New Project Vote Policy Paper: Early Voting

Project Vote's map of early and absentee voting, 2013.

Last month, Project Vote released their latest policy paper, this one on Early Voting. Although voting has traditionally taken place on a single Election Day, in recent years many states have expanded opportunities to vote before Election Day--generally to accommodate voter schedules and in the hopes of increasing turnout. 

Early voting allows voters to cast their ballots in person but at alternative times and locations, in addition to on Election Day at their traditional polling place. It is now in use in 30 states, as well as the District of Columbia. Some states also offer no-excuse absentee voting, allowing voters to fill out and mail or deliver a ballot before Election Day--without having to provide a reason for voting absentee.

In the 2012 election, early voting and absentee voting together accounted for 30% or more of all votes cast in 21 of the states. In Florida, about 50% of ballots were cast early.

Read the policy paper for more information.

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.

Connecticut Debuts Election Day Registration

Image Source

This month's municipal elections in Connecticut marked the first time voters in the state could register on Election Day. In Connecticut, Election Day Registration is not available at polling places. Instead, each town has a designated Election Day Registration location.

Secretary of State Denise Merrill estimates that between 1,500 and 2,000 people took advantage of Election Day Registration and that it was particularly popular in New Haven. She noted, "This is the first election it's in effect and it did very well; we had no problems."

Secretary Merrill tweeted that turnout was 31% statewide--a high of 77% in Bridgewater and a low of 5.21% in Hartford.

Learn more about the states that allow Election or Same-Day Registration. 

CIRCLE Reports on Youth Turnout in NJ and VA

According to CIRCLE's calculations of exit polls, youth turnout was 26% in Virginia and 18% in New Jersey this year.  Using the same methods, CIRCLE concluded that youth turnout in Virginia was 17% in 2009 and 18% in 1997, and in New Jersey 26% in 1997 and 19% in 2009. This suggests a significant increase in Virginia in 2013 compared to the two most recent gubernatorial races.

These turnout estimates mean that roughly 288,000 young voters cast ballots on November 5th in Virginia, out of the estimated 1.1 million 18-29 year-old citizens who live in that state. In New Jersey, roughly 206,000 young voters cast a ballot out of the estimated 1.2 million 18-29 year old citizens.

CIRCLE Director Peter Levine noted that "Although 18% and 26% are far from satisfactory, these statistics should be put in context," and that "Turnout is always much lower in off-year gubernatorial elections than in presidential years"

Read CIRCLE's full analysis.

* The estimated numbers of young people who voted in the 1997 and 2009 governors’ races were calculated using: (1) the number of ballots cast in each race according to the media, (2) the youth share of those who voted, based on the exit polls conducted by Edison Research for the National Election Pool, and (3) the estimated number of 18-29 year old citizens taken from the Census Current Population Survey, March Demographic File of that year. Edison Research estimates that its exit polls have a margin of error rate of plus or minus three percentage points.

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?

October Webinar: Nonprofits Increase Voting - Findings from 2012

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.  

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. 

Evaluating the Impact of Nonprofit Voter Engagement

What kind of impact do nonprofits have on voter turnout when they talk to their clients and constituents about voting? Who do they reach?

In 2012 we sought to answer these and other questions about the effectiveness and impact of nonprofits conducting voter engagement by having 94 nonprofits track their voter contacts. They engaged 33,741 clients and constituents across seven states, who were successfully matched to the state voter file.

Now, we're pleased to announce our findings from this first of its kind evaluation in a forthcoming report--Can Nonprofits Increase Voting Among Their Clients, Constituents, and Staff? An Evaluation of the Track the Vote Program. The results showed the impact of personal voter outreach by nonprofit service providers in raising turnout out rates among those least expected to vote and closing gaps in voter participation across all demographics.

• The clients and constituents engaged by nonprofits 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. 
• 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 campaigns typically miss. 

Learn more by signing up to receive a digital copy of the full report and detailed findings as soon as it is available.

Census Releases New Data on 2012 Election

On Wednesday, the Census Bureau released The Diversifying Electorate--Voting Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin in 2012 (and Other Recent Elections). The report draws on data from the November 2012 Current Population Survey Voting and Registration Supplement.

Among other things, it confirms that for the first time ever, black voters turned out at a higher rate than white voters: 66.2% of eligible black voters participated, compared to 64.1% of non-Hispanic white voters. Increased participation among black voters has been a trend since 1996, with participation rates increasing 13 percentage points since then. The data also shows that:

• Voting rates increase with age. In 2012, the percentage of eligible adults who voted ranged from 41.2% for 18- to 24-year-olds, to a high of 71.9% for those 65 and older. 
• Black and non-Hispanic white voters continue to lead in turnout. In 2012, both Hispanic and Asian voters voted at a rate of about 48%, trailing black and non-Hispanic white turnout. 
• Mobility matters. 11.7% of voters who lived at their current residence for less than one year cited "registration problems" as a reason for not voting--compared to 5.5% of all voters. 
• The "gender gap" in voting persists. In every presidential election since 1996, women have voted at higher rates than men. In 2012, the spread was about 4 percentage points, and widest among black voters at 9 percentage points. 

Read the full report to learn more about America's diversifying electorate.

Webinar Materials on Voter Turnout in 2012

Last week's webinar, Voter Turnout in the 2012 Election, is now available. Based on information from America Goes to the Polls 2012, the webinar covered voting trends among populations served by nonprofits, state-by-state turnout rankings, and factors affecting turnout--such as Electon Day Registration and swing state status.

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 all of our resources on voter turnout.

