{"id":56,"date":"2025-05-26T16:44:52","date_gmt":"2025-05-26T16:44:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/theexcitingdynamicsofstateandlocalgovernment\/?post_type=chapter&p=56"},"modified":"2025-07-29T21:22:45","modified_gmt":"2025-07-29T21:22:45","slug":"political-participation","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/theexcitingdynamicsofstateandlocalgovernment\/chapter\/political-participation\/","title":{"raw":"Political Participation","rendered":"Political Participation"},"content":{"raw":"
\r\n

Chapter Summary<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n

\r\n

Voting is the most commonly identified form of political participation; however, residents have many different ways to participate in their local communities and engage with their state government. This includes writing letters, protesting, getting involved with civic organizations, and requesting constituent services, among others. This chapter begins a series of chapters that focus on political behavior and engagement in state government, evaluating how constituents participate in state politics. It emphasizes how state variation in election administration shapes opportunities for citizens to participate in the political process.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n

Student Learning Objectives<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n

\r\n

Upon completion of this chapter, students should be able to:<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n \t
  1. Describe how perceptions of civic engagement in the United States have changed over time.<\/li>\r\n \t
  2. Identify trends in different types of formal and informal volunteering.<\/li>\r\n \t
  3. Summarize the various ways in which individuals can politically participate in their state and local community.<\/li>\r\n \t
  4. Compare and contrast different types of institutional and extrainstitutional participation.<\/li>\r\n \t
  5. Explain how turnout varies based on the different types of elections voters experience in the United States.<\/li>\r\n \t
  6. Analyze inequities and differences in participation rates among key sociodemographic characteristics.<\/li>\r\n \t
  7. Apply the calculus of voting to describe the reasons why Americans choose not to participate in the political process.<\/li>\r\n \t
  8. Examine differences in election laws across states that might impact voter turnout and engagement.<\/li>\r\n \t
  9. Evaluate the relative merits of current election administration controversies and their relationship with voter turnout.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n
    \r\n

    Focus Questions<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n

    \r\n

    These questions illustrate the main concepts covered in the chapter and should help guide discussion as well as enable students to critically analyze and apply the material covered.<\/p>\r\n

    In what ways can citizens become engaged politically beyond voting?<\/p>\r\n

    How well do the characteristics of the voting population mirror the diversity of the electorate?<\/p>\r\n

    How can states alter the calculus of voting for citizens?<\/p>\r\n

    What sort of election laws could a state pursue to promote voter participation?<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    What Does Civic Engagement Look like in the US?<\/h1>\r\n

    Alexis de Tocqueville famously remarked that America is a \u201cnation of joiners.\u201d[footnote]Tocqueville, Democracy in America.[\/footnote]<\/sup> Civic life in the US has long been characterized by the richness and diversity of opportunities for Americans to get involved. Compared to other countries, the level of civic engagement<\/strong><\/span>, or participation and involvement in community and public life to achieve positive outcomes, has historically painted a flattering picture of a vibrant and flourishing democracy.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_195\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"363\"]\"A Figure 8.1 - <\/span>Norman Rockwell\u2019s Freedom of Speech<\/em><\/span>
    Source: \"Save freedom of speech. Buy war bonds<\/a>\" by Boston Public Library on Flickr \/ CC BY<\/a>.<\/strong>[\/caption]\r\n

    This picture, like the famous Norman Rockwell print (Figure 8.1<\/span><\/span>), depicted Americans who were active in the communities\u2014whether through fraternal or service organizations like the Elks, Lions, Moose, Kiwanis, Knights of Columbus, Rotary Club, and so on; parent-teacher organizations; or organized labor unions and professional associations. In the 1950s, nearly 50 percent of all Americans reported attending church services at least<\/em><\/span> once a week.[footnote]Newport, \u201cIn U.S., Four in 10 Report.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> Everyday Americans found and sought opportunities to get involved.<\/p>\r\n

    This era is romanticized as the height of social capital<\/strong><\/span>, where norms of trust and reciprocity flourished between relationship networks. Civic life produced bonding<\/strong><\/span> opportunities between individuals and communities of shared characteristics, interests, and demographics. However, these organizations also provided bridging<\/strong><\/span> opportunities, where cross-cutting relationships were formed across differences, often anchoring communities across class lines.[footnote]Skocpol, Diminished Democracy.[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n

    Today, many would remark that the nature of civic life in America has changed (and perhaps not for the best). Once, Americans joined with one another and found opportunities to be together as a community\u2014often joining bowling leagues as a classic example. Today, however, we are \u201cbowling alone.\u201d[footnote]Putnam, Bowline Alone.[\/footnote]<\/sup> Church membership and attendance have rapidly declined.[footnote]Jones, \u201cChurch Attendance.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> Today, Americans are more isolated and pursue individual forms of entertainment and fulfillment rather than through the community.<\/p>\r\n

    This narrative, however, overlooks the landscape of participation across the fifty states. Regions across the United States have their own distinct political culture<\/strong><\/span> or different perspectives about the ideal role of citizenship and views toward government.[footnote]Elazar, American Federalism.[\/footnote]<\/sup> Political scientist Daniel Elazar characterized states as fitting into one of three different political cultures based on early settling patterns and their initial orientations toward government. States with a moralistic political culture<\/strong><\/span>, primarily in the upper Midwest and West, place a premium on civic engagement and public life. Citizens ought to play a preeminent role in utilizing government to shape the public or the common good.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_281\" align=\"alignleft\" width=\"624\"]\"United Figure 8.2 - Political Culture by State
    Data Source: Elazar, D. American Federalism: A View from the States. 3rd ed. Harper and Row, 1984. Map made by author.<\/strong>[\/caption]\r\n

    If these subtypes of political culture are thought to be on a continuum, states with an individualistic political culture would be in the middle. States with an individualistic political culture<\/strong><\/span>, largely concentrated in the Midwest and mid-Atlantic states, tend to view government and political participation as a means to an end. If government can be used to achieve the desired outcome, then civic engagement and political participation ought to be promoted. Otherwise, participation for the sake of participation is less than required. Finally, states with a traditionalistic political culture<\/strong><\/span>, concentrated in the American South, place little value on political participation because the role of government is to preserve the existing social hierarchy and structures. A lack of involvement (by most) ensures that the status quo persists. For a longer discussion, see Chapter 10<\/span><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    These cultures appear to be deeply ingrained. Citizens have many different forms of participation available to them, yet significant inequalities and hurdles exist that prevent full participation. In what ways do the choices made by state governments promote or hinder democratic citizenship and participation?<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    What Are the Different Types of Participation?<\/h1>\r\n

    Civic engagement is more than \u201cjust\u201d politics. As such, participation takes many different forms. Much of that participation takes place through volunteering<\/strong><\/span>, or giving of time freely, in nonpolitical outlets.<\/p>\r\n

    Volunteering can occur through formal<\/strong><\/span> or informal<\/strong><\/span> outlets depending on whether it is done through an organization or independently. As Figure 8.3<\/span><\/span> shows, the overwhelming majority of Americans engage in informal activities like talking with friends, family, and neighbors or doing research to learn more about issues of public concern. Americans are more likely to report engaging in nonpolitical forms of civic engagement in general compared to overtly political or partisan forms of participation.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_280\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"541\"]\"Bar Figure 8.3 - National Rates of Civic Engagement
    Data Source: US Census Bureau and AmeriCorps. 2021 Civic Engagement and Volunteering Supplement.     https:\/\/americorps.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/document\/CEV-Civic-Engagement-Rates-013024.pdf<\/a>. Graph made by author.<\/strong>[\/caption]\r\n

    Much of what political scientists know about civic engagement and political participation is from individuals self-reporting their behavior in surveys and public opinion polls. This often leads to a social desirability<\/strong> bias<\/strong><\/span>, where respondents overreport favorable behaviors and opinions and minimize controversial or unfavorable behaviors or opinions. Behaviors like voting, for example, are viewed as socially desirable\u2014so many people report that they voted when, in fact, they may not have.[footnote]Bernstein, Chadha, and Montjoy et al., \u201cOverreporting Voting,\u201d 22\u201344.[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
    Table 8.1 - <\/span>Highest Levels of Volunteering by State<\/em>\r\nData Source<\/span>: US Census Bureau and AmeriCorps. 2021 Civic Engagement and Volunteering Supplement. https:\/\/www.census.gov\/library\/stories\/2023\/01\/volunteering-and-civic-life-in-america.html<\/span><\/a><\/span>. Table made by author.<\/em>\r\n<\/strong><\/caption>\r\n
    \r\n

    Formal Volunteering<\/strong><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    Informal Volunteering<\/strong><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    State<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    Volunteering Rate<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    State<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    Volunteering Rate<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    Utah<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    40.7<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    Montana<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    68.8<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    Wyoming<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    39.2<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    Nebraska<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    66.4<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    Minnesota<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    35.5<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    Maine<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    65.0<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    Maine<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    34.9<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    Delaware<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    63.9<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    Washington, DC<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    34.2<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    Vermont<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    63.9<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    South Dakota<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    34.2<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    Minnesota<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    61.9<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    Nebraska<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    33.9<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    Utah<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    61.6<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    Kansas<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    31.5<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    West Virginia<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    60.5<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    Montana<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    31.1<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    Iowa<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    60.3<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    Missouri<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    30.5<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    Pennsylvania<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    60.1<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\r\n

    Broadly, political participation takes two dominant forms. The first is institutional political participation<\/strong><\/span>. This is participation through common, previously agreed upon formal channels to influence public policy and the political process. In our federalist system, the United States has more than ninety thousand different units of government. Moreover, a significant number of positions throughout these units of government are elected positions\u2014from president to even, perhaps unbelievably at one moment in time, dogcatcher.[footnote]Bump, \u201cBrief History.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> Behaviors that are passive, like displaying a yard sign or posting something on social media, are more common than active behaviors.<\/p>\r\n

    More active features of campaigning and supporting candidates for office can take many different forms. Some pursue paid employment or internships for academic credit on political campaigns. Others volunteer by giving their time to support candidates and ballot measures, most frequently by engaging in door-to-door canvassing or by phone\/text-banking potential supporters.<\/p>\r\n

    An increasing number of Americans give small-dollar donations online to candidates via websites like ActBlue and WinRed.[footnote]Piper et al., \u201cHow Online Donations Are Fueling.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> Ideologically polarized activists (liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans) are more likely to give and to give generously to multiple candidates\u2014even candidates across the country.[footnote]Barber, \u201cDonation Motivations,\u201d 148\u2013159; LaRaja and Schaffner, Campaign Finance and Political Polarization; Bouton, Castanheira, and Drazen et al., \u201cTheory of Small Campaign Contributions\u201d; Pildes, \u201cSmall Dollars, Big Changes.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_279\" align=\"alignleft\" width=\"624\"]\"Bar Figure 8.4 - Rates of Political Participation
    Data Source: Daniller, A., and H. Gilberstadt. \u201cKey Findings About Voter Engagement in the 2020 Election.\u201d Pew Research Center, 2020. https:\/\/www.pewresearch.org\/short-reads\/2020\/12\/14\/key-findings-about-voter-engagement-in-the-2020-election\/<\/a>. Graph made by author.<\/strong>[\/caption]\r\n

