The State of Felon Disenfranchisement in 2013

Earlier this year, the Sentencing Project gave an update on felon disenfranchisement in the United States. Currently, 5.85 million Americans are prohibited from voting due to laws that disenfranchise citizens convicted of felony offenses. Only two states--Maine and Vermont--do not restrict the voting rights of anyone with a felony conviction, even while in prison.

However, incarcerated individuals represent a minority of the total disenfranchised population. In fact, 75% of disenfranchised voters live in their communities, either under probation or parole supervision or having completed their sentence. An estimated 2.6 million people are disenfranchised in states that restrict voting rights even after completion of sentence.

Public opinion surveys report that 8 in 10 U.S. residents support voting rights for citizens who have completed their sentence, and nearly two-thirds support voting rights for those on probation or parole. Since 1997, 23 states have modified laws to expand voter eligibility for ex-offenders and as a result an estimated 800,000 citizens regained the right to vote from 1997 to 2010.

Even in states where the voting rights of ex-offenders are restored, myths about ineligibility are often rampant. Know the law in your state and ensure that your organization is sharing current and accurate information with your community.

What We Learned in 2013

As 2013 ends, it's the perfect time to reflect on what we learned this year.

This summer, Nonprofit VOTE released a two-part report, Can Nonprofits Increase Voting Among Their Clients, Constituents, and Staff? An Evaluation of the Track the Vote Program. While Part I of the report showcases the impact of nonprofit voter engagement on turnout in 2012, Part II tells the story of the nonprofits that talked to their communities about voting. By tracking the contacts nonprofits made with voters, we found:

• Nonprofits were particularly effective at increasing voter turnout among groups that are traditionally underrepresented in the electoral process. Voter turnout of nonprofit voters compared to all registered voters was: 18 points higher for Latino voters, 15 points higher for voters under the age of 30, and 15 points higher for voters with household incomes under $25,000. 
• Disparities in voter turnout by age, income, race, and ethnicity narrowed or disappeared among voters engaged by the nonprofits compared to the large turnout gaps evident among registered voters. 
• The most successful nonprofits made their voter engagement plans early, giving them time to pilot their programs and make adjustments. 
• Staffing is a key consideration. This means not only having a staff lead organizing and planning activities, but also ensuring there is adequate staffing--provided internally or by a partner--to carry out the efforts. 

In addition to our findings, other organizations also reported on new voting insights:

• Turnout in states with Election Day Registration was 12.5 points higher than in states without it. Election Day Registration accounted for approximately 1 in 8 ballots cast on November 6, 2012 in the eight states (and DC) that allowed it at the time. 
• For young people without college experience, the existence of a photo ID law in their state predicted lower turnout in 2012. However, the same report found that same-day registration improved overall youth turnout. 
• Turnout among voters with disabilities was strong, despite difficulties. 30.1 percent of voters with disabilities reported difficulty in voting at a polling place, compared to 8.4% of voters without disabilities. Nevertheless, 15.6 million people with disabilities reported voting in the November 2012 elections, turning out at a rate 5.7 percentage points lower than that of people without disabilities. 
• 75 percent of disenfranchised voters live in their communities, either under probation or parole supervision or having completed their sentence. 5.85 million Americans are prohibited from voting due to laws that disenfranchise citizens convicted of felony offenses. However, since 1997, 23 states have modified felony disenfranchisement provisions to expand voter eligibility. As a result, from 1997 to 2010 an estimated 800,000 citizens have regained the right to vote.

Voter Engagement Case Studies - Learning From 2012

How do nonprofits carry out voter engagement work? Our report Can Nonprofits Increase Voting Among Their Clients, Constituents, and Staff? Case Studies describes how 16 organizations engaged their communities around the 2012 election.

These organizations were among the 94 nonprofit service providers that tracked their voter contacts with 33,741 individuals last year. They ranged from California to North Carolina and included community health centers, multi-service agencies, and children and family groups, in addition to organizations that serve people with disabilities, ex-offenders, and people currently experiencing homelessness. Through interviews with these organizations, we learned more about the challenges they faced, their successes, and common takeaways.

While Part I of the report showcases the impact of nonprofit voter engagement on turnout, Part II tells the story of the nonprofits doing the work. The case studies describe how organizations approached voter engagement, as well as their specific tactics and strategies. Each one includes an organizational profile, background information, a description of activities, and concludes with lessons learned. We hope that these findings will serve as a guide while incorporating voter engagement into programs and services in 2014 and beyond.

