Mail-in Voting Research Articles

Measuring postal access and direct delivery services among Native American reservations in Montana and South Dakota

ABSTRACT Over the past two decades voting by mail has increased. As the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the 2020 political season, absentee voting increased to over 43% of all votes cast in the November Presidential Election. In recent years, many states have passed laws to limit the scope of absentee voting as necessary to curtail voter fraud. Though no evidence exists that fraud is more likely with mail-in voting, such laws have been found to have a disproportionate impact on some groups of voters more than others. This is true of many Native American communities that often rely on absentee voting. This study will utilize geospatial methods to examine postal realities for Native American on reservations in Montana and South Dakota. By illustrating where postal services are or are not located, a fuller contextual analysis of the issue can be provided. Such methods can enhance current methodologies utilized by political geographers.

The Trump Effect? Right-Wing Populism and Distrust in Voting by Mail in Canada.

Do Donald Trump's attacks on voting by mail influence how some Canadians view mail-in ballots? The Trump effect on views and behaviors surrounding voting by mail has been well documented in the United States. North of the border, more Canadians than ever voted by mail in the last general election. In this study, we consider how right-wing populism is associated with trust in voting by mail among Canadians. Specifically, we seek to test two main hypotheses. First, we consider whether Canadians holding populist views-and, in particular, those holding right-wing populist views (would-be Trump supporters)-are less trusting of voting by mail. Second, we consider whether political media exposure amplifies this association. We analyze data from both the 2021 Canadian Election Study and Democracy Checkup Survey. We find that those who hold populist views clearly have less trust in voting by mail. This is especially true among right-leaning individuals. Furthermore, as in the United States, this effect is moderated by one's level of political media exposure, with higher levels of political media exposure amplifying the effect of populist views on trust in voting by mail. Our findings, therefore, suggest that the politicization of mail-in voting by President Trump has important implications for the legitimacy of the electoral system not only in the United States, but also in Canada and potentially in other parts of the world.

Identifying the Effect of Election Closeness on Voter Turnout: Evidence from Swiss Referenda

Abstract We provide evidence of a causal effect of anticipated election closeness on voter turnout, exploiting the precise day-level timing of the release of Swiss national poll results for high-stakes federal referenda, and a novel dataset on daily mail-in voting for the canton of Geneva. Using an event study design, we find that the release of a closer poll causes voter turnout to sharply rise immediately after poll release, with no differential pre-release turnout levels or trends. We provide evidence that polls affect turnout by providing information shaping beliefs about closeness. The effects of close polls are the largest where newspapers report on them most; and, the introduction of polls had significantly larger effects in politically unrepresentative municipalities, where locally available signals of closeness are less correlated with national closeness. We then provide evidence that the effect of close polls is heterogeneous, with an asymmetric effect leading to a higher vote share for the underdog. The effect sizes we estimate are large enough to flip high-stakes election outcomes under plausible counterfactual scenarios.

Save Your Rights: How Florida and Other States Have Targeted Voting Access Following the 2020 Election

Following the 2020 general election, Florida’s Republican led legislature introduced Senate Bill 90 (“S.B. 90”), which seeks to put many restrictions on various aspects of the voting process. S.B. 90 limits ballot drop-off boxes, restricts mail-in voting, proscribes “line-warming,” increases registration difficulty, and expands identification requirements. Despite lauding Florida’s election as a gold standard for the rest of the country, Governor Ron DeSantis approved this bill in May of 2021, explaining that Florida should not become complacent despite its success. The Republican Governor approved this law against the backdrop of record voter turnout for Black and Latino voters and record mail-in voting by Democrats. Florida Rising Together, a grassroots organization working alongside other similar organizations, has filed suit against the State of Florida. Florida Rising Together’s suit alleges that this law intends to discriminate against Black, Latino, and elderly Florida voters by suppressing their vote. Florida Rising Together sought to introduce three professors from University of Florida as expert witnesses in their case against Florida. In response, the university—a public institution and organ of the Florida State government—barred all three professors from serving as expert witnesses for a party adverse to the State’s interests. While unprecedented, experts assert that the university’s conduct implicates violations of the professors’ First Amendment rights, despite any likelihood of a conflict of interest existing between them and their employer. By using the Pickering balancing test, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida should find that any conflict of interest the professors’ expert testimony may create in their relationship as state employees is far outweighed by the professors’ interest, as citizens, to comment upon matters of public concern—whether Florida’s newly implemented law violates the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. Furthermore, Florida Rising Together (“Florida Rising”) should bring a Section 1985 claim against University of Florida officials for intimidating witnesses in a civil rights case.