    An even smaller number of citizens play an active role in the public policy and governing process. Less than 10 percent of Americans report contacting an elected official or attending a public meeting. While citizens are able to testify at legislative committee hearings at state capitols throughout the country, few take advantage of this opportunity. Likewise, few attend formal \u201clobby days\u201d at state capitols organized by interest groups to bring attention to their policy priorities. Less than 2 percent of Americans have ever attempted to run for office themselves, arguably the most direct way to influence government.[footnote]Motel, \u201cWho Runs for Office?\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n

    The most common form of political participation in the United States is voting in elections. Eighty percent of Americans believe that \u201cvoting in elections is very or somewhat important to be a good member of society.\u201d[footnote]Wike, Silver, and Clancy et al., \u201cWhat Makes Someone a Good Member.?\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> Unfortunately, that is not to say that 80 percent of citizens vote in American elections\u2014far from it.<\/p>\r\n

    Americans are asked to cast a ballot more frequently than citizens of other countries.[footnote]Lopez, \u201cDoes America Vote Too Much?\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> Most offices in the US follow a two-stage process<\/strong><\/span> where candidates first vie in a primary election<\/strong><\/span> to determine which candidate will represent their political party in a general election<\/strong><\/span>, where voters ultimately determine which candidate is elected to serve in office.<\/p>\r\n

    At the federal level, voters participate in a presidential election<\/strong><\/span> every four years. More voters participate in this type of election than any others. Every two years, voters also participate in congressional elections<\/strong><\/span>, or as they are more typically known, midterm elections<\/strong><\/span>, since they occur in the middle of a presidential term. All 435 seats in the House of Representatives and one-third of the 100 US Senate seats are up for election in every congressional and presidential election.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_278\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"624\"]\"Scatter Figure 8.5 - Voter Turnout, 1789\u20132020
    Data Source: Bernstein, J., and A. Shannon. Vital Statistics on American Politics, 2017\u20132020 Edition. CQ Press, 2022. Graph made by author.<\/strong>[\/caption]\r\n

    Frequently, but not always, state elections<\/strong><\/span> occur at the same time as presidential and midterm elections. These elections are when voters elect their governor and other statewide officers as well as members of their state legislature among other offices. Five states (Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, and Virginia) have their state elections in \u201coff years.\u201d[footnote]Kuckuk, \u201cOdd Ones Out\u201d; Ballotpedia, \u201cOff-Cycle Elections.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> For example, while voters in most states voted for their governor in either November 2018 or November 2020, Louisiana voted for governor in 2019.<\/p>\r\n

    Louisiana is also a state that utilizes runoff elections<\/strong><\/span>. While most elections in the United States follow plurality rule\u2014whichever candidate receives the most votes wins\u2014Louisiana is one of a few states that utilizes majority rule. In order to win, a candidate must receive 50 percent of the vote. If no candidate receives 50 percent in the initial race, the top two vote-getters run in another election to determine which candidate wins. In 2019, incumbent Governor John Bel Edwards received a plurality of the vote in the October election, winning 47 percent of the vote compared to 27 percent for the second-place finisher. However, since no candidate received at least 50 percent of the vote, the top two candidates faced each other in a runoff election in November 2019, where Edwards won reelection with 51 percent of the vote.<\/p>\r\n

    Finally, voters also participate in municipal elections<\/strong><\/span> for their town or city, where they elect mayors, city councillors, and so on. At an even more local level, voters participate in school board elections<\/strong><\/span> to elect the governing body for their local school district.<\/p>\r\n

    Given this volume, perhaps as a result, voter turnout<\/strong><\/span>\u2014the percentage of eligible voters to cast a ballot\u2014varies considerably based on the type of election. Sixty-seven percent of eligible voters cast a ballot in the 2020 presidential election between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Yet only 46 percent participated in the 2022 midterm elections. As Figure 8.6<\/span><\/span> reveals, that sort of gap between presidential and midterm elections is common. Voter turnout in municipal elections is typically less than 30 percent, and school boards rarely have voter turnout above 10 percent.[footnote]Devine, \u201cVisualizing Voter Turnout\u201d; Hajnal, \u201cWhy Does No One Vote?\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n

    The second dominant form of political participation is extrainstitutional<\/strong><\/span> (or noninstitutional) participation. Some activists and organized interest groups utilize a strategic mixture of (1) inside strategies that utilize traditional forms of political participation to influence government and policymakers and (2) outside strategies meant to disrupt the status quo and apply pressure to enact change. Others pursue extrainstitutional forms of participation because they feel that institutional avenues are either unavailable to them or unlikely to be responsive.<\/p>\r\n

    Whether these are citizen-driven grassroots initiatives or \u201castroturf\u201d campaigns facilitated by elites to give the appearance of mass participation, more and more Americans are engaging in this type of activity. Political protest<\/strong><\/span> is the most common form of extrainstitutional participation and takes many different forms.<\/p>\r\n

    People express significant, vocal opposition by assembling large crowds, marching, picketing, holding signs, and so on. Some engage in civil disobedience, peacefully and intentionally breaking a law as a form of protest. Some protest using their pocketbook by either boycotting (intentionally refusing to patronize a place) or buycotting (intentionally choosing to patronize a place) retailers based on political views. For example, just related to LGBTQ equality, Chick-fil-A, Bud Light, and Target all have been protested and counterprotested.[footnote]Greenfield, \u201cWhy Are People Mad?\u201d; Liaukonyte, Tuchman, and Zhu et al., \u201cLessons from the Bud Light Boycott\u201d; Lewis, \u201cTarget Hit.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_277\" align=\"alignleft\" width=\"378\"]\"Composite Figure 8.6 - Photos of Political Protest
    Source: \"    Bans off my body<\/a>\" by Gayatri Malhotra, [Black Lives Matter photo<\/a>] by Colin Lloyd, and [Red for Ed strikers photo<\/a>] by LaTerrian McIntosh on Unsplash \/ Unsplash License.<\/a><\/strong>[\/caption]\r\n

    Historically, few Americans engage in protests. While the decade of the 1960s is perhaps rightly romanticized as a time of activism, roughly 250,000 people attended the famous March on Washington led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1963.[footnote]National Park Service, \u201cMarch on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> In contrast, between 2017 and the end of 2020, at least twenty-two million Americans (likely more) participated in some type of nonviolent protest as a conservative estimate.[footnote]Crowd Counting Consortium.[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n

    In response to Donald Trump\u2019s inauguration as president, estimates place somewhere between three and five million Americans participating as part of the January 21, 2017, Women\u2019s March by joining either the rally in Washington, DC, or organized events in many large cities throughout the country.[footnote]Hartocoliis and Alcindor, \u201cWomen\u2019s March Highlights.\u2019\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n

    State capitols have seen a significant number of organized and successful protests. For example, the \u201cRed for Ed\u201d movement led to teacher strikes and visits to capitols across many states. As a result, many teachers received raises, and class sizes were reduced in many instances.[footnote]Burnette, \u201cWhat Is #RedforED?\u201d; Blanc, Red State Revolt; Mehta, \u201cWhat Has and Hasn\u2019t Changed.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n

    The largest protests in American history occurred during the summer of 2020 as part of the Black Lives Matter movement, as perhaps as many as 10 percent of the US population attended at least one protest during the summer of 2020 after the murder of George Floyd.[footnote]Buchanan, Bui, and Patel et al., \u201cBlack Lives Matter.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n

    Protest is not just a tool available to those on the political left. The Tea Party started off as a protest movement before becoming a more prominent faction of the Republican Party.[footnote]Blum, How the Tea Party Captured.[\/footnote]<\/sup> Every year, thousands upon thousands descend on Washington, DC, for the March for Life, a rally against abortion rights, even after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade<\/em><\/span>.[footnote]Diaz, \u201cIt\u2019s Cold and Snowing.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n

    Protest can be effective in bringing attention to important issues and making the government responsive. Nonviolent protest has higher rates of success than political violence but is not always successful.[footnote]Chenoweth and Stephan, Why Civil Resistance Works; Tufekci, \u201cDo Protests Even Work?\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> Based on research on nonviolent protests, campaigns that have more than 3.5 percent of the total population participating have never failed to bring about change.[footnote]Robson, \u201cThe \u20183.5% Rule.\u2019\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_276\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"624\"]\"United Figure 8.7 - Antiprotest Legislation by State
    Data Source: International Center for Not-for-Profit Law. \u201cUS Protest Law Tracker.\u201d n.d.     https:\/\/www.icnl.org\/usprotestlawtracker\/?location=&status=enacted&issue=&date=&type=legislative<\/a>. Map made by author.<\/strong>[\/caption]\r\n

    State governments, however, are not passive observers of citizen protests. Since January 2017, twenty-one states have successfully implemented legislation making protests more difficult. This type of legislation has been proposed in forty-five of the fifty states as of August 2024. These proposals include levying stiffer penalties, expanding resources for police to confront protesters, and broadening the definition of what constitutes rioting, among others.[footnote]Halliday and Hanna, \u201cState Anti-Protest Laws\u201d; Quinton, \u201cEight States Enact\u201d; Gabbatt, \u201cRepublicans Push \u2018Tsunami.\u2019\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> The give-and-take between protesters and the protested surely will continue as the opportunities for institutional and extrainstitutional participation are shaped by this relationship. In theory, democratic government only works legitimately when it has the consent of the governed. To give that consent, broad participation is a prerequisite.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    Who Participates, and Why Don\u2019t More People Participate?<\/h1>\r\n

    Political scientist E. E. Schattschneider famously wrote that the \u201cflaw in the pluralist heaven is that the heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper-class accent.\u201d[footnote]Schattschneider, Semi-Sovereign People.[\/footnote]<\/sup> In a representative democracy, there is an expectation that all interests are free to compete and that the government ought to be responsive to the majority, in general, or at least produce outcomes that are generally agreeable (i.e., pluralism).<\/p>\r\n

    One of the reasons that Schattschneider argued about this flaw is because there is a bias in terms of who participates in American political life.[footnote]Wolfinger and Rosenstone, Who Votes?; Rosenstone and Hansen, Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America; Leighley and Nagler, \u201cSocioeconomic Class Bias,\u201d 725\u2013735; Leighley and Nagler, Who Votes Now?[\/footnote]<\/sup> In general, those with more education and more income are much more likely to vote and participate in politics. As Americans get older, they are more likely to register and turn out to vote. Voters who are part of the active workforce are more likely to participate than those who are unemployed. While the racial gap between White and Black Americans has closed in recent years, there is a clear racial difference in voter turnout as well. Once differences in socioeconomic status are taken into account, however, this difference vanishes.[footnote]Leighley and Nagler, \u201cSocioeconomic Class Bias,\u201d 725\u2013735.[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n

    \"Line \"Line \"Line \"Line<\/p>\r\n

    Figure 8.8 - <\/span>Voter Registration and Turnout Rates by Key Demographics<\/strong><\/em>\r\nData Source: United States Census Bureau. \u201cHistorical Reported Voting Rates.\u201d https:\/\/www.census.gov\/data\/tables\/time-series\/demo\/voting-and-registration\/voting-historical-time-series.html<\/span><\/span><\/a>. Graphs made by author. <\/em>Note: Turnout by age group is calculated out of total population. Other figures are calculated using the citizen population.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\r\n

