Early voting in the 2004 presidential election

The addition of early voting laws has led to the many changes in the US political system. In this dissertation I examine early voting early voting in a number of different contexts. First, how early voting fits in with the larger issue of voter turnout in the U.S. Second, why some states have early voting policies and other states choose to not have those policies. Third, how state-level political parties view the option to cast an early vote. Fourth, the differences between early voters, election day voters, and non-voters. Fifth, what are the determents of casting an early ballot. Sixth, do early voting laws lead to more electoral participation. My findings suggest that early voting does not significantly change the way in which state-level political parties get people to the polls, early voters are different from election day voters, and that early voting policies significantly increase overall participation by 2% points. Early voting changes the way citizens participate in elections and this dissertation provides an early view of how this new mode of participation changes the political behavior in different electoral area

Implementation of Early Voting

We examine the early voting process in Tennessee during the election of 1994. By conducting a mail survey of all 95 county registrars, we ascertained the methods and costs of early voting implementation. Generally, the survey reveals a strong belief that early voting encourages greater participation by voters, with turnout data supporting this belief. We find that the ballot type and location of early voting sites play an important role in determining both the costs of early voting and the rate of voter participation

A Constitutional Right to Early Voting

Voting is a cost-benefit decision. Individuals are more likely to vote if the benefits of doing so outweigh the disadvantages. With early voting laws eased due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2020 election demonstrated that turnout increases when elected officials reduce voting costs. Despite all the benefits of early voting, there is no constitutional right, and it remains a privilege that state legislatures can revoke at will. Since the 2020 election, state legislatures have proposed—and enacted—hundreds of bills to change voting rules. But with the intense partisan disagreement over voting, coupled with political polarization reaching an apex, these acts restricting early voting not only impact turnout, in general, but also have a more profound effect among women and people of color. While other scholarship has examined the effects of early voting regulations and called for laws to protect early voting, this Article contends that the right to vote should include a constitutional right to early voting—especially as more citizens are casting ballots before the prescribed day

The 1980s Republican roots of Hillary Clinton’s early voting strategy

Despite extensive coverage of early voting as a campaign tool this election cycle, it is not a wholly new phenomenon. In fact, the Clinton campaign’s exploitation of early voting as a part of her ground game has roots in similar efforts by Republican candidates during the 1980s. As Mara Suttmann-Lea explains, candidates can – and do – exploit early voting to their advantage, as it can enable them to more strategic with often limited campaign resources

Early Voting Methods and the Impact on Voter Turnout

In 2004, over 27 million Americans voted prior to Election Day through early voting policies that exist in the United States. One of the most discussed questions is whether early voting has an effect on voter turnout. In this analysis, I will review the voter turnout of states during the 2008 and 2010 election years. By executing this analysis, I hope to determine if these policies affect voter turnout. The implications of this analysis are useful for informing state decisions regarding voting procedures and can assist the other states in determining if these polices, and similar methods in the future, are making voting more convenient, thus increasing voter turnout. The analysis finds that certain policies influence voter turnout for the 2008 election year,. The analysis demonstrate s that states classified with “early voting” policies has a negative statistically significant impact on voter participation in the election. After running the 2008 data, I run the same analysis on data for the 2010 election. For the 2010 election year, the analysis found that policies influenced voter turnout. The analysis demonstrated classification of “ early voting” policies have a negative statistical significant impact on the voter participation in the election. However, “voting by mail” has a positive statistical impact on voter turnout. Overall, this study utilized state early voting policy and voter turnout data to determine that there is both a positive and negative statically significant relationship between the type of early voting method policy and voter participation. These findings can assist states in future decisions regarding early voting policy reform

America Goes to the Polls 2012: A Report on Voter Turnout in the 2012 Election

All 50 states have certified their results. The 2012 presidential election is officially in the books. The election survived Hurricane Sandy and a blizzard of proposed or enacted state level changes in voting procedures. An estimated 58.7% of eligible voters turned out to vote, below 2008's benchmark high but still above most presidential elections of the last 40 years in spite of a steep drop off in turnout in hurricane-impacted New York and New Jersey.Minnesota first in turnout, Hawaii last* Minnesota was number one in the country in voter turnout asit has been for eight of the last nine national elections Wisconsin came in 2nd with Colorado rising to 3rd.* The nation's most populous states -- California (41st), New York (44th) and Texas(48th) -- ranked in the bottom ten, dragging down national turnout.Swing States and Election Day registration states are highest in turnout* Seven of the top ten turnoutstates had Election Day registration orswing state status or both.* In 2012 voter turnout in states with Election Day registration -- where voters can register or update their registration on Election Day -- was 12 points higher than in those without that option, a turnout advantage consistent over the last six national elections.* Voter turnout in the ten swing states most targeted by campaigns was 65%,seven points higher than in non-swingstates, which had an average turnout of 58%.Presidential campaigns target just 10 states, ignore the other 40* 96% of the spending on television ads between April 11th and November 6th by presidential campaigns and allied groups went to ten battleground states.* Nearly six times as much ad money was spent in Florida alone than was spent in the 40 non-swing states and DC.* 99% of campaigns stops by the presidential or vice presidential candidates were in these states.Voters continue to embrace Early Voting* National polls showed 33-40% of voters voted early in-person or by mail, up from 31% in 2008 and 23% in 2004.* The rise in early voting came despite reductionsin early voting hoursin Florida and Ohio. Fewer early voting hours contributed to 225,000 fewer voters in Florida taking advantage of in-person early voting and long lines at the polls on Election Day.Youth turnout grows in size and diversity* Young voters ages 18-29 surprised observers by increasing theirshare of national voter turnout from 18% to 19%.* The percent of eligible young voters whose ethnicity is Latino, black or other than non-Hispanic white grew to 42% last year. In comparison, the same population 30 and over formed a 24% share of the vote.For the first time one in ten voters were Latino* 10 percent of the electorate turning out to vote was Hispanic. That figure was even higher in some western states, including the battleground states of Colorado (14%) and Nevada (18%).* Latinos will account for 40% of the growth in the eligible electorate in the U.S. between now and 2030, doubling in size.* Black voters were 13% of the electorate and their turnout rate may have exceeded that of whites forthe first time in 2012

