By Cliff Montgomery – June 30th, 2016
“Since the enactment of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, there have been notable changes in how states and local election jurisdictions conduct key election activities, such as registration and voting,” declared a recent study on the matter from the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
“GAO [therefore] was asked to examine the benefits, challenges, and other considerations of various election administration policies,” adds the report.
It seems only right to offer this one-of-a-kind ‘U.S. Election report card’ during an election year, and over the 4th of July weekend.
Below, offers a number of essential quotes from this pertinent study:
“The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 includes a number of provisions related to voter registration, voting equipment, and other election administration activities.”
“Congress passed HAVA in response to reports of problems encountered in the 2000 presidential election with respect to voter registration lists, absentee ballots, ballot counting, and antiquated voting systems.
“In the years following HAVA’s enactment, states implemented major election reforms, amending their election codes or making other changes to their election procedures in order to comply with HAVA’s provisions.
“For example, HAVA required states to collect certain identifying information from first-time voters who register by mail, and states have amended their processes to reflect these requirements.
“Numerous states have enacted additional laws since that time that address how an individual may register to vote or cast a ballot. In particular, many states have made substantive changes to their election codes or procedures in the areas of voter identification alternative methods of voting, such as in-person early voting prior to Election Day and requirements for voter registration drives conducted by non-governmental organizations (i.e., third parties).”
“The act authorized the appropriation of funds to be used toward implementing the law’s requirements.
“Among other things, HAVA required states to create statewide computerized voter registration lists to serve as official rosters of legally registered voters for elections for federal office. It also provided funding to improve election administration, including funding to replace punch card and lever voting equipment.
“Since the enactment of HAVA, states and local elections jurisdictions have made other changes to registration and voting.
“For example, by 2008, Arizona and Washington had begun offering voters the option to complete an online application to register to vote, and since that time 29 additional states and Washington, D.C., have implemented similar online registration options.
“Additionally, since HAVA’s enactment, Washington and Colorado have joined Oregon in implementing statewide vote-by-mail systems.
“Decisions regarding these and other election administration policies—including policies for providing information to voters, registering voters, and providing voting opportunities—involve consideration of various benefits and challenges, including costs to states and local jurisdictions, as well as costs to voters.”
“Although some election policy decisions are made at the state level, election administration within each state is largely a local responsibility. Thus local factors can also affect election administration—such as the designation of specific polling places.”
“You asked us to examine the benefits, challenges, and other considerations of various election administration policies. This report addresses the following questions:
1. What are the reported benefits and challenges of efforts to collect and share voter registration information electronically?
2. What is known about the effect of selected policies and practices on voter turnout?
3. What is known about the costs of elections?”
What GAO Found
“According to GAO’s literature review and election officials interviewed, the benefits of collecting and sharing voter registration information electronically include improved accuracy and cost savings while challenges include upfront investments and ongoing maintenance, among other things.
“For example, establishing infrastructure for online registration requires time and money, but can generate savings and enhance accuracy by, for instance, reducing the need for local election officials to manually process paper registration forms. The upfront costs of online registration are generally modest and quickly surpassed by savings generated after implementation.
“GAO reviewed research to identify 11 election administration policies that had each been studied multiple times in connection with voter turnout and found varying effects.
For example:
- The majority of studies on same day registration and all vote-by-mail found that these policies increased turnout.
- Vote centers (polling places where registrants can vote regardless of assigned precinct) and the sending of text messages to provide information about registration and elections have not been studied as much as some of the other policies, but almost all of the studies reviewed on these policies reported increases in turnout.
- Some studies of mailings to provide information and no-excuse absentee voting also found that these policies increased turnout, while other studies reported mixed evidence or no evidence of an effect.
- Most studies of e-mail and robocalls to provide information reported no evidence of an effect on turnout.
- Most studies of early in-person voting reported no evidence of an effect on turnout or found decreases in turnout, while the remaining studies reported mixed evidence.
“Distinguishing the unique effects of a policy from the effects of other factors that affect turnout can be challenging, and even sufficiently sound studies cannot account for all unobserved factors that potentially impact the results.
“Additionally, research findings on turnout are only one of many considerations for election officials as they decide whether or not to implement selected policies.
“States and local election jurisdictions incur a variety of costs associated with administering elections, and the types and magnitude of costs can vary by state and jurisdiction.
“Further, quantifying the total costs for all election activities is difficult for several reasons, including that multiple parties incur costs associated with elections and may track costs differently.
“Although some parties’ costs can be easily identified in cost-tracking documents, other costs may be difficult to attribute to election activities.“Additionally, voters’ costs can also be difficult to quantify because each voter’s costs vary based on factors such as method of voting, or time required to travel to polling places, among other things.“The Election Assistance Commission did not have any comments on this report, and GAO incorporated technical comments provided by state and local election officials and DMV [Department of Motor Vehicles] officials as appropriate.”
