Moritz College of Law · Political Science, with honors, Phi Bela Kappa BMPLO~_N:r. 3203...

A10107

EXHIBIT ElG.HT

Early in-person ballots cast during the first five days of early in person voting. as a percentage of all ballot cast in Collier, Hardee, Hendry, Hillsborough, and Monroe Counties; displayed for All Voters, African American Voters, Hispanic Voters, and White Voters; in the 2008 Presidential Preference Primary, 2008 Primary, 2008 General Election, 2010 Primary, and 2010 General Elections

Source: State of Florida Voter Registration, Voter History, and Early Voting Files

First Five Days (%) First Five Days (number)

All Black Hispanic Whites All Black Hispanic Whites 2008 ppp 7.44% 5.83% 5.04% 7.75% 25,139 1,487 930 21,936 2008P 7.64% 7.15% 6.87% 7.77% 9,488 858 421 7,978

2008G 10.01% 17.25% 7.17% 9.30% 71,643 14,897 4,756 48,804 2010 p 6.96% 7.91% 6.04% 6.94% 13,772 1,141 504 11,728 2010G 7.89% 6.88% 4.99% 8.34% 36,603 3,113 1,551 30,790

20.00%

18.00%

16.00%

14.00%

I U.OO% All

10.00% Black

Hispanic

8.00% •whites

6.00%

4.00%

2.00%

0.00"

I • • I • I I' : ' I i

I I • • i • • I I I I ; I i • • • • I • .I .... , .... Li

2008 ppp 2008 p. 2008 G 2010P 2010G

21

Case 1:11-cv-01428-CKK-MG-ESH Document 97-3 Filed 05/18/12 of 17

A10108

EXHlBIT NINE

Early in-person ballots cast during the :first five days of early in person voting as a percentage of all ballots cast in Florida; displayed for All Voters, African American Voters, Hispanic Voters, and White Voters; in the 2.008 Presidential Preference Primary, 2008 Primary, 2008 General Election, 2010 Primary, and 2010 General Elections

Source.: State of Florida Voter Registration, Voter History, and Early Voting Files

First Five Days (%) First Five Days (number) All Black Hispanic Whites All Black Hispanic Whites

2008PPP 4.72% 3.12% 4.15% 4.91% ,. 200,981 , 12,240 , 14,711 ,. 167,169 2008P 5.57";{, 4.42% 4.66% 5.8.3% , 104,'145 , 9,564 , 6,446 ,. 85,196 2008G 9.92%' 15.45% 7.86% 9.29% ,. 836,224 ., 171,250 , 74,035 ,. 551,343 2010P 5.34% 4.87% 4.53% 5.4.7% ,. 130;021 ,. 12,224 , 7,454 , 106,113 2010G 6.31% 6.54% 4.94% 6.74% , 343,700 , . 30,313 ,. 23,453 ,. 278,028

18.00"

16.00%

14..00%

12.00%

• All 10.00%

• Black

8.00% •HI<panic

•whites 6.00%

4.00%

2.00%

0:00% 2008 PPP 2008 p 20086 2010 p 20106

22


A10109

EXBlBITTEN

Eady in-person ballots cast on the final Sunday of early in person voting as a percentage of all ballots cast in counties in Florida that offered early voting on the Sunday two days before Election Day. Displayed for All Voters, African American Voters, Hispanic Voters, and White Voters; in the 2008 Presidential Preference Primary, 2008 Primary, 2008 General Election, 2010 Primary, and 2010 General Elections

Source: State of Florida Voter Registration, Voter History, and Early Voting Files

Percent All

2008 ppp 2008 p 2008G 2010 p 2010G

I

1 2.00%

1:50%

1.00%

0 .50%

0.00%

Last Sunday (2 days before ED) Total Last Sunday (2 days before ED) Black Hispanic Whites All Black Hispanic Whites

1.98% 2.03% 2.13% 1.91% 33,302 4,602 5,975 21,110 1.92% 2.55% 2.01% 1.71% 11,062 2,564 2,172 5,983 2.16% 4.21% 2.79% 1.35% 78,380 25,177 17,727 29,514 1.28% 2.24% 1.70% 1.02% 10,484 2,328 1,975 5,785 1.44% 2.64% 1.56% 1.16% 28,505 6,684 4,573 15,751

Early Voting on Last Sunday before Election Day, by Race, Statewide

Black

Hispanic

• Whites

2008 ppp 2008 p 2008 G 2010 p 2010 G


A10110

EXIDBIT ELEvEN

Eru:ly .in-person ballots cast during the first week of early in person voting, as a percentage of all early votes .. Displayed Statewide; -in Collier, l{ardee, Hendry, Hillsborough, and Monroe Counties; and in Miami,. Dade County. Source: State of Fl01:ida Voter Regi5tration, Voter History, and Early Voting Files

EV in,·fii'st week (M-Sun) as % Qf all fV Statewide· Five Counties Miami-Dade Statewide Flve Counties, Mlctmi-Dade

2008 ppp,.. 37.39%,. 41.07% ,., 36.17% ~38,532" 28;}98.. 24()35 2oos P " 48.o:7% ti 47.28%., 41.54% " 120,&17 ,.. ib;es9" il69S 2oo8 G " 38.73%,. 40. 12~" 31.25% ,. 1,022,so1 " ss,l:42 ,... 103309 2010 P " A0:90%" 38.27%,. 32.63% 1' 148;545" 15,lJ9" 11478. 2010 G " 37.95%.,. 29.08%" 38.94% " 408;828 ,.. 42,1·38" 35431

•statewide

30.00% • Five Counties

• Miami-Dade

20.00%

10:00%

o.oo" ~008 PPP ttllOP 2010G


A10111

EXHIBITTWEL~

Paul Gronke _2DUCATION

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN Dorlorrm ofPhiku~qy. Political Science

UNIVERSITY Of! EssEX

M<Ukr.r of A.rtJ, Western European Pi:ilitits

UNIVERSITY OP CHICAGO

Ba<IKitir of Art1 Political Science, with honors, Phi Bela Kappa

BMPLO~_N:r .

3203 SEWd:Pdstock, Blvd, Eliot 424 ·Por:tl!lll.!l, Qre. 9.72112

(5Q3) 517-73'93 gro)>U@rec:d:Odu

ANr'(;AlUIQilt.¥J Decetpber 1993

&sa, UK June 1984

Chic.gq,IL Jun~ 1982'

REBD CoLJ..EGB Portland, OR ProjmorofPolitieoJJtima _ ~~uary ·200I-P~enr

• Taught inl:todl,lctory lllld uppet-levcl ®ses focusing on American poli!i'a, including polincal bellllvior, potlt:icul iriititutions :md·politicll ~h.methods. Pullli•~ed peec-a:v)ewed articlco, boo!< chnprers, Qf\d !"s=li .repon.s includfug p~rec:cs-in the ]oltfiiOI ofPolilla, A~Nilil'Rt,ifw ·ofPuULi14/ Slitf1a, PS:·Pdlili:u/Sm/lte 1J1td Politia, ~ Ltjjilatilt ShtJitsQuf1Ttqf,.

• Rese~~rch support from found2tibns, contr.ICU, consultnncie1 and imemal compctiiive gcmts. Gr.lllred tenlin: iii Q004; ptbinolcd to full professor In 2008.