    These turnout figures represent an electorate that does not fully reflect the diversity of America.[footnote]Hartig et al., \u201cRepublican Gains.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> In the 2022 election, 34 percent of voters were older than sixty-five years old, while 27 percent of nonvoters were under thirty years old. White Americans represent 75 percent of voters, while non-White Americans make up 45 percent of nonvoters. Those with at least a college degree account for 43 percent of voters, but those without a college degree account for 74 percent of nonvoters. Finally, 32 percent of voters possess a family income of more than $100,000 per year, while 80 percent of nonvoters earn less than a six-figure salary as a family. Even as America\u2019s electorate gets more diverse, voters, compared to nonvoters, are older, Whiter, and more formally educated and earn more in income.[footnote]Igielnik and Budiman, \u201cChanging Racial and Ethnic Composition.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n

    These, however, are national trends. Figure 8.9<\/span><\/span> reveals significant statewide variation in turnout. States like Minnesota and Maine have voter turnout, on average, higher than 65 percent over the last twenty years. Contrast that with Hawaii, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia, which have an average voter turnout of less than 45 percent. That is a considerable 20 percent difference between states at the more extreme ends of the distribution. More than thirty states have an average turnout of between 50 percent and 60 percent. What accounts for this considerable state variation?<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_271\" align=\"alignleft\" width=\"624\"]\"United Figure 8.9 - Average Voter Turnout by State
    Data Source: McDonald, M. \u201c1980\u20132022 General Election Turnout Rates (v1.0).\u201d 2023.     https:\/\/election.lab.ufl.edu\/dataset\/1980-2022-general-election-turnout-rates\/<\/a>. Map made by author.<\/strong>[\/caption]\r\n

    The US Census asks registered voters their reasons for not voting. The single biggest factor why Americans report not voting is a lack of interest (18 percent). The second most cited reason for not voting is disliking the candidates or campaign issues (15 percent). Reviewing the rest of the list, many of these reasons may appear like minor items that could easily be overcome by many. Moreover, there is little reason to suspect that these reasons vary by state in ways similar to the trends presented in Figure 8.10<\/span><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_270\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"547\"]\"Bar Figure 8.10 - Most Common Reasons for Not Voting
    Data Source: United States Census Bureau. \u201cVoting and Registration in the Election of November 2020.\u201d     https:\/\/www.census.gov\/data\/tables\/time-series\/demo\/voting-and-registration\/p20-585.html.<\/a> Graph made by author.<\/strong>[\/caption]\r\n

    Political scientists have approached understanding voter participation by focusing on why people choose not<\/em><\/span> to vote rather than identifying why someone chooses to vote. In short, people do not participate because often they cannot, they will not, or nobody asked them to participate.[footnote]Verba, Schlozman, and Brady et al., Voice and Equality.[\/footnote]<\/sup> More broadly, while political scientists may be loath to share this, it is irrational to vote according to the leading theory, the rational calculus of voting<\/strong><\/span>.[footnote]Downs, Economic Theory of Democracy; Riker and Ordeshook, \u201cTheory of the Calculus,\u201d 25\u201342.[\/footnote]<\/sup> The decision to vote is a function of weighing the costs and benefits of voting before making a decision. Mathematically, this is represented by the formula<\/p>\r\n

    V = pB \u2013 C D.<\/p>\r\n

    This equation can be understood as follows: The decision of whether or not to vote (V) is a function of the probability (p) your vote is decisive multiplied by the benefits (B) you receive from voting, minus the costs (C) associated with voting, plus one\u2019s sense of civic duty (D).<\/p>\r\n

    V stands for the decision to vote or not. If (after doing all the computations on the right-hand side of the equation) the value of V is positive, the voter will turn out to vote. If the value is zero or negative, it would be irrational to vote\u2014so they abstain from voting. In the following paragraphs, each component of this equation will be explored in more depth.<\/p>\r\n

    The p term in the equation stands for the probability that your individual vote is decisive in determining the outcome of the election. More than 150 million Americans voted in the 2020 presidential election, and Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump by more than seven million votes, so the decision of any one voter to stay home or not surely did not decide the outcome, even in extremely contested presidential elections like the 2000 or 2016 elections, when the winner of the popular vote lost the Electoral College.<\/p>\r\n

    In theory, the probability that one\u2019s vote is decisive ought to increase as the election gets \u201csmaller\u201d or more local. When fewer people participate, a single vote carries more weight. Yet Americans frequently live in \u201cred states\u201d and \u201cblue states.\u201d More than 82 percent of Americans live in a state government trifecta, where one political party controls both chambers of the state legislator and the governorship.[footnote]Ballotpedia, \u201cState Government Trifectas.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> Americans are increasingly geographically sorted into heavily Republican and Democratic communities.[footnote]Bishop, The Big Sort; Wasserman, \u201cPurple America\u201d; Brown and Enos, \u201cMeasurement of Partisan Sorting,\u201d 998\u20131008; Cook, \u201c\u2018Big Sort\u2019 Continues.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> Democrats increasingly dominate in urban areas, while Republicans dominate in rural areas. To the extent voters get a meaningful choice between the two parties, it is often in the suburbs. Whether it is the race for governor, mayor, state legislator, city council, and so on, most Americans do not have much of a meaningful choice, since most outcomes are all but secured well ahead of Election Day.<\/p>\r\n

    In 2022, the average margin of victory for contested state legislative races was 27.7 percent.[footnote]Ballotpedia, \u201cMargin of Victory.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> A nontrivial number of state legislative races do not even have candidates from both parties. During the 2022 elections, more than 30 percent were not contested (i.e., the race did not have at least both a Democrat and a Republican running against each other). Some of that is primarily a function of where Americans choose to live\u2014not necessarily rooted in politics. However, state governments are responsible for redistricting or drawing lines of legislative districts for Congress and their respective state legislatures after every Census. Sixteen states utilize commissions to draw their state legislative districts\u2014whether these are fully independent commissions or commissions that also incorporate politicians. The remaining thirty-four states leave the process to their state legislature.[footnote]All About Redistricting, \u201cNational Summary\u201d; Ballotpedia, \u201cRedistricting Commissions.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> These states are more prone to gerrymander<\/strong><\/span>, or intentionally draw district boundaries, during redistricting in a way that inequitably benefits a group or political party. (Fun fact: The term is often mispronounced. It should be pronounced with a hard G<\/em><\/span>, like \u201cGary.\u201d)[footnote]Associated Press, \u201cSupreme Court.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
    Table 8.2 - <\/span>Average Margin of Victory in 2022 State Legislative Races<\/em>\r\nData Source<\/span>: Ballotpedia. \u201cMargin of Victory Analysis for the 2022 State Legislative Elections<\/a>.\u201d n.d. Table made by author.<\/em>\r\n<\/strong><\/caption>\r\n
    \r\n

    <\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    Upper Chamber (Senate)<\/strong><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    Lower Chamber (House)<\/strong><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    AL<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    53.6<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    57.4<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    AK<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    20.3<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    21.6<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    AZ<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    28.4<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    12.4<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    AR<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    41.9<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    39.1<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    CA<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    17.9<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    24.5<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    CO<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    19.8<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    26.3<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    CT<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    19.9<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    23.0<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    DE<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    26.4<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    34.2<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    FL<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    25.5<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    26.2<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    GA<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    33.4<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    33.7<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    HI<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    39.5<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    36.8<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    ID<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    37.0<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    33.3<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    IL<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    24.6<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    28.9<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    IN<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    30.5<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    32.5<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    IA<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    27.7<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    26.0<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    KS<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    N\/A<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    23.3<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    KY<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    38.5<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    34.8<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    ME<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    22.7<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    23.5<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    MD<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    40.6<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    19.5<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    MA<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    26.5<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    25.1<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    MI<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    25.2<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    26.9<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    MN<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    26.7<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    28.1<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    MO<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    41.3<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    30.0<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    MT<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    19.9<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    26.9<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    NE<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    17.7<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    N\/A<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    NV<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    16.0<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    19.6<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    NH<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    15.6<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    10.6<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    NM<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    N\/A<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    25.1<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    NY<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    26.3<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    33.6<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    NC<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    27.3<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    27.2<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    ND<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    28.8<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    15.8<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    OH<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    39.0<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    32.0<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    OK<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    28.9<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    28.7<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    OR<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    21.8<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    31.7<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    PA<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    27.2<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    27.6<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    RI<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    28.0<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    24.9<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    SC<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    N\/A<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    27.9<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    SD<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    25.0<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    12.3<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    TN<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    51.0<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    41.0<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    TX<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    31.3<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    32.6<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    UT<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    43.0<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    34.9<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    VT<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    15.4<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    19.9<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    WA<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    30.2<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    27.4<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    WV<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    28.6<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    30.4<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    WI<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    25.7<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    27.3<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    WY<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    39.2<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    33.1<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    TOTAL<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    29.2<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    27.9<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\r\n

    The B term in the equation stands for the benefits you receive as a voter should your preferred candidate win the election. While polarization between the two parties may be considered a negative, the growing ideological distance between the parties is actually associated with promoting higher levels of voter participation and civic engagement.[footnote]Hetherington, \u201cTurned Off or Turned On?\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> States controlled by either the Republican or the Democratic Party are moving further apart ideologically, raising the stakes for each election.[footnote]Shor and McCarty, \u201cTwo Decades of Polarization,\u201d 343\u2013370; Shor and McCarty, \u201cIdeological Mapping,\u201d 530\u2013551.[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n

    The C term in the equation stands for the costs associated with voting. This is subtracted from the product of the p and B terms. Multiplying the p term (the probability that your vote decides the outcome) by the B term (the benefits you receive if your preferred candidates win) is likely going to be infinitely\/infinitesimally small. Thus, for almost all voters, the costs will outweigh the benefits of voting.<\/p>\r\n

    The first type of cost that voters face is information costs. Especially at the local level, knowing when to vote is important. While most general elections occur in November of even years (as previously discussed), primary, local, and school board elections all occur at different parts of the calendar and vary by state. Many state and local races are also featured as part of nonpartisan elections, when voters do not have the ability to rely on the partisanship of candidates to inform who they intend to support. In general, these low-information elections have lower levels of voter turnout, since many voters are unwilling to do the research to make an informed vote.[footnote]Schaffner, Streb, and Wright et al., \u201cTeams Without Uniforms,\u201d 7\u201330.[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n

    Even if, however, voters know when and where to vote and then have taken the additional time to identify who they intend to support, there are additional costs to voting. Suffrage<\/strong><\/span>, or the right to vote, is not explicitly listed in the US Constitution. States, not the federal government, were given wide latitude to implement elections. As a result, most states initially only gave White landowning\/taxpaying men the ability to vote. However, states always have moved at different speeds, as states gave women and racial minorities the right to vote well before the federal government.[footnote]Brower, \u201cWhat Does the Constitution Say?\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> For example, New Jersey let people vote if they met property and tax requirements regardless of race or gender. Wyoming granted women the right to vote more than fifty years before the federal government intervened.<\/p>\r\n

    The federal government periodically intervenes to ensure that state requirements are uniform and that basic standards are upheld. After the Civil War, the Fifteenth Amendment ensured that states would not be able to deny the right to vote on account of race\u2014giving many Black Americans the first opportunity to vote. In 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified, giving women the right to vote. During the Vietnam War, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment was ratified, lowering the voting age to eighteen years old. Additional pieces of federal legislation, like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, also increased the power the federal government had over states to ensure voting rights were more equitably distributed.<\/p>\r\n