Investigating coordinated account creation using burst detection and network analysis

Democracies around the world face the threat of manipulation of their electorates via coordinated online influence campaigns. Researchers have responded by developing valuable methods for finding automated accounts and identifying false information, but these valiant efforts often fall into a cat-and-mouse game with perpetrators who constantly change their behavior. This has forced several researchers to go beyond the detection of individual malicious actors by instead identifying the coordinated activity that propels potent information operations. In this vein, we provide rigorous quantitative evidence for the notion that sudden increases in Twitter account creations may provide early warnings of online information operations. Analysis of fourteen months of tweets discussing the 2020 U.S. elections revealed that accounts created during bursts exhibited more similar behavior, showed more agreement on mail-in voting and mask wearing, and were more likely to be bots and share links to low-credibility sites. In concert with other techniques for detecting nefarious activity, social media platforms could temporarily limit the influence of accounts created during these bursts. Given the advantages of combining multiple anti-misinformation methods, we join others in presenting a case for the need to develop more integrable methods for countering online influence campaigns.

Making the Vote (In)Accessible: Election Administration Laws and Turnout Among People with Disabilities

ABSTRACT Approximately 12.7% of Americans are considered to have a disability. Yet, despite belonging to a potentially significant voting bloc, people with disabilities report high rates of abstention from voting. Prior research examining difficulties those with disabilities can have in casting a ballot find that convenience voting reforms, such as mail-in voting rules, may increase the likelihood that an individual with a disability reports voting. States offer a variety of methods in which voters may cast a mail-in ballot and they vary in restrictiveness, raising the question of how these election administration laws affect turnout rates among people with disabilities. We examine the effects of state election administration laws on voter turnout at the state and individual levels for people with disabilities and compare them to their effects on the non-disabled population for the years 2008–2020. We find that convenience voting reforms such as same-day registration and election-day registration boost turnout for both populations by similar magnitudes while all mail elections decrease the turnout gap between people with disabilities and the non-disabled. We also find that strict photo identification laws have disparate effects on people with disabilities, similar to prior findings on marginalized groups.

Barriers to Voting for Disabled Americans

Disabled Americans face many barriers when it comes to voting, which is reflected in their lower voter turnout. This article examines past barriers along with the changes in accessibility that occurred due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Physical barriers include inaccessibility at polling locations, such as a lack of ramps and audio-equipped voting machines. A lack of privacy for disabled voters also dissuades them from voting. Disabled people have also been psychologically discouraged from voting by both consistent inaccessibility and the lack of government attention to this inaccessibility. Further, disabled people who are considered high-risk for COVID-19 were less likely to vote in person due to concerns about contracting the virus. However, the widespread availability of mail-in ballots increased disabled voter turnout as compared to previous years. This did not close the turnout gap between disabled and abled voters, but did shrink it. In order to address the barriers faced by disabled people when it comes to voting, the existing literature recommends an expansion of mail in voting, increased accessibility at polling locations, and updated federal guidelines on accessibility.

Corporal and Cognizant Barriers to Voting: the Impact of COVID-19 on the 2020 Election Season in St. Louis

In 2020, two key elections in St. Louis, Missouri, took place in the midst of the intertwined pandemics of COVID-19 and racialized violence. Local community leaders in St. Louis emphasized a need to mobilize voters, particularly in communities of color, to engage in the elections in August and November 2020 as a tool for advancing health and racial equity. COVID-19 created a new set of barriers to voting. This study documents two typologies of challenges that organizers faced in their efforts to mobilize voters and increase participation in the election. The first is corporal — the use of one’s physical body and the risk within. The second is cognizant — the regulatory proficiency needed to navigate the shifting rules of the voting process. In this study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of twenty-eight mobilizers working within low-income, poverty-impacted neighborhoods in St. Louis City and St. Louis County, which disproportionately consist of residents of color. Findings suggest COVID-19 created additional unforeseen barriers to voting. Corporal: Local ordinances that mandated limited in person gatherings and social distancing were serious obstacles to traditional voter mobilization efforts and created trepidation about in-person voting for fear of being exposed to the virus. Cognizant: The state of Missouri in an effort to address some of the public health concerns created additional rules for absentee or mail-in voting for limited populations with a complicated set of rules that confused mobilizers and voters.