New Reports on Disability and Voter Turnout

The National Council on Disability and the Research Alliance for Accessible Voting have both released new reports on the Experience of Voters with Disabilities in the 2012 Election Cycle and Disability, Voter Turnout, and Voting Difficulties in the 2012 Elections.

They found that 15.6 million people with disabilities reported voting in the November 2012 elections. Their turnout rate was 5.7 percentage points lower than that of people without disabilities, meaning 3 million more voters with disabilities would have participated if they voted at the same rate as people without disabilities. Additionally in 2012,

• 30.1% of voters with disabilities reported difficulty in voting at a polling place, compared to 8.4% of voters without disabilities. 
• Over one-fourth of voters with disabilities voted by mail, compared to one-sixth of people without disabilities. Among people with disabilities who voted by mail, about one-tenth reported difficulties and the need for assistance in filling out or sending the ballot. 
• Almost one-third of voters with disabilities required assistance in voting, most commonly given by election officials or family members. 

The National Council on Disability noted architectural and physical barriers at registration and polling sites, as nearly 40% of respondents encountered physical barriers at their polling places.

The findings from both reports highlight the ongoing challenges voters with disabilities face in casting a ballot. Through advocacy and voter education we can help ensure that all eligible voters--including those with disabilities--can successfully cast a ballot. An easy way to start is by ensuring that our communities are registered: in 2012, the voter registration rate of people with disabilities was 2.3 percentage points lower than that of people without disabilities.

Webinar Materials: Nonprofits Increase Voting

Yesterday's webinar, Nonprofits Increase Voting: Findings from 2012, is now available. Many thanks to Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg of CIRCLE and Isela Gutiérrez-Gunter from Democracy North Carolina for joining us for this discussion.

Watch the presentation on YouTube. If you subscribe to our channel, you'll be notified whenever new content is posted. You can also download the PowerPoint presentation and the audio portion of the presentation, or browse our voter turnout and research resources for more information.

Learn more about the findings in the full report Can Nonprofits Increase Voting Among Their Clients, Constituents, and Staff? An Evaluation of the Track the Vote Program.

Thursday: Nonprofits Increase Voting - Findings from 2012

There's still time to register for Thursday's webinar: 

Nonprofits Increase Voting: Findings from 2012
Thursday October 24th, 2:00-3:00pm Eastern

What happens when nonprofits talk to their constituents about voting? To find out, Nonprofit VOTE and its partners enlisted 94 nonprofit service providers to track their voter contacts with 33,741 individuals in seven states during the 2012 election. Afterward, CIRCLE conducted an independent analysis of voter file data to see how turnout among voters contacted by nonprofits compared to other groups. 

Join us as we discuss the impact nonprofits had on voter turnout and the populations nonprofits reached. In addition to the turnout results, we will cover key takeaways from 27 interviews with participating organizations, including the challenges they faced, their successes, and lessons learned. Don't miss out on this opportunity to find out what happens when nonprofits engage their communities around voting and to learn about strategies that worked to incorporate voter engagement into ongoing programs and services.

Featured Presenters: Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg is the Deputy Director of CIRCLE where she oversees their core research projects and produces resources and reports for various audiences, including peer-reviewed articles, reports, and factsheets. She has a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from Loyola University Chicago. Isela Gutiérrez-Gunter is the Research Associate and Latino Outreach Coordinator at Democracy North Carolina. She has over a decade of experience at advocacy-oriented nonprofits, including work with the ACLU of Washington State and the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition. She has a BA in History from Scripps College and a MSW from UNC-Chapel Hill. George Pillsbury is the founder and Executive Director of Nonprofit VOTE.  

"Yes, we vote"

By Michael Weekes, President of the Providers' Council. Reprinted from The Provider, the newspaper of the Providers' Council, Summer 2013 issue.  

Nonprofit VOTE, the nation's leading nonpartisan source focused on engaging nonprofits in registering voters and promoting voting through mission-focused activities, has released a seminal report on voting rates for those connected with nonprofits.

The essential question asked also serves as the title of the report: Can Nonprofits Increase Voting Among Their Clients, Constituents and Staff? Based on empirical analysis of service providers in several states by Tufts University's Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), the report concludes the answer is a resounding "Yes."

For those of us who are connected with CareVote, the Providers' Council's decade-long effort to encourage voting among its human service provider network, it was gratifying news affirming our beliefs and assumptions.

