 9. Available at: http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/expanding_democracy_voter_registration_around_the_world. 12 Pew Center on the States, “Upgrading Democracy: Improving America’s Election Systems by Modernizing States’ Voter Registration Systems”, November 2010, page 4. Available at: http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/report_detail.aspx?id=85899359596 13 NYC BOE has started to share its database with the state BOE. 14 Notes from LWVNY meeting with the NYS BOE. 15 McDonald, Michael P. "Voter Turnout in the 2010 Midterm Election," The Forum: Vol. 8: Iss. 4, Article 8. (2010), page 3, 4. Available at: http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol8/iss4/art8. 16 Weiser, Wendy R. and Lawrence Norden. “Voting Law Changes in 2012.” The Brennan Center for Justice, 2011, page 25. Available at: http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/voting_law_changes_in_2012. The National Conference of State Legislatures, “Same-day Voter Registration.” 17Minnite, Lorraine. “Election Day Registration: A Study on Voter Fraud Allegations and Findings on Voter Roll security.” Demos. 6 September 2007. Available at: http://www.demos.org/publication/election-day-registration-study-voter-fraud-allegations-and-findings-voter-roll-security. 18 New York City “2010 Mayor’s Report on Voter Access in New York.” Appendix 1. 19 Leighly, Jan E. and Jonathan Nagler. “The Effect of Non-Precinct Voting Reforms on Turnout: 1972-2008.” ElectionOnline.org. 15 January 2009, page 13, 14. Available at: http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/report_detail.aspx?id=58252. 20 For a good survey of the recent literature see: Gronke, Paul, Eva Galanes-Rosenbaum and Peter A. Miller. "From Ballot Box to Mail Box: Early Voting and Turnout." In Democracy in the States: Experiments in Election Reform, ed. Cain, Tolbert, and Donovan. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute Press, 2008. Available at http://www.earlyvoting.net/research. 21 McDonald 4. The states above the median are California, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington.



22 See for example, Brooks, David and Gail Collins. “Do You Really Want to Vote for That Candidate?” The New York Times Opinionator, 29 September 2010. 23 Neeley, Grant W. and Lilliard E. Richardson, Jr. “Who is Early Voting? An Individual Level Examination.” The Social Science Journal 338 (2001): 381-392, page 382.. 24 Gronke, Paul, Eva Galanes-Rosenbaum, Peter A. Miller, and Daniel Toffey. “Convenience Voting.” Annual Review of Political Science 11 (2008): 437-455, page 438. 25 Gronke, “From Ballot Box to Mail Box: Early Voting and Turnout,” 17. 26 Weiser 20. 27 Reed College. The Early Voting Information Center. Available at: http://www.earlyvoting.net. 2011. 28 Stewart, Charles III. “Losing Votes by Mail.” New York University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy 13 (2010): 573-602, page 582. 29 Patterson, Samuel C. and Gregory A. Caldeira. “Mailing In the Vote: Correlates and Consequences of Absentee Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 29 (1985): 766-788, page 786. 30 Berinsky, Adam J. “The Perverse Consequences of Electoral Reform in the United States.” American Politics Research 33 (2005): 471-491, page 474. 31 Bergman, Elizabeth, Philip Yates, and Elaine Ginnold. “How Does Vote By Mail Affect Voters? A natural experiment examining individual-level turnout.” Pew Center on the States: Make Voting Work, 2009, page 3. 32 Gronke, From Ballot Box to Mail Box: Early Voting and Turnout,14. 33 Fortier, John C., “Absentee Voting for Convenience” The Philadelphia Inquirer, 2 November 2006. 34 Gronke, “Convenience Voting,” page 449. 35 The National Conference of State Legislatures, “Absentee and Early Voting.” 36 United States Elections Project. “Final 2008 Early Voting Statistics.” George Mason University. Available at: http://elections.gmu.edu/Early_Voting_2008_Final.html. 2011. 37 League of Women Voters. “Helping America Vote. Thinking Outside the Ballot Box: Innovations for the Polling Place.” October 2006, page 7. 38 LWV 6. In addition to the increased participation in early voting, election officials in Clark County have boasted about the administrative savings they have experienced. One official estimated that without early voting, the county would have to purchase 2,700 new voting machines to handle the added traffic on Election Day. Clark County has saved an estimated eight million dollars already by implementing this kind of EIP voting. 39 Berinsky 480. 40 Bergman 4. 41 Bergman 5. 42 Bergman 4. 43 Bergman 4. 44 This mandated VBM system had an especially negative effect on urban and minority voters. It is estimated that the odds of an urban voter actually voting decreased by 50% as a result of California’s mandatory system, and the odds of a minority voter (Asian or Hispanic) voting decreased by 30%. This may perhaps be attributed to the fact that these urban and minority populations are more mobile, and have less access to regular mail service. 45 Maland, Elizabeth. “Followup Report: Mail-Only Ballot Election Issues of Voter Turnout and Fraud.” San Diego Office of the City Clerk, 27 June 2007, page 1. 46 Maland 2. 47 Norden, Lawrence, David Kimball, Whitney Quesenbery, and Margaret Chen. “Better Ballots.” The Brennan Center for Justice, 2008, page 9. Available at: http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/better_ballots. 48 U.S. Election Assistance Commission. “Effective Designs for the Administration of Federal Elections.” The United States Election Assistance Commission, 2007, sections 1.4, 2.3, 2.4. 49 U.S. Election Assistance Commission 2.4. 50 Norden 8. 51 Richie, Robert. “Leave No Voter Behind: Seeking 100 Percent Voter Registration and Effective Civic Education.” Wiley Periodicals, Inc, 2007.