Vote-by-mail Ballot Rejection and Experience with Mail-in Voting

Although most ballots in the United States have historically been cast in-person, Americans are increasingly voting by mail, a trend that accelerated in the 2020 General Election. Mail ballots can be rejected after being cast, and our analysis of the Florida general elections of 2016, 2018, and 2020 shows that voters inexperienced with mail voting disproportionately submit ballots that end up rejected due to (1) late arrival at elections offices or (2) signature defects on return envelopes. Inexperienced mail voters are up to three times more likely to have their ballots rejected compared to experienced mail voters, and this inexperience penalty varies by a voter’s party registration, race/ethnicity, and age. Our findings hold when controlling for additional voter characteristics and geographical fixed effects. The effect of inexperience on the likelihood of vote-by-mail ballot rejection risks exacerbating existing inequities in political representation already faced by younger and racial/ethnic minority voters.

Is Distance to Drop Box an Appropriate Proxy for Drop Box Treatment? A Case Study of Washington State

In the United States, drop box mail-in voting has increased, particularly in the all vote by mail (VBM) states of Washington, Colorado, Utah, and Oregon. To assess if drop boxes improve voter turnout, research proxies box treatment by voters’ residence distance to nearest drop box. However, no research has tested the assumption that voters use drop boxes nearest their residence more so than they do other drop boxes. Using individual-level voter data from a 2020 Washington State election, we show that voters are more likely to use the nearest drop box to their residence relative to other drop boxes. In Washington’s 2020 August primary, 52% of drop box voters in our data used their nearest drop box. Moreover, those who either (1) vote by mail, or (2) used a different drop box from the one closest to their residence live further away from their closest drop box. Implications are discussed.

Federalism at a partisan’s convenience: public opinion on federal intervention in 2020 election policy

ABSTRACT President Trump’s rhetoric casting doubt on the integrity of mail-in voting ignited debates about whether the federal government should be allowed to intervene in states’ policy decisions regarding how elections are conducted. This study examines public opinion on rhetorical threats by the Trump Administration to block the expansion of states’ vote-by-mail policies and potentially delay the November 2020 election. In an online survey experiment, respondents were randomly assigned to receive information regarding the traditional role of states in administering U.S. federal elections and more or less salient partisan cues. Even though the information treatment was successful in informing respondents about intergovernmental control and reducing partisan gaps in knowledge, it had only a modest impact on attitudes. Preferences about which level of government should be in charge are malleable, subject to partisan and context-specific considerations.

Access to Secure Ballot Drop-off Locations in Texas

Safe access to voting during the Covid-19 pandemic was a concern across the US. In Texas, a push for mail-in voting during the November 2020 presidential election was significantly scaled back when the governor restricted each county to one secure ballot drop-off location. We evaluate the effect of this change, finding that it increased travel times to drop-off locations for drivers and public transit users by 18 and 32 minutes, respectively, in the most affected county. When evaluated across the state, the policy had a disproportionate effect on eligible Asian, Black, and Latinx voters.

A Pandemic Federal Election

While Canada’s next fixed date federal election is scheduled for October 2023, one of the consequences of the current minority Parliament elected in 2019 is that a new election could be called at any moment. It is therefore possible that the next federal election will occur while COVID-19 is still a pressing risk to public health. In April 2020, Elections Canada issued a remarkable statement in anticipation of a federal election in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. Elections Canada communicated that it might not be able to administer elections in all ridings due to the ongoing public health emergency. In such circumstances, Elections Canada would certify to the Governor General in Council that the writ of election, the legal mechanism for instituting a vote in each of the 338 federal ridings, should be withdrawn. This statement highlighted the difficult decisions facing democracies with upcoming elections in the face of a pandemic caused by a highly transmissible virus. This article assesses the main legal issues raised by the prospect of conducting a federal election in Canada during the pandemic. Building on the experiences in other countries and in the Canadian jurisdictions that have held pandemic elections, I argue for new measures to ensure access to the fundamental right to vote in the face of the pandemic. These reforms include measures at polling stations to ensure public health, the expansion of advance voting, and for rules for mail-in voting that maximize access. Section III summarizes and analyzes the current options for casting a ballot in federal elections.The section argues that reforms are necessary in light of the pandemic. Section IV addresses in-person voting during a pandemic. It discusses in particular changes within polling stations to adapt to the pandemic and the expansion of early voting opportunities. Section V analyzes the pressing topic of mail-in voting. It summarizes what we know about public attitudes to mail-in voting during the pandemic, canvasses models for voting by mail in other jurisdictions, and assesses the deficiencies in the current framework in the Canada Elections Act. I argue that the existing system for voting by mail appears likely to be inadequate if used on a much wider scale than in previous elections, when few votes were cast in that fashion. Voter education should be a priority to maximize the chances that Canadians who intend to cast their ballots by mail will follow the proper procedures and, therefore, have their votes counted. Legislative reforms are also needed, however, to ensure that all ballots received within a reasonable timeframe are counted. The bill before the House that would amend the Elections Act in response to the pandemic does not, in my view, go far enough in updating the legal framework for voting by mail.

