apsa (iPosterSessions - an aMuze! Interactive system)

Introduction to the Study

Two themes have dominated recent discussions about election administration:

One, generally advanced from the right, focuses on fears of voter fraud.

For example, President Donald Trump claimed in the wake of the 2016 election that more than three million illegal votes had been cast against him, depriving him of a lead in the nationally-aggregated popular vote. In response, he appointed a commission in 2017 to examine the issue of fraud.

The second, generally advanced from the left, focuses on fears of voter disenfranchisement due to ballot security measures such as voter identification requirements.

For example, the journal The Nation published a report in May 2017 claiming that voter identification requirements had the effect of suppressing 200,000 votes in Wisconsin.

Our study will focus on the debate raging between advocates of easier ballot access (through measures such as Election Day registration, early voting, and mail ballot elections) and supporters of enhanced ballot security (through measures such as voter identification requirements).

Analysts and political activists have often treated these two objectives as mutually exclusive, and have assumed different partisan orientations toward them (with Republicans assumed to favor ballot security and Democrats to prefer ballot access).

There is limited information, however, on what those in charge of administering elections on the local level think about these issues.

This paper will examine that question on the basis of responses to a survey sent to 1,064 local elections officers in the western half of the country. There are 1,064 counties that are contiguous and located west of the line dividing North Dakota and Minnesota in the north and continuing down until it terminates at the division between Texas and Louisiana in the south. The western states were chosen because of the tremendous diversity in terms of the ways that their election laws and procedures.

The 30-question survey obtained roughly a 40 percent response rate, with 420 returned, and will allow us to answer a number of pertinent questions:

1) Exactly which ballot access and ballot security measures are already in place in which locations?
2) Do the election officials themselves tend to see ballot access and ballot security as incompatible, or is some common ground possible?
3) How do they judge varying ballot access and ballot security measures in terms of effectiveness and desirability?
4) Is there a partisan tendency to how the officials see ballot access and ballot security measures?
5) Do attitudes among election officials vary in keeping with how long they have held their position? And,
6) Do their attitudes vary by gender or other demographic characteristics?

Although this paper will be primarily descriptive, we believe it will add to original knowledge in the area of American elections, voter participation, and election law and administration.

OPEN

Federalism: Voting and Elections in the United States

The United States Constitution outlines, “The times, places and manner of holding elections…shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.”

Alexander Hamilton notes in The Federalist Papers that the power to regulate elections must be placed in either the federal legislature or state legislatures. After mapping three possibilities, he ultimately concludes that elections should be overseen primarily by states, but the federal government would maintain overarching responsibility and oversight. He goes on to mention, “[the Convention] submitted the regulation of elections for the federal government, in the first instance, to the local administrations,” but, “they have reserved to the national authority a right to interpose, whenever extraordinary circumstances might render that interposition necessary to its safety.

A Short History

States since the founding period have been responsible for the administration and supervision of elections at the local, state, and federal-level, although much of the actual control has been delegated to local officials. With local control comes much variation between states and within states with respect to how elections are conducted. Policies, procedures, and mechanisms vary widely.

Registration procedures, methods, and policies account for some of the variations between states. Beyond registering voters, states are responsible for ensuring that the actual voting process functions properly. This includes hiring polling officials, renting space to for voting sites, purchasing and maintaining voting machines and technology, creating ballots, and counting and certifying election tallies. Election laws and administrative procedures have been compared to ecosystems with variations and development over the centuries. As one study put it, “each state has a different personality.”

Chief Election Officials (CEOs)

The CEOs at the state level and are the main source of authority for overseeing the implementation of state and federal election law. When federal or state laws are passed, it falls on the CEO to organize and inform those below them.

Local Election Officials (LEOs)

LEOS must deal with impending changes in federal and state election laws. The implementation and oversight falls on Local Election Officials. These officials have very limited authority over election law. As researchers point out, formal authority “within electoral systems comes from legislatures and courts,” but Local Election Officials have wide discretion over many procedures that impact voter access to voting and elections.

There are over 4,500 Local Election Officials across the country. The vast majority of oversight and implementation of election law falls on the Local Election Official. As one report stated, “On the local level, election administrators determine who can vote, where they can vote, and how they can vote. LEOs maintain oversight over certain geographic areas that divide according to county, parishes, townships, or municipalities. LEOs are often known as clerks, auditors, recorders, registrars, or supervisors of elections. Hale, Montjoy, and Brown contend that, “there is an expectation and a strong professional norm of nonpartisanship on the part of election officials.” They find that, within their nonpartisan approach, CEOs and LEOs focus on implementation instead of the objectives of future policies. Many scholars who study the partisan election of LEOs would agree that professional norms are – in fact – the norm, but this does not preclude partisanship from taking hold. Hale, Montjoy, and Brown admit as much: “Many changes can be expected to have a partisan impact, as in making voting easier or more restrictive for certain parts of the population.” As Kropf, Kimball, and Vercellotti (2013) note, “studies of representative bureaucracy generally have not considered the partisanship of local administrators.” Many LEOs are affiliated with a political party and are elected to office in partisan campaigns; therefore, there is the concern that they may manipulate election procedures in a way that would benefit their own party.

More than professional norms, however, CEOs and LEOs maintain a level of expertise about the interworking of elections. Scholars note that federal lawmakers relied on the expertise of the relevant associations of CEOs and LEOs in the crafting of the Help America Vote Act (2002).

Size Matters

While primarily responsible for elections, LEOs may have other responsibilities to their local governments as well, and control resources that vary substantially depending on the size of the city or municipality. Los Angeles County, California for example, is the most populous and most complex jurisdiction in the United States. The county consolidated three different offices (registrar, recorder, and clerk) into one department known as the Office of the Registrar Recorder/County Clerk. This office manages over 500 political districts along with a large staff. The Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk is responsible for more than elections, as this person also “records real property documents; maintains vital records of births, deaths and marriages; issues marriage licenses; performs civil marriage ceremonies; oversees countywide records management and archives programs and processes business filings and other documents.” Jackson County, South Dakota – by contrast – has 1,883 registered voters. The county employs one person (known as the county auditor) and a small staff to maintain and oversee elections.

As Hale, Montjoy, and Brown note, resource and task complexity increase with the size of the county. In approximately 44% of states the local election office is comprised of a single individual, 20% use a board, and 36% divide up the duties. A total of 18 states divide the responsibilities of election oversight and implementation between two or more offices. Nearly 60% of all LEOs are elected to their positions, the remainder appointed. This ratio closely tracks that of CEOs. Many researchers see partisan elections as fraught with disadvantages to the democratic system. At the least, elected LEOs are subject to the tension Herbert Storing identifies between the administrative principle and the political principle.

OPEN

Duties of Local Election Officials

The LEO is tasked with implementation of federal, state, and local election laws. Scholars identify numerous major elements of election administration, these include: preparing voter information; registration information; hiring polling officials; renting and preparing precincts and polling places; preparing ballots; installing, securing, and updating voting technology; providing alternative methods of voting; counting votes; certifying votes; and dealing with contested votes.

Voter Information

The provision of this information varies by state, but often the duty is left to the LEO to provide voter information guides to the public. This includes sample ballots, information on how to register, deadlines, absentee processes, and location of polling places. Kimball and Baybeck found that financial resources determine the extent to which LEOs provide voter information to the public. They also note advancements in technology (i.e. the internet) in reducing costs. The LEOs, along with the state CEO, are responsible for ensuring that the jurisdictions under their control conform to requirements of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and its subsequent amendments. The minority language provisions (Section 4(f)4, Section 203, and Section 208 require that jurisdictions provide registration information, election materials and voting assistance in minority languages (Spanish, Native American, Alaska Native, and some Asian languages) when more than 5% of eligible voters are from one of those minority language groups and the illiteracy rate among the language minority population is higher than the national average.

Registration

Registration eligibility rules are set by the federal and (mostly) state governments, but Local Election Officials are also tasked with oversight of the registration process. Both the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and the Help America Vote Act of 2002 required states to offer more opportunities to register and helped set a minimum standard for maintaining voter records, a task that falls onto the LEO. This includes removing duplicated, inactive, or fraudulent registrations, and also enforcing deadlines for registration. Understanding and meeting the bureaucratic requirements for registration are more difficult for people with lower education levels and those whose first language is not English. Recent research, however, has shed light on other institutional aspects of registration that adversely affect registration. The administrative capacity and substantive values of local election officials have been found to affect registration and turnout levels. In jurisdictions without adequate administrative resources, LEOs often feel overwhelmed.

Polling Officials

Local Election Officials are also responsible for hiring, training, and supervising poll workers. This particular duty is of concern to LEOs across the states – regardless of budgetary constraints – insofar as they must rely on the average citizen to take up the task. Moreover, scholars note the importance of poll workers to the average voter’s confidence in the system.

Precincts and Voting Sites

Voters take for granted that they simply have to show up on election today to vote. However, Local Election Officials must take into account size of the location, proximity to local transit, and availability of access for disabled persons. LEOs generally depend on low-cost public facilities to set up voting precincts and sites.

