Publications

In the hyperfederalized American electoral system, in which voting equipment can vary by county, a key question is whether this variation is related to inequalities in residual voting across demographic groups .A persistent concern regarding voting equipment is that some types are more reliable than others incorrectly recording the choices voters make via ballots. A related concern is that county election jurisdictions with fewer financial resources may have lower quality voting equipment, and these areas tend to be more populated by poor individuals and racial minorities. Two questions are assessed in this paper: (1) Are more racially diverse and lower income counties less likely to have quality voting equipment, and (2) does lower quality voting equipment in such counties lead to a higher rate of residual voting among these groups relative to non-Hispanic whites and the middle class and affluent. To evaluate these questions, this study merges American nationwide county-level data on polling place equipment from Verified Voting from 2016 with county-level vote count and turnout data from the Election Assistance Commission and the Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Elections. The polling place equipment examined includes paper ballots, optical scan ballots, and digital recording electronic (DRE) voting. Multivariate regression analyses, with residual voting as the dependent variable, and polling place equipment and county demographic variables as key independent variables, is used to assess the outcomes of interest. Ultimately, this study shows that the U.S. is a mixture of equality and inequality when it comes to election machines and residual voting across difference demographic groups.

Poll workers operate on the front lines of American elections. They are the individuals most directly responsible for confirming voter eligibility and deciding whether to issue prospective voters standard or provisional ballots. Using individual level demographic data on poll workers and data on the racial and ethnic makeup of precincts in the city of Chicago, this paper examines the relationship between descriptive representation amongst poll workers, poll workers’ connection to the neighborhood where their assigned precinct is located, and the number of provisional ballots cast during the 2018 midterm elections. While I find no significant effects of descriptive representation for Black and Hispanic / Latinx residents, there is some evidence suggesting that the number of White poll workers in a precinct moderate provisional voting in precincts with higher Hispanic / Latinx populations. I also find no significant relationship between poll workers’ connection to their neighborhood and provisional voting rates. Practical data limitations and the demographic context of the city of Chicago may explain these limited substantive findings.

Electoral reforms have been cast into the forefront of political discussions as states con-template how best to provide access to voting while limiting the spread of CoVid-19. Adding fuel to the fire, these laws being heavily challenged on the grounds of creating partisan ad-vantages or inducing fraud. While a wealth of scholarship has investigated whether enactment of certain electoral reforms advantage one party’s supporters over another, less attention has been paid to how the administration of these reforms affect party supporters, and particularly to whether these administrative decisions may be intentional. Further, what electoral administration-focused research does exist mostly concentrates on state/county wide votes, racial and ethnic groups, or socioeconomic classes. To contribute to the literature and ongoing dialogue over electoral reforms, this study investigates 1) whether areas with more young people get more or less voting sites for early voting and same-day registration, and 2) if so, if there a partisan effort behind any differences. Young people often lack political resources and experience while tending to vote Democrat, suggesting they might be influenced by electoral reforms (particularly same-day registration) and their administration while also a potential tar-get of partisan electoral engineering. Using a series of different model specifications and data covering presidential and midterm elections from 2012-2018, results indicate that counties with higher percentages of young people receive less voting sites for early voting, and this is especially true in states with same-day registration. Further analyses suggests elected and appointed official partisanship plays a role. Though both parties provide less sites to young voters, Republicans consistently provide less than Democrats.

Many states allow some form of non-traditional precinct voting, from voting early in-person to various forms of mail-assisted balloting. Research on how these voting reforms impact voter participation has produced a wide range of mixed findings. We review this literature and describe how the research designs and measures used by past studies may have biased their results. We then offer a new theoretical approach for testing the relationship between convenience voting reforms and voter turnout that addresses some of the pitfalls in previous measurements of reforms. We also identify best practices for how to implement our new measures using a difference-in-difference research strategy that is robust to many confounding factors and describe a potential sustainable database for undertaking this research over time.

Absentee ballots preserve the ability of voters to participate in elections in the event they are unable to vote in person. Texas has used absentee voting for over 95 years, however the law requires an excuse must be given for why an accommodation is necessary. Using a survey experiment from a statewide survey, I breakdown how the threat of contracting a disease is likely to alter voter behavior. The results show that population density and recognition of a public health threat provide additional marginal effects beyond difference of opinion by party. When all voters face a public health crisis, like the coronavirus pandemic, voters are more likely to consider voter convenience in their interest for fair and legitimate elections.

Are voters as polarized as political leaders when it comes to their preferences about how to cast their ballots in November 2020 and their policy positions on how elections should be run in light of the COVID-19 outbreak? Prior research has shown little party divide on voting by mail, with nearly equal percentages of voters in both parties choosing to vote this way where it is an option. Has a divide opened up this year in how voters aligned with the Democratic and Republican parties prefer to cast a ballot?

We address these questions with two nationally diverse, online surveys fielded from April 8-10 and June 11-13, of 5,612 and 5,818 eligible voters respectively, with an embedded experiment providing treated respondents with scientific projections about the COVID-19outbreak. We find a nearly ten-percentage point difference between Democrats and Republicans in their preference for voting by mail in April which has doubled in size to nearly twenty-percentage points during the pandemic. We also find that support for national legislation requiring states to offer no-excuse absentee ballots has emerged as an increasingly polarized issue.

News media coverage on Election Day often focuses on longlines at polling places. News outlets are incentivized to cover long lines, as they make for dramatic television–despite long waits being rare. Coverage of long lines potentially deters turnout due to public perception of long wait times, reduces confidence in election administration, and undermines trust in government institutions. However, we know little about the potential deleterious effects of emphasizing longlines. Improving understanding of Election Day coverage has important implications for scholars, election officials, and journalists.

This paper has two parts: First, a systematic content analysis of television news coverage of voting on Election Day: we analyze coverage of Election Day in the 2016 and 2018 elections on six national television news networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC) plus a sample of local network news. Second, we will conduct a survey experiment in which each subject is randomly assigned to a television news story about polling place lines with a different news frame: a baseline condition with a news story unrelated to voting and treatment conditions varying the video imagery, chryons (bottom of screen text characterizing story), and reporter voiceover. We will measure attitudes about vote intention, confidence in elections, expected wait time, blame attribution for long lines, and credibility and fairness of the coverage

Voters who use the straight party voting option (SPVO) are more likely than others to roll off when voting for nonpartisan offices and ballot questions. Previous research has theorized that this effect is due to voter error, as individuals fail to understand that they must still complete nonpartisan questions after selecting the straight party option. Using cast vote records, we find the SPVO leads both to voter error in some individuals and satisficing in others. About half of voters using the SPVO who engage in nonpartisan roll-off leave all nonpartisan elected offices blank. At the same time, among voters who vote for at least one nonpartisan elected office, individuals using the SPVO are still more likely than other voters to engage in nonpartisan roll-off. Survey data confirm both of these patterns. Among voters using the SPVO, those with college education are more likely to state that they intentionally rolled off rather than were confused about their vote while those without college education are more likely to be unsure about who they voted for. We also find that the effect of the straight party option on nonpartisan roll-off increases with voter fatigue and decreases with campaign spending, supporting the explanation of satisficing. Our results highlight the unintended effects of ballot design in influencing voter behavior.