PEW CHARfrABU!, TRU§.l'S Portland, OR ulfiiiiralll, Ek<twlfJ l11itiqti~ oft& Pt~JJ C.IIUr op J/x j_i4teJ September 2007- March 2011

Pro ide empuial-analysis md write n!pOtts fO., ongoing projcccs percairung to ela;,tion inu:grity and equity. Cons1>lt on scrateg.c ·ioitiativcs, m(icw grant·proAAsals, provide-qllithooological nnd substantive quality control reviC:w. . Help organize gatherings and c:on(ereoces, manage·inquiiles from·medJ"'a and other stakeholders.

Dull! UNIVEl!SITY Durham, NC AuiJIIJJII Profomr of Politkal Sdma September 1 ?91-De<:ernber 2000

Taught undetgmdllate ind gaduate classes focllling on American p()liiic$, includihg p,Ublic opinion, legisbtive beh2vior,politlal parties.: and g13d02te s!<ldSiical methods (first. course) .. R<=ived campus-Wide reaching award in 1996. Published a university press bobk, peet'rcvicwcd•artidcs,•llod book-chapter•. Research rupporc from the National Science Fo11nda.rion, the Ford Foundation,. and intemal grani:S. ln$Lructor from:Septembet 199t·August 1993; Assismnt Profes~or from September 1993-Detember 2000.

ADMINISTRATivE POSITIONS

D8PAATMBNT "<':HAl& Reed toUege J)tparf1fl<lfl ofPoGJirol Sa"tnrt 2001- 2004; 2005: 2007; 2Q09-201Q

ReSponsible for cuniOJlru- plan~, committee assignments, student_ progn:S~ t(!\Wl'd degree, slilff biring,11nd :rupcrvlsion,llnd orR~t departmeniill go'Vemance-for a, five•member, dcputtneo IUld 30,.40 majors Guniors lind ~eniors).

Sua:essfully·c:..-pwdcd facUlty from 4 to 7 Jllembers; woiked,widi deputrnent ana college. to update and tc:!or:m depart:menll:e<JWtetnentsand curricUlum; doubled d~ental.majors and ~ed class enrollmenis.


A10112

Budg<:lllt)' pl~d ~~~mcnt qfa $2,};000 .department budget an<Lseven endowed funds with annual ihC:omc~exccedfug $70,000. With Econorriics;Depamnent, respoo_sibk for campus-widt-srudeot-fuculcy summer-=h progtam, 3-5 awards each summer.

POUNDBRAND'l>l!UtCTOJt Reed College Earfy V~ti'l!! tlijomtqifq,_ Clntv 2005-present

Esmblished G non-~ cen\C..-conducling rescru'Ch into ru:!d.disseminaring,infoanatign about early in(?CNl>ll und~absentee , balloi!ng.

MllJ"!ge publie-oUtrC:SCt,_ recruit and auJ)c.l:vise 24 sta(f_rt~~ember,; (undeJgr:~duale nnd pon·baccalauceare ~ese=hen), mailogc builgetll, work toJirttaC( conl.inuing extunal suppo~t. 1\cccived $5~1000. ifueAtemJ11 support SIIICC 2005.

DIRBCTOJt Reed CpUejf P11h~ Nli9 uttm Str;(s 2001-2006, 2008-2011

-Greated1a ~mp.ils '11/ide lecture Set!& to bring rnuiona.lly o.nd in!,r.t.nl!riooally recognized speakers on domestic "lld ·~renutionaLliffain m campus.,_ rdcntify important llre<lS of-public and campus concern; idem:ify potenWil speilken;-and eotiabo't!Ue on pul:llidouunch.

• .Empowered studel\ts by cmu:!ng.n student cooroinQting ciimmittcc; continue to work with student conimittee. to· mall2getkries;' eteilte ·studen!;nan events with each speaker. Man:.ge ~0.000 -annllllllccture series budget; bite and manllgc: part-time lecture cooroinaror.

Co-EDITOR Eltai4n lA>I' foWuJI 201Q·p=ent

Responsible for reviewing incomi~cles; bite nnd su~e::m edirocia l a.~si$tant to assign reviewers and meet d~,.and cvaluiting. rev&ews :lnd outldes fo1 ~cccptance or rejection. First sodal scientiit chosen to CCHX!it the only peet-revie"'ed inn:cdisCJplinacy joumal covering election law, electionoadrriinistiiitiori; and elecriort policy.

DlllECTOa- Reed College Puhfir.Po/i(y W~kil»p 2001.{)2, 2005-present

Maintain adi.,.isional srudent resean:h and thesis'wnting workspace (6 workstations, group meeting space; eomputci projection).

• Responsible (or hiring-and supet'lli~g, patt-time facility manager, cootdiriatingcwith-divisi~nal members to assuce identifylnJ!;,DC1,1f compull1tionAI and' smtistil:nl needs for students '~tid faculty, and assurmg continuing support froro-the-eollege.

G,RANTS, CONTR.Aq'S, AND CONSl!ILTANCIES

BX'l'BRN.U C::OMl'BTl1'IVB GJIANTS l'i:w Ch:uirablc Trust.. "DiagoosingRfSldual Vowig: A Comprehcnllivc Approach." Octobtt 2007-August-2009.

Sl~.OO<J. With KimbaU'BtiiCC'An<! Ch11dd Stewart.

Carnegie Foundarioo o£.!'few York. "E?<tc.nding the Ele<ltion Day SurVey." June-D.:cember, 2006. $17,000. {Mlltching f}!nds ,from AEI/Brookiogs.Eic:ction &:form Project: $4000).

Mellon FoUrubtion, Summer Faculty 1teseacch Grant. ":111~ Eculy Voting 1ofommion Center." SUilUTlCl' 2005, saOOb., Mellon Foundation: Swnmer TC11.chiog,Conf~ ''ln~>r.lting QuAntirarive Methods in Sodot Science CIASst!ll."

SUmmer20()5, $12jOOQ.

National Science Foundation Research E><pe.le.,ces for Undeq;raduates '(REU) Program Awar:d, $5000, July 1999~ June2000.

N~fiOi!al S6~ce Foundation. "Consensus, Volatili'ty, and Uncecraioty in Pcc:sidenikl Approval."::May l, 1:?98- April' 20; 2000. $20.QOO;

"Govetlling,a Volalile PubllC;'' H:oward Foundation FeUowshlp (December, 19%). Awanled honorable mendon.


A10113

Ford F~undacion ·Course .Oeveloprnent Grant, "The Internet and Political Participation," Spring-2009 ($5000).

Fqrd Foundation Grants for Undergraduate Mentoring in Poll~ Science (1998-2000, $3000, with Carne LikerJ: 19%-1998, $3000, with KellyJade Davis)

&>NSU!.TANT ANt> CON'I'ItACT WOH Pew Center on the SlllWJ, Elections;lniuativeS. ''WEV01E: A Web-&ased Early Voting 0ptimi2ation TooL"

Awarded toJteoii'Collcge andEVIC. Oct 2010-Mareh 2011. $'84;000.