    Today, leading scholars are calling to add an amendment to the Constitution to specifically enshrine the right to vote.[footnote]Hasen, Real Right to Vote.[\/footnote]<\/sup> To date, Congress has been unsuccessful in passing the For the People Act<\/span><\/a><\/span>, the Freedom to Vote Act<\/span><\/a><\/span>, or the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act<\/span><\/a><\/span>, three pieces of federal legislation that supporters argue would broaden voting rights. Given these stalled efforts, states are still at the forefront of the battle to extend or restrict voting rights. This discussion, perhaps more so than any other policy difference or institutional feature, echoes the competing themes of laboratories of democracy versus laboratories of autocracy. Who should be able to vote? How easy should it be for citizens to cast their ballot? What reasonable regulations are appropriate to ensure the integrity of our elections?<\/p>\r\n

    In terms of extending the right to vote, many local governments allow youth over the age of sixteen to vote in school board or local elections. Many states also allow seventeen-year-olds to vote in primaries if they will turn eighteen before the next general election.[footnote]National Youth Rights Association, \u201cVoting Age Status Report.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n

    While the federal government already prevents legal noncitizens from voting in federal elections, the House of Representatives recently passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act.[footnote]Morgan, \u201cUS House Approves.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> Currently, noncitizens only can vote in specific local elections in California, Maryland, and Vermont. In addition, many states are adding additional layers to prevent noncitizens from voting in state or local elections. Seven states previously amended their state constitutions to prevent noncitizens from voting.[footnote]Ballotpedia, \u201cLaws Permitting Noncitizens.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> Voters in eight states will be voting on constitutional amendments adding language stating that US citizenship is a requirement for voting (Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wisconsin).[footnote]Ballotpedia, \u201c2024 Ballot Measures.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n

    The final group subject to considerable debate and public policy is felons. This varies considerably by state. People previously convicted of a felony never lost their voting rights in two states and Washington, DC. On the other end of the spectrum, ten states do not automatically restore voting rights to felons after they have completed their sentences. The remaining states vary as to how voting rights are restored for people convicted of a felony after they have completed their prison sentences or after they have completed their prison sentence, probation, and parole.[footnote]Ballotpedia, \u201cVoting Rights.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n

    Even within this legal framework, states have long found ways to make voting more difficult. After the Civil War, the American South implemented a series of Jim Crow laws that promoted racial segregation and further limited the rights of racial minorities, specifically Black Americans. These included literacy tests (requiring a demonstration of the ability to read and write in order to vote), poll taxes (fees that needed to be paid in order to vote), and grandfather clauses (in order to vote, your grandfather also needed to have the right to vote). To ensure that poor or illiterate Whites were able to participate, these restraints were selectively applied to voters of color. While the passage of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment outlawed poll taxes, many modern state proposals are often referred to as \u201cmodern Jim Crow laws\u201d or \u201cJim Crow 2.0.\u201d[footnote]Brockell, \u201cSome Call Voting Restrictions\u201d; Cunningham, \u201c\u2018New Jim Crow\u2019\u201d; Hemmer, \u201cWhat Jim Crow Looks Like.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n

    The electoral institutions adopted by states are associated with state variation in voter turnout.[footnote]Springer, \u201cState Electoral Institutions,\u201d 252\u2013283.[\/footnote]<\/sup> So what aspects of today\u2019s election administration vary by state, and how might they be associated with rates of voter turnout? How do states affect the cost of voting?<\/p>\r\n

    The first cost is the requirement to register to vote. In most advanced industrial democracies, the government automatically registers its citizens. In the United States, that burden falls on the individual voter. Voter registration is required in forty-nine of the fifty states, with the exception of North Dakota.<\/p>\r\n

    Within states, the registration requirements and process vary considerably. Today, twenty-four states and Washington, DC, have automatic voter registration.[footnote]National Conference of State Legislatures, \u201cAutomatic Voter Registration.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> States are required to set registration deadlines within thirty days of an upcoming election. Fifteen states have deadlines between twenty-eight and thirty days. Nine states have deadlines between twenty and twenty-seven days before an election, while seven states have deadlines with one to fifteen days before an election.[footnote]National Conference of State Legislatures, \u201cVoter Registration Deadlines.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> The remaining nineteen states have a process called same-day registration (SDR) or election-day registration (EDR). In these states, citizens are able to register to vote on Election Day or to register and cast a ballot on the same day during an early voting period. Research suggests that this sort of reform is positively associated with voter turnout and reducing inequality in turnout.[footnote]Knack and White, \u201cElection-Day Registration,\u201d 29\u201344; Brian and Grofman, \u201cElection Day Registration\u2019s Effect,\u201d 170\u2013183; McDonald, \u201cPortable Voter Registration,\u201d 491\u2013501; Neiheisel and Burden, \u201cImpact of Election Day Registration,\u201d 636\u2013664; Grumbach and Hill, \u201cRock the Registration,\u201d 405\u2013417.[\/footnote]<\/sup> Without an external deadline, interested citizens can register on the spot (or update an address on their voter registration) and vote\u2014rather than having registration serve as an advance prerequisite to participate.<\/p>\r\n

    Another key aspect of the voting process that varies by state is where voting is allowed to occur. Historically, most voting occurs in person on Election Day. States have some degree of latitude on how long polls stay open on Election Day.[footnote]Ballotpedia, \u201cState Poll Opening and Closing Times (2024).\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> States also have latitude on how many polling locations they establish and where they choose to locate them. For example, college students are more likely to vote if they are able to participate on their campus.[footnote]Shino and Smith, \u201cMobilizing the Youth Vote?,\u201d 524\u2013541; McDonald et al., \u201cCampus Voting,\u201d 225\u2013238.[\/footnote]<\/sup> For other voters, being able to utilize a voter center, a polling location that is not exclusive for only registered voters of certain precinct-based geographies, is associated with higher rates of voter turnout.[footnote]Stein and Vonnahme, \u201cEngaging the Unengaged Voter,\u201d 487\u2013497.[\/footnote]<\/sup> One of the reasons that voting centers are received favorably by voters is that they know where to go\u2014having to look up voting locations if they change from election to election is associated with lower rates of turnout.[footnote]Brady and McNulty, \u201cTurnout Out to Vote,\u201d 115\u2013134.[\/footnote]<\/sup> The farther voters have to travel, the less likely they are to vote\u2014unless they are able to vote through \u201cnontraditional means\u201d like early voting or voting by mail.[footnote]Dyck and Gimpel, \u201cDistance, Turnout,\u201d 531\u2013548.[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n

    Increasingly, more and more Americans take advantage of the opportunity to vote early.[footnote]Jones, \u201cEarly Voting Higher\u201d; Parks, \u201c2020 Changed.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> At this point, almost every state (forty-seven and Washington, DC) allows voters to cast their ballot in person ahead of Election Day.[footnote]Ballotpedia, \u201cEarly Voting.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> In 2020 (during the pandemic), almost 70 percent of those who cast a ballot did so before Election Day. In spite of how widespread this opportunity is across the fifty states, the opportunity to vote early is not associated with increases in voter turnout in most cases.[footnote]Gronke, Galanes-Rosenbaum, and Miller et al., \u201cEarly Voting and Turnout,\u201d 639\u2013645.[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n

    Eight states (California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Washington) and Washington, DC, allow elections to be conducted entirely by mail.[footnote]National Conference of State Legislatures, \u201cStates with Mostly-Mail Elections.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> Early research suggested that vote by mail (VBM) might be associated with lower rates of turnout;[footnote]Kousser and Mullin, \u201cDoes Voting by Mail Increase?,\u201d 428\u2013445; Bergman and Yates, \u201cChanging Election Methods,\u201d 115\u2013127; Arceneaux, Kousser, and Mullin et al., \u201cGet Out the Vote-by-Mail?,\u201d 882\u2013894.[\/footnote]<\/sup> more recent work points to higher turnout.[footnote]Southwell and Burchett, \u201cEffect of All-Mail Elections,\u201d 72\u201379; Southwell, \u201cFive Years Later,\u201d 89\u201393; Southwell, \u201cAnalysis of the Turnout,\u201d 211\u2013217; Gronke, Galanes-Rosenbaum, Miller and Toffey et al., \u201cConvenience Voting,\u201d 437\u2013455; Gronke, Galanes-Rosenbaum, and Miller et al., \u201cEarly Voting and Turnout,\u201d 639\u2013645; Gronke and Miller, \u201cVoting by Mail,\u201d 976\u2013997; Richey, \u201cVoting by Mail,\u201d 902\u2013915; Henrickson and Johnson, \u201cIncreasing Voter Participation,\u201d 869\u2013884; Bonica et al., \u201cAll-Mail Voting,\u201d 102363.[\/footnote]<\/sup> Reviewing \u201call the major studies on vote by mail elections conducted in the United States in the last 25 years,\u201d political scientists have found that most studies find allowing ballots to be cast by mail is positively associated with higher rates of voter turnout.[footnote]Menger, Stein, and Vonnahme et al., \u201cTurnout Effects.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n

    Short of allowing all voters to cast a ballot by mail, many voters have the opportunity to vote absentee. This process also varies considerably by state.[footnote]National Conference of State Legislatures, \u201cVoting Outside.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> Some states require voters to confirm they will be absent or unable to vote in person in order to vote absentee. Twenty-eight states do not require voters to provide any sort of excuse. Likewise, in some states, voters who would like to vote absentee have to fill out an application every election cycle. In other states, voters are permanently on a list to receive an absentee ballot. Overall, no-excuse or no-fault absentee voting is associated with higher rates of turnout.[footnote]Larocca and Klemanski, \u201cU.S. State Election Reform,\u201d 76\u2013101.[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n

    The final electoral reform to be discussed in this chapter is voter identification\u2014more specifically, photo identification requirements. Thirty-six states either require or request that voters show some form of identification when voting in person.[footnote]National Conference of State Legislatures, \u201cVoter ID Laws.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> Eleven states have strict photo identification laws where voters must show a photo ID in order to participate. In states with nonstrict laws, voters can provide alternative forms of acceptable identification or otherwise verify their identity. States that experience higher levels of electoral competition between the two parties and switch to Republican control of state government are most likely to implement voter identification laws.[footnote]Hicks, McKee, and Smith et al., \u201cPrinciple or a Strategy?,\u201d 18\u201333; Biggers and Hanmer, \u201cUnderstanding the Adoption,\u201d 560\u2013588.[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
    Table 8.3 - <\/span>Voter Identification Requirements by State<\/em>\r\nData Source<\/span>: National Conference of State Legislatures. \u201cVoter ID Laws.\u201d 2024. https:\/\/www.ncsl.org\/elections-and-campaigns\/voter-id<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/em>\r\n<\/strong><\/caption>\r\n
    \r\n

    Requirement<\/strong><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    States<\/strong><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    Strict Photo ID (11)<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    Alabama<\/p>\r\n

    Arkansas<\/p>\r\n

    Georgia<\/p>\r\n

    Indiana<\/p>\r\n

    Kansas<\/p>\r\n

    Mississippi<\/p>\r\n

    North Carolina<\/p>\r\n

    Ohio<\/p>\r\n

    Tennessee<\/p>\r\n

    Wisconsin<\/p>\r\n

    Wyoming<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    Nonstrict Photo ID (12)<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    Florida<\/p>\r\n

