Voter Access Policies
Accessibility of the ballot box furthers a fair democracy that respects every vote and every voice. Communities that pass pro-participation policies encourage local turnout and reduce barriers at the ballot box. Below are examples of pro-participation policies cities can adopt to improve voter participation.
Early Voting
Improving voter turnout is an important means of strengthening American democracy. High turnout is a sign of the legitimacy of elections and governments, and helps to reduce the distortions caused by the underrepresentation of voters in certain demographic groups, like the young and the poor. If more voters turn out for elections, the resulting government will more accurately reflect the preferences of the population as a whole. Unfortunately, voter turnout in the United States is consistently lower than turnout in other developed democracies.
Improving turnout requires the removal of as many of the artificial barriers to voting as possible. Early voting removes barriers to electoral participation by reducing lines at polling stations on Election Day, ensuring that those who will be traveling or otherwise unable to vote on Election Day will be able to participate, and giving options to those who have difficulty finding time to vote when elections are held in the middle of the work week. Support for early voting is on the rise: thirty-four states and the District of Columbia already allow for some form of early voting, and the proportion of votes cast ahead of Election Day has risen dramatically in recent elections.
Improving turnout requires the removal of as many of the artificial barriers to voting as possible. Early voting removes barriers to electoral participation by reducing lines at polling stations on Election Day, ensuring that those who will be traveling or otherwise unable to vote on Election Day will be able to participate, and giving options to those who have difficulty finding time to vote when elections are held in the middle of the work week. Support for early voting is on the rise: thirty-four states and the District of Columbia already allow for some form of early voting, and the proportion of votes cast ahead of Election Day has risen dramatically in recent elections.
Saturday Voting
One of the primary impediments to voter turnout among working families is the inconvenience of getting to the polls on a Tuesday. The antiquated practice of voting on Tuesdays was initially implemented in the 18th century, when most of America was an agrarian society. However, considering that most voters in contemporary society work during the week, many have begun to question the logic behind continuing to hold Election Day on the first Tuesday of November. Promote Our Vote strongly encourages efforts to change Election Day to Saturday.
Moving election day has received bipartisan support from various high-profile individuals, most notably former Senator Bill Bradley and Congressman Jack Kemp, while working in collaboration with the non-profit Why Tuesday? More recently this last April, Reps. Steve Israel (D-NY) and Louise Slaughter (D-NY) announced legislation to move Election Day from the first Tuesday in November to the first full weekend. Instead of forcing voters to take time off work on Tuesday, the Weekend Voting Act would allow for national polls to be open from 10 a.m. Saturday to 6 p.m. Sunday (Eastern Time). San Francisco has already passed legislation that would have enabled individuals to begin voting on the Saturday prior to upcoming Tuesday elections; however, the funding required to implement the measure fell short.
Critics may point to the need to maintain a tradition established by our Founding Fathers. Ironically, the tradition of Tuesday voting was made for convenience, and not until 1845, as it avoided travel on the Sabbath (Sundays) and landowners would typically travel to town from their farmsteads to conduct business starting on Mondays, which left Tuesday as the easiest day to cast a ballot. Unfortunately, the trend has continued merely for the sake of tradition, despite the fact that most contemporary voters work on Tuesdays and must wait in long lines at the end of a workday in order to vote.
Indeed, holding elections on a Saturday is nothing out of the ordinary in the international context, as Australia, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Malta, New Zealand, Singapore, Slovakia, and Taiwan have already enacted this practice.
Moving election day has received bipartisan support from various high-profile individuals, most notably former Senator Bill Bradley and Congressman Jack Kemp, while working in collaboration with the non-profit Why Tuesday? More recently this last April, Reps. Steve Israel (D-NY) and Louise Slaughter (D-NY) announced legislation to move Election Day from the first Tuesday in November to the first full weekend. Instead of forcing voters to take time off work on Tuesday, the Weekend Voting Act would allow for national polls to be open from 10 a.m. Saturday to 6 p.m. Sunday (Eastern Time). San Francisco has already passed legislation that would have enabled individuals to begin voting on the Saturday prior to upcoming Tuesday elections; however, the funding required to implement the measure fell short.