52 Norden 9. 53 Design for Democracy, www.AIGA.org. 54 Grefe, Richard and Jessica Friedman Hewitt. “How Design Can Save Democracy.” New York Times, 28 August 2008. 55 Richie 1. 56 Richie 6. 57 Richie 7. 58 Norden 14. 59 Citizens Union of the City of New York. “County Boards of Elections and Sample Ballots.” November 2010. Available at: http://www.citizensunion.org/site_res_view_template.aspx?id=f9735e27-7a97-4635-8d75-ba92d738e018. 60 Nichols, John. “Just a T-shirt Away.” The Nation, 25 October 2004, page 4. 61 Wang, Tova, Samuel Oliker-Friedland, Melissa Reiss and Kristen Oshyn. “Voting in 2008: Ten Swing States: A Report From the Common Cause Education Fund.” Common Cause and The Century Foundation. 2008. Page 25. Available at: http://www.commoncause.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4773613&ct=5922343 62 Wang 26. 63 Notes from LWVNY meeting with the NYS BOE, August 30, 2011. 64 Notes from LWVNY meeting with the NYS BOE, August 30, 2011.

APPENDIX 1-2

National Conference of State Legislatures

Electronic(or Online) Voter Registration Last updated October 17, 2011 Nine states currently offer online paperless voter registration (Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington). In addition, California and Maryland have passed legislation facilitating online voter registration, but they have not yet begun registering voters electronically. Arizona led the way with this innovation, implementing their electronic voter registration program in 2003. Washington followed with authorizing legislation in 2007 and implementation in 2008. In most cases, the states rely on digitized signatures already on file with divisions of motor vehicles.

Ar izona Repor ts Success with Electronic Voter Registration Arizona first implemented online voter registration in 2003, and has reported success with their program. The secretary of state reports that over 70 percent of all voter registrations are now performed online, and that the state saw an increase of 9.5 percent in voter registrations from 2002 to 2004 with the implementation of online registration. Arizona also reports cost savings by eliminating the data entry process for state and county employees that a paper-based system requires, as well as increased accuracy in its voter rolls. The costs associated with a paper registration were 83 cents, while the cost of an online registration was 3 cents, according to the 2010 report by the Pew Center , on the states viewable at http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/report_detail?id=58215 Online voter registrations require a driver's license number or the last four digits of a social security number, and the inclusion of this data in all online registration allows for quick and accurate checks for duplicate records. For more details on online voter registration, see the June 2011 issue of NCSL's elections newsletter, Canvass at http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?TabId=23097

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=18421

APPENDIX 1-1

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?TabId=23097�

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?TabId=23097�

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=18421�

APPENDIX 1-2

States with Online Voter Registration

• Arizona -- implemented in 2002; see https://servicearizona.com/webapp/evoter/selectLanguage • California -- passed in 2008 (SB 381);this law is to be implemented in 2014 or after; passed in 2011