Early Voting in Tennessee: Removing Barriers to Participation

In 1994. the Tennessee General Assembly mandated a new early voting system that allowed voters to cast a ballot in a two-week period prior to any election. Unlike absentee balloting, which requires registrants to justify why they cannot participate on election day, early voting is available to any registered voter who chooses to do so. By enacting early voting in Tennessee, the state legislature hoped to achieve increased turnout and easier access for citizens unable to vote at a regular polling site on election day. The purpose of this chapter is to ascertain whether the program was able to increase access for senior citizens and other citizens disadvantaged by a single election day voting period. Using county level-census data and voting returns from the 1996 election in Tennessee, we examine early voting participation by different socioeconomic groups

Administration of Absentee Ballot Programs

1. Americans cast their ballots in three main ways: at a traditional neighborhood polling place on election day; early, in person at a government office or voting center; and absentee, which is usually submitted early by mail. The proportion of all ballots cast by the latter two methods continues to rise steadily. 2. The introduction and expanded use of convenience (absentee and early) voting does not seem to have increased voter turnout. 3. Because they generally take place before election day, both absentee and early voting complicate late changes in ballots. 4. Compared with traditional and early voting, absentee voting results in more lost votes. It is more susceptible to two types of problems for voters and officials: errors that result in higher ballot rejection rates and less security in the voting process. To minimize these concerns, we recommend early voting as a preferable way to increase voter convenience. 5. In many cases, absentee-voting rule changes that might reduce one problem arguably exacerbate the other, so there is no clear optimal set of procedures for absentee voting in regard to such matters as submission deadlines or voter validation methods. 6. Some standardization in absentee-voting rules, however, should be relatively uncontroversial. We conclude with several suggestions for best practices. Facilitate fast delivery of absentee requests by offering many means for making requests. Provide postage for returning absentee ballots by mail, and cautiously consider other means for transmitting absentee ballots. Favor traditional election day voting over early voting, and prioritize early voting over absentee voting. Encourage voters to check the status of their absentee ballots before election day. Avoid counting ballots before election day

421— Examining Statewide Participation in Early Voting Regulations

This research seeks to explain the variance across the federal system in regards to a states choice to adopt early voting regulations. An analysis of the impact of COVID-19 on early voting was also done to display its impact on the 2020 election cycle

When Time Isn‘t Money: An Analysis of Early Voting and Campaign Spending

In an October 1, 2008, Washington Post piece titled, "Nov. 4 Isn‘t the Only Election Day; Campaigns Adjust as Early Voting Rises," Mary Pat Flaherty outlines the tactics major party presidential campaigns use to win over "electoral gold"—the "early voters" who take advantage of laws in thirty-six states allowing them to vote before Election Day. In some states, a majority of voters now cast their ballots before Election Day, and media reports like Flaherty‘s suggest campaigns have adjusted to the increasingly large number of early voters. They use specially targeted ads and get-out-the-vote operations to reach voters who might vote early. Scholars, however, have yet to adjust their work to incorporate these changes in campaign practices. While there is a large body of literature exploring the changes in turnout and electoral demographics due to early voting, there is almost no research examining the role of early voting in campaign behavior. This appears particularly important for scholars examining the role of campaign expenditures on electoral outcomes. Existing work simply does not account for a world in which a large number of voters have cast their ballots before campaigns have spent 100 percent of their funds. This study begins to fill that gap by demonstrating that candidates do spend money earlier in states with early voting and offering evidence to suggest this early spending may not necessarily give candidates an electoral advantage. The first finding helps to validate the claims made by campaign experts and news media about the impact of early voting on campaigns. The second finding can guide the spending of campaigns in states where there is early voting and candidates may be tempted to spend their funds early. Together, they challenge the academic literature to account for the growing role of early voters