Critics may point to the need to maintain a tradition established by our Founding Fathers. Ironically, the tradition of Tuesday voting was made for convenience, and not until 1845, as it avoided travel on the Sabbath (Sundays) and landowners would typically travel to town from their farmsteads to conduct business starting on Mondays, which left Tuesday as the easiest day to cast a ballot. Unfortunately, the trend has continued merely for the sake of tradition, despite the fact that most contemporary voters work on Tuesdays and must wait in long lines at the end of a workday in order to vote.
Indeed, holding elections on a Saturday is nothing out of the ordinary in the international context, as Australia, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Malta, New Zealand, Singapore, Slovakia, and Taiwan have already enacted this practice.
Election Day Holidays
Much of America’s rather dismal voter turnout ranking can be blamed on the inconvenience of voting on a workday, which forces voters to juggle their civic responsibility with regular weekday responsibilities. In fact, polling data reveal that the most common reason (27%) for failing to vote was “too busy/couldn’t get time off to vote.” The ramifications of the practice of voting on a Tuesday were especially pronounced during the 2012 election in Florida, where thousands stood in line for hours in order to vote for their preferred candidates.
Making Election Day a national holiday would alleviate these common problems by increasing the number of potential poll workers and spreading out the times at which voters show up to the polls. With this in mind, former Senators John Kerry and Hillary Clinton introduced a bill in 2005 that would establish Election Day as a national holiday in order to increase voter turnout. A similar proposal in Michigan has found its way on to the state legislative agenda, although it ultimately suffered the same fate as the Kerry/Clinton proposal, coming up short of majority support. Nevertheless, several states have succeeded in designating Election Day an official state holiday, including Delaware, Hawaii, Kentucky, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, West Virginia, and the territory of Puerto Rico.
Making Election Day a national holiday would alleviate these common problems by increasing the number of potential poll workers and spreading out the times at which voters show up to the polls. With this in mind, former Senators John Kerry and Hillary Clinton introduced a bill in 2005 that would establish Election Day as a national holiday in order to increase voter turnout. A similar proposal in Michigan has found its way on to the state legislative agenda, although it ultimately suffered the same fate as the Kerry/Clinton proposal, coming up short of majority support. Nevertheless, several states have succeeded in designating Election Day an official state holiday, including Delaware, Hawaii, Kentucky, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, West Virginia, and the territory of Puerto Rico.
Candidate Access to Apartment Buildings
A number of factors may contribute to lower voter turnout among apartment residents, and increasing candidate access to apartment complexes will help alleviate some of the more systemic impediments to voter turnout among renters (they are typically more transient, younger, and less knowledgeable of polling locations and voter registration requirements).
The need for a policy to protect a candidate’s right to campaign in apartment dwellings first stemmed from observations among political candidates that it was much easier to engage with voters in single-family households than in apartment complexes. By denying candidates access to these potential voters, apartment managers are not only violating the rights of candidates to solicit votes, but they are violating the rights of voters to be informed about the upcoming election. This was the determination of a 1997, Washington, DC court case that ruled tenants have the constitutional right to solicit and receive information, and to determine for themselves who they will or will not receive as visitors. A similar law is already on the books in Minnesota in order to combat lower voter turnout trends among residents of apartments, nursing homes, and college dormitories.
Critics may point to the nuisance of overbearing candidates encroaching on the privacy of renters or the right of landlords to refuse solicitors, as they are already free to do with door-to-door salesmen. In order to alleviate some of these concerns, the aforementioned Minnesota law has established limitations on candidate access to apartment dwellers, including: denying admittance into their personal dwelling or room, requiring proper ID on the part of the candidate, limiting the candidate to an appropriate number of accompanying staff, requiring that visits be made at a reasonable hour, and requiring the candidate to make an appointment prior to the visit. One of the primary impediments to increasing the turnout of apartment residents is the lack of face-to-face access with local political candidates. Removing this prohibition encourages certain demographics that traditionally have lower turnout rates to get involved in the political process.