The Council, in full disclosure, is represented on the board of Nonprofit VOTE and shares its belief that nonprofits have earned a well-deserved reputation as trusted resources for many in our nation. As indicated by national data, nonprofits play a role in hundreds of millions of lives – employing more than 13.7 million people, with another 62.7 million serving as volunteers and of course the multi-millions receiving services.

The report's research was conducted in relationship to the 2012 national election when close to 100 nonprofit service providers in seven states, as well as one national partner, agreed to engage with Nonprofit VOTE in its Track the Vote project.

In tracking the voting behavior of 33,741 individuals who registered to vote and/or pledged to vote via outreach from these service providers, this select group from Arizona, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina and Ohio – plus the National Association of Community Health Centers – helped to answer important questions. Overall, the data clearly shows the effect of having contact with a nonprofit about voting on increasing the likelihood that individuals will actually vote.

Equally important in a sector that is stretched for resources, it shows the essential elements that help nonprofit service providers integrate voter participation in their work. The qualitative and quantitative analysis framed response to queries related to the audience reached; capacity of service providers to engage; impact of those contacted by nonprofits to vote; what tactics and strategies have efficacy; and what factors contribute to success for service providers.

Among the significant findings were:

• Clients, constituents and staff were "markedly more diverse, lower income and younger than all registered voters in the seven states, made up of populations with a history of lower voter turnout in past elections";
• Nonprofit-contacted voters were nearly twice as likely to be younger voters (under age 30), more than three times more likely to be Latino or black and four times more likely to have incomes under $25,000;
• The turnout rate among nonprofit-influenced voters was at 74 percent – 6 points higher than the rate for all registered voters, including 18 percent higher from Latino and Asian voters, 8 percent higher among whites and 7 percent higher among blacks;
• Nonprofit intervention had the "…biggest impact among turnout of the least likely voters…"

Still, there remains more work to be done, including drilling down to the specific interventions that appeared to have the greatest impact on increasing voter participation, as well as determining if the changes are sustained during the next election cycle and the level of resources that are needed to be effective.

But the report provides the first answers to the fundamental question of can nonprofits make a difference in voter turnout based on personal contact with millions of Americans.

The report summary notes, "The populations reached by nonprofit providers were disproportionately younger, lower income and diverse by race and ethnicity – with a past history of lower voter participation."

Which means, according to Nonprofit VOTE founder George Pillsbury, "When nonprofits talk to the people we serve about voting, they listen and turn out to vote. It means more election impact and a louder voice for our issues and our communities."

We agree with his assessment and hope this work will help us expand the role of nonprofits in advancing democracy in this nation. At its core, is not that the essence of a nonprofit organization's mission-driven purpose?

New Report on Turnout Gaps in 2012 Election

We're pleased to announce that our new voter turnout report, Voter Participation Gaps in the 2012 Presidential Election, is now available. It is the latest in our America Goes to the Polls series and is based on the recently released biennial Census survey on voting and registration. The report tracks, analyzes, and explains prominent turnout gaps like:

• Age - 45% of youth (ages 18-29) turned out in 2012, down from 51% in 2008. 
• Household Income - There was a 15 point turnout gap between members of lower income and higher income households in 2012—the smallest it has been in the last four presidential elections. 
• Mobility - There was a 15 point turnout gap between individuals who had resided at their current address for less than a year (61%) and those who had resided at their current address for at least 5 years (76%). This disparity has decreased in recent presidential elections, though it remains around 33% in midterms. 
• Ethnicity - Black turnout (66%) exceeded non-Hispanic white turnout (64%) for the first time. Turnout among Latino and Asian-American voters (48% and 47%, respectively) continues to trail white and black turnout by 16 to 19 points. 

Our report, Can Nonprofits Increase Voting, demonstrates that nonprofits have the ability to close these and other voter turnout gaps. Learn more about voting gaps and then visit the resources section of our website to see how your nonprofit can help close them.

Pull Out Those Calendars: Preparing for the 2014 Midterm

Is it too soon to think about next year's national midterm and the election of Congress, one-third of the Senate, two-thirds of state governors, and almost all state legislatures? No, definitely not. Unfortunately, most nonprofits won't even begin considering their November 2014 plans until the end of next summer. In such a small window, there is little time to plan, much less implement effective registration, education, and get-out-the-vote activities.