Ballots

The Local Election Official is responsible for “printing ballots or the setup of ballot presentations on touch-screen electronic devices.”LEOs are limited in terms of who is to be included on the ballot – much of this process takes place at the state-level. However, LEOs are responsible for submitting names to the CEO for certification in local elections. Also as noted earlier, Local Election Officials must, under certain conditions, are required to provide minority language assistance to prospective voters with limited English. For localities that have not implemented electronic voting sites, LEOs must contract with private printing businesses to design and reproduce ballots.

Vote Technology

There has been much controversy in the last few election cycles over the use of electronic voting technology. Guidelines were set in the passage of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 which set minimum standards and procedures for both ballot access and equipment (including the testing and certification of voting systems). Under Title I Section 21 of the Act, the Federal government provides funds for “[i]mproving, acquiring, leasing or replacing voting equipment.” Local Election Officials are tasked with purchasing, maintaining, securing, and storing the vote technologies throughout the year.

OPEN

Survey Responses

Who are the LEOs?

Gender

87% Female
13% Male

Ethnicity

80% Non-Hispanic Caucasian
9% Hispanic
2% percent Native American,
1% percent non-Hispanic black
7% Other

Partisanship

56% Republican
23% Democrat
21% Other

What do they think of ballot access and ballot security?

Administrative Burdens

LEOs were asked to agree or disagree on a 7-point scale with the supposition that “the increased administrative burden” of five different convenience registration measures “outweigh the potential benefits.” The five measures were:

1) using a computer to register online
- Disagreed (62-23%)
2) registration at a satellite office in the community
- Disagreed (54-27%)
3) registration at DMV
- Disagreed (59-25%)
4) registration at other government offices
- Disagreed (57-25%)
5) Election Day registration
- Disagreed (41-40%)

Difficultly Protecting Security of the Voting Process

Asked to agree or disagree that the same five registration procedures make it more difficult to protect the security of the voting process, similar results pertained. On balance, there were greater concerns about the administrative burdens posed by the measures than by the security risks.

1) using a computer to register online
- Disagreed (60-21%)
2) registration at a satellite office in the community
- Disagreed (63-17%)
3) registration at DMV
- Disagreed (73-13%)
4) registration at other government offices
- Disagreed (68-16%)
5) Election Day registration
- Disagreed (50-33%)

Administrative Burdens and Security of Convenience Voting Procedures

LEOs were asked to similarly agree or disagree with concerns about administrative burdens and security related to eight convenience voting procedures. In every case, a plurality of respondents disagreed that the administrative burdens of the procedure outweighed the potential benefits. Internet voting also stood out as the only convenience voting method that a plurality agreed would threaten ballot security, by a 47-32 percent margin.

A strong majority of respondents disagreed with security concerns about every other method surveyed, by margins ranging from 86-4 percent at the high end (early voting at the county election office) to 64-20 percent at the low end (in-person Election Day voting at a satellite office). As with registration procedures, respondents were usually more likely to be concerned about the administrative burdens than the security risks involved with convenience voting:

1) in-person Election Day voting with a provisional ballot
- Disagreed (54-28%)
2) in-person Election Day voting at county election office
- Disagreed (51-30%)
3) in-person voting at a satellite office in the community
- Disagreed (52-26%)
4) mail-in absentee voting
- Disagreed (74-13%)
5) voting by mail combined with a drop box
- Disagreed (61-19%)
6) internet voting using a computer
- Disagreed (38-34%)
7) early voting (including absentee) at the county election office
- Disagreed (70-14%)
8) early voting (including absentee) at a satellite office in the community
- Disagreed (52-26%)

Just as large majorities tended to be supportive of convenience voting, large majorities also supported identification requirements for registration and voting.

Nearly three-fourths agreed that ID requirements increase the security of the voting process (72-15 percent in ID for registration, 73-15 percent in ID for voting).
Two-thirds disagreed that identification requirements decrease political participation (by a 65-20 percent margin for both registration and voting).
By roughly the same ratio, they disagreed that the administrative burden of identification requirements outweigh the potential benefits (65-17 percent for registration, 60-21 percent for voting).
Altogether, the LEOs reported by a 70-15% margin that they were generally supportive of convenience voting, and by a 92-3% percent margin that they are generally supportive of ballot security measures.
It is also clear that resistance to measures on either score owe more to administrative concerns than principled objections. Three-fifths said they would be at least somewhat likely to be more supportive of convenience voting if funding for their office was increased; two-thirds said the same thing about ballot security procedures.

Partisan Differences Over Ballot Security

These attitudes are broadly shared across party. For instance:

71% of Democrats and 67% of Republicans describe themselves as “generally supportive” of convenience voting
97% of Democrats and 93% of Republicans describe themselves as “generally supportive” of ballot security measures.

Partisanship and Voter ID Requirements

Some partisan differences emerge when discussing voter
identification requirements, but not in a simple mirror-image way:

75% of Republican LEOs disagree that voter ID requirements decrease political participation
Democrats nearly evenly split: 42% agree, 38% disagree, and 19% are neutral.
By a 58-26% margin, Democratic LEOs agree that voter ID increases the security of the voting process, while 83% of Republicans agree.
Similarly, a majority of both Democrats and Republicans disagree that the administrative burdens of voter ID outweigh potential benefits, though the Democratic margin (51-25%) is smaller than the Republican margin (66-20%).

Views on Voter ID, Election Day Registration, and Internet Voting by Party

On issues of Election Day registration and internet voting, there were more modest party differences. Republicans and Democrats were nearly indistinguishable on the question of whether Election Day registration posed security challenges; on the administrative burdens of Election Day registration, and both the security and administration burdens of internet voting, modest differences appeared, with Republicans a bit more skeptical of the innovations than Democrats. However, in none of the four cases was a plurality of Democrats opposed to a plurality of Republicans.

There was no significant difference between female and male respondents in their general support for convenience voting, though the number of male respondents is too low to draw any firm conclusions. The very small number of racial minorities responding makes it impossible to offer analysis on the basis of race/ethnicity.

One possibility that was tested was whether LEO attitudes toward convenience registration or voting measures was affected by whether they reported having difficulty recruiting and training election workers. We found no evidence of such an effect.

Views on Voter ID, Election Day registration, and Internet Voting by Duration in Office and Prior Position

Finally, we considered the possibility that differences
might emerge between LEOs on the basis of how long they had held their position or on the basis of whether they had come up through the ranks of the county election office.

Here we examined three issues, whether respondents agreed:

(1) that voter identification requirements made the voting process more secure
(2) whether they agreed that Election Day registration or
(3) online voting made the voting process less secure.

The first was chosen due to its high visibility and the degree of controversy surrounding it; the latter two questions were selected because they provided the least degree of consensus among LEOs regarding convenience registration and voting methods.

Neither time in office, nor prior election administration position made a substantial difference in LEOs’ views of voter ID or of online voting; about three quarters of both longer-than-median and shorter-than-median, and about three quarters of both those with prior experience and those without, said voter ID would enhance ballot security.

Likewise, there were almost no differences between the categories in terms of their negative appraisals of online voting, with a plurality in all four ranging from 45.6% to 48.5% agreeing that it would make security more difficult.

On the other hand, modest differences appeared in respect on Election Day registration; 54% of those with fewer than median years on the job disagreed that it would make voting security more difficult, compared with only 45% of those with more than median years. There was also nearly a seven-point gap in those who agreed. Interestingly, on the same question, those with a prior position were just as likely (about one-third) as those without to agree that it would make security more difficulty, but those without a prior position were 7.5% points more like to disagree; those who had held a prior position were more likely to be neutral. Perhaps those who with less experience as LEO and without prior training in the office were more open to innovations of this sort, though apparently online voting was a bridge too far.

These results intersect with
previous studies of LEOs in a number of ways, sometimes confirming prior results and sometimes calling them into question.

The findings by Montjoy (2010) that “[e]lection finance emerged as a critical component underlying most issues” was confirmed by our survey respondents, whose concerns about convenience methods were greater on the administrative side than the security side and who said that more money would make them more likely to support both convenience and security methods.

Our respondents did not strongly disagree with Election Day registration as Burden et al found in 2009, but they were more skeptical of it than any convenience method except online voting, and those in office longer (as Burden anticipated) were the most skeptical.

In a broader sense, our respondents were not generally hostile to convenience reforms, as Burden reported; in most cases, they disagreed that the added administrative burdens were not worth the potential benefits.

At the same time, our respondents, like Fischer’s and Coleman’s, were generally supportive of voter identification laws, but mostly did not agree with them that those laws would have a negative impact on participation.

Finally, though we did not ask the age of respondents and thus cannot directly re-examine Burden’s finding that younger LEO’s were more supportive of new technology, it is interesting that our respondents opposed internet voting by roughly equal margins whether they had served more or fewer than the median years as LEO.

Differences between our results and previous results must be considered with caution. They may be the result of changed opinions and attitudes, but that is not the only possible explanation. Most importantly, our survey was limited to Western states, as opposed to surveys that provided an in-depth look at a single state or a much less detailed national lens.

What Do Their Counties Do?

More than half (53%) of LEOs reported that their counties allow the easiest form of voter registration by mail: registering by mail without proof of address, identity, or citizenship. A little over one-quarter (29%) allow registration by mail but required a copy of a government-issued proof of identity.

Nearly three in five (59%) allow a person to register online.