Nlngtland Deputrncnt ofLegislativeServicC$. Ma'l'bnd Vqting Syslt2M.Study. Subcont:ractorto the Researeh Trlangle lnstirute. t\ugust 20tO~Deccrnhet '20lO. l65li(X·

:Pew. (\'.etUCJ: on the Smtes, -Election lnitilaiiy~s. Ac:id~~ Q)nsuliant. and· Policy :Advisor. Awarded to, the Reed lbst:itute.~ EV!C. ~tembet~·Ahgu•t 2010. S130,29Q;

State of Oregon, D)vislon of ..a!~ Lions. lmph:menmrion of Redistricting Utilizing: the Ot~ll Bentralized Voter Reg1str.lifon System {RFP'#IJ~5:-'•P-I~-P<J). P~ul Grook~ nnd.£V.lC wttt 2cadi:m~e consulr.ijjts to the Gartnill Gm.up, Ini:. (Piimary cont:Qctor). October 2009-]W!!:-2010. ru:Qbp.

Pew Gharitahle Trusts. Quall.ty Control and Validation Process, Reed Institute and EVIC: Jtine 2009-August 2009. $36,9.00.

Pew <!:mrirable T~U- C_qnsult nt ud Policy Advilor to, thc Eleaions lnirr.u:iv~ of the Pew Cenw oruhe•Statco. Aw:udcd•lo the Reed lostluw: and the Early Voting InJo,mation Cent.r. September 2007- August iO'o'!l, $206;000.

ElcctionAs'sistance Commission. The 2008 election administration and voting sun.ey, EVIC was a subconln!ctor to .the iksearch Triangle Instirute. $32,500.

Ele.!;tion Assistance Commission. The 2006 election administration and voting survey data" Contract No. t40&04-07-P0.67699. May-September 2007, S186,825 tolal award;.subcont:ract to Paul-Gronke/EVIC for J4(),000.

INTERNAL COMPETITIVI! GRANTS: COrbett-G.IJidhammer Sununer Collaborative Research Grant. "The Dam for Democracy Report" Wirh Ballcy

Schreiber, Summer 2008 ($10000).

Michael and Carole Levine FoundatiorJ, '"Early Voting Reforms in America. n $10,500. 2007•08.

Cocbett-Goldhammer SllffiJI)er Oillabbrative Rescan:h Gtant. ''trust but Verify coUaborative writing project" With Avery Ucker, Summer 2006 ($10;000).

Michael Levine Fund for Faculty Re=h,, $8000 (2003-4)

<!:orbell-GoldharnnN:t' SIJ[Mler C.ollahorauve.Research Gr~nt. ''Voting E:ttly, Voting Smart~ Americ2's Experleooc with Batly Voting." With Peter Miller. Summer 2llo4 ($10,000). -

Cotbett>Goldpammer Sumalc:r Coll:Worative-R.csean:h Grant; '·'Buildlng 2 Ctoss-S!oct.ioll11 Til'fll! Setlcs ~taset for P.resideo iii A,ppruv:al Resea.rch", with Josh~ Simon. Summer 2003 ($l0,000).

Corhetr-Goldh= Summer <tol.bborative Researclt Qrant. "O~daining _the News~Cbanging Public A~ 'towards- the News Medial" With Aaron Rnbiro Summed~:l02 ($9,000).

Stillman-Drake Summer Resean:h Grant. "PreS!'dentkl Honeymoons: A Motivational Approach." SUniiner 2001 (S12QO).

Cenrer for Instructional Technology Course Development Gcanr, Spring. 2000. "The.Intemet, Public Policiy, and Political Participation." $2000. Awarded for web based <X>Urse,development fqr a series .of ppblic policy and pohticaJ science undergraduate courses.

Instrumentation Grant, 1998-9 ($6000).

Arts and Sciences, ResearCh Council Gr.mt, 199972000 ($2000), 1998-9 ($2000). 1.99H ($2500). Addia<;>nal Cound! grants awarded in 19iJ4, 1995, 1996.

JlONO~S, AWARDS, AND FELLOWSHIPS Compecitive Paid l.c;tveAw:trd, Jlecd College, Spiing 2008 QeaVI:'for one_semesror)

Competitive Paid l:.cave Aw,.ro. Reed C6Uege, Fall2004 Qeave fur one semestu).

27


A10114

Nominee, Eli2a.anqJoan Gardner HowarcLFdlowsrup,_ 2003-4.

Feno;w,Joan Shorenstein-Center for l'.resjl and l'!>lliia, Hnrvard Unlvemty, Sprtng 2001 (declined)

Rkhard K. Lublfu Distinguished Awntd for Te2cb!ng Excellence 1995-6

Nominee, Duke Unl~c'rSity Alwrui.i'D~'ikguished Teaching Award, 1-999 Nominee, Rowm~ ·Littlefield Aw~ for IDoiwative:Teaching. 1996-7, 1997~8 Horace H. Rackbam Dissertation Fellowship, 1-990

Gerald R. Fo.rd Disserta!jon Fellowship, 1989;1990

Horace H. Rack ham Precloctoral Dissertation ·FeUowshlt>. 1988-1989 National Stience Found.ation Grilduate FeUowshlp, l983'-1986

Phi Beta Kappa

PUBJ.ICATIQ~S

Boo itS Gronke;.Paul. 2000. Seliings, Ca,pm'i,ll!; l!tsitfmioll!, tWJ tht: Vote: A 'Un{fod -1-P)frlatb ~ Hous• and Small, B~III. Ann

Arbor, 'MI) University of'MicJugah Pniss.

AJtTIClJJS lN RHFEJI.EBD JOURNAU Gronkc, Paul. 201Z. "Wh 1 ;nd How·w Teach Election Law in the Undergraduate Classroom." St Lo11ii LAw &zm,

(forthcomlng). Gronke, Paul <Uld Darius Reiali• 20'10. "U,S. Public Opfi}ion-on TotlUre, 2001-2009;'' PS: PolilkalS<UifiZ ami Po/iikJ

43:437-444£ Gronke; Paul. ~ •\E<Uiy Voting Refoans-and Amerlean Elections:'' William and Mary uw Ret~. 17(2): 423-451.

Gronke, Paul, Eva-Galanes-Rosen!Y.lum and Peter Miller-, 2008i "Convenience V qung." AltTUIOj.fut;inv of Po/ihl41 Sri<M. Volume 11: 437-455.,

Gronke, Paul and Daniel Krantz Toffey. 2008. "Th.e Psyc:hol~al and Institutional Determinants ofEatly Voting." ]ollf'fi(J/ ojSotial bmes. 64(3): .-~03.524,

Gronke, Paul, Eva'Galapes"Rosenbawn. andPetcr Miller.1o07, "Early Voting and Tumo\lt." PS: Po/itkaiS<UII&< ami Po/itiCJ 40( 4): 639-645,

Gronke, Paul110d Timothy E; Cook. ,2007. "DiSdahling the;Meill:i? Americans' Ch~ging Attitudes Toward the News." Political Co1111111111imlitJ11. 24(3): 259.-281.

Cook, Tunothy E. and Paul Gronke: 2005 . . "The$keptk<ll American: Revisiting the Meanings ofTrust'iri Government and Confidence .iri.Jnstiruiion$." Joiinral ojPolitirJ. 67(3).

Gronke, Paul and Brian Newman', 2003. "From fUR to Cl!hton; from Mueller to ?? A Field E8say on Presidential ,J\pproval!' Po/iJiral,RmatrhQgarui/J. 56(4):,50t-12.