    Idaho<\/p>\r\n

    Louisiana<\/p>\r\n

    Michigan<\/p>\r\n

    Missouri<\/p>\r\n

    Montana<\/p>\r\n

    Nebraska<\/p>\r\n

    Oklahoma<\/p>\r\n

    Rhode Island<\/p>\r\n

    South Carolina<\/p>\r\n

    South Dakota<\/p>\r\n

    Texas<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    Strict Nonphoto ID (2)<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    Arizona<\/p>\r\n

    North Dakota<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

    \r\n

    Nonstrict Nonphoto ID (11)<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

    		\r\n

    Alaska<\/p>\r\n

    Colorado<\/p>\r\n

    Connecticut<\/p>\r\n

    Delaware<\/p>\r\n

    Iowa<\/p>\r\n

    Kentucky<\/p>\r\n

    New Hampshire<\/p>\r\n

    Utah<\/p>\r\n

    Virginia<\/p>\r\n

    Washington<\/p>\r\n

    West Virginia<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\r\n

    Michael Pomante, Scot Schraufnagel, and Quan Li have published a series of works based on their \u201cCost of Voting Index,\u201d which takes many of the previously discussed election administration components into account.[footnote]Li, Pomante, and Schraufnagel et al., \u201cCost of Voting,\u201d 234\u2013247; Schraufnagel, Pomante, and Li et al., \u201cCost of Voting in the American States: 2020,\u201d 503\u2013509; Schraufnagel, Pomante, and Li et al., \u201cCost of Voting in the American States: 2022,\u201d 220\u2013228; Pomante, Schraufnagel, and Li et al., Costs of Voting.[\/footnote]<\/sup> In states where the cost of voting is comparatively high, voter turnout is comparatively low. States with large or growing racial minority populations are more likely to implement most restrictions that increase the cost of voting. States are influenced by diffusion (adopting policies similar to neighboring states), partisan considerations, and yes, the racial composition of their citizens.[footnote]Biggers and Hanmer, \u201cWho Makes Voting Convenient?,\u201d 192\u2013210; Smith, Hill and Ancheva et al., \u201cDivergent Electoral Policies,\u201d 26\u201347.[\/footnote]<\/sup> In part, this is why these forms of election administration are considered Jim Crow 2.0.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_196\" align=\"alignleft\" width=\"787\"]\"Bar Figure 8.11 - <\/span>Cost of Voting Index by State
    Source: \"2022 COVI rank and values<\/a>\" by Scott Schraufnagel, Michael J. Pomante, and Quan Li in \u201cCost of Voting in the American States: 2022.\u201d Election Law Journal \/ CC BY. <\/a><\/em><\/span><\/strong>[\/caption]\r\n

    The final part of the equation to understand whether it is rational to vote is the D term. If the formula for the calculus of voting was merely pB \u2013 C, then it would be irrational for almost any voter to participate. To make sense of this, voters add the D term to the equation, which stands for a voter\u2019s sense of civic duty. While many countries have compulsory voting, where participation is required by law and voters face a small fine for not casting a ballot, the United States gives citizens the opportunity to choose not to vote. As a result, many voters are socialized into participating\u2014through civic education in schools, parental influence, and other forces that help develop a sense that voting is something that one ought to do. Many Americans choose to cast a ballot in elections even though they are aware that their vote is unlikely to help produce the outcome they want. Yet they still choose to participate because voting is one of the most powerful ways to signal your preferences to the government. At the end of the day, who votes? Voters vote.<\/p>\r\n

    As a result, many measures of convenience voting<\/strong><\/span>\u2014reforms like same-day registration, early voting, and vote by mail\u2014do not impact voter turnout as much as one might think.[footnote]Highton, \u201cVoter Registration and Turnout,\u201d 507\u2013515; Berinsky, \u201cPerverse Consequence,\u201d 471\u2013491; Gronke, Galanes-Rosenbaum, Miller and Toffey et al., \u201cConvenience Voting,\u201d 437\u2013455; Hanmer, Discount Voting; Burden et al., \u201cElection Laws,\u201d 95\u2013109.[\/footnote]<\/sup> In many cases, these reforms make voting convenient\u2014but only for preexisting voters who were already inclined to participate. Likewise, states that adopt convenience measures already are more likely to have a political culture that promotes widespread voter participation. The reforms that are most associated with increases in participation and voter turnout are the ones that change the complexion of who could choose to become a voter.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Bibliography<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n

    \r\n

    All About Redistricting. \u201cNational Summary.\u201d n.d. https:\/\/redistricting.lls.edu\/national-overview<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Arceneaux, K., T. Kousser, and M. Mullin. \u201cGet Out the Vote-by-Mail? A Randomized Field Experiment Testing the Effect of Mobilization in Traditional and Vote-by-Mail Precincts.\u201d Political Research Quarterly<\/em><\/span> 65 (2012): 882\u2013894.<\/p>\r\n

    Associated Press. \u201cSupreme Court: \u2018Gerrymandering\u2019 Pronounced with Hard \u2018G.\u2019\u201d 2018. https:\/\/apnews.com\/general-news-8874fb32cc514f49a5b2aaf1783955f0<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Ballotpedia. \u201cEarly Voting.\u201d n.d. https:\/\/ballotpedia.org\/Early_voting<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Ballotpedia. \u201cLaws Permitting Noncitizens to Vote in the United States.\u201d n.d. https:\/\/ballotpedia.org\/Laws_permitting_noncitizens_to_vote_in_the_United_States<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Ballotpedia. \u201cMargin of Victory Analysis for the 2022 State Legislative Elections.\u201d n.d. https:\/\/ballotpedia.org\/Margin_of_victory_analysis_for_the_2022_state_legislative_elections<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Ballotpedia. \u201cOff-Cycle Elections.\u201d n.d. https:\/\/ballotpedia.org\/Off-cycle_elections<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Ballotpedia. \u201cOregon Measure 60, Vote by Mail for Biennial Elections Initiative (1998).\u201d n.d. https:\/\/ballotpedia.org\/Oregon_Measure_60,_Vote_by_Mail_for_Biennial_Elections_Initiative_(1998)<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Ballotpedia. \u201cRedistricting Commissions.\u201d n.d. https:\/\/ballotpedia.org\/Redistricting_commissions<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Ballotpedia. \u201cState Government Trifectas.\u201d n.d. https:\/\/ballotpedia.org\/State_government_trifectas<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Ballotpedia. \u201cState Poll Opening and Closing Times (2024).\u201d n.d. https:\/\/ballotpedia.org\/State_Poll_Opening_and_Closing_Times_(2024)<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Ballotpedia. \u201c2024 Ballot Measures.\u201d n.d. https:\/\/ballotpedia.org\/2024_ballot_measures<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Ballotpedia. \u201cVoting Rights for People Convicted of a Felony.\u201d n.d. https:\/\/ballotpedia.org\/Voting_rights_for_people_convicted_of_a_felony<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Barber, M. \u201cDonation Motivations: Testing Theories of Access and Ideology.\u201d Political Research Quarterly<\/em><\/span> 69 (2016): 148\u2013159.<\/p>\r\n

    Bergman, E., and P. Yates. \u201cChanging Election Methods: How Does Mandated Vote-by-Mail Affect Individual Registrants?\u201d Election Law Journal<\/em><\/span> 10 (2011): 115\u2013127.<\/p>\r\n

    Berinsky, A. \u201cThe Perverse Consequence of Electoral Reform in the United States.\u201d American Politics Research<\/em><\/span> 33 (2005): 471\u2013491.<\/p>\r\n

    Bernstein, R., A. Chadha, and R. Montjoy. \u201cOverreporting Voting: Why It Happens and Why It Matters.\u201d Public Opinion Quarterly<\/em><\/span> 65 (2001): 22\u201344.<\/p>\r\n

    Biggers, D., and M. Hanmer. \u201cUnderstanding the Adoption of Voter Identification Laws in the American States.\u201d American Politics Research<\/em><\/span> 45 (2017): 560\u2013588.<\/p>\r\n

    Biggers, D., and M. Hanmer. \u201cWho Makes Voting Convenient? Explaining the Adoption of Early and No-Excuse Absentee Voting in the American States.\u201d State Politics & Policy Quarterly<\/em><\/span> 15 (2015): 192\u2013210.<\/p>\r\n

    Bishop, B. The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America Is Tearing Us Apart<\/em><\/span>. Houghton Mifflin, 2008.<\/p>\r\n

    Blanc, E. Red State Revolt: The Teachers\u2019 Strike Wave and Working-Class Politics<\/em><\/span>. Verso, 2019.<\/p>\r\n

    Blum, R. How the Tea Party Captured the GOP: Insurgent Factions in American Politics<\/em><\/span>. University of Chicago Press, 2020.<\/p>\r\n

    Bonica, A., J. Grumbach, C. Hill, and H. Jefferson. \u201cAll-Mail Voting in Colorado Increases Turnout and Reduces Turnout Inequality.\u201d Electoral Studies<\/em><\/span> 72 (2021): 102363.<\/p>\r\n

    Bouton, L., M. Castanheira, and A. Drazen. \u201cA Theory of Small Campaign Contributions.\u201d Economic Journal<\/em><\/span> 134, no. 662 (2024): 2351\u20132390. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/ej\/ueae021<\/span><\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\r\n

    Brady, H., and J. McNulty. \u201cTurnout Out to Vote: The Costs of Finding and Getting to the Polling Place.\u201d American Political Science<\/em><\/span> 105 (2011): 115\u2013134.<\/p>\r\n

    Brian, C., and B. Grofman. \u201cElection Day Registration\u2019s Effect on U.S. Voter Turnout.\u201d Social Science Quarterly<\/em><\/span> 82 (2001): 170\u2013183.<\/p>\r\n

    Brockell, G. \u201cSome Call Voting Restrictions Upheld by Supreme Court \u2018Jim Crow 2.0.\u2019 Here\u2019s the Ugly History Behind That Phrase.\u201d The Washington Post<\/em><\/span>, 2021. https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/history\/2021\/07\/02\/jim-crow-voting-restrictions-supreme-court\/<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Brower, M. \u201cWhat Does the Constitution Say About the Right to Vote?\u201d Democracy Docket, 2022. https:\/\/www.democracydocket.com\/analysis\/what-does-the-constitution-say-about-the-right-to-vote\/<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Brown, J., and R. Enos. \u201cThe Measurement of Partisan Sorting for 180 Million Voters.\u201d Nature Human Behavior<\/em><\/span> 5 (2021): 998\u20131008.<\/p>\r\n

    Buchanan, L., Q. Bui, and J. Patel. \u201cBlack Lives Matter May Be the Largest Movement in U.S. History.\u201d The New York Times<\/em><\/span>, 2020. https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/interactive\/2020\/07\/03\/us\/george-floyd-protests-crowd-size.html<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Bump, P. \u201cA Brief History of People Who Have Actually Been Elected Dogcatcher.\u201d The Washington Post<\/em><\/span>, 2014. https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/news\/the-fix\/wp\/2014\/06\/02\/a-brief-history-of-people-who-have-actually-been-elected-dog-catcher\/<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Burden, B., D. Canon, K. Mayer, and D. Moynihan. \u201cElection Laws, Mobilization, and Turnout: The Unanticipated Consequences of Election Reform.\u201d American Journal of Political Science<\/em><\/span> 58 (2014): 95\u2013109.<\/p>\r\n