(SB 397) permitting counties to implement online registration • Colorado -- passed in 2009 (HB 1160); see https://www.sos.state.co.us/Voter/secuRegVoterIntro.do • Indiana -- passed in 2009 (HB 1346); see

https://indianavoters.in.gov/PublicSite/OVR/Introduction.aspx?Link=Polling&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 • Kansas -- implemented in 2009; see https://www.kdor.org/voterregistration/Default.aspx • Louisiana -- passed in 2009 (HB 520); see http://www.sos.la.gov/tabid/68/Default.aspx • Maryland -- passed in 2011 (HB 740); implementation date not specified in law • Nevada -- see http://nvsos.gov/index.aspx?page=703 • Oregon -- passed in 2009 (HB 2386); see

https://secure.sos.state.or.us/orestar/vr/register.do?lang=eng&source=SOS • Utah -- passed in 2009 (SB 25); see

https://secure.utah.gov/voterreg/index.html;jsessionid=a142a0d90b8ba15218199019b55d • Washington -- passed in 2007 (HB 1528); see http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/olvrsite/

https://www.sos.state.co.us/Voter/secuRegVoterIntro.do�

https://indianavoters.in.gov/PublicSite/OVR/Introduction.aspx?Link=Polling&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1�

http://nvsos.gov/index.aspx?page=703�

APPENDIX 2-1

Same-Day Voter Registration Eight states have same-day registration (SDR), whereby any qualified resident of the state can go to the polls on election day then register and vote. Two others allow voters to register and cast a vote during the early voting period. In most other states, voters must register by a deadline prior to Election Day. The deadline varies by state, with 30 days before the election being a common date.

Same-Day Registration States Year Enacted Idaho 1994 Iowa 2007 Maine* 1973 Minnesota 1974 Montana 2005 New Hampshire 1996 Wisconsin 1971 Wyoming 1994

*Maine’s same-day registration law, enacted in 1973, was repealed by the legislature in 2011. A people’s veto of the 2011 law will appear on the November 8, 2011 ballot as Question 1. If voters reject the new law, same-day registration will remain the law in Maine. If they approve the new law passed in 2011, same-day registration will be repealed. Since 2007, North Carolina has allowed voters to register and vote on the same day at early voting locations that are open from 19 days before the election to 3 days before the election. Ohio also allows same-day registration during early voting, which is conducted beginning on the last Tuesday in September through the first Monday in October. These two states do not permit same-day registration on Election Day, however. Advantages: • Same day registration leads to increased voter turnout. In the six SDR states that had SDR prior

to 2006 and North Dakota (which has no voter registration), turnout is 10 percent to 17 percent higher than the national average. Minnesota estimates that election day registrations account for five percent to ten percent of voter turnout.

APPENDIX 2-2

• Allowing people to register the same day they intend to vote is more convenient. It particularly

benefits people who have difficulty getting to an office to register because of work or transportation conflicts and those who have recently moved.

• States have more control over their voter registration rolls because they are not subject to National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) purging restrictions.

Disadvantages: • SDR can be costly, because it requires:

• additional poll workers, • additional ballots, • additional voting equipment, and • verification certificates and investigation costs.

• SDR must be adopted along with safeguards to prevent fraud. Same-Day Registration and Fraud State election officials from the same-day registration states and North Dakota contend that their registration procedures have not resulted in increased fraud. Safeguards against fraud in the SDR states: • Require picture identification at polls. • Require additional identification to verify address. • Segregate SDR ballots, and refrain from counting them until verification certificates have been

sent out and undeliverable ones are returned. • Restrict sites at which one can register on election day. • Implement minimum residency requirements. • Prohibit changing party affiliation on primary day. • State and enforce a deterrent penalty for fraud.

APPENDIX 3-1

Note: Map based on information obtained from http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16604

Updated July 22, 2011

APPENDIX 3-2

Update July 22, 2011

Absentee Voting and Ear ly Voting States offer three ways for voters to cast a ballot before Election Day: 1. Ear ly Voting: In 32 states and the District of Columbia, any qualified voter may cast a ballot in person during a designated period prior to Election Day. No excuse or justification is required. 2. Absentee Voting: All states will mail an absentee ballot to certain voters. The voter may return the ballot by mail or in person. In 21 states, an excuse is required, while 27 states and the District of Columbia permit any qualified voter to vote absentee without offering an excuse. Some states offer a permanent absentee ballot list: once a voter asks to be added to the list, s/he will automatically receive an absentee ballot for all future elections. 3. Mail Voting: A ballot is automatically mailed to every eligible voter (no request or application is necessary), and the state does not use traditional poll sites that offer in-person voting on Election Day. Two states use mail voting.