!].rpnke, Paul, Jeffrey Koch, and J. Matthew Wtlsoii. 2003. "Follow the Leader? Presldentlal Approval, Perceived Presidential Sqpport, and Represenjatives' Electoml Fortunes.'' joiiTflnl of Poh7i.:s 65{3): 785-808.

,Gronl\e, Paul and John Brehm. 2002. "History, Heteregencily, and ~sidentlnli\pproVlll." BltcltJrol SIII.Uu21:425-452'

]. MJ~.tthew Wilson and Paul Grook~~- - "Cono;ordance and Projection oJ Representative's RoU CaU Votes!' uguhtit;eStllllitJQuart.rf:l. XXV>445-67,

Gronke; Paul and J.·Matthc:w,Wtlsl>n. 1999. "Gompedng Redistricting Plans as Evidence of Political Motives: The North Carolina Case." ~ Po/iiia f.!J/mtttf!J 27··2 (April) 147,176.

Alva~l:, R. Michne.l andPoul Gronlre. 1.996. ;'Coustiruentu.ndl.egislatocs:Lcnrrung About the GulfW2J;'Resolut1on." Ltt,ulaht~t St11JiuQ1«111£rfy, Pebroll!)', 1996: j). 10!>-128. ·

Gmnl<il, PauL 1992. "0vcrreport.ing the Vote fn the 1988 Sen,.re ~cc:tion Sl\l\1y; A.Rcsppnsc tu Wright.'' LqjJ!atiit Stt~dlrsQII>Jrl<rf:l, Februaty, 1992: p. l13-l29.

Klnder, D.lt, G. AdamS, arid B. Grorike. l9e9. ''Economics·aod Polil:its in ·1>984." Atnm'fatt}f11111ttl'f!P61iiiMIIJ'ti•tta. 33; 491-515.

28'


A10115

P~g B.1., R. Y. Shapiro, P. (lronke, and.R. Rosenberg. 1985. "Constituency, Party, and Rq>resentation in COng.ess;'' Pu/i/i( OpiitifurQNa.rttr!J. 48:'741-756.

BOOK CHAP11!RS

Gronkc:, l>aul,Jame; Hicks,llnd 1imorby E. Cook. 2009 ''Ttl1Srin Gov«mment.and n Soci~llostitutions.' In NQrmndeN~.nd \V!!,cqx (cds), UntiuslaJttiliJg fiNhlk 0piftiqn. W11Sh1hgr;on DC: C.'Q Press.

Gronkc, Paul and Brian Newman. 2009. ''Pul:ihc EwlUBt;in·os of"Prdfdents." In Gco.rge E!dwalds Ill and Willlam Howell (cd~1 J"b< O:ifonl Hanifbooh Dj tlx Alttuiton,Pmidwy_, ??• 23.Z..2S New York: 0-!ford Uru~cmr:y Pres.s.

Gronke, Paul, BV11 G..bnes-Rosenbaurn, ~nd l>et:t.r /\( ~cr. 2008. "From B~ot Box to Mail Ilax: Early Voting and Tumow." fn Cain, Tolbert, and Donovan (oos}: Dtmo~lf)· in t/x Statu: .Expqinunt.f"id Ekrfiqi!$ TV[11mt. WIIShington D.C.: BrooJClngs Jn~tltutcPrtss.

Gronke, l!aul and Evo. G111wes-lloscnbnum 2008. "l'hc Growth of Eacly and Non-Precinct P~ U:olloting: When. Whf., and Proipttt$ forth~ Future;" In Ben Griffith (ed),AII'fdl4 rl'~tesi..A C;nilt ld BW!f l.mlwul VqJittgcH.igbts Clevdand,.QH: Lachina l'ulllishing.

Gronke,_Paul. 200q. "Public Opinion" and "Thc.Bicctlon Cnmp.Ugn." In World lljlp,l: E:,fJ<I~pr.Jia Cbicago, JL: Wodd Book Publl~hJOjl.

F®ver, Peter D., Paul Gronke, and David L'ik.-r. 2004. "The Re.sctVcs '.llld The Gu:utESmndmg fit the Civli-Miliinry Gap Be£on:110d J\ftct ?/i 1." [n Rmn• Co111fionmt Cuffllib11li'an.t to tbt All Vohtllltlr An:t). W:>.diirtgr:oo, D~l NalioMlDr.fensc University.

Gronke, Paul. 2003: "Politics." ln B1gdoli, J:los:lcin (cd), Thll11tmW Ellfj(klpulb New York: John Wiley. (Peer reviewed conuibution)

Gronke, Paul. 2003. ''Th.eEiccclon Camp:>.ign." ln w .. rld IJDtJ/c Ellt)'t·loptdia. ChiCllgo, r~ Wo<W Book Publishin~

Gronke, Plul gnd.Petci T), Ft-:tvcr. 2001. "Uncertain Confidence' Civili:m and Military Attitudes about Civii-Mllit"l)' Re!qdons," In Richald Kohn and Petes'D. l'eaver, .foldim mul G'u'linllr. Tlx Q,if.Military Grtp ottd .An;qi{mr l'{alln~~~tl Stamfj. Combridge. MA: MTI' i>rc:;s.

Poucy Rl!POK'l'S (¥RlllfARY AUJ'HOR OR CO...AliT.HO)!) "ResidUlll Voting m Florid2.'' October .-D10. Washingron, DC: Th~ Pew Charlt:~ble Trusts.. i\vai6bl<! on.IJne at

http://www.pewccnterontbesmr:es.org/llfllosdedF'lles/l'lor:ida_Rcsidual_ Vote_~rt.pdl?n=3568.

''Ddta for Democracy. lmpro~g.El~ns Through Metrics and M=un:rnents." Novcmbcs, 2008. Wllitlngton, DC: ll1e l'ew Gbarit:lblc Trusts. Available online at http;/ /www.pewccntaotub.esrate~.org/report~det:UI.aspx?jtl=46600. 1 w:u me osgani%e~ of the conference that precC{!~ this report-and ov.-.:saw editing wd production of the report.

"The 2Q06 Ble.;tlon Day Survcr ' November '1JJ07. With Kltnb:illllr.tce ~nd Clark Be!ueu, rubmlu.cd ro the l31etrion A•sistancc CO!rumssibn.

"Unifnnned-:md Gvecseas Citizens .Absentee Voting Acu UOCAVA. Survey wpon fiJ1dings.'' Septc=ber 2007. With Kimball Brace nd Clatk Denser~, submitted to th~ El~ction Anisrance Conuni~sion .

"l.lu>Jmp>et of the National Voter Rcgistrooon Ace 1\ 'RI:port to the I lOth COng=:c" June 30, 2007. With Kimball Bti\GC 1\Dd Cb.tk nro'iCD. submlt(ed ro the E!~:Ction A$:Uscance Commission.

"B~ot Integrity under On-go1.1's.Vou: by Mail System. June 15, 2005. Prepared for the COmmission on Pederal EJection 'Refom., co-chaired by l'r:esideor Jlmmy Carter. :lnd rhe Honordblc James S, Baker m.