Determinants of Rejected Mail Ballots in Georgia’s 2018 General Election

Because of the COVID-19 threat to in-person voting in the November 2020 election, state and local election officials have pivoted to mail-in voting as a potential solution. This method of voting—while safe from a public health standpoint—comes with its own set of problems, as increased use of mail voting risks amplifying existing discrepancies in rejected mail ballots. While some mail ballot rejections are to be expected, a lack of uniformity in whose ballots get rejected among subgroups of voters—whether for mistakes on a ballot return envelope (BRE) or lateness—raise concerns about equal representation. We draw on official statewide voter file and mail-in ballot data from the 2018 midterm election in Georgia, a state that until the pandemic did not have widespread use of mail voting, to test whether some voters are more likely to cast a mail ballot that does not count. Most importantly, we distinguish between ballots rejected for lateness and those rejected for a mistake on the return envelope. We find that newly registered, young, and minority voters have higher rejection rates compared with their counterparts.

Postal delivery disruptions and the fragility of voting by mail: Lessons from Maine

Since the onset in early 2020 of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, mail-in voting rates in states that have held elections have surged, presumably reflecting the fact that voting by mail is a relatively safe mode of ballot casting during a public health crisis. Matters of health notwithstanding, postal delivery disruptions can place mail-in ballots at risk of rejection on the grounds of lateness. With Maine as a case study, we show that, in the past four general elections, over 10% of vote-by-mail ballots arrived at local elections offices either on Election Day itself or one day earlier. Moreover, of the vote-by-mail ballots most vulnerable to postal delivery disruptions, a greater share of them were cast by unaffiliated voters and Democrats than by Republicans. Our results highlight the fragility of voting by mail in light of concerns about the reliability of the United States Postal Service. While existing research shows that the opportunity to vote by mail is neutral with respect to partisanship, our results highlight an aspect of mail-in balloting that nonetheless has a partisan hue—the extent to which vote-by-mail ballots are vulnerable to mail delays.

Emergency Patient Voting Initiative in a Community Hospital During a Global Pandemic:: Lessons and a Call-to-Action for Expanded Voter Access.

The 2020 United States general election remained extremely polarized despite occurring during the midst of a global coronavirus pandemic. Acutely hospitalized persons in the days to weeks leading up to the general election are exceptionally vulnerable to voter disenfranchisement and not among the population typically discussed during election seasons. As residents in the Christiana Care Family Medicine Residency Program in Wilmington, Delaware, we organized an emergency ballot registration and absentee voting project for hospitalized patients in our community hospital during the days to weeks leading up to the 2020 general election. We experienced multiple challenges to registering and aiding patients with ballot applications, including but not limited to communication with an overworked New Castle County elections office and coordination of receiving and returning completed ballots. However, we did notice a positive trend in the number of patients acutely hospitalized in the days-weeks leading up to Election Day who had already cast their vote through the expanded mail-in voting campaign in the setting of the COVID19 pandemic. As physicians, we have a unique position and opportunity to not only educate patients and potential voters on voter registration, but also assist these members of our community in the registration process first-hand. In addition to these physician responsibilities, we feel strongly that the state of Delaware should continue the expansion of mail-in/absentee voting for all residents in addition to new initiatives such as extended voter registration period and early in-person voting.

Disenfranchisement: An American Tradition

During the 2020 election, liberal pundits and politicians repeatedly warned that democracy was “on the line,” “at stake,” “in peril,” and facing “an existential threat.” There was occasion for the hyperbolic language: Donald Trump and his Republican allies orchestrated an unprecedented assault on the integrity of U.S. elections by, to list just a few examples, promulgating ludicrous lies about voter fraud, obstructing early mail-in voting, encouraging vigilante voter intimidation, and constricting access to polls. But critics risk succumbing to a liberal version of “Make America Great Again” nostalgia if they assume Trump’s departure from office will solve our democratic crisis. His efforts to maintain power built upon a long history of political exclusion and racial subordination in the United States. It is not surprising that politicians, if allowed, would prefer to pick their own voters. The more vexing question is why voter suppression is not more taboo in a country that extols its democratic system as a beacon for the world.