Overview The table below details the types of pre-election day voting that is available in each state. Information on the details of each category may be found below the table.

State In-Person Ear ly Voting No-Excuse Absentee Absentee; Excuse

Required All-Mail Voting

Alabama

X

Alaska X X (a) Ar izona X X (a) Arkansas X X (a) California X X (a) Colorado X X (a) Connecticut X Delaware X D.C. X X Flor ida X X (a) Georgia X X Hawaii X X (a) Idaho X X (a) Illinois X X Indiana X X Iowa X X Kansas X X (a)

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16604

http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=16604#a�









http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16604�

APPENDIX 3-3

Kentucky X Louisiana X X Maine X X Maryland X X Massachusetts X Michigan X Minnesota X (a) Mississippi X Missour i X (a) Montana X X (a) Nebraska X X (a) Nevada X X (a) New Hampshire X New Jersey X (a) New Mexico X X (a) New York X Nor th Carolina X X Nor th Dakota X X (a) Ohio X X Oklahoma X X Oregon X Pennsylvania X Rhode Island X South Carolina X South Dakota X X Tennessee X X Texas X X Utah X X Vermont X X Virginia X Washington X West Virginia X X Wisconsin X X Wyoming X X TOTAL 32 states + DC 27 states + DC 21 states 2 states Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, July 2011 (a) Certain elections may be held entirely by mail. The circumstances under which all-mail elections are permitted vary from state to state.

Update July 22, 2011









APPENDIX 3-4

Ear ly Voting Two-thirds of the states--32, plus the District of Columbia--offer some sort of early voting. Early voting allows voters to visit an election official’s office or, in some states, other satellite voting locations, and cast a vote in person without offering an excuse for why the voter is unable to vote on election day. Satellite voting locations vary by state, and may include other county and state offices (besides the election official’s office), grocery stores, shopping malls, schools, libraries, and other locations. The time period for early voting varies from state to state:

• The date on which early voting begins may be as early as 45 days before the election, or as late as the Friday before the election. The average starting time for early voting across all 32 states is 22 days before the election.

• Early voting typically ends just a few days before Election Day: on the Thursday before the election in three states, the Friday before in nine states, the Saturday before in five states, and the Monday before Election Day in 11 states.

• Early voting periods range in length from four days to 45 days; the average across all 32 states is 19 days. • At least 12 of the 32 early voting states require that early vote centers be open on at least one Saturday or

Sunday during the early voting period. Others give county or local officials the authority to determine the hours for early voting.

No-Excuse Absentee Voting Absentee voting is conducted by mail-in paper ballot prior to the day of the election. While all states offer some version of it, there is quite a lot of variation in states’ procedures for absentee voting. For instance, some states offer "no-excuse" absentee voting, allowing any registered voter to request an absentee without requiring that the voter state a reason for his/her desire to vote absentee. Other states permit voters to vote absentee only under a limited set of circumstances. The following 27 states and D.C. offer "no-excuse" absentee voting:

No-Excuse Absentee Voting

Alaska Iowa North Carolina Arizona Kansas North Dakota

California Maine Ohio Colorado Maryland Oklahoma

District of Columbia Montana South Dakota Florida Nebraska Utah Georgia Nevada Vermont Hawaii New Jersey Wisconsin Idaho New Mexico Wyoming

Illinois Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, July 2011

APPENDIX 3-5

Permanent Absentee Voting Some states permit voters to join a permanent absentee voting list. Once a voter opts in, s/he will receive an absentee ballot automatically for all future elections. The states that offer permanent absentee voting to any voter are:

• Arizona • California • Colorado • District of Columbia • Hawaii • Montana • New Jersey • Utah

At least seven states offer permanent absentee status to a limited number of voters who meet certain criteria: • Alaska - voters who reside in a remote area where distance, terrain, or other natural conditions deny the

voter reasonable access o the polling place • Delaware - military and overseas voters, and their spouses and dependents; voters who are ill or physically

disabled; voters who are otherwise authorized by federal law to vote by absentee ballot • Kansas - voters with a permanent disability or an illness diagnosed as permanent • Massachusetts - permanently disabled voters • Minnesota - voters with a permanent illness or disability • Missouri - permanently disabled voters • West Virginia - voters who are permanently and totally disabled and unable to vote at the polls