POUcY. REPORTS: CONTR18U'PIDMAT8JUALS, RESEARCH, AND WIUTJNG "Marylnnd VQting,Systems Srudy." Dt=nber 2010. 'Prepared by Research Triangle International for the Maryland

Oep:u:tmcnt of ~ativeSUVU:e$. "Finrllngs an<l Reromlnend1.tio'Jlll for lnrcgr:tting GIS into the Oregon CcntJ.""JJVou:r Regisb'2tioo Sy~teol." M.~y

2P'l0:· \"Viti' Bryce tl..rtrcll,..lkn Mcl:ood, Anthony laccarino, Md Tim Flu. Submitted co the Division of ~lions, Stnte of0regon.

••the 2®8 E4:ction Day Survey." 2009. <::t:lall thoccd•ss pnn of:. subcontract ~;ith (he Resqrch Triangle lnslltute lltld theEAC.

2.9


A10116

"Oniformed and Oveana Citizens Ab.scntee Voting Ace UOCilVA Survey Report ·Findings." 2009. Coai.oiliored as partof,a subcooriii.Cr_to tbe Rcse-ll';h Tcianglc lnstiwtc and tbeEAC.

"'In~ l11.1p2ct of d)C National Voting Rcgisuatiou Act: A Rt:port to _tbc 111tb Con~ss::" 2()()9. Coauthored 'IS part of'1i subrontr.u:t to the Reseuch 'fdAngll: Jnttitute and the EAC.

ADDITIONAL WRITINGS AND RESEARCH ACTlVITIES

PAPERS UNDER Rl!vnl1V Witb Timothy Cook. "'The lnstirutions-Incumbent G-ap. Politkal Support for American.Govemment; 1992 and

2002." Whh Peter~ "Early Voting 3nd Turnout in Oregon: A Replication and Exrension."

With'Peter Miller. "Early Voting and Tum·out in Washington."

BLOCS, 0P· EDS, TSX'£ll001t WIUTING Bl gger, bup·/!etnyyq~'and lnq:>:/ldccqnnupdats:ll c~ltccb,cdu . Qngolng.

Textbook essays, "Applying the P.rinciplcs: Politics ln the tscws," . Sixteen dsay~'malyzing news stone; for-tbe-10"> edition o[Low~ G1nsbetg. 3nd Shcpslc Amrrita-~ Co«T1111Ulf'- New Yotk: W.W, NortOn, 2007.

Dook R<:vtcw. Dennis 'l11omspon, }liP EkrtiJJIIJ Co"grw mid 11/t PnJi:lilky• Textbook es~ys, "Applying tbe Five 'Principles ofl'oli~cs" Sixteen an•lytial essaya for the 9"' edition oflowj,

Gmsberg, o.ud Shepslc; Amuimn Gtltomtlf't~L New York: W.W. No.n:on. Surruner 2005. '£critbtlqk essays, "Behind thcliues: Uoder&ll>nding.the News." Sixteen ess.ays Qnaly.zlng news ~1.0ries for tbe 9'"

edition of Lowr. Giru~becg. 3nd'Shc'psle, A{fltrih:tr Cotmtmrlll. New_Yod<: W.W. N9rton. Summer 2()05.

OpEd, "'Electing to Chan£,oe·How We Vote; Usc of mail-in bal)ou; --howc:vercl)~ and convenient the)'- might becould erode democ:ratic choice.'' .l.JJ.t-Axgtlu Timt.r, Editoiia~ October 16, 2003.

!fe.xtbook essays, "Applying the Fwe Prlooples of Poilu~· aflcl "Beliind tlfe Iililes: Underst~ng tbe..News." Si.xtccn annlp'lcal essay: IIIId ~W<:II new-Roper· case studies foe the·811o edltion of Low~ Gmsbc:rg,<ind Shcprue, Ammmn G•t.mrmt~~l. Ne\v York: WW Norton. S~c 2003.

Book Review, Bartels, Larry and Lynn Vavreck (eds). Campaign &jomt. lnAmtritan PDiitkol Scim« &litO! 95(Df!l:_.m,ber 2001).

Book RevM:w, Krasno,John. Cho.Utlftps, Comj><tiii4n, and kkdio11. ln ~·llf,rw hlfi/<1/Jt PrtJ{illlf£1 1996 (Fall). "The NortonEection r>igest,» Pall1999- Novernbec2000. A "'!ccldy online·column on the politics of rhe 2WQ

election crunpaign, wciru:n in ron junction with obc W.W. Norton Arnerkan politics textbook and' onl1ne offerings. Avaibble at http;/ /www:vr~I)0(1t)n.com/e2000

Textbook esso.ys, "The lnremcl and Politics." 1999. A sc.ries of eig\n:een shon.essays foL We the PtJJjJit (\Vcir;Lowi, and Ginsberg. t.<ds). New York: W.W. Nocton.

''Polities In the News." l'all, 1998- ongoing A twiee weekly online analysis of·cutttnt -n~s stories, taken from the NY Tunes, and W.·uiburud with a brief comrnenl2J:y to American politics teachers and students: For W,W. Norton.

WORIING AND CONI'IDU!NCB PA.PJU!S {PAST PlVE YEAIIS) 2011. WithXambiz Gbane:illassin.·September, 2011 . ''Explaihiog American Anti Muslin) Opinion." Paper presented

a~ tbe "Muslims in the US andzwope: l$lamophobia. £ntegntil>n, Attitudes, and Rights." Indiana UniVersity, Bloomington, IN;

2011. With Darius ltejali and J~s Hicks. ''Explalning American Support for the usc of Torture." Paper presenred at tbe Annual Conference of tbe Inrem.atiohal Society for Political Psychology. btanbul, Turkey.

21)1 1. With James Hicks. "Bushy. Gore: A Critical Ju•lCtute ln Early Voting?" P«pet pn:sermd at "Bush v. Gore Tell Years After." Center f9r the Srudy ·or Dewo=cy. University ofCalifomil.1 Irvine, April 16-'17; 2Xli1 .

2009. With Ja~s !'licks. "Bady Voting: The Rbeoodc and The.Re2lity of.Eection Rtfoan?' Pgpe~ ~need at the Annualtmecting of tpc Midwe3t Politic:lllScience AsSQQ:Ition..


A10117

Political Science Association meeting. 20Q3. Invited Lecture: "Disdaining the Media~ Changing Amerii::an Attitudes Towanl the News." Univetsity ofWashington,

April2001. Participant, Cantigny Conference on Civil-Military Relations, Napervilie_IL, April200<1.:

.ALL C0LLEGE AND DEPAR'JJMENTAL LE,AI>El{SHJP POSITIONS Chnir, Dep=c'SelfSIUdy, DepirlinencofPoht!eal Science, 2010 12. Member, Dean's Search Committee, 2009-10.

Chair, Department of Political Science, Reed COllege (September 200.1-August 2004;January 2005-August 2007;July 2009-presctu).

Member (campus wide elective posidory),,G<immittee o·n Academic Plancing and Policy, 2006-2007. Chair, tenure track Environmental Politics·Search. 2009 /fO;visiting .1\nterican Politics:Search 2JJ06/7; tenure crack

IR/Comp~tive &an:~>, 2005/6; v;isiting·searches·(various<fii:lds) 2009/10, 2005/6; 2®3/4. Director, Reed'Public Policy WorllshoP.,.2001-2002; 2005-presen~ O~er and cooallnator; Ducey and Munk-Olltliog 'tn~noJlal Aff~ lecrure seties. 2002-2007

• :\L!Jb•}~~~. 2009-prescn~ Official Representative, lnte< UniversitY Consortium for Eoli cal and S<>dal Re~h, 2001-present. Elected member, Duke University Arts and 'Scie.oces Couru;il (1998.9)

arHER INSTITUTIONAL AND DBPARUWNT..U..~Cf[VITIES

Reed :>lumni donor development viSir:and.spe:~king engaw:menr, Redmond WA, April'21, 201:1.