    Burnette, D. \u201cWhat Is #RedforED? Behind the Hashtag That\u2019s All the Rage in Teacher Strikes.\u201d Education Week<\/em><\/span>, 2018. https:\/\/www.edweek.org\/education\/what-is-redfored-behind-the-hashtag-thats-all-the-rage-in-teacher-strikes\/2018\/05<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Camhi, T. \u201cHow Oregon Became the First State to Vote by Mail in a Presidential Election.\u201d Oregon Public Broadcasting, 2020. https:\/\/www.opb.org\/news\/article\/history-vote-by-mail-oregon-elections\/<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Chenoweth, E., and M. Stephan. Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict<\/em><\/span>. Columbia University Press, 2011.<\/p>\r\n

    Cook, R. \u201cThe \u2018Big Sort\u2019 Continues, with Trump as a Driving Force.\u201d The Center for Politics, 2022. https:\/\/centerforpolitics.org\/crystalball\/the-big-sort-continues-with-trump-as-a-driving-force\/<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Crowd Counting Consortium. n.d. Crowdcounting.org, accessed August 10, 2024. https:\/\/ash.harvard.edu\/programs\/crowd-counting-consortium\/<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Cunningham, M. \u201c\u2018The New Jim Crow\u2019: Republicans and Democrats at Odds over Voting Rights.\u201d ABC News, 2021. https:\/\/abcnews.go.com\/Politics\/jim-crow-republicans-democrats-odds-voting-rights\/story?id=77188460<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Devine, K. \u201cVisualizing Voter Turnout in Local and School Board Elections.\u201d Carnegie Corporation of New York, 2022. https:\/\/www.carnegie.org\/our-work\/article\/visualizing-voter-turnout-local-school-board-elections\/<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Diaz, J. \u201cIt\u2019s Cold and Snowing in D.C. but the March for Life Goes on\u2014After Roe Ends.\u201d National Public Radio, 2024. https:\/\/www.npr.org\/2024\/01\/19\/1225736660\/cold-snowing-d-c-march-for-life-roe<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Downs, A. An Economic Theory of Democracy<\/em><\/span>. Harper & Row, 1957.<\/p>\r\n

    Dyck, J., and J. Gimpel. \u201cDistance, Turnout, and the Convenience of Voting.\u201d Social Science Quarterly<\/em><\/span> 86 (2005): 531\u2013548.<\/p>\r\n

    Elazar, D. American Federalism: A View from the States<\/em><\/span>. 3rd ed. Harper and Row, 1984.<\/p>\r\n

    Gabbatt, A. \u201cRepublicans Push \u2018Tsunami\u2019 of Harsh Anti-Protest Laws After BLM Rallies.\u201d The Guardian<\/em><\/span>, 2021. https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/world\/2021\/apr\/12\/republicans-push-anti-protest-laws-blm-demonstrations<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Greenfield, B. \u201cWhy Are People Mad at Chick-fil-A? A Rundown of the Chain\u2019s Past and Present Anti-LGBTQ Controversies.\u201d Yahoo!Life, 2021. https:\/\/www.yahoo.com\/lifestyle\/why-are-people-mad-chick-fil-a-anti-lgbtq-controversies-205302238.html<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Gronke, P. \u201cBallot Integrity and Voting by Mail: The Oregon Experience.\u201d Report prepared for the National Commission on Election Reform, 2005. https:\/\/evic.reed.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/04\/Ballot-Integrity-and-Voting-by-Mail-The-Oregon-Experience.pdf<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Gronke, P., E. Galanes-Rosenbaum, and P. Miller. \u201cEarly Voting and Turnout.\u201d PS: Political Science & Politics<\/em><\/span> 40 (2007): 639\u2013645.<\/p>\r\n

    Gronke, P., E. Galanes-Rosenbaum, P. Miller, and D. Toffey. \u201cConvenience Voting.\u201d Annual Review of Political Science<\/em><\/span> 11 (2008): 437\u2013455.<\/p>\r\n

    Gronke, P., and P. Miller. \u201cVoting by Mail and Turnout in Oregon: Revisiting Southwell and Burchett.\u201d American Politics Research<\/em><\/span> 40 (2012): 976\u2013997.<\/p>\r\n

    Grumbach, J., and C. Hill. \u201cRock the Registration: Same Day Registration Increases Turnout of Young Voters.\u201d Journal of Politics<\/em><\/span> 84 (2021): 405\u2013417.<\/p>\r\n

    Hajnal, Z. \u201cWhy Does No One Vote in Local Elections?\u201d The New York Times<\/em><\/span>, 2018. https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2018\/10\/22\/opinion\/why-does-no-one-vote-in-local-elections.html<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Halliday, E., and R. Hanna. \u201cState Anti-Protest Laws and Their Constitutional Implications.\u201d Lawfare, 2021. https:\/\/www.lawfaremedia.org\/article\/state-anti-protest-laws-and-their-constitutional-implications<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Hanmer, M. Discount Voting: Voter Registration Reforms and Their Effects<\/em><\/span>. Cambridge University Press, 2009.<\/p>\r\n

    Hartig, H., A. Daniller, S. Keeter, and T. Van Green. \u201cRepublican Gains in 2022 Midterms Driven Mostly by Turnout Advantage.\u201d Pew Research Center, 2023. https:\/\/www.pewresearch.org\/politics\/2023\/07\/12\/republican-gains-in-2022-midterms-driven-mostly-by-turnout-advantage\/<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Hartocoliis, A., and Y. Alcindor. \u201cWomen\u2019s March Highlights as Huge Crowds Protest Trump: \u2018We\u2019re Not Going Away.\u2019\u201d The New York Times<\/em><\/span>, 2017. https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2017\/01\/21\/us\/womens-march.html<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Hasen, R. A Real Right to Vote: How a Constitutional Amendment Can Safeguard American Democracy<\/em><\/span>. Princeton University Press, 2024.<\/p>\r\n

    Hemmer, N. \u201cWhat Jim Crow Looks like in 2021.\u201d CNN, 2021. https:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2021\/03\/25\/opinions\/voting-rights-suppression-is-jim-crow-suit-and-tie-hemmer\/index.html<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Henrickson, K., and E. Johnson. \u201cIncreasing Voter Participation by Altering the Costs and Stakes of Voting.\u201d Social Science Quarterly<\/em><\/span> 100 (2019): 869\u2013884.<\/p>\r\n

    Hetherington, M. \u201cTurned Off or Turned On? How Polarization Affects Political Engagement.\u201d In Red and Blue Nation? Consequences and Correction of America\u2019s Polarized Politics<\/em><\/span>, vol. 2, edited by N. Nivola and D. Brady. Brookings Institution Press, 2008.<\/p>\r\n

    Hicks, W., S. McKee, and D. Smith. \u201cA Principle or a Strategy? Voted Identification Laws and Partisan Competition in the American States.\u201d Political Research Quarterly<\/em><\/span> 68 (2015): 18\u201333.<\/p>\r\n

    Highton, B. \u201cVoter Registration and Turnout in the United States.\u201d Perspectives on Politics<\/em><\/span> 2 (2004): 507\u2013515.<\/p>\r\n

    Igielnik, R., and A. Budiman. \u201cThe Changing Racial and Ethnic Composition of the U.S. Electorate.\u201d Pew Research Center, 2020. https:\/\/www.pewresearch.org\/social-trends\/2020\/09\/23\/the-changing-racial-and-ethnic-composition-of-the-u-s-electorate\/<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Jones, J. \u201cChurch Attendance Has Declined in Most U.S. Religious Groups.\u201d Gallup, 2024. https:\/\/news.gallup.com\/poll\/642548\/church-attendance-declined-religious-groups.aspx<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Jones, J. \u201cEarly Voting Higher Than in Past U.S. Midterms.\u201d Gallup, 2022. https:\/\/news.gallup.com\/poll\/404558\/early-voting-higher-past-midterms.aspx<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Knack, S., and J. White. \u201cElection-Day Registration and Turnout Inequality.\u201d Political Behavior<\/em><\/span> 22 (2000): 29\u201344.<\/p>\r\n

    Kousser, T., and M. Mullin. \u201cDoes Voting by Mail Increase Participation? Using Matching to Analyze a Natural Experiment.\u201d Political Analysis<\/em><\/span> 15 (2007): 428\u2013445.<\/p>\r\n

    Kuckuk, A. \u201cOdd Ones Out: Just 4 States Hold Off-Year Elections.\u201d National Conference of State Legislatures, 2023. https:\/\/www.ncsl.org\/state-legislatures-news\/details\/odd-ones-out-just-4-states-hold-off-year-elections<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    LaRaja, R., and B. Schaffner. Campaign Finance and Political Polarization: When Purists Prevail<\/em><\/span>. University of Michigan Press, 2015.<\/p>\r\n

    Larocca, R., and J. Klemanski. \u201cU.S. State Election Reform and Turnout in Presidential Elections.\u201d State Politics & Policy Quarterly<\/em><\/span> 11 (2011): 76\u2013101.<\/p>\r\n

    Leighley, J., and J. Nagler. \u201cSocioeconomic Class Bias in Turnout, 1964\u20131988: The Voters Remain the Same.\u201d American Political Science Review<\/em><\/span> 86 (1992): 725\u2013735.<\/p>\r\n

    Leighley, J., and J. Nagler. Who Votes Now? Demographics, Issues, Inequality, and Turnout in the United States<\/em><\/span>. Princeton University Press, 2014.<\/p>\r\n

    Lewis, K. \u201cTarget Hit with Backlash for Decision on LGBTQ Merchandise.\u201d Newsweek<\/em><\/span>, 2024. https:\/\/www.newsweek.com\/target-backlash-lgbtq-merchandise-1899479<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Li, Q., M. Pomante, and S. Schraufnagel. \u201cCost of Voting in the American States.\u201d Election Law Journal<\/em><\/span> 17 (2018): 234\u2013247.<\/p>\r\n

    Liaukonyte, J., A. Tuchman, and X. Zhu. \u201cLessons from the Bud Light Boycott, One Year Later.\u201d Harvard Business Review<\/em><\/span>, 2024. https:\/\/hbr.org\/2024\/03\/lessons-from-the-bud-light-boycott-one-year-later<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Lopez, G. \u201cDoes America Vote Too Much?\u201d The New York Times<\/em><\/span>, 2022. https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2022\/11\/07\/briefing\/midterms-voting.html<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    McDonald, M. \u201cPortable Voter Registration.\u201d Political Behavior<\/em><\/span> 30 (2008): 491\u2013501.<\/p>\r\n

    McDonald, M. \u201c2022 November General Election Turnout Rates.\u201d US Elections Project, 2023. https:\/\/www.electproject.org\/2022g<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    McDonald, M., E. Shino, D. Smith, P. Lussier, and D. Dietz. \u201cCampus Voting During the COVID-19 Pandemic.\u201d American Politics Research<\/em><\/span> 52 (2024): 225\u2013238.<\/p>\r\n

