A Response to Paul Gronke's blog, "Measuring Turnout Effects of Vote by Mail in California"

Abstract

THE CALIFORNIA Journal of Politics & Policy Commentary A Response to Paul Gronke’s blog, “Measuring Turnout Effects of Vote by Mail in California” Mark DiCamillo* The Field Poll I read Professor Paul Gronke’s critique of a recent article of mine, “The Continuing Growth of Mail Ballot Voting in California in 2008,” published in the California Journal for Politics & Policy (Volume 1, Issue 1) and feel compelled to respond. Gronke’s critique was posted on the Election Updates blog, of which he is a collaborator . In his critique Gronke asserts there are two problems with the analysis presented in my article. The first relates www.bepress.com/cjpp Volume 1, Issue 1, 2009 to the relationship between the recent acceleration in the rate of mail ballot voting in California and the recent rebound in voter turnout in California between the 2000 and 2008 presidential elections. The second has to do with the significance of the higher turnout rate of voters who were sent mail ballots in the 2008 presidential election compared to those who were not. It is curious that Gronke’s critique fails to discuss the central thesis of the paper; i.e., that the introduction of permanent mail ballot registration in 2001 and its rapid growth has been a primary driver of the accelerated use of mail ballot voting in California over the past eight years. Let me respond to Gronke by first taking issue with his assertion that there is no significance to the fact that California registered voters who were sent a mail ballot in the 2008 presidential election voted at a significantly higher rate than other registrants not receiving a mail ballot. In that election about 5.7 million of the approximately 6.7 * Mark DiCamillo is director of The Field Poll.