EAC Survey Sheds Light on Election Administration
By Michael McDonald and Kimball Brace
Special to Roll Call
October 27, 2005
U.S. elections are administered at the local level,
not by the federal government. Election results are reported by local
election jurisdictions to their state counterparts, who certify the
winners for their states. But there is no systematic, national
collection of information that underpins the performance of our
nation’s election administration, from how voters are registered to
how they cast their ballots.
Commission conducted the Election Day Survey, the
first attempt by the federal government to systematically collect voting
and election administration data from local election jurisdictions
across the country. We were contracted by the EAC to analyze the
Election Day Survey. Some of our findings and recommendations are
presented here.
While the Election Day Survey holds promise to
inform us about voters’ election experiences and the administration of
elections, the survey also reveals continuing challenges.
We found that in the fall 2004 election, the
“drop-off” — that is, the difference between the total ballots
cast and the votes for a particular office — was the smallest in a
post-World War II presidential election. While some people consciously
abstain from a race on the ballot when they vote, the low residual vote
suggests that voters were more conscientious about correctly casting
their ballot and were aided by new electronic technology that warns a
voter of potential errors with their ballot.
We found that of the at least 1.9 million
provisional ballots cast, 1.2 million were counted. Provisional ballots
provided a vehicle for many people to cast a ballot who might otherwise
have been disfranchised.
We found benefits to centralized administration of
registration rolls. HAVA mandates the adoption of statewide voter
registration databases, rather than the administration of voter
registration solely on the local level. In those states that have
implemented statewide voter registration databases, provisional
balloting rates were lower and more absentee ballots sent to voters were
returned. These benefits not only help voters, they also reduce the cost
of administering elections.
While these are encouraging signs of improved
election administration, we also found continuing challenges to election
administration in the United States.
All jurisdictions did not respond to all survey
items, often because they do not routinely track the requested
information.
In the absence of common definitions and full
survey responses, we cannot compare local jurisdictions or states, or
draw completely valid conclusions about much of the information found in
the survey. For these reasons, “state rankings” that might reveal
best practices or identify worst offenders are largely meaningless.
In the coming months, many organizations will
analyze the Election Day Survey data and make claims based on it. We
want to strongly encourage these organizations to be careful in their
analysis. Things that may appear as evidence of fraud, such as a
jurisdiction having more absentee ballots counted than returned, often
stem from how local election administrators interpreted the questions
asked of them — for instance, in this case, not counting an absentee
ballot delivered to a polling place as a returned ballot. And this
example just scratches the surface. It is not an understatement to say
that we have written a novel-length report full of such idiosyncrasies.
Among our recommendations are to improve the
questionnaire design and to develop a survey instrument that will
encourage jurisdictions to respond. Resolving data collection and
definition issues now is important as the EAC contemplates new voluntary
certification standards for voting equipment and as states upgrade and
centralize their management of voter registration databases. Developing
technology that captures and records vital election statistics will
greatly help future data collection efforts, which should in turn
improve election administration and, ultimately, democracy in America.
|