Nearly all (96%) allow in-person registration at the county election office, and more than half allow it through community drives, by political parties, at the DMV, and in other government offices. On the other hand, only 25% allow in-person registration at a satellite election office located in the community (undoubtedly because many counties lack resources to have satellite offices).

A surprisingly high figure of 44% claim to allow same-day voter registration; 75% of these allow the voter to register at the county election office while 56% allow it at the precinct polling place.

Nearly four in five (79%) require proof of identity prior to a person being allowed to vote. The vast majority of those require government-issued photo ID. However, 85% of jurisdictions requiring proof of identity allow voters lacking such proof to vote provisionally.

Almost 60% reported finding it difficult to recruit qualified poll workers, and over a third (36%) said their ability to administer elections had actually been adversely affected by a shortage of poll workers.

Overall, when reporting what type of voting their jurisdictions allow, 84% of LEOs say their counties offer the traditional Election Day precinct voting, but even more offer mail-in absentee voting (94%) and early voting at the county election office (84%).

In-person Election Day voting at the precinct polling place with a provisional ballot (71%) was also common.

Methods reported by fewer than half of respondents include non-absentee voting by mail (38%), in-person Election Day voting at county election office (29%), early voting (including absentee) at a satellite office in the community (24%), in-person voting at a satellite office in the community (14%), and internet voting using a computer (7%).

OPEN

Research on Issues Facing Local Election Officials

For more than 30 years, the phrase, “street-level bureaucrats,” has been applied to public sector employees who directly interact with citizens in the performance of their jobs, but it has only recently been used as an analytical framework for understanding how administrative stresses and value attitudes of local election officials affect their job performance.

While most of the studies deal with election procedures unrelated to registration, there is some research indicating that the implementation and development of registration are subject to the same forces. A survey of 1,388 Wisconsin municipal clerks, responsible for overseeing registration and administering elections, found that officials considered most administrative reforms designed to increase voting turnout (Election Day registration, mail in absentee voting, and in-person absentee voting) negatively. Survey respondents characterized these reforms as increasing their administrative burdens by causing greater security problems and held that the costs of the reforms substantially outweigh any benefits; instead they preferred greater centralization of tasks rather than providing citizens with more options. Even though Election Day registration has been touted as a means of increasing turnout, the municipal clerks in this study strongly disagreed. Moreover, the negative attitudes increased with the length of time that the officials had been in their job---all of these lead to what Burden et. al. describe as “status quo bias."

Three main research organizations have performed comprehensive studies of Local Election Officials: (1) The Election Center (also known as the National Association of Election Officials) supported by Auburn University, (2) the Congressional Research Service supported by Congress and Texas A&M University, and (3) the Presidential Commission on Election Administration supported by the executive branch and the Caltech-MIT Voting Technology Project. Other scholars have done additional studies. Altogether, these studies have focused on the following issues:

Finance

Robert Montjoy conducted a study of the perceptions of LEOs and found that “[e]lection finance emerged as a critical component underlying most issues.” This study, however, only obtained the opinions of LEOs in two counties (Contra Costa County in California and Weld County in Colorado).

Public administration

A study by Monty Van Wart related to job analysis of municipal clerks suggested that “in the current fast-moving, more fluid administrative environment, simpler methodologies are better suited in many situations.” This is important to consider since there have been social, economic and political changes in society that have stressed “public personnel policies and management.” State and local governments have been faced with the daunting task of managing an increasingly diverse populace and rising demands, including serving voters with a language barrier. Additionally, Burden, Canon, Mayer, and Moynhian (2012) argue that the administrative burden of policy implementation is a key component to consider for administrators and affects their views not only on policy options, but also on governance. The administrative burden is “associated with a preference to shift responsibilities to others, perceptions of greater flaws and lesser merit in policies that have created the burden, and opposition to related policy innovations.”

Demographics

Fischer and Coleman show that the “demographic characteristics of LEOs are unusual for a group of government officials.” Women outnumber men, minority groups are underrepresented, and most do not even hold a college degree. Moynihan and Silva (2008) also mention the unusual demographic characteristics of LEOs, as well as noting that ideologically they tend to be more conservative than the general population.

Elected vs. Appointed

Burden, Canon, Lavertu, Mayer, and Moynihan(2013) in their study of Wisconsin officials that the “preferences and actions of LEOs differ depending on whether they are elected or appointed.” Elected officials “express greater support for voter access” and less concern regarding ballot security and administrative costs. The authors find that voter turnout is actually lower in a municipality for appointed officials when the LEO’s “self-reported partisanship differs from the partisanship of the electorate but only in cases where the official is a Republican.”

Reform

The Congressional Research Service conducted the most important study to date on the perception of election reform by LEOs in 2008. Fischer and Coleman (2005) explain the importance of LEOs “to the successful implementation of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA, P.L. 107-252) and state election laws.” Overall, “most LEOs believe that HAVA has resulted in some improvement in elections in their jurisdictions,” and they are believed to be of a younger generation who are more technologically savvy than their older counterpart. This is interesting to note because those who have a “general faith in technology are attracted to more innovative alternatives.” The consensus among LEOs on where HAVA needs improvement is that attention must be paid to “federal funding and the requirements for registration, voter identification, and provisional balloting.” Even though electronic voting systems “tend to have high confidence in them despite the significant criticism,” LEO that have a favorable view of them “are more likely to more positively evaluate federal reforms."

Alvarez and Hall (2006) argue that “Election Day voting manifests problems that agency theory shows are difficult to overcome, including adverse selection of and shirking by poll workers.” By investigating early, absentee and Internet voting, Alvarez and Hall depict how these reforms can alleviate “many of the more severe principle-agent problems in election management.” Generally, LEOs are supportive of HAVA, but are “less enthusiastic about the actual impact of the legislation."

Similarly, Fischer and Coleman (2008) reported on two surveys of LEOs in 2004 and 2006 in which they look at how policy issues can affect how “election officials are chosen and trained, the best ways to ensure that voting systems and election procedures are sufficiently effective, secure, and voter-friendly, and whether adjustments should be made to HAVA requirements.” They found that between 2004 and 2006, LEOs were concerned about media influence, the increased role of political parties, as well as interest and advocacy groups. LEOs believed that the federal government had too much influence over voter systems and LEOs had too little influence. Regarding photo identification, LEOs were somewhat supportive, even though they believed it adversely affected turnout. As Fischer and Coleman (2009) noted, voter identification may affect turnout, as it was experienced in New Mexico in which Hispanic voters are more likely to present identification to vote compared to any other group on Election Day. While LEOs generally believed that HAVA was moving in the right direction, their level of support declined between 2004 to 2006 because it has made elections more complicated and increased costs. This, in turn, thwarted poll worker recruitment.

OPEN

Conclusion

Local Election Officers (LEOs) play
an important role in the administration of elections in the United States. We aimed in this study to obtain from LEOs in counties west of the Missouri factual information about their election practices as well as their own views on a number of issues related to convenience and ballot security.

One of the limitations to this study is that, for reasons we have explained above, it contains no data from the eastern part of the United States. The second is that, although a respectable 420 LEOs responded, many responded without answering the full 30-question survey and some returned the survey completely unanswered.

Nevertheless, this survey yielded a number of interesting results, even if they must be taken somewhat tentatively:

Traditional Election Day precinct voting is quickly being matched or surpassed by some convenience voting methods.
Federal legal requirements to offer certain convenience registration or voting methods are no guarantee that all voters will have access to them in practice.
LEOs as a group are broadly supportive of convenience registration methods, closely divided only on Election Day registration.
LEOs as a group are also broadly supportive of convenience voting, except for internet voting, about which they are skeptical on both administrative and security grounds.
Regarding both convenience registration and voting methods, LEOs are more likely to have concerns about administrative burdens posed by the methods than about the effects on ballot security.
As a group, LEOs are also broadly supportive of ballot security efforts in the abstract and of registration and voter ID requirements in particular.
There is almost no difference between Democratic and Republican LEOs in the degree to which they “generally support” convenience voting or ballot security. There are partisan differences on the question of voter ID, but the differences do not take the form reflecting much of the public debate on the subject, with Republicans strongly supportive and Democrats strongly opposing. Instead, the division found in this study takes the form of Republican LEOs strongly supporting voter ID and Democrats (depending on the specific question) either closely divided or supportive of voter ID but by smaller margins than Republicans. There are more modest partisan—and, again, not mirror-image—differences on same-day registration and internet voting.
Finally, acculturation in the elections administration milieu generally and the position of LEO specifically seems to have modest or no effect on the views of LEOs toward important ballot security and voting convenience innovations.

Altogether, the picture emerges of LEOs as relatively pragmatic and not bound by artificial constraints imposed by outside debates. Most notably, they do not as a whole tend to see ballot access and ballot security as conflicting objectives.