Daily briefing: What the data say about mail-in voting

Daily briefing: What the data say about mail-in voting

Mail-In Voter Fraud: Anatomy of a Disinformation Campaign

The claim that election fraud is a major concern with mail-in ballots has become the central threat to election participation during the COVID-19 pandemic and to the legitimacy of the outcome of the election across the political spectrum. President Trump has repeatedly cited his concerns over voter fraud associated with mail-in ballots as a reason that he may not abide by an adverse electoral outcome. Polling conducted in September 2020 suggests that nearly half of Republicans agree with the president that election fraud is a major concern associated with expanded mail-in voting during the pandemic. Few Democrats share that belief. Despite the consensus among independent academic and journalistic investigations that voter fraud is rare and extremely unlikely to determine a national election, tens of millions of Americans believe the opposite. This is a study of the disinformation campaign that led to widespread acceptance of this apparently false belief and to its partisan distribution pattern. Contrary to the focus of most contemporary work on disinformation, our findings suggest that this highly effective disinformation campaign, with potentially profound effects for both participation in and the legitimacy of the 2020 election, was an elite-driven, mass-media led process. Social media played only a secondary and supportive role.Our results are based on analyzing over fifty-five thousand online media stories, five million tweets, and seventy-five thousand posts on public Facebook pages garnering millions of engagements. They are consistent with our findings about the American political media ecosystem from 2015-2018, published in Network Propaganda , in which we found that Fox News and Donald Trump’s own campaign were far more influential in spreading false beliefs than Russian trolls or Facebook clickbait artists. This dynamic appears to be even more pronounced in this election cycle, likely because Donald Trump’s position as president and his leadership of the Republican Party allow him to operate directly through political and media elites, rather than relying on online media as he did when he sought to advance his then-still-insurgent positions in 2015 and the first half of 2016.Our findings here suggest that Donald Trump has perfected the art of harnessing mass media to disseminate and at times reinforce his disinformation campaign by using three core standard practices of professional journalism. These three are: elite institutional focus (if the President says it, it’s news); headline seeking (if it bleeds, it leads); and balance , neutrality, or the avoidance of the appearance of taking a side. He uses the first two in combination to summon coverage at will, and has used them continuously to set the agenda surrounding mail-in voting through a combination of tweets, press conferences, and television interviews on Fox News. He relies on the latter professional practice to keep audiences that are not politically pre-committed and have relatively low political knowledge confused, because it limits the degree to which professional journalists in mass media organizations are willing or able to directly call the voter fraud frame disinformation. The president is, however, not acting alone. Throughout the first six months of the disinformation campaign, the Republican National Committee (RNC) and staff from the Trump campaign appear repeatedly and consistently on message at the same moments, suggesting an institutionalized rather than individual disinformation campaign. The efforts of the president and the Republican Party are supported by the right-wing media ecosystem, primarily Fox News and talk radio functioning in effect as a party press. These reinforce the message, provide the president a platform, and marginalize or attack those Republican leaders or any conservative media personalities who insist that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud associated with mail-in voting.The primary cure for the elite-driven, mass media communicated information disorder we observe here is unlikely to be more fact checking on Facebook. Instead, it is likely to require more aggressive policing by traditional professional media, the Associated Press, the television networks, and local TV news editors of whether and how they cover Trump’s propaganda efforts, and how they educate their audiences about the disinformation campaign the president and the Republican Party have waged.

Mail-In Ballots & The Dormant Presidential Electors Clause

Crisis often begets crisis, and the COVID-19 pandemic has proven to be no exception. With rising concerns over crowding at the polls, many states during the 2020 elections opted to allow voters to use mail-in ballots to vote in the general election. The Trump administration, nevertheless, proactively enacted policy changes to hamper the United States Postal Service’s (“USPS”) ability to effectively handle the rise in mail-in voting. Some states sued the Trump administration in response, raising a variety of claims in their lawsuits. One of the lesser discussed claims is that the executive’s actions violated Article II, § 1, cl. 2, otherwise known as the “Electors Clause.” This clause confers upon the states the exclusive power to appoint their electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” Thus, the Electors Clause is unique in that it provides states one of their few enumerated constitutional powers—it is a power that may not be preempted by federal action. But when the federal government uses its own powers, such as the executive’s delegated authority over USPS, to undermine a state’s chosen manner of appointing its electors, such as popular vote by mail-in ballots, a conflict of powers arises. This Essay attempts to resolve this conflict of power, ultimately concluding that within the Electors Clause exists an implied obligation on the federal government to not deliberately undermine a state’s choice to use mail-in ballots in a presidential election.