Why nonprofits should get involved in nonpartisan election activity 
Voting is associated with a host of positive attributes:

• People who register and vote are more likely to talk to their neighbors, meet with local officials, and engage in other civic actions. 
• Studies show that states with higher voting levels have higher levels of self-reported health, lower ex-offender recidivism rates, and even lower unemployment. 

Besides empowering their constituents, higher participation rates help nonprofits further their missions and complement advocacy and public policy work. Because of the populations nonprofits reach, their voter engagement efforts have the potential to significantly contribute to the diversity of the electorate.

Our new report illustrates the impact of personal voter outreach by nonprofit service providers in raising turnout out rates among those least expected to vote and in closing gaps in voter participation across all demographics. By tracking the voters contacted by 94 nonprofits during the 2012 election cycle, we found:

• The clients and constituents engaged by nonprofits were markedly more diverse, lower income, and younger than the general population of registered voters in their states. 
• Voter turnout among those contacted by nonprofits was 74%, six points above the 68% turnout rate for all registered voters–with the largest turnout differences seen among young, Latino, and "low propensity voters" who political campaigns typically miss. 

Voter engagement should be a year-round activity
As our report shows, nonprofits have an important role to play in getting their communities involved in the fundamental democratic act of voting. There are many ways organizations can make voter engagement a year-round activity and then jumpstart or increase activity during a national or local election.

Ensure that ways to get involved in voting are visible year-round at your organization. Talk about voting on your website and in your communications. Place a voter registration link or tool on your website, along with relevant election information and resources from Nonprofit VOTE and Bolder Advocacy.

Make voter engagement part of your organizational mission and culture. Have a conversation with your leadership about voter engagement, why it makes sense for your nonprofit, ideas for implementation, and your plans for 2014. Leadership support can facilitate staff buy-in and help make voter outreach an ongoing priority. It also creates a foundation for including civic engagement in your organization's mission statement.

Celebrate National Voter Registration Day on Tuesday September 24, 2013 to demonstrate your organization's support for voter participation. It could even be the perfect time to test out methods and strategies for registering voters at your organization.

Knowing that nonprofits can have an incredible impact on turnout when they talk to their clients and communities about voting, now is the time to start thinking about how you can help yours successfully register and participate in 2014 and the years to come. Visit Bolder Advocacy's Election page and Nonprofit VOTE's site for resources and materials to get started.

A version of this post appeared on the Bolder Advocacy blog.

Can Nonprofits Increase Voter Turnout? Yes.

A new study by Nonprofit VOTE found that turnout among voters contacted by nonprofits during the 2012 election was 74%, six points above the 68% turnout rate for all registered voters.

The clients engaged by nonprofits were markedly more diverse, lower income, and younger than the general population of registered voters. Though these demographic groups are known to turn out at lower rates than their peers, nonprofits were successfully able to narrow traditional voting gaps based on age, race, ethnicity, and household income.

To assess the impact nonprofits have on turnout, Nonprofit VOTE enlisted 94 nonprofit service providers in seven states to track their voter contacts for evaluation purposes. These organizations reached 33,741 clients who registered or signed a pledge to vote. The results are available in a new report, Can Nonprofits Increase Voting Among Their Clients, Constituents, and Staff? An Evaluation of the Track the Vote Program.

"The findings and demographic information from this study underscore the potential of local nonprofits to reach people missed by campaigns and who are not expected to vote," said Michael Weekes, President of the Providers' Council and Nonprofit VOTE Chair.

In the study, the nonprofits had their biggest participation impact among groups underrepresented in the electoral process. The turnout rate of voters contacted by nonprofits compared to all registered voters was:

• 18 points higher for Latino voters (72% vs. 54%), 
• 15 points higher for voters under the age of 30 (68% vs. 53%), and 
• 15 points higher for voters with household incomes under $25,000 (68% vs. 53%). 

"Political participation is highly unequal in the United States, and efforts to engage the lowest-income Americans are scattered," says Peter Levine, Executive Director of CIRCLE, the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. "One highly promising strategy is to integrate nonpartisan voter registration and outreach into the activities of nonprofits that serve the poorest Americans. The new report from Nonprofit VOTE shows that this approach worked in 2012 and should be strengthened for 2014 and beyond."

Download the Executive Summary and the full report to review the findings. 

Do Voters Contacted by Social Service Agencies Vote?