OPEN

Disclosures

APPENDIX: County Election Officials Survey – Complete Summary Data

Part I

· QID1: Across the country there are many different ways that a person may register to vote. Please mark all the following types of registering by mail allowed in your county. (n=338)

o Registering by mail without proof of address, identity and citizenship

§ 53.25% (n=180)

o Registering by mail with document(s) showing address

§ 25.74% (n=87)

o Registering by mail with notarized statement of address, identity and citizenship

§ 9.47% (n=32)

o Registering by mail with copy of government issued proof of identity

§ 28.69 (n=97)

o Other

§ 32.54% (n=110)

· QID2: Do you have procedures that allow a person to register online? (n=333)

o No

§ 41.14% (n=137)

o Yes

§ 58.56% (n=195)

o If yes, must the person provide proof of eligibility? (n=183)

§ Yes

· 53.00% (n=97)

§ No

· 47.00% (n=86)

· QID3: Please mark all of the following types of in-person registration that are available in your county. (n=338)

o Registration at office of county election official

§ 96.15% (n=325)

o Registration at a satellite office located in the community

§ 24.56% (n=83)

o Registration through community drives

§ 61.54% (n=208)

o Registration by political parties

§ 61.54% (n=208)

o Registration at the Department of Motor Vehicles

§ 80.77% (n=273)

o Registration at other government offices (Please specify which offices)

§ 57.98% (n=196)

o Other (Please specify)

§ 31.06% (n=105)

· QID4: Does your county have procedures allowing a person to register on Election Day? (n=334)

o No

§ 53.89% (n=180)

o Yes

§ 44.01% (n=147)

§ In-person at the office of county election official

· 76.19% (n=112)

§ In-person at a local precinct

· 56.46% (n=83)

§ In-person at a satellite office

· 14.29% (n=21)

§ Registering online using a computer

· 23.81% (n=35)

§ Other (Please specify)

· 36.73% (n=54)

· QID5: Across the country there are many different ways that a person may vote. Please mark all of the following types of voting procedures that are available in your county. (n=354)

o In-person Election Day voting precinct

§ 83.62% (n=296)

o In-person Election Day voting at precinct with provisional ballot

§ 71.47% (n=253)

o In-person Election Day voting at office of county election official

§ 29.38% (n=104)

o In-person voting at a satellite office located in the community

§ 14.40% (n=51)

o Mail-in absentee voting

§ 94.07% (n=333)

o Non-absentee voting by mail

§ 38.13% (n=135)

o Internet voting using a computer

§ 6.78% (n=24)

o Early voting (including absentee voting) at office of county election official

§ 84.18% (n=298)

o Early voting (including absentee voting) at a satellite in the community

§ 24.29% (n=86)

o Other (Please specify)

§ 12.71% (n=45)

· QID6: Does your county require proof of identity prior to a person being allowed to vote? (n=353)

o No

§ 20.39% (n=72)

o Yes

§ 79.32% (n=280)

§ Bills showing name of person and address

· 26.43% (n=74)

§ Non-government forms of identification without picture

· 8.57% (n=24)

§ Non-government forms of identification with picture

· 23.93% (n=67)

§ Government issued identification without picture

· 20.36% (n=57)

§ Government issued identification with picture

· 90.36% (n=253)

§ Tribal identification

· 39.29% (n=110)

§ Other (Please specify)

· 31.79% (n=89)

· QID7: If voters are required to present identification prior to voting, can those without such identification vote provisionally? (n=301)

o No

§ 14.29% (n=43)

o Yes

§ 85071% (n=258)

· QID8: In the past many jurisdictions have found their ability to administer elections is adversely affected by a shortage of poll workers. Over the past two years has this been a problem in your county? (n=335)

o No

§ 64.48% (n=216)

o Yes

§ 35.52% (n=119)

· QID9: Poll workers are very important in the administration of elections. Have you found it difficult to recruit qualified poll workers? (n=339)

o No

§ 41.59% (n=141)

o Yes

§ 58.40% (n=198)

· QID10: In the past two years, which of the following methods have been used to recruit poll workers in your county? (n=336)

o Political parties

§ 61.31% (n=206)

o Advertisements in newspapers or other media outlets

§ 27.68% (n=93)

o On-line announcements

§ 23.21% (n=78)

o Official county job posting

§ 8.04% (n=27)

o Sought recommendations from poll workers

§ 80.36% (n=270)

o Sought recommendations from friends

§ 58.33% (n=196)

o Sought recommendations from community groups (Please specify)

§ 24.40% (n=82)

o Other means (Please specify)

§ 21.73% (n=73)

· QID11: In the past two years, has your office provided training sessions for poll workers? (n=336)

o No

§ 5.65% (n=19)

o Yes

§ 93.75% (n=315)

§ Instructions on opening and closing the polls

· 98.09% (n=309)

§ Instructions on the mechanics of voting (e.g., voting machines etc.)

· 95.87% (n=302)

§ Instructions about handling questions of voter eligibity

· 95.55% (n=301)

§ Instructions about handling party challenges to voters

· 77.14% (n=243)

§ Instructions about handling provisional ballots

· 87.94% (n=277)

§ Instructions about assisting voters with physical disabilities

· 95.55% (n=301)

§ Instructions about assisting voters with limited English

· 70.48% (n=222)

§ Instructions about securing voting machines, ballots and ballot boxes

· 96.51% (n=304)

§ Instructions about reconciling voting numbers

· 85.08% (n=268)

· Part II

· QID12: On a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = somewhat disagree, 4 = undecided, 5 = somewhat agree, 6 = agree, and 7 = strongly agree, please tell us if: The increased administrative burden of these registration procedures outweigh the potential benefits:

o QID12_1: Using a computer to register online (n=278)

§ Disagree: 62.59% (n=174)

§ Agree: 23.02% (n=64)

§ Neutral: 14.39% (n=40)

§ Average: 2.92

o QID12_2: Registration at a satellite office located in the community (n=255)

§ Disagree: 54.12% (n=138)

§ Agree: 27.45% (n=70)

§ Neutral: 18.43% (n=47)

§ Average: 3.33

o QID12_3: Registration at the Department of Motor Vehicles (n=279)

§ Disagree: 59.14% (n=165)

§ Agree: 25.45% (n=71)

§ Neutral: 15.41% (n=43)

§ Average: 3.14

o QID12_4: Registration at other government offices (n=274)

§ Disagree: 57.30% (n=157)

§ Agree: 25.55% (n=70)

§ Neutral: 17.15% (n=47)

§ Average: 3.22

o QID12_5: Election Day registration (n=260)

§ Disagree: 40.77% (n=106)

§ Agree: 39.62% (n=103)

§ Neutral: 19.62% (n=51)

§ Average: 4.02

· QID13: The following registration procedures make it more difficult to protect the security of the voting process:

o QID13_1: Using a computer to register online (n=275)

§ Disagree: 60.36% (n=166)

§ Agree: 21.45% (n=59)

§ Neutral: 18.18% (n=50)

§ Average: 2.98

o QID13_2: Registration at a satellite office located in the community (n=255)

§ Disagree: 63.14% (n=161)

§ Agree: 16.86% (n=43)

§ Neutral: 20.00% (n=51)

§ Average: 2.83

o QID13_3: Registration at the Department of Motor Vehicles (n=274)

§ Disagree: 72.99% (n=200)

§ Agree: 12.77% (n=35)

§ Neutral: 14.23% (n=39)

§ Average: 2.48

o QID13_4: Registration at other government offices (n=272)

§ Disagree: 67.65% (n=184)

§ Agree: 16.18% (n=44)

§ Neutral: 16.18% (n=44)

§ Average: 2.69

o QID13_5: Election Day registration (n=258)

§ Disagree: 50.39% (n=130)

§ Agree: 33.33% (n=86)

§ Neutral: 16.28% (n=42)

§ Average: 3.62

· QID14: The costs in terms increased administrative burden of the following voting procedures outweigh the potential benefits:

o QID14_1: In-person Election Day voting with provisional ballot (n=288)

§ Disagree: 54.17% (n=156)

§ Agree: 28.82% (n=83)

§ Neutral: 17.01% (n=49)

§ Average: 3.33

o QID14_2: In-person Election Day voting at office of county election official (n=272)

§ Disagree: 51.47% (n=140)

§ Agree: 30.51% (n=83)

§ Neutral: 18.01% (n=49)

§ Average: 3.54

o QID14_3: In-person voting at a satellite office located in the community (n=254)

§ Disagree: 46.46% (n=118)

§ Agree: 33.07% (n=84)

§ Neutral: 20.47% (n=52)

§ Average: 3.65

o QID14_4: Mail-in absentee voting (n=288)

§ Disagree: 73.61% (n=212)

§ Agree: 13.19% (n=38)

§ Neutral: 13.19% (n=38)

§ Average: 2.41

o QID14_5: Voting by mail combined with a drop box (n=264)

§ Disagree: 60.61% (n=160)

§ Agree: 18.56% (n=49)

§ Neutral: 20.83% (n=55)

§ Average: 2.90

o QID14_6: Internet voting using a computer (n=242)

§ Disagree: 37.60% (n=91)

§ Agree: 33.88% (n=82)

§ Neutral: 0% (n=0)

§ Average: 3.926

o QID14_7: Early voting (including absentee voting) at office of county election official (n=280)

§ Disagree: 70.00% (n=196)

§ Agree: 13.57% (n=38)

§ Neutral: 16.43% (n=46)

§ Average: 2.51

o QID14_8: Early voting (including absentee voting) at a satellite in the community (n=256)

§ Disagree: 52.34% (n=134)

§ Agree: 26.17% (n=67)

§ Neutral: 21.48% (n=55)

§ Average: 3.27

· QID15: The following voting procedures make it more difficult to protect the security of the voting process:

o QID15_1: In-person Election Day voting with provisional ballot (n=284)