    Mehta, J. \u201cWhat Has and Hasn\u2019t Changed for Teachers in the 5 Years Since \u2018Red for Ed\u2019 Walkouts.\u201d National Public Radio, 2023. https:\/\/www.npr.org\/2023\/05\/22\/1177576762\/what-has-and-hasnt-changed-for-teachers-in-the-5-years-since-red-for-ed-walkouts<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Menger, A., R. Stein, and G. Vonnahme. \u201cTurnout Effects from Vote by Mail Elections.\u201d Conference on Election Administration and Reform. Paper presented at the Conference on New Trends in Election Administration, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, June 2015.<\/p>\r\n

    Morgan, D. \u201cUS House Approves Trump-Backed Bill on Non-Citizen Voting.\u201d Reuters, 2024. https:\/\/www.reuters.com\/world\/us\/us-house-vote-trump-backed-bill-targeting-non-citizen-voting-2024-07-10\/<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Motel, S. \u201cWho Runs for Office? A Profile of the 2%.\u201d Pew Research Center, 2014. https:\/\/www.pewresearch.org\/short-reads\/2014\/09\/03\/who-runs-for-office-a-profile-of-<\/span>the-2\/<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    National Conference of State Legislatures. \u201cAutomatic Voter Registration.\u201d 2024. https:\/\/www.ncsl.org\/elections-and-campaigns\/automatic-voter-registration<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    National Conference of State Legislatures. \u201cStates with Mostly-Mail Elections.\u201d 2024. https:\/\/www.ncsl.org\/elections-and-campaigns\/table-18-states-with-all-mail-elections<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    National Conference of State Legislatures. \u201cVoter Registration Deadlines.\u201d 2023. https:\/\/www.ncsl.org\/elections-and-campaigns\/voter-registration-deadlines<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    National Conference of State Legislatures. \u201cVoting Outside the Polling Place: Absentee, All-Mail and Other Voting at Home Options.\u201d 2024. https:\/\/www.ncsl.org\/elections-and-campaigns\/voting-outside-the-polling-place<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    National Park Service. \u201cMarch on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.\u201d n.d. https:\/\/www.nps.gov\/articles\/march-on-washington.htm#:~:text=It was the largest gathering,from all over the country<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    National Youth Rights Association. \u201cVoting Age Status Report.\u201d n.d. https:\/\/www.youthrights.org\/issues\/voting-age\/voting-age-status-report\/<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Neiheisel, J., and B. Burden. \u201cThe Impact of Election Day Registration on Voter Turnout and Election Outcomes.\u201d American Politics Research<\/em><\/span> 40 (2012): 636\u2013664.<\/p>\r\n

    Newport, F. \u201cIn U.S., Four in 10 Report Attending Church in Last Week.\u201d Gallup, December 24, 2013. https:\/\/news.gallup.com\/poll\/166613\/four-report-attending-church-last-week.aspx<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Parks, M. \u201c2020 Changed How America Voters. The Question Now Is Whether Those Changes Stick.\u201d National Public Radio, 2022. https:\/\/www.npr.org\/2022\/10\/28\/1128695831\/united-states-2022-patterns-mail-early-voting<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Pildes, R. \u201cSmall Dollars, Big Changes.\u201d The Washington Post<\/em><\/span>, 2020. https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/outlook\/2020\/02\/06\/small-dollars-big-changes\/?itid=lk_inline_manual_2<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Piper, J., P. Friedrich, A. Wiederkehr, and M. Fernandez. \u201cHow Online Donations Are Fueling the Election.\u201d Politico, 2024. https:\/\/www.politico.com\/interactives\/2024\/campaign-finance-april-2024\/<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Pomante, M., S. Schraufnagel, and Q. Li. The Costs of Voting in the American States<\/em><\/span>. University Press of Kansas, 2023.<\/p>\r\n

    Putnam, R. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community<\/em><\/span>. Simon & Schuster, 2000.<\/p>\r\n

    Quinton, S. \u201cEight States Enact Anti-Protest Laws.\u201d Stateline, 2021. https:\/\/stateline.org\/2021\/06\/21\/eight-states-enact-anti-protest-laws\/#:~:text=New laws enacted in Arkansas,people that threatens public safety<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Richey, S. \u201cVoting by Mail: Turnout and Institutional Reform in Oregon.\u201d Social Science Quarterly<\/em><\/span> 89 (2008): 902\u2013915.<\/p>\r\n

    Riker, W., and P. Ordeshook. \u201cA Theory of the Calculus of Voting.\u201d American Political Science Review<\/em><\/span> 61 (1968): 25\u201342.<\/p>\r\n

    Robson, D. \u201cThe \u20183.5% Rule\u2019: How a Small Minority Can Change the World.\u201d BBC, 2019. https:\/\/www.bbc.com\/future\/article\/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Rosenstone, S., and J. Hansen. Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America<\/em><\/span>. Macmillan, 1993.<\/p>\r\n

    Schaffner, B., M. Streb, and G. Wright. \u201cTeams Without Uniforms: The Nonpartisan Ballot in State and Local Elections.\u201d Political Research Quarterly<\/em><\/span> 54 (2001): 7\u201330.<\/p>\r\n

    Schattschneider, E. The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist\u2019s View of Democracy in America<\/em><\/span>. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1960.<\/p>\r\n

    Schraufnagel, S., M. Pomante, and Q. Li. \u201cCost of Voting in the American States: 2020.\u201d Election Law Journal<\/em><\/span> 19 (2020): 503\u2013509.<\/p>\r\n

    Schraufnagel, S., M. Pomante, and Q. Li. \u201cCost of Voting in the American States: 2022.\u201d Election Law Journal<\/em><\/span> 21 (2022): 220\u2013228.<\/p>\r\n

    Shino, E., and D. Smith. \u201cMobilizing the Youth Vote? Early Voting on College Campuses.\u201d Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy<\/em><\/span> 19 (2020): 524\u2013541.<\/p>\r\n

    Shor, B., and N. McCarty. \u201cThe Ideological Mapping of American Legislatures.\u201d American Political Science Review<\/em><\/span> 105 (2011): 530\u2013551.<\/p>\r\n

    Shor, B., and N. McCarty. \u201cTwo Decades of Polarization in American State Legislatures.\u201d Journal of Political Institutions and Political Economy<\/em><\/span> 3 (2022): 343\u2013370.<\/p>\r\n

    Shumway, J. \u201cU.S. Supreme Court Won\u2019t Hear Oregon Lawsuit That Sought to End Mail Voting.\u201d Oregon Capital Chronicle<\/em><\/span>, 2024. https:\/\/oregoncapitalchronicle.com\/2024\/05\/20\/u-s-supreme-court-wont-hear-oregon-lawsuit-that-sought-to-end-mail-voting\/<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Skocpol, T. Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civil Life<\/em><\/span>. Oxford University Press, 2004.<\/p>\r\n

    Smith, K., D. Hill, and S. Ancheva. \u201cDivergent Electoral Policies: Why Some States Increase Ballot Access.\u201d State Politics & Policy Quarterly<\/em><\/span> 23 (2023): 26\u201347.<\/p>\r\n

    Southwell, P. \u201cAnalysis of the Turnout Effects of Vote by Mail Elections, 1980\u20132007.\u201d Social Science Journal<\/em><\/span> 46 (2009): 211\u2013217.<\/p>\r\n

    Southwell, P. \u201cFive Years Later: A Re-Assessment of Oregon\u2019s Vote by Mail Electoral Process.\u201d PS: Political Science & Politics<\/em><\/span> 37 (2004): 89\u201393.<\/p>\r\n

    Southwell, P., and J. Burchett. \u201cThe Effect of All-Mail Elections on Voter Turnout.\u201d American Politics Quarterly<\/em><\/span> 28 (2000): 72\u201379.<\/p>\r\n

    Springer, M. \u201cState Electoral Institutions and Voter Turnout in Presidential Elections, 1920\u20132000.\u201d State Politics & Policy Quarterly<\/em><\/span> 12, no. 3 (2012): 252\u2013283.<\/p>\r\n

    Stein, R., and G. Vonnahme. \u201cEngaging the Unengaged Voter: Vote Centers and Voter Turnout.\u201d Journal of Politics<\/em><\/span> 70 (2008): 487\u2013497.<\/p>\r\n

    Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America<\/em><\/span>. Dearborn & Co., 1838.<\/p>\r\n

    Tufekci, Z. \u201cDo Protests Even Work?\u201d The Atlantic<\/em><\/span>, 2020. https:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/technology\/archive\/2020\/06\/why-protests-work\/613420\/<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Verba, S., K. Schlozman, and H. Brady. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics<\/em><\/span>. Harvard University Press, 1995.<\/p>\r\n

    Wasserman, D. \u201cPurple America Has All but Disappeared.\u201d FiveThirtyEight, 2017. https:\/\/fivethirtyeight.com\/features\/purple-america-has-all-but-disappeared\/<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Wike, R., L. Silver, and L. Clancy. \u201cWhat Makes Someone a Good Member of Society?\u201d Pew Research Center, 2022. https:\/\/www.pewresearch.org\/global\/2022\/11\/16\/what-makes-someone-a-good-member-of-society\/<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Wolfinger, R., and S. Rosenstone. Who Votes?<\/em><\/span> Yale University Press, 1980.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"

    \n
    \n

    Chapter Summary<\/p>\n<\/header>\n

    \n

    Voting is the most commonly identified form of political participation; however, residents have many different ways to participate in their local communities and engage with their state government. This includes writing letters, protesting, getting involved with civic organizations, and requesting constituent services, among others. This chapter begins a series of chapters that focus on political behavior and engagement in state government, evaluating how constituents participate in state politics. It emphasizes how state variation in election administration shapes opportunities for citizens to participate in the political process.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    \n

    Student Learning Objectives<\/p>\n<\/header>\n

    \n

    Upon completion of this chapter, students should be able to:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Describe how perceptions of civic engagement in the United States have changed over time.<\/li>\n
    2. Identify trends in different types of formal and informal volunteering.<\/li>\n
    3. Summarize the various ways in which individuals can politically participate in their state and local community.<\/li>\n
    4. Compare and contrast different types of institutional and extrainstitutional participation.<\/li>\n
    5. Explain how turnout varies based on the different types of elections voters experience in the United States.<\/li>\n
    6. Analyze inequities and differences in participation rates among key sociodemographic characteristics.<\/li>\n
    7. Apply the calculus of voting to describe the reasons why Americans choose not to participate in the political process.<\/li>\n
    8. Examine differences in election laws across states that might impact voter turnout and engagement.<\/li>\n
    9. Evaluate the relative merits of current election administration controversies and their relationship with voter turnout.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
      \n
      \n

      Focus Questions<\/p>\n<\/header>\n

      \n

      These questions illustrate the main concepts covered in the chapter and should help guide discussion as well as enable students to critically analyze and apply the material covered.<\/p>\n

      In what ways can citizens become engaged politically beyond voting?<\/p>\n

      How well do the characteristics of the voting population mirror the diversity of the electorate?<\/p>\n

      How can states alter the calculus of voting for citizens?<\/p>\n

      What sort of election laws could a state pursue to promote voter participation?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

      What Does Civic Engagement Look like in the US?<\/h1>\n

      Alexis de Tocqueville famously remarked that America is a \u201cnation of joiners.\u201d[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Civic life in the US has long been characterized by the richness and diversity of opportunities for Americans to get involved. Compared to other countries, the level of civic engagement<\/strong><\/span>, or participation and involvement in community and public life to achieve positive outcomes, has historically painted a flattering picture of a vibrant and flourishing democracy.<\/p>\n