Last year, 87 service providers in nine states tracked approximately 41,000 voters they registered or had sign a voter pledge card. There were 15,393 voter registrations and 25,416 voter pledges. Now, we're using that data to measure the impact of nonprofit voter engagement and highlight effective strategies for nonprofits. We're excited about what we're learning. Here's the progress report so far:

1. Voter File Match: We're matching the 41,000 voters to state voter files to find out if they're officially listed as registered voters. Our match rate so far is 94%--high given our low-income and mobile populations.

2. Comparing Turnout Rates: For voters matched, we will compare voter turnout rates to average turnout rates for the state and various demographic groups.

3. Learning about our Voters: The state voter file, enhanced with data from research partners, will tell us who our nonprofits are reaching. What is their background and are they first time or infrequent voters? Demographic information on age, gender, ethnicity, and income can generate detailed turnout reports. Turnout rates can also be compared among groups, as well as for each agency and type of contact--either a voter registration or voter pledge.

We'll have additional details to share once the voter file match is complete and we start processing data. A full report, including case studies and data summaries, will be released in May. Stay tuned!

Voter Registration Upgrades Needed

The Pew Center on the States recently released an issue brief on "Evidence That America's Voter Registration System Needs an Upgrade".

The report underscores the need for registration systems that better maintain voter records, save money, and streamline processes. The report notes that nationwide:

• At least 51 million eligible citizens remain unregistered--more than 24% of the eligible population.
• More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters.
• Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.
• About 12 million records have incorrect addresses, meaning either the voters moved, or errors in the information make it unlikely any mailings can reach them.

However, since 2010, elections officials from several states have been working with Pew on plans to upgrade their voter registration systems. This includes comparing registration lists with other data sources--like motor vehicle and National Change of Address records--minimizing data entry by finding ways for voters to submit information online, and using protocols to better track and identify inaccurate records. 

Although nonprofits might not be able to fix all these registration issues, there's plenty we can do to ensure all eligible citizens are registered. Learn more about voter registration and how you can participate in National Voter Registration Day on September 25!

(Image Source) 

NAACP Reports on "Block the Vote" Efforts

The NAACP recently produced a report, "Defending Democracy: Confronting Modern Barriers to Voting Rights in America," that contextualizes the emergence of recent "block the vote" measures and explains their potential effects.

The report examines a slew of legislative proposals, ballot initiatives, and voting laws that have been enacted or proposed: 14 states have passed 25 measures designed to restrict or limit ballot access, including new and enhanced voter identification requirements, provisions that curtail access to voter registration, limits on registration drives, and reduced voting periods.

Unfortunately, many of these restrictions will disproportionately affect the populations that nonprofits serve, particularly minorities, low-income voters, the elderly, and young people.

But most importantly, the report offers ideas for how to counter these efforts and expand access to our democracy by:

1. Informing yourself about voting laws and how they affect you.
2. Equipping your community with the information needed to ensure that all eligible voters are able to successfully cast a ballot.
3. Practicing “Each One, Bring One” by bringing an eligible first-time voter, or returning voter who otherwise might not vote, with you when you vote on Election Day.
4. Volunteering to serve as a poll worker, monitor, or translator who assists voters on Election Day.
5. Taking action to urge your elected officials to fight these restrictive election laws.

Read the report, and join our February webinar "States Move to Restrict Voting: How Nonprofits Can Defend the Right to Vote" to learn more.

(Image Source)

New Hurdles: States Restrict Voting Rights

Earlier this month, the Brennan Center published a new report on "Voting Law Changes in 2012" that details and analyzes the bills that have been proposed and passed since the beginning of this year. Most have made it much more difficult for citizens to both register and vote.

Restrictions have come in many forms, including:

• Photo ID requirements. Some states require voters to show government-issued photo ID that as many as one in ten voters do not have.
• Cuts to early voting, a hugely popular innovation used by millions of Americans. 
• Proof of citizenship laws that require a voter to provide proof of citizenship in order to register.
• Reversals of felon disenfranchisement reforms. Once again millions of individuals with past criminal convictions will be barred from participating in the political process. In fact, the report states that "Disenfranchisement after criminal conviction remains the single most significant barrier to voting rights in the United States."

The Brennan Center estimates that more than five million Americans could be affected by the new rules already put in place this year. The report also found that the restrictions will most heavily burden "young, minority, and low-income voters, as well as…voters with disabilities"—the populations that many of our nonprofits serve and "who have been historically locked out of our electoral system."

While many laws have been passed, some have faced fierce resistance from voters. In Ohio and Maine, citizen campaigns have forced referendums on new election laws in both states.