§ Disagree: 72.54% (n=206)

§ Agree: 15.85% (n=45)

§ Neutral: 11.62% (n=33)

§ Average: 2.50

o QID15_2: In-person Election Day voting at office of county election official (n=266)

§ Disagree: 70.68% (n=188)

§ Agree: 15.41% (n=41)

§ Neutral: 13.91% (n=37)

§ Average: 2.54

o QID15_3: In-person voting at a satellite office located in the community (n=257)

§ Disagree: 63.81% (n=164)

§ Agree: 19.84% (n=51)

§ Neutral: 16.34% (n=42)

§ Average: 2.88

o QID15_4: Mail-in absentee voting (n=293)

§ Disagree: 78.50% (n=230)

§ Agree: 8.87% (n=26)

§ Neutral: 12.63% (n=37)

§ Average: 2.22

o QID15_5: Voting by mail combined with a drop box (n=264)

§ Disagree: 64.02% (n=169)

§ Agree: 17.05% (n=45)

§ Neutral: 18.94% (n=50)

§ Average: 2.77

o QID15_6: Internet voting using a computer (n=255)

§ Disagree: 32.16% (n=82)

§ Agree: 47.06% (n=120)

§ Neutral: 20.78% (n=53)

§ Average: 4.35

o QID15_7: Early voting (including absentee voting) at office of county election official (n=283)

§ Disagree: 85.87% (n=243)

§ Agree: 4.24% (n=12)

§ Neutral: 9.89% (n=28)

§ Average: 1.87

o QID15_8: Early voting (including absentee voting) at a satellite in the community (n=263)

§ Disagree: 68.82% (n=181)

§ Agree: 16.35% (n=43)

§ Neutral: 14.83% (n=39)

§ Average: 2.65

· Please tell us how much you agree or disagree with the following statements when requiring a person to provide proof of identity in order to register:

· QID16_1: It decreases electoral participation among otherwise qualified people. (n=283)

o Disagree: 65.02% (n=184)

o Agree: 20.14% (n=57)

o Neutral: 14.84% (n=42)

o Average: 2.72

· QID16_2: It increases the security of the voting process (n=291)

o Disagree: 14.78% (n=43)

o Agree: 72.16% (n=210)

o Neutral: 13.06% (n=38)

o Average: 5.53

· QID16_3: The increased administrative burden outweighs the potential benefits (n=281)

o Disagree: 65.12% (n=183)

o Agree: 16.73% (n=47)

o Neutral: 18.15% (n=51)

o Average: 2.70

· Please tell us whether you agree or disagree with the following statements when requiring a person to provide proof of identity in order to vote:

· QID20_1: It decreases electoral participation among otherwise qualified people. (n=265)

o Disagree: 64.15% (n=170)

o Agree: 19.62% (n=52)

o Neutral: 16.23% (n=43)

o Average: 2.80

· QID20_2: It increases the security of the voting process (n=272)

o Disagree: 15.44% (n=42)

o Agree: 72.79% (n=198)

o Neutral: 11.76% (n=32)

o Average: 5.48

· QID20_3: The increased administrative burden outweighs the potential benefits (n=267)

o Disagree: 59.93% (n=160)

o Agree: 21.35% (n=57)

o Neutral: 18.73% (n=50)

o Average: 2.98

· How would you characterize yourself? Would you say you are:

· QID23_1: Generally supportive of "convenience registration and voting" procedures? (n=283)

o Disagree: 15.19% (n=43)

o Agree: 69.61% (n=197)

o Neutral: 15.19% (n=43)

o Average: 5.26

· QID23_2: Generally supportive of "ballot security" procedures? (n=289)

o Disagree: 2.77% (n=8)

o Agree: 92.39% (n=267)

o Neutral: 4.84% (n=14)

o Average: 6.33

· QID25: How much would having increased funding affect your level of support for “convenience registration and voting” procedures? (n=287)

o Not likely to be more supportive: 40.42% (n=116)

o Somewhat more likely to be supportive: 36.24% (n=104)

o More likely to be supportive: 23.34% (n=67)

· QID26: How much would having increased funding affect your level of support for “ballot security” procedures? (n=288)

o Not likely to be more supportive: 34.03% (n=98)

o Somewhat likely to be more supportive: 36.81% (n=106)

o More likely to be supportive: 29.17% (n=84)

· Part III

· QID27: I am: (n=291)

o Female: 86.60% (n=252)

o Male: 13.40% (n=39)

· QID28: I am: (n=286)

o Non-Hispanic Caucasian: 80.07% (n=229)

o Hispanic Caucasian: 8.04% (n=23)

o non-Hispanic black: 1.05% (n=3)

o Hispanic black: 1.05% (n=3)

o Asian or Pacific Islander: 0.70% (n=2)

o Native American/Indian: 2.10% (n=6)

o Other: 6.99% (n=20)

· QID29: I would classify myself as:

o liberal Democrat: 3.16% (n=8)

o moderate Democrat: 11.07% (n=28)

o conservative Democrat: 8.70% (n=22)

o liberal Republican: 6.32% (n=16)

o moderate Republican: 26.09% (n=66)

o conservative Republican: 23.32% (n=59)

o Other: 21.34% (n=54)

· QID30_text: How many months have you served in your current office? (n=286)

o Average: 113 months

o Median: 91 months

· QID31: Did you hold a lower position in county elections administration before becoming the chief elections officer in your county? (n=292)

o Yes: 57.19% (n=167)

o No: 42.81% (n=125)

APPENDIX: County Election Officials Survey – Complete Summary Data

Part I

· QID1: Across the country there are many different ways that a person may register to vote. Please mark all the following types of registering by mail allowed in your county. (n=338)

o Registering by mail without proof of address, identity and citizenship

§ 53.25% (n=180)

o Registering by mail with document(s) showing address

§ 25.74% (n=87)

o Registering by mail with notarized statement of address, identity and citizenship

§ 9.47% (n=32)

o Registering by mail with copy of government issued proof of identity

§ 28.69 (n=97)

o Other

§ 32.54% (n=110)

· QID2: Do you have procedures that allow a person to register online? (n=333)

o No

§ 41.14% (n=137)

o Yes

§ 58.56% (n=195)

o If yes, must the person provide proof of eligibility? (n=183)

§ Yes

· 53.00% (n=97)

§ No

· 47.00% (n=86)

· QID3: Please mark all of the following types of in-person registration that are available in your county. (n=338)

o Registration at office of county election official

§ 96.15% (n=325)

o Registration at a satellite office located in the community

§ 24.56% (n=83)

o Registration through community drives

§ 61.54% (n=208)

o Registration by political parties

§ 61.54% (n=208)

o Registration at the Department of Motor Vehicles

§ 80.77% (n=273)

o Registration at other government offices (Please specify which offices)

§ 57.98% (n=196)

o Other (Please specify)

§ 31.06% (n=105)

· QID4: Does your county have procedures allowing a person to register on Election Day? (n=334)

o No

§ 53.89% (n=180)

o Yes

§ 44.01% (n=147)

§ In-person at the office of county election official

· 76.19% (n=112)

§ In-person at a local precinct

· 56.46% (n=83)

§ In-person at a satellite office

· 14.29% (n=21)

§ Registering online using a computer

· 23.81% (n=35)

§ Other (Please specify)

· 36.73% (n=54)

· QID5: Across the country there are many different ways that a person may vote. Please mark all of the following types of voting procedures that are available in your county. (n=354)

o In-person Election Day voting precinct

§ 83.62% (n=296)

o In-person Election Day voting at precinct with provisional ballot

§ 71.47% (n=253)

o In-person Election Day voting at office of county election official

§ 29.38% (n=104)

o In-person voting at a satellite office located in the community

§ 14.40% (n=51)

o Mail-in absentee voting

§ 94.07% (n=333)

o Non-absentee voting by mail

§ 38.13% (n=135)

o Internet voting using a computer

§ 6.78% (n=24)

o Early voting (including absentee voting) at office of county election official

§ 84.18% (n=298)

o Early voting (including absentee voting) at a satellite in the community

§ 24.29% (n=86)

o Other (Please specify)

§ 12.71% (n=45)

· QID6: Does your county require proof of identity prior to a person being allowed to vote? (n=353)

o No

§ 20.39% (n=72)

o Yes

§ 79.32% (n=280)

§ Bills showing name of person and address

· 26.43% (n=74)

§ Non-government forms of identification without picture

· 8.57% (n=24)

§ Non-government forms of identification with picture

· 23.93% (n=67)

§ Government issued identification without picture

· 20.36% (n=57)

§ Government issued identification with picture

· 90.36% (n=253)

§ Tribal identification

· 39.29% (n=110)

§ Other (Please specify)

· 31.79% (n=89)

· QID7: If voters are required to present identification prior to voting, can those without such identification vote provisionally? (n=301)

o No

§ 14.29% (n=43)

o Yes

§ 85071% (n=258)

o No

§ 64.48% (n=216)

o Yes

§ 35.52% (n=119)

· QID9: Poll workers are very important in the administration of elections. Have you found it difficult to recruit qualified poll workers? (n=339)

o No

§ 41.59% (n=141)

o Yes

§ 58.40% (n=198)

· QID10: In the past two years, which of the following methods have been used to recruit poll workers in your county? (n=336)

o Political parties

§ 61.31% (n=206)

o Advertisements in newspapers or other media outlets

§ 27.68% (n=93)

o On-line announcements

§ 23.21% (n=78)

o Official county job posting

§ 8.04% (n=27)

o Sought recommendations from poll workers

§ 80.36% (n=270)

o Sought recommendations from friends

§ 58.33% (n=196)

o Sought recommendations from community groups (Please specify)

§ 24.40% (n=82)

o Other means (Please specify)

§ 21.73% (n=73)

· QID11: In the past two years, has your office provided training sessions for poll workers? (n=336)

o No

§ 5.65% (n=19)

o Yes

§ 93.75% (n=315)

§ Instructions on opening and closing the polls

· 98.09% (n=309)

§ Instructions on the mechanics of voting (e.g., voting machines etc.)