Register now for our May webinar on Voter Registration Modernization, and be sure to check our 2013 webinar schedule for upcoming trainings.

Youth Turnout: An Essay by Peter Levine

Most people expected youth turnout to decline in 2012. Signs of diminished enthusiasm were hard to miss. For instance, the Pew Research Center reported that just 28% of young people were following the election closely, down from 40% at the same point four years ago.

My organization, CIRCLE, asked a random sample of young Americans whether Barack Obama or Mitt Romney was a "typical politician." The largest group, 36%, said "both." Another 19% chose President Obama alone. That means that an outright majority of young people saw the President as a typical politician, not as an inspirational leader, as they might have said in 2008.

But young people (18-29) actually turned out at almost exactly the same rate this year as they had in 2008: 50%. They preferred Barack Obama by a lopsided 23-point margin and were numerous enough to determine the outcome of the campaign. If Governor Romney had drawn half of the youth vote in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, he would have won their 80 electoral votes and would now be president.

Since young people voted at the same rate in 2012 despite showing less enthusiasm than four years ago, I think we can conclude that they weren't moved by excitement or hope as much as by commitment and persistence. That is good news because we should want young people of all backgrounds and ideologies to participate in civic life, by voting and also by serving in their communities, following the news, discussing issues, and informing themselves. Civic participation is a habit formed during youth, so the future of our democracy depends on engaging young people today. From that perspective, the increase in youth turnout is heartening, and it's good news that young people have amassed political power by voting–that means that the parties, interest groups, and the news media will compete to engage, persuade, and educate young people.

 But fifty percent turnout is still not impressive. The United States routinely posts the lowest voter turnout rates of any true democracy in the world, and young Americans lag 15 points or more behind older Americans in voting. Also, the "new normal" of massive youth voting is in some ways just a return to the "old normal." In seven of the 10 elections since 1976, youth turnout has been just about 50%. One way to read the trend is to say that youth turnout is stuck at about half of eligible young citizens.

Equally stubborn are disparities in voting by social class. Whereas young people with some college experience voted at a rate of about 63% this November, the turnout of non-college-educated young people was just 36%. Those non-voters were diverse ideologically and included a substantial proportion who liked Mitt Romney better than Barack Obama. But they failed to vote for any candidate.

The whole infrastructure of churches, grassroots political parties, local newspapers, and unions that once introduced working-class young people to politics is now shattered. And the sophisticated turnout operations of modern presidential campaigns focus on likely voters, meaning that college campuses get lots of attention but no one reaches young people who work in retail, service industries, and manufacturing. The hyper-efficient Obama campaign contacted just 5.8% of youth without college experience.

Young voters are back. They turn out in good years and bad and make the difference in close elections. But half of our young people are still non-voters, and their detachment from politics reflects their general alienation from civic life. We can't be satisfied until we reengage them.

Peter Levine is Lincoln Filene Professor of Citizenship & Public Affairs and Director of CIRCLE: the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement at Tufts University's Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service.

This Thursday: Voter Turnout in the 2012 Election

There's still time to register for Thursday's webinar on the 2012 election:

Voter Turnout in the 2012 Election
Thursday April 18th, 2:00-3:00pm Eastern

With elections now certified in all 50 states, Nonprofit VOTE has released America Goes to the Polls 2012, the latest in a series of reports on national turnout and voting trends. In this webinar we will share some of the report's most interesting findings, including state-by-state voter turnout rankings and factors affecting turnout, such as Election Day Registration and swing state status. We will also examine key voting trends among populations served by nonprofits, as well as proposals to expand voter registration and the opportunity to vote.

How Did Your State Do? 2012 State Turnout Rankings

In 2012, 58.7% of voting eligible citizens across the country turned out to vote in the presidential election. Turnout ranged from a high of 76.1% in Minnesota to a low of 44.5% in Hawaii. In total, 130.3 million voters cast ballots in 2012, about 2.3 million less than in 2008.

• Minnesota was first in voter turnout in 2012, while Maine (the 2010 title holder) fell to 6th place. Minnesota has led the country in voter turnout in eight of the last nine midterm and presidential elections.

• Five of the ten states with the highest turnout in 2012 have some form of Election Day Registration which allows voters to register or update their information on Election Day before casting a ballot: Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin.

• Five of the ten states with the highest turnout in 2012 were swing states--Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, Virginia, and Wisconsin--where parties and interest groups invested extensive time and resources in media and mobilization.

• In contrast, five of the lowest turnout states have more burdensome registration requirements and are considered solidly Democratic or Republican--Tennessee, Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma, and West Virginia. Of those five states, none had a margin of victory in the presidential race of less than 16 points, and Oklahoma had a spread of 34 points.

Where does your state fall in the rankings? 

Download America Goes to the Polls 2012 for more information on turnout and voting trends in the 2012 election.


Source: U.S. Elections Project. The table on the left ranks states by total ballots cast as a percent of eligible voters in the 2012 general election. 2008 turnout rank is in parentheses.

April 18 Webinar: Voter Turnout in the 2012 Election

Looking for interesting facts about the 2012 election and turnout? Join our next webinar:

Voter Turnout in the 2012 Election
Thursday April 18th, 2:00-3:00pm Eastern

With elections now certified in all 50 states, Nonprofit VOTE has released America Goes to the Polls 2012, the latest in a series of reports on national turnout and voting trends. In this webinar we will share some of the report's most interesting findings, including state-by-state voter turnout rankings and factors affecting turnout, such as Election Day Registration and swing state status. We will also examine key voting trends among populations served by nonprofits, as well as proposals to expand voter registration and the opportunity to vote.