Mail Voting Two states -- Oregon and Washington -- conduct all elections by mail. A ballot is automatically mailed to every registered voter in advance of Election Day, and traditional in-person voting precincts are not available. Learn more about Oregon's vote-by-mail program at

http://web.multco.us.elections

17 states allow certain elections to be held by mail: • Alaska - Elections other than general, party primary or municipal • Arizona - Special districts may conduct elections by mail • Arkansas - Primary elections in which only one candidate has filed for the position by the filing deadline

and there are no other ballot issues to be submitted for consideration • California - When there are 250 or fewer voters registered to vote in a precinct; and local, special or

consolidated elections that meet certain criteria • Colorado - Elections that are not for recall and do not involve partisan candidates (except for primary

elections), and are not held in conjunction with or on the same day as primaries or Congressional vacancy elections

• Florida - Referendum elections at the county, city, school district or special district level; and the governor may call for a mail ballot election after issuing an executive order declaring a state of emergency or impending emergency

APPENDIX 3-6 • Hawaii - Any federal, state, or county election held other than on the date of a regularly scheduled primary

or general election • Idaho - A precinct which contains no more than 125 registered electors at the last general election may be

designated by the board of county commissioners as a mail ballot precinct no later than April 1 in an even-numbered year

• Kansas - Nonpartisan elections at which no candidate is elected, retained or recalled and which are not held on the same date as another election

• Minnesota - Elections conducted by a municipality having fewer than 400 registered voters on June 1 of an election year and not located in a metropolitan county

• Missouri - Nonpartisan issue elections at which no candidate is elected, retained or recalled and in which all qualified voters of one political subdivision are the only voters eligible to vote

• Montana - Any election other than a regularly scheduled federal, state or county election; a special federal or state election, unless authorized by the legislature; or a regularly scheduled or special election when another election in the political subdivision is taking place at the polls on the same day

• Nebraska - Special ballot measure elections that meet certain criteria, held by a political subdivision • Nevada - Whenever there were not more than 20 voters registered in a precinct for the last preceding

general election • New Jersey - A municipality with a population of 500 or fewer persons, according to the latest federal

decennial census, may conduct all elections by mail • New Mexico - Any bond election, any election on the imposition of a mill levy or a property tax rate for a

specified purpose, or any special election at which no candidates are to be nominated for or elected to office

• North Dakota - A county may conduct any election by mail

Ear ly and Absentee Voting in YOUR State Are you looking for information on how to vote early or by absentee ballot in an upcoming election? While NCSL is not involved in holding elections and cannot provide information or advice on how, when or where to vote in your state, we are pleased to provide this link to a page which will direct you to the answers you need regarding your state's laws: http://www.canivote.org

Military Voters All states permit members of the military who are stationed overseas, their dependents, and other U.S. citizens living abroad to vote by absentee ballot. For more information, please visit the overseas Vote Foundation at www.overseasvotefoundation.org.

Bibliography Alexander, Kim. “The California Voters’ Experience: What Works for Them, What Does

Not Work, and Where to Go From Here.” California Forward, 29 October 2008. Benjamin, Gerald, Blair Horner, John Kaehny and Lawrence Norden. “Executive Orders:

Actions the Governor can take to make New York government more open, accountable and democratic.” Reinvent Albany. November 2010.

Berinsky, Adam J. “The Perverse Consequences of Electoral Reform in the United States.” American Politics Research 33 (2005): 471-491. Bergman, Elizabeth, Philip Yates, and Elaine Ginnold. “How Does Vote By Mail Affect

Voters? A natural experiment examining individual-level turnout.” Pew Center on the States: Make Voting Work, 2009.

Bloomberg, Michael. “2010 Mayor’s Report on Voter Access in New York.” 2010. Caleo-Evangelist, Jordan. “Riddle of the Write-ins.” Times Union, 15 September 2010. Citizens Union of the City of New York, “County Boards of Elections and Sample Ballots.” November 2010. Design for Democracy, www.AIGA.org. Grefe, Richard and Jessica Friedman Hewitt. “How Design Can Save Democracy.” New

York Times, 28 August 2008. Gronke, Paul, Eva Galanes-Rosenbaum, Peter A. Miller, and Daniel Toffey.

“Convenience Voting.” Annual Review of Political Science 11 (2008): 437-455. Gronke, Paul, Eva Galanes-Rosenbaum and Peter A. Miller. “Early Voting and

Turnout.” PS: Political Science & Politics (2007): 639-645.