Barring candidates from speaking to potential voters infringes on the rights of voters and prohibiting access to college dormitories perpetuates the myth that politics is ‘dirty’, instead of encouraging college students to engage with local campaigns. Any reform that encourages the participation of voters should be seen as positive for democracy, and Promote Our Vote strongly supports this measure.
The need for a policy to protect a candidate’s right to campaign in apartment dwellings first stemmed from observations among political candidates that it was much easier to engage with voters in single-family households than in apartment complexes. By denying candidates access to these potential voters, apartment managers are not only violating the rights of candidates to solicit votes, but they are violating the rights of voters to be informed about the upcoming election. This was the determination of a 1997, Washington, DC court case that ruled tenants have the constitutional right to solicit and receive information, and to determine for themselves who they will or will not receive as visitors. A similar law is already on the books in Minnesota in order to combat lower voter turnout trends among residents of apartments, nursing homes, and college dormitories.
Critics may point to the nuisance of overbearing candidates encroaching on the privacy of renters or the right of landlords to refuse solicitors, as they are already free to do with door-to-door salesmen. In order to alleviate some of these concerns, the aforementioned Minnesota law has established limitations on candidate access to apartment dwellers, including: denying admittance into their personal dwelling or room, requiring proper ID on the part of the candidate, limiting the candidate to an appropriate number of accompanying staff, requiring that visits be made at a reasonable hour, and requiring the candidate to make an appointment prior to the visit. One of the primary impediments to increasing the turnout of apartment residents is the lack of face-to-face access with local political candidates. Removing this prohibition encourages certain demographics that traditionally have lower turnout rates to get involved in the political process.
Barring candidates from speaking to potential voters infringes on the rights of voters and prohibiting access to college dormitories perpetuates the myth that politics is ‘dirty’, instead of encouraging college students to engage with local campaigns. Any reform that encourages the participation of voters should be seen as positive for democracy, and Promote Our Vote strongly supports this measure.
Instant Runoff Voting for Military Personnel
"Will my vote get counted?" is a question no American should have to ask no matter where they are in the world. However, members of the military stationed abroad and other voters overseas often face difficulties voting in elections at home because they do not receive their ballots in time to return them and have them counted. The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 (UOCAVA) and the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act of 2009 (MOVE Act) protect the voting rights of U.S. citizens residing abroad by mandating that states send timely requested absentee ballots to UOCAVA voters at least 45 days before federal elections. To help overseas voters participate in runoff elections (and to avoid lawsuits brought by the Department of Justice), states frequently lengthen the time between their primary and runoff elections. However, this action often carries the negative consequence of reduced turnout in the runoff, and is not sufficient to ensure that overseas voters will be able to participate.
Instant runoff ballots provide a legal and practical solution to the disenfranchisement of military and overseas voters in runoff elections. Under this system voters receive two ballots—a standard ballot for the first election and a ranked choice ballot for the second election. The ranked ballot contains all the candidates from the first election, and voters can rank them in order of preference, from first to last. Both ballots are returned before the first election, and the standard ballot is counted as usual. In the event of a runoff or general election, the ranked ballot is counted towards the highest ranked candidate who advances to the next round. While UOCAVA and the MOVE Act only apply to federal elections, states can also adopt ranked choice absentee ballots to extend the statutes’ protections to state and local elections.
Instant runoff ballots provide a legal and practical solution to the disenfranchisement of military and overseas voters in runoff elections. Under this system voters receive two ballots—a standard ballot for the first election and a ranked choice ballot for the second election. The ranked ballot contains all the candidates from the first election, and voters can rank them in order of preference, from first to last. Both ballots are returned before the first election, and the standard ballot is counted as usual. In the event of a runoff or general election, the ranked ballot is counted towards the highest ranked candidate who advances to the next round. While UOCAVA and the MOVE Act only apply to federal elections, states can also adopt ranked choice absentee ballots to extend the statutes’ protections to state and local elections.
