Voter Confidence in 2010: Voter Identification, Perceptions of Fraud, Winning and Losing and the Voter Experience

Over the last decade, scholars of American politics have invested research time and effort into the study of election administration and election performance. These include studies onresidual vote analysis (Wand et al 2001; Ansolabhere and Stewart 2005; Mebane 2004), election auditing (Atkeson, Alvarez and Hall 2009; Ansolabehere and Reeves 2004), the role of pollworkers (Hall, Monston and Patterson; Clausen et al, Atkeson et al 2009), the role of technology (Tomz and Van Howling 2003; Avarez and Hall 2004; Stein et al 2008; Knack and Kropf 2003;Kimball and Kropf 2005, 2008), provisional votes (Atkeson, Alvarez and Hall 2009; Alvarez and Hall 2009; Pitts and Neuman 2009; Kimball and Foley 2009), voter identification (Pitts andNeuman 2009; Atkeson et al 2010, Ansolabehere 2009; Cobb, Greiner, and Quinn 2010), and voter confidence (Bullock, Hood 2005; Atkeson and Saunders 2007; Alvarez, Hall andLlewellyn 2008; Murphy, Johnson and Bowler 2010; Magleby et al 2010) among others. These studies have been in direct response to the presidential election meltdown in 2000, which for thepublic focused largely on Florida, but was also seen in other states, especially those where the race was very close, including New Mexico and Ohio (Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project,2001; Atkeson and Tafoya 2005). This work has been highly productive creating new linkages between political scientists, local election officials, and legal professional to create a data drivenapproach to election reform and a push to improve and modernize the local election systems across the nation (Gerken 2009; Atkeson et al 2010, 2011; Alvarez et al 2009)

Auditing the Election Ecosystem

Election administration is a highly complex process that involves multiple actors all working to achieve the goal of running an effective election. One critical technique for gathering the performance data needed to improve election management is through comprehensive evaluations, which we refer to as election ecosystem audits (EEA). These audits are evaluations of an election from start to finish. Accomplishing this goal requires election officials coordinating the efforts of contractors—from ballot printers to voting machine companies—third parties, like the US Postal Service who transport absentee ballots and the entities who agree to house polling places, and the poll workers who actually implement the election at the polls. Managing this vast enterprise requires election officials to evaluate their election activities so that they can improve the implementation of the process over time

Who Asks For Voter Identification? Explaining Poll-Worker Discretion

As street-level bureaucrats, poll workers bear the primary responsibility for implementing voter identification requirements. Voter identification requirements are not implemented equally across groups of voters, and poll workers exercise substantial discretion in how they apply election law. In states with minimal and varying identification requirements, poll workers appear to treat especially minority voters differently, requesting more stringent voter identification. We explain why poll workers are different from other street-level bureaucrats and how traditional mechanisms of control have little impact on limiting poll-worker discretion. We test why many poll workers appear not to follow the law using a post-election survey of New Mexico poll workers. We find little evidence that race, training, or partisanship matters. Instead, poll worker attitudes toward photo-identification policies and their educational attainment influences implementation of voter-identification laws

The Balance Between Preventing Fraud and Ensuring Participation: Attitudes Towards Voter Identification in New Mexico

This paper examines public opinion on the effectiveness and consequences of voter identification laws in New Mexico. In particular, it focuses on the attitudes central to the court reasoning in the 2008 Supreme Court case which upheld an Indiana photo-ID law, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. Questions include whether or not voters think the ID laws protect against fraud and prevent legitimate participation, as well as which point of view voters find more compelling and whether or not attitudes towards voter identification are related to voter confidence. While most voters think that voter ID laws prevent fraud, many voters think that ensuring access to the polls is more important than preventing fraud. Among other variables that explain differences among individuals, partisanship plays an important role.Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Projec

Poll workers rely on their own attitudes and beliefs to determine how to apply voter ID laws

There has been much debate recently over the role of voter identification (ID) laws in affecting election turnout, particularly among minority groups. While much of the discussion has focused on the laws themselves, in new research, Lonna Rae Atkeson, Yann P. Kerevel, R. Michael Alvarez, and Thad E. Hall examine the role that poll workers play in applying these laws. Through a survey of poll workers, they find that whether or not they support voter photo identification influences if they ask for photo identification correctly. They also find that while more highly educated poll workers are less likely to ask for photo identification, better training does not overcome the desire among less educated poll workers to implement voter ID laws in the way that they desire

New Barriers to Participation: Application of New Mexico's Voter Identification Law

In democratic societies there is a tension between maximizing ballot access and minimizing voter fraud. Since the 2000 presidential election, this tension has been central to discussions about election reform, at the national and local level. We examine this tension by focusing on the implementation of voter identification laws in one state that has experienced significant issues in recent elections, and that is now implementing significant attempts at election reform: New Mexico. We hypothesized that Hispanic voters were more likely to show some form of identification than other types of voters. Using a voter data set from New Mexico’s First Congressional District in the 2006 election, we find that Hispanic, male and Election Day voters were more likely to show some form of identification than non-Hispanic, female and early voters. In addition, using an overlapping study of Bernalillo County 2006 poll workers, we find no evidence that certain groups of poll workers were more likely to ask for voter identification. Our findings suggest that broad voter identification laws, which may be applied unequally, may be perceived as discriminatory

The effects of centralising electoral management board design

The public administration of elections frequently fails. Variation in the performance of electoral management boards around the world has been demonstrated, illustrated by delays in the count, inaccurate or incomplete voter registers, or severe queues at polling stations. Centralising the management of the electoral process has often been proposed as a solution. There has been little theorisation and no empirical investigations into the effects that centralising an already decentralised system would have, however. This article addresses this lacuna by conceptualising centralisation through the literature on bureaucratic control and discretion. It then empirically investigates the effects through a case study of centralisation in two UK referendums. Semi-structured interviews were used with those who devised the policy instrument and those who were subject to it. The introduction of central directions had some of the desired effects such as producing more consistent services and eliminating errors. It also had side effects, however, such as reducing economic efficiency in some areas and overlooking local knowledge. Furthermore, the reforms caused a decline of staff morale, job satisfaction and souring of relations among stakeholder organisations. The process of making organisational change therefore warrants closer attention by policy makers and future scholarship on electoral integrity

Dynamic Responsiveness in the U.S. Senate

I develop a theory of dynamic responsiveness that suggests that parties that win elections choose candidates who are more extreme and parties that lose elections choose candidates who are more moderate. Moreover, the size of past victories matters. Close elections yield little change, but landslides yield larger changes in the candidates offered by both parties. I test this theory by analyzing the relationship between Republican vote share in U.S. Senate elections and the ideology of candidates offered in the subsequent election. The results show that Republican (Democratic) victories in past elections yield candidates who are more (less) conservative in subsequent elections, and the effect is proportional to the margin of victory. This suggests that parties or candidates pay attention to past election returns. One major implication is that parties may remain polarized in spite of their responsiveness to the median voter