Gronke, Paul, Eva Galanes-Rosenbaum and Peter A. Miller. "From Ballot Box to Mail Box: Early Voting and Turnout." In Democracy in the States: Experiments in Election Reform, ed. Cain, Tolbert, and Donovan. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute Press, 2008.

League of Women Voters. “Helping America Vote. Thinking Outside the Ballot Box:

Innovations for the Polling Place.” October 2006. Leighly, Jan E. and Jonathan Nagler. “The Effect of Non-Precinct Voting Reforms on

Turnout: 1972-2008.” ElectionOnline.org. 15 January 2009. Maland, Elizabeth. “Followup Report: Mail-Only Ballot Election Issues of Voter Turnout

and Fraud.” San Diego Office of the City Clerk, 27 June 2007. McDonald, Michael P. 2010 “Voter Turnout in the 2010 Midterm Election.” The Forum

Vol. 8: Issue 4 Article 8.

Minnite, Lorraine. “Election Day Registration: A Study on Voter Fraud Allegations and Findings on Voter Roll security.” Demos. 6 September 2007.

National Conference of State Legislatures, The Canvass: States and Election Reform, “Online Voter Registration: Coming Soon to a State Near You?” Number 21/ June 2011.

Neeley, Grant W. and Lilliard E. Richardson, Jr. “Who is Early Voting? An Individual

Level Examination.” The Social Science Journal 338 (2001): 381-392. New York Bar Association Committee on Election Law. “Instituting No-Excuse

Absentee Voting in New York.” Committee on Election Law, 2010.

New York Civil Liberties Union. “Voting Rights: 2010 General Election Voter Information.” 2010. http://www.nyclu.org/issues/voting-rights/know-your-voting-rights.

Nichols, John. “Just a T-shirt Away.” The Nation, 25 October 2004. Norden, Lawrence, David Kimball, Whitney Quesenbery, and Margaret Chen. “Better

Ballots.” The Brennan Center for Justice, 2008. Notes from the League of Women Voters of New York State Meeting with the New York

State Board of Elections. 30 August, 2011. Patterson, Samuel C. and Gregory A. Caldeira. “Mailing In the Vote: Correlates and

Consequences of Absentee Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 29 (1985): 766-788.

Pew Center on the States, “Upgrading Democracy: Improving America’s Election Systems by Modernizing States’ Voter Registration Systems,” November 2010.

Pew Center on the States, “Upgrading Voter Registration Design,” September 2011. Ponoroff, Christopher. “Voter Registration In A Digital Age.” Wendy Weiser, ed.

Brennan Center for Justice, 2010. Reed College. The Early Voting Information Center. www.earlyvoting.net. 2011. Richie, Robert. “Leave No Voter Behind: Seeking 100 Percent Voter Registration and

Effective Civic Education.” Wiley Periodicals, Inc, 2007.

Rosenberg, Jennifer S. and Margaret Chen. “Expanding Democracy: Voter Registration

Around the World.” Brennan Center for Jusice, June 2009. Sinks, James. “Oregon voter turnout third highest in U.S.: State’s turnout has remained

steady for nearly 50 years.” The Bulletin, 17 October 2006. Stein, Robert M., Jan Leighley and Christopher Owens. “Who votes, who doesn’t, why

and, what can be done?: A Report to the Federal Commission on Electoral Reform.”10 June 2005.

Stewart, Charles III. “Losing Votes By Mail.” Legislation and Public Policy 13 (2010):

573-602. National Conference of State Legislatures. “Absentee and Early Voting.”

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16604. 2011. United States Election Assistance Commission. “Effective Designs for the

Administration of Federal Elections.” The United States Election Assistance Commission, 2007.

U.S. Election Assistance Commission, “A Survey of Internet Voting” The United States Election Assistance Commission, 2011, www.eac.gov.

United States Elections Project. “Final 2008 Early Voting Statistics.” George Mason

University. http://elections.gmu.edu/Early_Voting_2008_Final.html. 2011.

Wang, Tova, Samuel Oliker-Friedland, Melissa Reiss and Kristen Oshyn. “Voting in 2008: Ten Swing States: A Report From the Common Cause Education Fund.” Common Cause and The Century Foundation. 2008.

Weiser, Wendy R. and Lawrence Norden. “Voting Law Changes in 2012.” The Brennan Center for Justice, 2011.

increasing voter participation - lwvny of women voters of new york state increasing voter...

Documents