For more on this year's restrictive voting laws, tune in for our October 27th webinar, States Restrict Voting: How Nonprofits Can Defend the Right to Vote. In the meantime, encourage your clients to register to vote and ensure that they understand your state's laws.

(Image Source)

EAC Releases Voter Registration Data

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) recently made news when it came up on the House budget chopping block. (It survived.) In the meantime, the EAC has released a new report on voter registration statistics from after the 2008 general election through the 2010 midterm election. The report covers the number of registered voters, the registration process, and voter registration list maintenance.

Below are some of the report's findings, along with suggestions for nonprofits interested in voter registration:

• The number of registered voters declined from 2008, but increased by 14 million from the last midterm election. No matter what's on the ballot, nonprofits can encourage voters to register, to engage, and to vote--every election matters!
• More than 45 million voter registration applications were submitted, 14.4 million of which were from new voters. There are large numbers of eligible but unregistered voters, and the number grows everyday as youth turn 18 and new citizens are naturalized. Until registration is automatic, nonprofits can help ensure that eligible voters have the opportunity to register--make forms available at your organization, ask clients if they're registered, and hold a voter registration drive.
  
• Seventeen states reported receiving voter registration applications over the Internet, accounting for 2% of all registration forms. New technology makes it easier than ever to register to vote. If you're in one of the eight states (plus D.C.) that offer online voter registration, consider devoting an on-site computer to voter registration.
• 9.4% of registration applications (1.4 million applications) were invalid or duplicates of existing registrations. Your nonprofit can help clients check to see if they are registered; if not, help ensure that they fill out the form correctly, include all necessary information, and sign the completed application.
  

Read the full report and check out the data sets. While the EAC currently administers and maintains the national mail voter registration form, we hope that one day soon they (or someone) will also be responsible for overseeing a single national voter registration database. Until then, learn more about registering and voting in your state and order a "Register to Vote" poster in English or Spanish.

(Image Source)

Tweet

Report: The Myth of Noncitizen Voting

In a recent segment, CNN anchor Lou Dobbs told viewers that substantial evidence suggests that large numbers of non-citizens, including undocumented immigrants, are voting in federal elections and could be the deciding factor in November's elections. The story primarily cites a recent report published by the Heritage Foundation. The report is written by former recess-appointed FEC Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky, whose troubling record on voting rights caused him to withdraw his name from consideration for a permanent FEC seat. Von Spakovsky's report contains gross distortions and represents an attempt to support a policy agenda that would disenfranchise many U.S. citizens. Truth in Immigration has written a report scrutinizing the claims of the Heritage Foundation study.

Report: EDR in Nebraska (Demos)

This report from R. Michael Alvarez (Caltech) and Jonathan Nagler (NYU) from Demos analyzes likely effects of introducing Election Day Registration in Nebraska, and includes the following estimates of increases in turnout for specific groups of Nebraska citizens under EDR:

• Overall turnout could go up by 5.4 percent.
• Turnout among those aged 18 to 25 could increase by 10.6 percent.
• Turnout for those who have moved in the last six months could increase by 9.5 percent.
• Turnout for Latinos could increase by 9.0 percent.

Download the report here.

New Report: 2008 Primary in Review, Electionline.org

A review of the 2008 primary season has found that the dramatically increased number of voters taxed the election system more than any administrative problem. Millions of voters – many of them first timers – crowded polling places around the country, doubling recent turnout in some states.

View full report
July 24, 2008 -
2008 Primary in Review (report) (Adobe PDF

New Report: Voter Confidence in Context and the Effect of Winning

Using national survey data from the 2006 general election, authors Morgan H. Llewellyn, Thad E. Hall and R. Michael Alvarez of the Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project conclude that voter confidence in the voting process is influenced by the context of the election, as well as who wins and what voting technology is used. Supporters of winning candidates/parties have more post-election confidence in the election than supporters of losing candidates/parties. And voters using electronic voting machines equipped with voter-verified paper audit trails increases voters’ confidence in the process as well.Voter Confidence in Context and the Effect of Winning, August 2008

New Report: HAVA Impact on First-Time Voters

A new report from the EAC looks at the HAVA-mandated ID requirements for these first-time voters when they go to the polls. View "Case Studies on the Impact of the Help America Vote Act's Identification Requirements for First-Time Voters" (PDF), U.S. Election Assistance Commission (May 2008)