Amanda Reed Lectuie, "Finding; Snow Wliite Among the Mg,ny Dwarves:'The Modem Presidential Nomination System." Reed College, Portlnnd, OR. Octobet 5, ~

Fosrer-Sc;holz Alumrti Lecturer, 2004 "Reed on the Road" Alumni speaker; Fall2004 (Chicago and Washington Dq. Invited speaker, Reed alumni boanl·national rneering. Fall'2004. Membet, Staff/Faculty Benefits Gommilt\lC (2011~12); Bmergency Response Tc:am Committee (2010·2011); Ad

Hoc €ommittee lo esmblish an P.nvlronmenl'lll Studies I!rogz#n at R.eed.C9Uege (20().4,.2006); R.etd College Gompuwd'olicy·Conuniike (2001-2004); Ree!d CoUege 1\tt: Management CQm.cnincc t200l-2()(W); Re«l CoUege Ad Hoc Ooe-Carrl .<tnfl!!Jli~c;e (200·1-2002).

,tdembet, .E>uke University Te2e.Hln Awards Commi11~ '(1998-2000) F culty Associate, Kilgo Quad ofDuke University (1~8-199~ . 1i;cn't Hall DonniU)ty {19:99.2000)

G11esr Lectu= on American Politics,. U:osei Univ~ry/Duke EJNhang<fProgtam (Su.nunen, 1995-1999). Guest Le<.rurer on An)erican Politi.c:S llhd.Campaigns,l'>llke University .Aiumni'Progrnm {1995·1 999). Faculty in Residence, Pegram Dormitory of Duke University (1995-8)

Member. Und~uate Affairs Committee (1992-4, 1999-2000).

DISCIPLINARY AND SCHOl.ARL'\iLEADERSHIP POSITIONS Member, Ad Hoc eo,.;minee on the Pubtc I!Jndencaniling ofPoutlbl Science, AtneriWII'olicic.U Science

Ass<>ci2tion, J.all ~11 -Spring ~\)12.

Coi.IJ'Icil membet, Western Polltlcnl S01.ence Assooi<ttio<~,--2008-2010 .. Secrion h~d, CoflliT'iunit;:lltion• ~ the :Mcaui. 2007 Ahnwl MeeW,g, Southern Political Scien<:e.l\ssoci~tion;

Elections, 2004 Annual Meeting, W'est~m Political ScienGC: Association. Member, "frus~~~nd Developrnem·COmmictEe, .1\.snerican Political Sdknce.As:sochliloo,Jan.UlU)' 2(\05-p~scn,r. Communicutloru Di=for and Col111Cu.Member.1 OrganiZed S<;ction On Eleg:ions,.)'ublie@puiiOn and Voting

~chavior, A!nerican 1'oUilcal Science Assoclarion. 2003·2bocs..

31


A10118

DATA-AND INFORMATION CONSIDERED

In forming my opinions, I considered national, state and county level voting data described in detail in my report. I also e_ensidered the curr~nt population surveys, voting research and publications identified in my report, the r~visions to the Florida Election Code concem:ing early voting at issqe in this case-(§ 101.657, Fla. Stat.) the State of Florida's Amended Complaint, information coneeming the Florida Election Code on the Florida Secretary of State's website, the Associated P..ress Elections Unit v,oting turnover reports, information provided oy Russell Weaver and Dr. Ch~trles Stewart and my own expertise in the fielcl'. 1l'e_serve the right to consider additional information concerning my opinions as it becomes available.


A10119

Jnternarional Journal o(Business and Social cience Vol. 3 No. 8 !Special issue - April 20121

Convenient Turnout: A Case Study of the Indiana Vote Center Pilot Program

Abstract

Steven R. Hall Ball State University

USA

Joseph Losco Ball State University

USA

Raymond Scheele Ball State University

USA

As academics have questioned the efficacy of convenience voting in increasing turnout, state legislatures and county election boards have responded by curtailing the availability of these innovations, particularly early voting. In the article, we contend that the combined use of vote centers, or super-precincts, with early voting offers a potential means of increasing voter turnout and the quality of the election experience while reducing the cost of elections at the same time. We present original data from the 2004 and 2008 elections consisting of a controlled comparison of three Indiana counties with vote centers and three using traditional precincts. Our findings of increased turnout in vote center counties, particularly among those who participate infrequently, are admittedly preliminary. However, because we also find that vote centers substantially reduce election costs, we contend that this issue merits examination.

Keywords: early voting, vote centers, convenience voting, turnout, election costs.

1. Introduction

In 2008, fully one third of the electorate cast ballots prior to Election Day. Convenience voting has become an important issue in literature on electoral institutions and political behavior, one that speaks to classic debates on the motivations behind political participation. Studies in this field have yielded mixed results about the efficacy of measures such as mail-in ballots, no-excuse early voting, and vote centers in affecting turnout and the composition of the electorate. Frequently, studies questioning turnout effects of convenience voting measures have concluded that they constitute a handout to the politically engaged. Academic ambivalence on the issue has a striking parallel in current policy debates on proposed convenience voting measure implementation. While some jurisdictions are striding forward, others cite cost, logistics, and efficacy in scaling these measures back.

In this paper, we consider the effects of the combination of early voting with the use of vote centers, or superprecincts that consolidate many smaller traditional precincts. Vote centers eliminate traditional polling locations and allow voters to cast their ballots at any of several locations within the county, giving them access to the franchise at locations close to where they work, live, attend school, or shop. Early voting is a key part of the vote center model as it reduces Election Day congestion at the polls. Indiana allowed three counties (Cass, Tippecanoe, Wayne) to use vote centers on a trial basis beginning in 2008. We compare changes in turnout from the 2004 to 2008 elections between these three counties and three similar counties that relied on traditional precincts (Blackford, Delaware, and Grant). Our preliminary evidence suggests that vote centers were associated with increased early voting and turnout. Further, we find that vote centers appear to have attracted infrequent voters, particularly through early voting.

Because vote centers are a relatively recent innovation, we do not have the luxury of observing several election cycles of data to determine whether the turnout increase is indeed transitory. Yet, our data show that vote centers combined with early voting 1) have the potential for attracting infrequent voters to the polling place, and 2) reduce the average cost per vote of election administration. Both of these results have important implications for policymakers seeking to lower election cost without sacrificing election turnout. The premature rejection of these forms of convenience voting risks civic harm. Simply stated, at least with regard to vote centers, it is too early to close the books on early voting. 304 Ang

Depoe

:w~/ :2 Rptr._ WYhOA!KWCOM


A10120

The Spec ial Issue on Humanities and Social Sc ience © Centre tOr Promoting Ideas. USA www.ijbssnet.com

2. Convenience voting: the literature and policy

Convenience voting has rapidly increased in recent years, taking a variety of forms including vote by mail, in person early voting, and absentee voting. Advocates of early voting hold that making the franchise more convenient reduces the costs associated with the act of voting and spurs turnout. Election administrators hold that many forms of convenience voting reduce the costs of holding elections and are a good bargain for taxpayers.