· 95.87% (n=302)

§ Instructions about handling questions of voter eligibity

· 95.55% (n=301)

§ Instructions about handling party challenges to voters

· 77.14% (n=243)

§ Instructions about handling provisional ballots

· 87.94% (n=277)

§ Instructions about assisting voters with physical disabilities

· 95.55% (n=301)

§ Instructions about assisting voters with limited English

· 70.48% (n=222)

§ Instructions about securing voting machines, ballots and ballot boxes

· 96.51% (n=304)

§ Instructions about reconciling voting numbers

· 85.08% (n=268)

· Part II

o QID12_1: Using a computer to register online (n=278)

§ Disagree: 62.59% (n=174)

§ Agree: 23.02% (n=64)

§ Neutral: 14.39% (n=40)

§ Average: 2.92

o QID12_2: Registration at a satellite office located in the community (n=255)

§ Disagree: 54.12% (n=138)

§ Agree: 27.45% (n=70)

§ Neutral: 18.43% (n=47)

§ Average: 3.33

o QID12_3: Registration at the Department of Motor Vehicles (n=279)

§ Disagree: 59.14% (n=165)

§ Agree: 25.45% (n=71)

§ Neutral: 15.41% (n=43)

§ Average: 3.14

o QID12_4: Registration at other government offices (n=274)

§ Disagree: 57.30% (n=157)

§ Agree: 25.55% (n=70)

§ Neutral: 17.15% (n=47)

§ Average: 3.22

o QID12_5: Election Day registration (n=260)

§ Disagree: 40.77% (n=106)

§ Agree: 39.62% (n=103)

§ Neutral: 19.62% (n=51)

§ Average: 4.02

· QID13: The following registration procedures make it more difficult to protect the security of the voting process:

o QID13_1: Using a computer to register online (n=275)

§ Disagree: 60.36% (n=166)

§ Agree: 21.45% (n=59)

§ Neutral: 18.18% (n=50)

§ Average: 2.98

o QID13_2: Registration at a satellite office located in the community (n=255)

§ Disagree: 63.14% (n=161)

§ Agree: 16.86% (n=43)

§ Neutral: 20.00% (n=51)

§ Average: 2.83

o QID13_3: Registration at the Department of Motor Vehicles (n=274)

§ Disagree: 72.99% (n=200)

§ Agree: 12.77% (n=35)

§ Neutral: 14.23% (n=39)

§ Average: 2.48

o QID13_4: Registration at other government offices (n=272)

§ Disagree: 67.65% (n=184)

§ Agree: 16.18% (n=44)

§ Neutral: 16.18% (n=44)

§ Average: 2.69

o QID13_5: Election Day registration (n=258)

§ Disagree: 50.39% (n=130)

§ Agree: 33.33% (n=86)

§ Neutral: 16.28% (n=42)

§ Average: 3.62

· QID14: The costs in terms increased administrative burden of the following voting procedures outweigh the potential benefits:

o QID14_1: In-person Election Day voting with provisional ballot (n=288)

§ Disagree: 54.17% (n=156)

§ Agree: 28.82% (n=83)

§ Neutral: 17.01% (n=49)

§ Average: 3.33

o QID14_2: In-person Election Day voting at office of county election official (n=272)

§ Disagree: 51.47% (n=140)

§ Agree: 30.51% (n=83)

§ Neutral: 18.01% (n=49)

§ Average: 3.54

o QID14_3: In-person voting at a satellite office located in the community (n=254)

§ Disagree: 46.46% (n=118)

§ Agree: 33.07% (n=84)

§ Neutral: 20.47% (n=52)

§ Average: 3.65

o QID14_4: Mail-in absentee voting (n=288)

§ Disagree: 73.61% (n=212)

§ Agree: 13.19% (n=38)

§ Neutral: 13.19% (n=38)

§ Average: 2.41

o QID14_5: Voting by mail combined with a drop box (n=264)

§ Disagree: 60.61% (n=160)

§ Agree: 18.56% (n=49)

§ Neutral: 20.83% (n=55)

§ Average: 2.90

o QID14_6: Internet voting using a computer (n=242)

§ Disagree: 37.60% (n=91)

§ Agree: 33.88% (n=82)

§ Neutral: 0% (n=0)

§ Average: 3.926

o QID14_7: Early voting (including absentee voting) at office of county election official (n=280)

§ Disagree: 70.00% (n=196)

§ Agree: 13.57% (n=38)

§ Neutral: 16.43% (n=46)

§ Average: 2.51

o QID14_8: Early voting (including absentee voting) at a satellite in the community (n=256)

§ Disagree: 52.34% (n=134)

§ Agree: 26.17% (n=67)

§ Neutral: 21.48% (n=55)

§ Average: 3.27

· QID15: The following voting procedures make it more difficult to protect the security of the voting process:

o QID15_1: In-person Election Day voting with provisional ballot (n=284)

§ Disagree: 72.54% (n=206)

§ Agree: 15.85% (n=45)

§ Neutral: 11.62% (n=33)

§ Average: 2.50

o QID15_2: In-person Election Day voting at office of county election official (n=266)

§ Disagree: 70.68% (n=188)

§ Agree: 15.41% (n=41)

§ Neutral: 13.91% (n=37)

§ Average: 2.54

o QID15_3: In-person voting at a satellite office located in the community (n=257)

§ Disagree: 63.81% (n=164)

§ Agree: 19.84% (n=51)

§ Neutral: 16.34% (n=42)

§ Average: 2.88

o QID15_4: Mail-in absentee voting (n=293)

§ Disagree: 78.50% (n=230)

§ Agree: 8.87% (n=26)

§ Neutral: 12.63% (n=37)

§ Average: 2.22

o QID15_5: Voting by mail combined with a drop box (n=264)

§ Disagree: 64.02% (n=169)

§ Agree: 17.05% (n=45)

§ Neutral: 18.94% (n=50)

§ Average: 2.77

o QID15_6: Internet voting using a computer (n=255)

§ Disagree: 32.16% (n=82)

§ Agree: 47.06% (n=120)

§ Neutral: 20.78% (n=53)

§ Average: 4.35

o QID15_7: Early voting (including absentee voting) at office of county election official (n=283)

§ Disagree: 85.87% (n=243)

§ Agree: 4.24% (n=12)

§ Neutral: 9.89% (n=28)

§ Average: 1.87

o QID15_8: Early voting (including absentee voting) at a satellite in the community (n=263)

§ Disagree: 68.82% (n=181)

§ Agree: 16.35% (n=43)

§ Neutral: 14.83% (n=39)

§ Average: 2.65

· Please tell us how much you agree or disagree with the following statements when requiring a person to provide proof of identity in order to register:

· QID16_1: It decreases electoral participation among otherwise qualified people. (n=283)

o Disagree: 65.02% (n=184)

o Agree: 20.14% (n=57)

o Neutral: 14.84% (n=42)

o Average: 2.72

· QID16_2: It increases the security of the voting process (n=291)

o Disagree: 14.78% (n=43)

o Agree: 72.16% (n=210)

o Neutral: 13.06% (n=38)

o Average: 5.53

· QID16_3: The increased administrative burden outweighs the potential benefits (n=281)

o Disagree: 65.12% (n=183)

o Agree: 16.73% (n=47)

o Neutral: 18.15% (n=51)

o Average: 2.70

· Please tell us whether you agree or disagree with the following statements when requiring a person to provide proof of identity in order to vote:

· QID20_1: It decreases electoral participation among otherwise qualified people. (n=265)

o Disagree: 64.15% (n=170)

o Agree: 19.62% (n=52)

o Neutral: 16.23% (n=43)

o Average: 2.80

· QID20_2: It increases the security of the voting process (n=272)

o Disagree: 15.44% (n=42)

o Agree: 72.79% (n=198)

o Neutral: 11.76% (n=32)

o Average: 5.48

· QID20_3: The increased administrative burden outweighs the potential benefits (n=267)

o Disagree: 59.93% (n=160)

o Agree: 21.35% (n=57)

o Neutral: 18.73% (n=50)

o Average: 2.98

· How would you characterize yourself? Would you say you are:

· QID23_1: Generally supportive of "convenience registration and voting" procedures? (n=283)

o Disagree: 15.19% (n=43)

o Agree: 69.61% (n=197)

o Neutral: 15.19% (n=43)

o Average: 5.26

· QID23_2: Generally supportive of "ballot security" procedures? (n=289)

o Disagree: 2.77% (n=8)

o Agree: 92.39% (n=267)

o Neutral: 4.84% (n=14)

o Average: 6.33

· QID25: How much would having increased funding affect your level of support for “convenience registration and voting” procedures? (n=287)

o Not likely to be more supportive: 40.42% (n=116)

o Somewhat more likely to be supportive: 36.24% (n=104)

o More likely to be supportive: 23.34% (n=67)

· QID26: How much would having increased funding affect your level of support for “ballot security” procedures? (n=288)

o Not likely to be more supportive: 34.03% (n=98)

o Somewhat likely to be more supportive: 36.81% (n=106)

o More likely to be supportive: 29.17% (n=84)

· Part III

· QID27: I am: (n=291)

o Female: 86.60% (n=252)

o Male: 13.40% (n=39)

· QID28: I am: (n=286)

o Non-Hispanic Caucasian: 80.07% (n=229)

o Hispanic Caucasian: 8.04% (n=23)

o non-Hispanic black: 1.05% (n=3)

o Hispanic black: 1.05% (n=3)

o Asian or Pacific Islander: 0.70% (n=2)

o Native American/Indian: 2.10% (n=6)

o Other: 6.99% (n=20)

· QID29: I would classify myself as:

o liberal Democrat: 3.16% (n=8)

o moderate Democrat: 11.07% (n=28)

o conservative Democrat: 8.70% (n=22)

o liberal Republican: 6.32% (n=16)

o moderate Republican: 26.09% (n=66)

o conservative Republican: 23.32% (n=59)

o Other: 21.34% (n=54)

· QID30_text: How many months have you served in your current office? (n=286)

o Average: 113 months

o Median: 91 months

· QID31: Did you hold a lower position in county elections administration before becoming the chief elections officer in your county? (n=292)

o Yes: 57.19% (n=167)

o No: 42.81% (n=125)

Abstract

States since the founding period have maintained control of the administration and supervision of elections at the local, state, and federal-level. Yet, with local control comes much variation between states and within states with respect to how elections are conducted. Policies, procedures, and mechanisms vary widely. There are over 4,500 Local Election Officials across the country. The vast majority of oversight and implementation of election law falls on the Local Election Official. As one report stated, “On the local level, election administrators determine who can vote, where they can vote, and how they can vote.” They are generally responsible for administering voter registration, arranging for polling officials and voting sites, printing ballots, and administering vote technology. Previous studies on local election officials (LEOs) have included Montjoy on perceptions on reform and costs of LEOs in two counties; Wang and Hall on LEOs’ approach to minority and foreign language voters; Fischer and Coleman, Burden, Canon, Lavertu, Mayer, and Moynihan, and Moynihan and Silva on perceptions of HAVA reform by LEOs. Of these studies, some additionally looked at demographic characteristics of LEOs, or whether their attitudes differed based on partisanship or whether they were elected or appointed. Our study will focus on the debate raging between advocates of easier ballot access (through measures such as Election Day registration, early voting, and vote by mail elections) and supporters of enhanced ballot security (through measures such as voter identification requirements). Analysts and political activists have often treated these two objectives as mutually exclusive, and have assumed different partisan orientations toward them (with Republicans assumed to favor ballot security and Democrats to prefer ballot access). There is limited information, however, on what those in charge of administering elections on the local level think about these issues. This paper will examine that question on the basis of responses to a survey sent to the local elections officer in each of the 1,064 counties of the contiguous United States west of the Missouri River. This region of the country was chosen because it encompasses the greatest variation in types of registration and voting procedures in the country. The 30 question survey obtained roughly a 40 percent response rate, and will allow us to answer a number of pertinent questions: 1) Exactly which ballot access and ballot security measures are already in place in which locations? 2) Do the election officials themselves tend to see ballot access and ballot security as incompatible, or is some common ground possible? 3) How do they judge varying ballot access and ballot security measures in terms of effectiveness and desirability? 4) Is there a partisan tendency to how the officials see ballot access and ballot security measures? 5) Are their attitudes affected by their ability to recruit and train poll workers? 6) Do attitudes among election officials vary in keeping with how long they have held their position? 7) Is there a difference in the attitudes of appointed versus elected officials? And, 8) Do their attitudes vary by gender or other demographic characteristics? Although this paper will be primarily descriptive, we believe it will add to original knowledge in the area of American elections, voter participation, and election law and administration. This project is part of a larger study conducted jointly by Prof. Jean Schroedel at Claremont Graduate University and the Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna College. Funding is provided by the Blais Foundation. Future analysis will test whether attitudes of the officials is correlated to the distance of the county seat from the nearest Indian reservation.

REFERENCES

Majita Gajanan, “Without Evidence Donald Trump Says Millions Voted ‘Illegally’ In the Election He Won,” Time, November 27, 2016, http://time.com/4582868/donald-trump-people-illegally-voted-election/.

Ari Berman, “Wisconsin’s voter-ID law suppressed 200,000 votes in 2016 (Trump won by 22,748),” The Nation, May 9, 2017, https://www.thenation.com/article/wisconsins-voter-id-law-suppressed-200000-votes-trump-won-by-23000/

U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section IV

Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, no. 59, p. 361. For more on Article I, Section IV see: Peacock, Anthony A. “Election Regulations.” In The Heritage Guide to The Constitution, edited by Matthew Spalding and David F. Forte, 87–89. United States: Regnery Publishing, 2014.

Huefner, Steven F., Daniel P. Tokaji, and Edward B. Foley. 2007. From Registration to Recounts: The Election Ecosystems of Five Midwestern States. Columbus, OH: Election Law at Moritz, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.

Issacharoff, Samuel, Pamels S. Karlan, and Richard H. Pildes. 2012. The Law of Democracy: Legal Structures of the Political Process, 4th ed. (New York: New York: Foundation Press).

Lindblom, Charles Edward E. Politics and Markets: The World’s Political Economic Systems. New York: Basic Books, 1977.

Hale, Kathleen, Robert S. Montjoy, and Mitchell Brown. Administering Elections: How American Elections Work (Elections, Voting, Technology). United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015, xxvii.

Hale, Kathleen, and Christa Daryl Slaton. "Building Capacity in Election Administration: Local Responses to Complexity and Interdependence." Public Administration Review 68, no. 5 (2008): 839-49.

Hale, Kathleen, Mitchell Brown. “Adopting, Adapting, and Opting Out: State Response to Federal Voting System Guidelines.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 43, no. 3 (January 7, 2013): 428–51.

Hale, Kathleen and Ramona McNeal. “Election Administration Reform and State Choice: Voter Identification Requirements and HAVA.” Policy Studies Journal 38, no. 2 (May 1, 2010): 281–302.

Cha, J. Mijin and Liz Kennedy. Millions to the Polls: Practical Policies to Fulfill the Freedom to Vote For All Americans. New York: Dēmos, 2014. http://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/m2p-Main.pdf.

Kathleen Hale, Administering Elections, xxvi. [6] Montjoy, Robert S. “The Public Administration of Elections.” Public Administration Review 68, no. 5 (September 2008): 788–99.

Kathleen Hale, Administering Elections, xxvi. [8] Kropf, Martha, Timothy Vercellotti, and David C. Kimball. “Representative Bureaucracy and Partisanship: The Implementation of Election Law.” Public Administration Review 73, no. 2 (March 1, 2013): 242–52.

Palazzolo, Daniel J. and Fiona R. McCarthy. “State and Local Government Organizations and the Formation of the Help America Vote Act.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 35, no. 4 (January 1, 2005): 515–35.

https://www.lavote.net/about-us/about-dean-c-logan 17

Schroedel, Jean, Robert Saporito, Joey Torres, Andrea Walters, Peter Abkarian, Carlin Crisanti, Gary hawk, Anna Phillips and Ashley Shew. The Differential Effect of Travel Distance on Voting in Jackson County. Report prepared for Four Directions, Mission, South Dakota. (January, 2015).

Kathleen Hale, Administering Elections, 39.

Kropf, Martha, Timothy Vercellotti, and David C. Kimball. “Representative Bureaucracy and Partisanship: The Implementation of Election Law.” Public Administration Review 73, no. 2 (March 1, 2013): 242–52.

Coleman, Jeffrey Brudney L and Edward J Kellough. “Bureaucracy as a Representative Institution: Toward a Reconciliation of Bureaucratic Government and Democratic Theory.” American Journal of Political Science 42, no. 3 (July 1998): 717–44.

Moynihan, Donald P and Carol L. Silva. “The Administrators of Democracy: A Research Note on Local Election Officials.” Public Administration Review 68, no. 5 (September 1, 2008): 816–27.

Kimball, David C. and Brady Baybeck. “Are All Jurisdictions Equal? Size Disparity in Election Administration.” Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy 12, no. 2 (2013): 130–45.

Kimball, David C. and Martha Kropf. “The Street-Level Bureaucrats of Elections: Selection Methods for Local Election Officials.” Review of Policy Research 23, no. 6 (November 1, 2006): 1257–68.

Storing, Herbert. “Foreword.” In The Creation of the Presidency, 1775-1789: A Study in Constitutional History, by Charles C Thach, 166. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 2007.

Kimball, David C. and Brady Baybeck. “Are All Jurisdictions Equal? Size Disparity in Election Administration.” Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy 12, no. 2 (2013): 130–45.

