Early Voting:  Issues and Problems*

Early voting, the ability to vote a ballot during a period prior to the normal election day (usually up to 21 days),  has  been implemented in some states. The theory put forward is that it is simply too difficult for voters to make it to the polls during the 12 hours that polls are open various states. Providing an extended period of time for individuals to vote will, therefore, supposedly increase turnout. If this theory sounds familiar, it is because the same assertion was used to promote the passage of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, or Motor Voter. At that time, the long-term decline in turnout that we have been experiencing in the United States was said to be due to the alleged "complexity" of registering to vote. Motor Voter was needed to make it "easier" to register to vote — turnout would increase if Motor Voter was passed. The number of individuals registering to vote has increased since Motor Voter went into effect; however, turnouts have continued to decline, making it clear that any problems associated with registering to vote were not the culprit for declining turnout. The real reasons for declining turnout are based on a variety of substantive causes, including public cynicism and satisfaction with the status quo, not the procedural rules for registering and voting.

In the same way that Motor Voter was not a solution to low turnout, early voting is also not a panacea for declining turnout and decreasing participation in the political process by the average citizen. Twelve states have put some form of early voting into effect.  But according to a recent study on voter turnout by the highly respected nonpartisan Committee for the Study of the American Electorate ("CSAE"), early voting has not stemmed the decrease in turnout. In an exhaustive study of turnout in all fifty states, CSAE concluded that those states that have adopted early voting or no-fault absentee voting "performed worse in terms of either greater average turnout declines" in years when turnout went down such as 1996 and 1998 and experienced "lesser average turnout increases" in election years when turnout increased such as 1992 and 1994, than states that did not adopt either of these voting procedures. What is worse, prior to adopting early voting and no-fault absentee voting, the states that adopted such procedures "had been performing better than those states that never adopted these procedures."

For example, the average turnout of the voting age population in the 1998 election in states with early voting was more than 3 percentage points lower than in all other states (33% versus 36.6%). The average turnout in early voting states in the 1994 election was 0.7 percentage points less than in all other states (38.1% versus 38.8%). Turnout in early voting and no-fault absentee voting states declined 3% in 1998 but only decreased 2.5% in all other states. Turnout went up 1.4% in 1994 in early voting and no-fault absentee states versus an increase of 2.6% in all other states. 

Why, contrary to expectations, would turnout worsen in states that have adopted early voting? CSAE concluded that early voters are probably individuals "who are sufficiently motivated that they would likely vote anyway and because it is so easy, they tend to forget to do their duty." By allowing a longer period to vote, you "are diffusing mobilization and get-out-the vote activities over a long time and reducing their one-day intensity." Finally, one is encouraging "values that reduce the call of citizen responsibility in the name of making voting easier," and therefore reducing the impulse to vote.

Aside from its failure to increase turnout, there are other problems with early voting. Early voting statutes typically give local election officials the choice of where to open early voting precincts.   This creates the possibility that a local municipality could attempt to manipulate the outcome of an election by opening up early voting locations in those precincts that may vote in a particular way based on past election results, thus, altering the composition of the participating electorate. If Precinct A has voted strongly for Republican Party candidates in prior elections while Precinct B has voted strongly for Democratic Party candidates, local election officials may be able to raise the vote totals for one of the parties by only opening an early voting location in one of these precincts and not the other. As another example, if election officials want to increase the likelihood that a school bond referendum will pass, they could open up early voting locations only in schools with the probability that parents taking their children to school would be more likely to vote in favor of such a referendum.

In addition, early voting will significantly raise the cost of political campaigns. Most political candidates and campaigns spend the bulk of their money in the last few days before election day on direct mail, advertising, phone banking, and get-out-the-vote efforts. With early voting, such expenses will stretch over a much longer period, resulting in more expensive campaigns. Any candidate who does not spend money on such efforts during the early voting period will be at an inherent disadvantage. Early voting will, therefore, increase the cost barrier to the ability of the average citizen to participate in the political process as a candidate.

This has been the experience of candidates in states that have instituted early voting, mail-in balloting, and liberal absentee voting. Brian Baird, a Democratic candidate in Washington State’s Third Congressional District, spent nearly one million dollars more in his 1998 race than in his earlier unsuccessful race in 1996.  Almost all of those additional funds were used to target early mail voters, something he had not done in his prior run. In 1998, Baird won.  Unless candidates reach early voters, they cannot hope to win elections.

Early voting can hurt the integrity of the election process by limiting independent oversight of election procedures. The ability of candidates and political parties to appoint poll watchers as observers at polling locations maintains the security of our election process and helps prevent the commission of vote fraud by both voters and election officials. It is already difficult for most candidates and parties to find enough volunteers to cover polling locations in the larger counties on election day. Trying to organize such a poll-watching program at additional polling locations for up to three weeks will probably be impossible, making it very difficult for outside observers to monitor the election.

Finally, there is a possibility that in elections where a candidate for federal office is on the ballot, early voting may violate the U.S. Constitution. Although a number of states have had early voting statutes in place for some time, there is currently a lawsuit pending in Texas to have that state’s early voting statute declared unconstitutional.  Under the authority of the Constitution, federal law specifies a single federal election day (the Tuesday after the first Monday in November) as the exclusive day throughout the U.S. for balloting for U.S. Representatives, U.S. Senators, and Presidential Electors.  By allowing up to three weeks for balloting, early voting statutes may unconstitutionally lengthen the one-day nationwide election prescribed by federal law for candidates for federal offices. Louisiana’s October open primary balloting system, which can result in a candidate winning prior to the November election, has already been found unconstitutional as a violation of federal election-day statutes by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Similarly, extending voting over a three-week period rather than holding it on one day as mandated by federal law could be found to be a violation of federal law and the exclusive authority of Congress under the Constitution to promulgate rules for election to federal office. Therefore, even if Georgia were to adopt early voting, it could be declared invalid in the future at least for federal offices. A two-part election, i.e., one for state offices with early voting and another for federal offices with a single election day, would create numerous practical and legal problems and would be very confusing.

All of these considerations show that early voting is not a solution to the continuing problem of declining turnout in our elections. In fact, based on the experience of other states, it may hasten the decline. It also promotes many negative trends. The higher costs of campaigning caused by early voting may discourage participation in the political process and increase the costs of elections to local governments. The ability of election officials to manipulate results and the increased difficulty for political parties and candidates of organizing poll-watching programs to monitor elections may lessen the confidence of the public in the security of the voting process and lead to increased cynicism. That is not a result that we should encourage as citizens of a great democracy. Our goal must be to encourage participation in the political process while maintaining the security of elections and voting.

See Hans A. von Spakovsky for full text of this report.