A substantial literature already exists regarding the impact of early voting on turnout. Early studies of vote by mail showed substantial increases in early adopting states like Oregon, Washington and California (Magleby, 1987; Southwell & Burchett, 2000). However, Gronke and Miller (2008) attribute these results to early novelty, finding that mail voting turnout declined significantly over time. With regard to absentee balloting, Oliver (1996) finds that liberalizing the rules to include no-excuse absentee voting increases turnout provided that there are concurrent party efforts to increase participation. Stein and Vonnahme (2008) investigated the use of non-precinct based vote centers in Colorado which permitted voters to cast ballots at any number of locations near to where they shop, work or live and found that vote centers marginally increased voting day turnout. However, in a review of the literature, Gronke et al. (2008) conclude that no-excuse absentee balloting, permanent absentee balloting, and early in-person voting have no effect on turnout; only voting by mail has a statistically significant positive impact. Similarly, Fitzgerald (2005) finds little evidence that convenience voting and measures that make registration easier increase turnout.

With regard to the identity of convenience voters, Jeffe and Jeffe (1990) found them to be politically engaged, conservative, and from upper socio-economic levels. Stein's study of exit poll data from the 1994 Texas gubernatorial race found early voters "demonstrated a greater interest in politics and stronger partisan and ideological ties than did election-day voters" (1998, p. 67). They were also less wealthy than their Election Day counterparts. Richardson and Neeley (1996) found that while early voting increased turnout in Tennessee elections surveyed, demographic differences between early voters and Election Day voters were slight but also varied from primary election to general election. A later study by the same authors (Neeley & Richardson, 2001) found few significant differences between Election Day voters and early voters. Several studies have found that vote by mail and absentee voters tend to be older and more highly educated (Berinsky, Burns, & Traugott, 2001; Karp & Banducci, 2000, 2001). Stein and Vonnahme (2008) found that the use of vote centers increased turnout among "unengaged" or less frequent voters. More recently, in a study of five hundred counties over nine election cycles Giammo and Brox (20 1 0) reported that early voting produces only minimal short term gains in voter turnout.

With regard to administrative costs of convenience voting, the literature is sparser. In their review of existing studies, Gronke, et al (2008) report that much of what is known exists outside academic journals in financial reports of election administrators. They cite an example from the Washington Secretary of State indicating that vote by mail reduces administrative costs over precinct voting from $8.10 per voter to $2.87. Overall, however, they conclude: "No academic studies that we are aware of have taken up the question of the costs of elections" (pp. 448-449). More recently, Hill (20 11) has examined voting costs in California, finding that early voting increases election costs.

The checkered data regarding turnout and the lack of data on cost make it practical to reject calls to forsake early voting through vote centers as a failed convenience voting experiment. The policy conclusions on convenience voting offered in the literature range from pessimism (e.g., Karp and Banducci (2000) declare voting only by mail not to be a panacea) to condemnation. Berinsky (2005) argues that convenience voting reforms predominantly benefit the politically engaged. Finding no increase in turnout from early vote measures, Giammo and Brox (2010) conclude counties should devote their resources to expanding election day access instead.

Ambivalence among the academic literature over the efficacy and social value of convenience voting (particularly, early voting and vote centers) has spread to policy community. While some areas have embraced convenience measures, others have rejected them and sought to retrench existing programs. Larimer County in Colorado became the first jurisdiction to use vote centers in 2003 and has been followed by Adams and Arapahoe. After the introduction of vote centers in the three Indiana counties for the general election in 2008, the legislature voted in 2011 to allow all counties to consolidate precincts. The use of vote centers has been proposed and is under consideration in Travis County, Texas and elsewhere.

305


A10121

International Journal o(Business and Social Science Vol. 3 No. 8 [Special issue- Apri/20121

However, vote centers have not been universally embraced. A proposal to use them in Guilford County, North Carolina in 2006 failed to gain sufficient support for implementation. The DC Board of Elections considered vote centers for the April 2011 special election but decided not to use them. More broadly, the Florida state legislature has voted to cut the early voting period from fourteen to eight days, citing costs to election boards. Similar measures have gained suppmt in Ohio and Wisconsin as legislators increasingly question the costs of providing convenient polling.

3. Is convenience voting really convenient?

Our concern with these pessimistic policy conclusions about early voting stems from the observation that the way it is typically measured in academic research, i.e. its statutory availability, may not truly capture the convenience of voting. While we acknowledge the well-known and inherent difficulties of measurement particularly of institutional features, there is tremendous variation in the ease and convenience of early voting among the jurisdictions that allow it. The confounding factor in the analysis of early voting is the location of the polling place. Early voting typically requires voters to travel to the seat of county government from their homes. Two innovations in polling locations enhance the appeal of early voting by providing more geographic opportunities. Satellite voting locations typically consist of a few polling stations located around the county where voters can submit ballots prior to Election Day. Vote centers, or super-precincts, replace traditional precincts altogether (both prior to and on Election Day) combining them into a smaller number of large centers, any of which a voter can choose.

Satellite locations and vote centers are similar in that both allow early in-person voting in locations other than the county seat. However, vote centers offer greater convenience for three reasons. First, vote centers offer clarity and eliminate potential confusion over polling locations as they replace precincts entirely, while satellite locations only operate early. Second, voters may choose any vote center in the county while individual satellite locations only have ballots for citizens from specified subdivisions (e.g., townships or contiguous precincts). Third, vote centers typically have more equipment and staff than satellite locations, reducing the time costs of voting.

The added flexibility of these arrangements reduces the effort and cost associated with voting. In particular, the addition of potential voting locations can reduce travel time. For example, prior to 2008, the main voting center in Lake County, Indiana required many early voters to travel as much as 45 minutes one way to cast a ballot. Also, counties requiring early voters to visit one central location see more congestion and delays with increased early voter turnout. In the 2008 election, Indiana counties that did not have vote centers reported significant wait times for early voters, as high as several hours in Marion and Hamilton counties (Kelly, 2008).

How might the use of vote centers affect the size and composition of the electorate? Regardless of the decisionmaking model one adopts to explain voter behavior, participating in elections requires voters to have information about polling locations, access to the polls, and time to reach them. By replacing the numerous traditional precincts with a few high profile locations which any voter can utilize, vote centers provide clarity for voters and expanded access to the polls. Through early voting, vote centers reduce congestion lowering the time required to vote. If these convenience factors matter to the electorate, we should expect greater turnout by groups who traditionally do not vote when vote centers are in use, as the marginal increases in convenience make voting more attractive. Moreover, we should expect that these voters should make use of convenience features like early voting. Hence, we suggest three hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: More votes will be cast early in vote center counties than in traditional precinct counties. Hypothesis 2: Vote center counties will have higher voter turnout than traditional precinct counties. Hypothesis 3: Vote center countries will draw greater numbers of new and formerly infrequent voters than traditional counties.

4. Analyzing the data from Indiana

To test these hypotheses, we consider a controlled comparison of data from six Indiana counties from the 2004 and 2008 general elections. Three of these counties (Cass, Tippecanoe, and Wayne) were selected by the Secretary of State to use vote centers in 2008 while the rest of the state used traditional precincts; all 92 counties allowed early voting. The comparison of turnout changes in these counties offers us something close to a natural experiment; changes in the competitiveness and effort in statewide elections are constant across vote center and non-vote center counties.