For more on voter information see the work of: Vonnahme, Greg and Beth Miller. “Candidate Cues and Voter Confidence in American Elections.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties 23, no. 2 (May 2013): 223–39.

Wolfinger, Raymond E, Benjamin Highton, and Megan Mullin. “How Postregistration Laws Affect the Turnout of Citizens Registered to Vote.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 5, no. 1 (2005): 1–23.

McDonald, Laughlin. American Indians and the Fight for Equal Voting Rights. Norman, OK; University of Oklahoma Press, 2010, 35.

For more on voter registration see the work of: Shaw, Daron, Stephen Ansolabehere, and Charles Stewart III. “A Brief Yet Practical Guide to Reforming U.S. Voter Registration Systems.” Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy 14, no. 1 (March 2015): 26–31.

Brown-Dean, Khalilah. “Disenfranchisement After Bush V. Gore: Changes and Trends.” In Election Administration in the United States: The State of Reform after Bush v. Gore, edited by Michael R. Alvarez and Bernard Grofman, 199–211. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

McDonald, Michael P. “The True Electorate: A Cross-Validation of Voter Registration Files and Election Survey Demographics.” The Public Opinion Quarterly 71, no. 4 (2007): 588–602. Brians, Craig

Leonard and Bernard Grofman. “Election Day Registration’s Effect on U.S. Voter Turnout.” Social Science Quarterly 82, no. 1 (March 2001): 170–83.

Burden, Barry C. and Jeffrey Milyo. “The Quantities and Qualities of Poll Workers.” Election Law Journal 14, no. 1 (November 2015): 38–46.

Hall, Thad E., Quin J. Monson, and Kelly D. Patterson. “The Human Dimension of Elections How Poll Workers Shape Public Confidence in Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 62, no. 3 (October 1, 2008): 507–22.

Atkeson, Lonna Rae, Yann P. Kerevel, R. Michael Alvarez, and Thad E. Hall. “Who Asks For Voter Identification? Explaining Poll-Worker Discretion.” The Journal of Politics 76, no. 04 (July 30, 2014): 944–57.

Stein, Robert M. “Polling Place Practices and the Voting Experience.” In The Measure of American Elections, edited by Barry C. Burden and Charles Stewart, 166–87. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Stein, Robert M. and Greg Vonnahme. “Effect of Election Day Vote Centers on Voter Participation.” Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy 11, no. 3 (2012): 291–301.

__________. “When, Where, and How We Vote: Does It Matter?” Social Science Quarterly 93, no. 3 (May 2, 2012): 692–712.

Hale, Administering Elections: How American Elections Work.

Bonneau, Chris W. and Eric Loepp. “Getting Things Straight: The Effects of Ballot Design and Electoral Structure on Voter Participation.” Electoral Studies 34 (June 1, 2014): 119–30.

Burnett, Craig M and Vladimir Kogan. “When Does Ballot Language Influence Voter Choices? Evidence from a Survey Experiment.” Political Communication 32, no. 1 (July 19, 2010): 109-126.

Wofford, Ben. “How to Hack an Election in 7 Minutes With Russia Already Meddling in 2016, a Ragtag Group of Obsessive Tech Experts Is Warning That Stealing the Ultimate Prize—victory on Nov. 8—would Be Child’s Play.” Politico (Politico Magazine), August 5, 2016.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/2016-elections-russia-hack-how-to-hack-an-election-in-seven-minutes-214144.

Segall, Laurie. “Just How Secure Are Electronic Voting Machines?” CNN (CNN), August 9, 2016. http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/09/technology/voting-machine-hack-election/. Barrett, Brian. “This Weird Globe-Folding Map Isn’t Perfect, but It’s Close.” Wired: Security (Wired), August 2, 2016.

https://www.wired.com/2016/08/americas-voting-machines-arent-ready-election/. Inc, CBS Interactive. “Hacker Demonstrates How Voting Machines Can Be Compromised.” CBS News (CBS News), August 10, 2016.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rigged-presidential-elections-hackers-demonstrate-voting-threat-old-machines/.

“Administration of Grant Funds Authorized by HAVA.” Role of the grants office in the administration of HAVA Funds Issue Guidance Make Grant Awards Provide oversight and Monitoring Provide Technical Assistance Resolve audits. Washington D.C.: United States Election Assistance Commission.

https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/workflow_staging/Documents/4438.PDF.

The seminal work in the sub-field is Lipsky, Michael. Street Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1980. In a recent update, Lipsky notes that street-level bureaucrats, with heavy work demands, can become desensitized to the needs of citizens.

Lipsky, Michael, Street Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, updated edition. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2010, 37.

Burden, Barry C., David T. Canon, Kenneth R. Mayer, and Donald P. Moynihan, “The Effect of Administrative Burden on Bureaucratic Perceptions of Policies: Evidence from Election Administration,” Public Administration Review (September/October, 2012), 741-751.

Montjoy, Robert S. “The Changing Nature . . . And Costs . . . Of Election Administration.” Public Administration Review 70, no. 6 (October 26, 2010): 867–75.

Montjoy, Robert S. “The Public Administration of Elections.” Public Administration Review 68, no. 5 (January 20, 2008): 788–99.

For more information about how county officials respond to changes that require that they take on additional tasks that increase budgetary pressures, see Lu, Haoran and Rex L. Facer, II, “Budget Change in Georgia Counties: Examining Patterns and Practices,” American Review of Public Administration 34, No. 1 (2004): 67-93.

Van Wart, Monty. “The Return to Simpler Strategies in Job Analysis The Case of Municipal Clerks.” Review of Public Personnel Administration 20, no. 3 (July 2000): 5–27.

Steel, Brent S. and Nicholas P. Lovrich. “Keeping Up With The Times: Public Personnel Management in County Government.” Review of Public Personnel Administration 16, no. 2 (April 1996): 32–56.

Hall, Thad E. “Public Participation in Election Management The Case of Language Minority Voters.” The American Review of Public Administration 33, no. 4 (December 2003): 407–22. Wang, Xiaohu. “Assessing Administrative Accountability Results from a National Survey.” The American Review of Public Administration 32, no. 3 (September 2002): 350–70.

Burden, Barry C., David T. Canon, Kenneth R. Mayer, and Donald P. Moynihan. “The Effect of Administrative Burden on Bureaucratic Perception of Policies: Evidence from Election Administration.” Public Administration Review 72, no. 5 (September 1, 2012): 741–51.

Fischer, Eric A. and Kevin J. Coleman. CRS Report for Congress: Election Reform and Local Election Officials: Results of Two National Surveys. Washington D.C.: Congressional Research Service, 2005.

Moynihan, Donald P. and Carol L. Silva, “The Administrators of Democracy: A Research Note on Local election Officials,” Public Administration Review 68, No. 5 (2008): 816-827.

Fischer and Coleman. CRS Report for Congress: Election Reform and Local Election Officials: Results of Two National Surveys.

Fischer, Eric A. and Kevin J. Coleman. CRS Report: What Do Local Election Officials Think about Election Reform?: Results of a Survey. Washington D.C.: Congressional Research Service, 2009.

Burden, Barry C., David T. Canon, Stéphane Lavertu, Kenneth R. Mayer, and Donald P. Moynihan. “Selection Method, Partisanship, and the Administration of Elections.” American Politics Research 41, no. 6 (March 10, 2013): 903–36.

Fischer, Eric A. and Kevin J. Coleman. CRS Report for Congress: Election Reform and Local Election Officials: Results of Two National Surveys. Washington D.C.: Congressional Research Service, 2005.

Moynihan, Donald P and Carol L. Silva. “The Administrators of Democracy: A Research Note on Local Election Officials.” Public Administration Review 68, no. 5 (September 1, 2008): 816–27.

Alvarez, R Michael, Thad E Hall, and California Institute of Technology. “Controlling Democracy: The Principal–Agent Problems in Election Administration.” Policy Studies Journal 34, no. 4 (November 1, 2006): 491–510.

Hale, Kathleen and Christa Daryl Slaton. “Building Capacity in Election Administration: Local Responses to Complexity and Interdependence.” Public Administration Review 68, no. 5 (January 20, 2008): 839–49.

Moynihan, Donald P and Carol L. Silva. “The Administrators of Democracy: A Research Note on Local Election Officials.” Public Administration Review 68, no. 5 (September 1, 2008): 816–27.

Fischer, Eric A. and Kevin J. Coleman. CRS Report: What Do Local Election Officials Think about Election Reform?: Results of a Survey. Washington D.C.: Congressional Research Service, 2009.

Atkeson, Lonna Rae, Lisa A. Bryant, Thad E. Hall, Kyle L Saunders, and Michael R. Alvarez. “A New Barrier to Participation: Heterogeneous Application of Voter Identification Policies.” Electoral Studies: An International Journal 29, no. 1 (2010): 66–73.

Provisional votes are only counted if the person returns with a required form of identification within a specified period of time.

Among the states we surveyed, Idaho, North Dakota, and Wyoming are not required to use provisional ballots because states (like them) that had same day registration in 1993 are exempted. While they are not required to do so, North Dakota and Wyoming both offer provisional voting under certain circumstances. See “Provisional Ballots,” National Conference of State Legislatures, June 19, 2015, http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/provisional-ballots.aspx.