306


A10122

The Special Issue on Humanities and Social Science © Centre !Or Promoting Jdeas. USA www.ijbs net.com

While this comparison does offer something close to a natural experiment in that statewide election characteristics are constant between the two groups, the selection of the treatment (in this case, which counties used vote centers) was not random. A 2006 Indiana law allowed Secretary of State Todd Rokita to select three counties to participate in a vote center pilot program for the 2007 municipal and 2008 primary and general elections. Only two counties, Tippecanoe and Wayne, applied to participate and they were selected on the basis of an application that detailed their logistical plans for implementing the centers. 1 Cass County was later added after submitting such an application as well.

Although the program was not designed to change the size or composition of the electorate and none of these counties was identified as interested in generating greater turnout, any assessment of its results must account for the potential of selection bias. If covariates of turnout or any election specific turnout effects are correlated with the selection of vote center counties, the results of a turnout analysis will be biased. To counter potential bias, we select control counties using nearest neighbor matching based on a propensity score model. The model generates the scores based on demographic and socioeconomic characteristics associated with voter turnout (population, median household income, and percent of those above age 25 with college degrees) as well as predictors of an "Obama effect" (percent of population non-white, percent of population ages 18 to 24, and the percent of the 2004 votes cast for John Kerry).2 The three counties selected for comparison are Blackford, Delaware, and Grant. Their initial similarities with the vote center counties are noted in Table 1. We note also that our main findings are actually stronger when compared to the entire state of Indiana rather than just the three comparison counties.

TABLE 1. Demographic compal'isons ofvote center (VC) and control (C) counties Median Percent Percent over

2008 Percent Percent County household

ages non-voting for 25 with college

Population 18-24 white income Kerry (2004) degree

Cass (VC) 39,123 $39,593 8.7 3.4 29.7 7.1 Blackford (C) 13,599 $36,551 7.4 1.7 34.6 6.7

Tippecanoe (VC) 164,237 $40,036 25.4 9.6 39.3 18.1 Delaware (C) 117,797 $35,843 19.8 9.3 42.0 10.8

Wayne (VC) 67,795 $36,145 9.2 7.4 38.1 8.0 Grant (C) 70,798 $37,195 12.4 9.9 30.3 8.0

Because vote centers have only been used in one presidential election in Indiana (and only since 2003 in the US overall), we are prevented from using a randomized Iarge-N design that covers several many cycles. However, our data allows us unique perspective on who is voting. For each county, we construct measures of the voting tendencies of those participating in the 2008 election by aggregating individual level voting data. Our data include the complete Indiana voting histories of the voters in the 2008 general election for all six counties, enabling us to categorize those who voted by the frequency of their participation. 3

Additionally, within the Tippecanoe County data, we are able to distinguish between early and regular voters, allowing us to test more refined hypotheses about the effects convenience voting on turnout composition. Obviously, we would prefer to have similar data on the vote histories of early voters in each of our six counties including the non-vote center counties for comparison. However, such data were not available from these counties. Under ideal circumstances, we would prefer to combine individual vote history data with socioeconomic characteristics of the vote in order to engage in an individual level analysis. But, this data does not exist for the entire electorate. Nonetheless, the data allow us to make a contribution to the timely and important discussion about voting methods.

1 These applications are available at http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/3574.htm (as accessed December 1, 2011). 2 The data used to estimate this model are drawn from the US Census and the Indiana Secretary of State's reported election results. 3 To test the contention that the unique combination of early voting and vote centers produces these results, it would be preferable to have data on vote center and non-vote center counties both with and without early voting. In practice, this is impossible as no vote center counties operate without early voting.

307


A10123

International Journal o(Business and Social Science Vol. 3 No. 8 !Special Issue -April 20121

5. Findings Testing the first hypothesis, that vote centers will facilitate more early voting, is relatively straightforward. Table 2 compares the proportion of votes cast early between the two county groups (vote center counties and control counties) in the 2008 general election. On average, the percent of votes cast early in vote center counties was 33.9 percentage points higher than the control counties. This difference is not only statistically significant but also substantively large, demonstrating the appeal of the vote center model to voters. 4 Because all six counties allowed no-excuse, early, in-person voting, this demonstrates that the actual convenience of early voting varies dramatically with the method of implementation, in this case vote centers. The question then is whether this enhanced convenience actually increases voter turnout.

TABLE 2: Early votin!!' in control and vote center counties, 2008

Vote center county Proportion of votes

Control county Proportion of votes Difference (VC -

cast early cast early C) Cass 0.500 Blackford 0.216 .284 Tippecanoe 0.497 Delaware 0.148 .349 Wayne 0.599 Grant 0.215 .384 Difference of group means .339*** *** p<.01, t = 8.42, df= 4

We utilize a double difference method to assess the impact of vote centers on turnout. Following Giammo and Brox (2010), we compare across our county groups the changes in turnout between the 2004 and 2008 elections. We find that the Indiana vote center counties enjoyed larger gains in turnout than the control counties. In Table 3, we compare the gains in turnout of registered voters from 2004 to 2008. The increase in turnout for vote center counties was 9.3 percentage points higher for the vote center counties than for the control counties; this difference was statistically significant. In Table 4, we compare the gains in turnout measured as percentage of the voting age population. This increase in turnout was for vote center counties was 5.1 percentage points higher for the vote center counties than for the control counties; this difference was statistically significant. As the broad national political context and the socio-economic characteristics of the two county groups are constant in this comparison, this suggests that vote centers have a positive effect on voter turnout. This finding is consistent with Stein and Vonnahme (2008) regarding the impact of vote centers on turnout and with Oliver's (1996) finding that liberalization of absentee rules along with other facts can also increase turnout.

Assessing the substantive importance of these differences of this size is not necessarily straightforward. In the model of turnout estimated by Giammo and Brox (20 1 0), a change of roughly 2.5 percentage points constitutes one standard deviation. Using this metric, vote center counties saw increases in registered voter turnout greater than control counties by nearly four standard deviations. The increases in turnout of voting age population were greater for vote center counties by roughly two standard deviations.

TABLE 3: Change in turnout of registered voters from 2004 to 2008

Vote center county Percentage gain Control county Percentage gain Difference (VC -C)

Cass 0.150 Blackford 0.004 .146 Tippecanoe 0.011 Delaware 0.003 .008 Wayne 0.099 Grant -0.027 .125 Difference of group means .093* * p<.1 , t = 2.23, df= 4, one-tailed

TABLE 4: Change in turnout of voting age po mlation from 2004 to 2008 Vote center county Percentage gain Control county Percentage gain Difference (VC - C) Cass 0.063 Blackford 0.016 .047 Tippecanoe 0.099 Delaware 0.032 .067 Wayne 0.025 Grant -0.013 .038 Difference of group_ means .051 * * p<.1, t = 2.20, df = 4, one-tailed

4 This gap widens when we compare the voter center counties to all of the other counties in Indiana. 308


Moritz College of Law · Political Science, with honors, Phi Bela Kappa BMPLO~_N:r. 3203...

Documents

Transcript of Moritz College of Law · Political Science, with honors, Phi Bela Kappa BMPLO~_N:r. 3203...