      \"A
      Figure 8.1 – <\/span>Norman Rockwell\u2019s Freedom of Speech<\/em><\/span>
      Source: “      Save freedom of speech. Buy war bonds<\/a>” by Boston Public Library on Flickr \/ CC BY<\/a>.<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

      This picture, like the famous Norman Rockwell print (Figure 8.1<\/span><\/span>), depicted Americans who were active in the communities\u2014whether through fraternal or service organizations like the Elks, Lions, Moose, Kiwanis, Knights of Columbus, Rotary Club, and so on; parent-teacher organizations; or organized labor unions and professional associations. In the 1950s, nearly 50 percent of all Americans reported attending church services at least<\/em><\/span> once a week.[2]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Everyday Americans found and sought opportunities to get involved.<\/p>\n

      This era is romanticized as the height of social capital<\/strong><\/span>, where norms of trust and reciprocity flourished between relationship networks. Civic life produced bonding<\/strong><\/span> opportunities between individuals and communities of shared characteristics, interests, and demographics. However, these organizations also provided bridging<\/strong><\/span> opportunities, where cross-cutting relationships were formed across differences, often anchoring communities across class lines.[3]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

      Today, many would remark that the nature of civic life in America has changed (and perhaps not for the best). Once, Americans joined with one another and found opportunities to be together as a community\u2014often joining bowling leagues as a classic example. Today, however, we are \u201cbowling alone.\u201d[4]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Church membership and attendance have rapidly declined.[5]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Today, Americans are more isolated and pursue individual forms of entertainment and fulfillment rather than through the community.<\/p>\n

      This narrative, however, overlooks the landscape of participation across the fifty states. Regions across the United States have their own distinct political culture<\/strong><\/span> or different perspectives about the ideal role of citizenship and views toward government.[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Political scientist Daniel Elazar characterized states as fitting into one of three different political cultures based on early settling patterns and their initial orientations toward government. States with a moralistic political culture<\/strong><\/span>, primarily in the upper Midwest and West, place a premium on civic engagement and public life. Citizens ought to play a preeminent role in utilizing government to shape the public or the common good.<\/p>\n

      \"United
      Figure 8.2 – Political Culture by State
      Data Source: Elazar, D. American Federalism: A View from the States. 3rd ed. Harper and Row, 1984. Map made by author.<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

      If these subtypes of political culture are thought to be on a continuum, states with an individualistic political culture would be in the middle. States with an individualistic political culture<\/strong><\/span>, largely concentrated in the Midwest and mid-Atlantic states, tend to view government and political participation as a means to an end. If government can be used to achieve the desired outcome, then civic engagement and political participation ought to be promoted. Otherwise, participation for the sake of participation is less than required. Finally, states with a traditionalistic political culture<\/strong><\/span>, concentrated in the American South, place little value on political participation because the role of government is to preserve the existing social hierarchy and structures. A lack of involvement (by most) ensures that the status quo persists. For a longer discussion, see Chapter 10<\/span><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      These cultures appear to be deeply ingrained. Citizens have many different forms of participation available to them, yet significant inequalities and hurdles exist that prevent full participation. In what ways do the choices made by state governments promote or hinder democratic citizenship and participation?<\/p>\n

      What Are the Different Types of Participation?<\/h1>\n

      Civic engagement is more than \u201cjust\u201d politics. As such, participation takes many different forms. Much of that participation takes place through volunteering<\/strong><\/span>, or giving of time freely, in nonpolitical outlets.<\/p>\n

      Volunteering can occur through formal<\/strong><\/span> or informal<\/strong><\/span> outlets depending on whether it is done through an organization or independently. As Figure 8.3<\/span><\/span> shows, the overwhelming majority of Americans engage in informal activities like talking with friends, family, and neighbors or doing research to learn more about issues of public concern. Americans are more likely to report engaging in nonpolitical forms of civic engagement in general compared to overtly political or partisan forms of participation.<\/p>\n

      \"Bar
      Figure 8.3 – National Rates of Civic Engagement
      Data Source: US Census Bureau and AmeriCorps. 2021 Civic Engagement and Volunteering Supplement.       https:\/\/americorps.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/document\/CEV-Civic-Engagement-Rates-013024.pdf<\/a>. Graph made by author.<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

      Much of what political scientists know about civic engagement and political participation is from individuals self-reporting their behavior in surveys and public opinion polls. This often leads to a social desirability<\/strong> bias<\/strong><\/span>, where respondents overreport favorable behaviors and opinions and minimize controversial or unfavorable behaviors or opinions. Behaviors like voting, for example, are viewed as socially desirable\u2014so many people report that they voted when, in fact, they may not have.[7]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
      Table 8.1 – <\/span>Highest Levels of Volunteering by State<\/em>
      \nData Source<\/span>: US Census Bureau and AmeriCorps. 2021 Civic Engagement and Volunteering Supplement. https:\/\/www.census.gov\/library\/stories\/2023\/01\/volunteering-and-civic-life-in-america.html<\/span><\/a><\/span>. Table made by author.<\/em>
      \n<\/strong><\/caption>\n
      \n

      Formal Volunteering<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      Informal Volunteering<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      State<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      Volunteering Rate<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      State<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      Volunteering Rate<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      Utah<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      40.7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      Montana<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      68.8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      Wyoming<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      39.2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      Nebraska<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      66.4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      Minnesota<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      35.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      Maine<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      65.0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      Maine<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      34.9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      Delaware<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      63.9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      Washington, DC<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      34.2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      Vermont<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      63.9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      South Dakota<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      34.2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      Minnesota<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      61.9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      Nebraska<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      33.9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      Utah<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      61.6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      Kansas<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      31.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      West Virginia<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      60.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      Montana<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      31.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      Iowa<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      60.3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      Missouri<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      30.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      Pennsylvania<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      60.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

      Broadly, political participation takes two dominant forms. The first is institutional political participation<\/strong><\/span>. This is participation through common, previously agreed upon formal channels to influence public policy and the political process. In our federalist system, the United States has more than ninety thousand different units of government. Moreover, a significant number of positions throughout these units of government are elected positions\u2014from president to even, perhaps unbelievably at one moment in time, dogcatcher.[8]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Behaviors that are passive, like displaying a yard sign or posting something on social media, are more common than active behaviors.<\/p>\n

      More active features of campaigning and supporting candidates for office can take many different forms. Some pursue paid employment or internships for academic credit on political campaigns. Others volunteer by giving their time to support candidates and ballot measures, most frequently by engaging in door-to-door canvassing or by phone\/text-banking potential supporters.<\/p>\n

      An increasing number of Americans give small-dollar donations online to candidates via websites like ActBlue and WinRed.[9]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Ideologically polarized activists (liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans) are more likely to give and to give generously to multiple candidates\u2014even candidates across the country.[10]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

      \"Bar
      Figure 8.4 – Rates of Political Participation
      Data Source: Daniller, A., and H. Gilberstadt. \u201cKey Findings About Voter Engagement in the 2020 Election.\u201d Pew Research Center, 2020.       https:\/\/www.pewresearch.org\/short-reads\/2020\/12\/14\/key-findings-about-voter-engagement-in-the-2020-election\/<\/a>. Graph made by author.<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

      An even smaller number of citizens play an active role in the public policy and governing process. Less than 10 percent of Americans report contacting an elected official or attending a public meeting. While citizens are able to testify at legislative committee hearings at state capitols throughout the country, few take advantage of this opportunity. Likewise, few attend formal \u201clobby days\u201d at state capitols organized by interest groups to bring attention to their policy priorities. Less than 2 percent of Americans have ever attempted to run for office themselves, arguably the most direct way to influence government.[11]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

      The most common form of political participation in the United States is voting in elections. Eighty percent of Americans believe that \u201cvoting in elections is very or somewhat important to be a good member of society.\u201d[12]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Unfortunately, that is not to say that 80 percent of citizens vote in American elections\u2014far from it.<\/p>\n

      Americans are asked to cast a ballot more frequently than citizens of other countries.[13]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Most offices in the US follow a two-stage process<\/strong><\/span> where candidates first vie in a primary election<\/strong><\/span> to determine which candidate will represent their political party in a general election<\/strong><\/span>, where voters ultimately determine which candidate is elected to serve in office.<\/p>\n

      At the federal level, voters participate in a presidential election<\/strong><\/span> every four years. More voters participate in this type of election than any others. Every two years, voters also participate in congressional elections<\/strong><\/span>, or as they are more typically known, midterm elections<\/strong><\/span>, since they occur in the middle of a presidential term. All 435 seats in the House of Representatives and one-third of the 100 US Senate seats are up for election in every congressional and presidential election.<\/p>\n

      \"Scatter
      Figure 8.5 – Voter Turnout, 1789\u20132020
      Data Source: Bernstein, J., and A. Shannon. Vital Statistics on American Politics, 2017\u20132020 Edition. CQ Press, 2022. Graph made by author.<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

      Frequently, but not always, state elections<\/strong><\/span> occur at the same time as presidential and midterm elections. These elections are when voters elect their governor and other statewide officers as well as members of their state legislature among other offices. Five states (Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, and Virginia) have their state elections in \u201coff years.\u201d[14]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> For example, while voters in most states voted for their governor in either November 2018 or November 2020, Louisiana voted for governor in 2019.<\/p>\n

      Louisiana is also a state that utilizes runoff elections<\/strong><\/span>. While most elections in the United States follow plurality rule\u2014whichever candidate receives the most votes wins\u2014Louisiana is one of a few states that utilizes majority rule. In order to win, a candidate must receive 50 percent of the vote. If no candidate receives 50 percent in the initial race, the top two vote-getters run in another election to determine which candidate wins. In 2019, incumbent Governor John Bel Edwards received a plurality of the vote in the October election, winning 47 percent of the vote compared to 27 percent for the second-place finisher. However, since no candidate received at least 50 percent of the vote, the top two candidates faced each other in a runoff election in November 2019, where Edwards won reelection with 51 percent of the vote.<\/p>\n

      Finally, voters also participate in municipal elections<\/strong><\/span> for their town or city, where they elect mayors, city councillors, and so on. At an even more local level, voters participate in school board elections<\/strong><\/span> to elect the governing body for their local school district.<\/p>\n

      Given this volume, perhaps as a result, voter turnout<\/strong><\/span>\u2014the percentage of eligible voters to cast a ballot\u2014varies considerably based on the type of election. Sixty-seven percent of eligible voters cast a ballot in the 2020 presidential election between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Yet only 46 percent participated in the 2022 midterm elections. As Figure 8.6<\/span><\/span> reveals, that sort of gap between presidential and midterm elections is common. Voter turnout in municipal elections is typically less than 30 percent, and school boards rarely have voter turnout above 10 percent.[15]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

      The second dominant form of political participation is extrainstitutional<\/strong><\/span> (or noninstitutional) participation. Some activists and organized interest groups utilize a strategic mixture of (1) inside strategies that utilize traditional forms of political participation to influence government and policymakers and (2) outside strategies meant to disrupt the status quo and apply pressure to enact change. Others pursue extrainstitutional forms of participation because they feel that institutional avenues are either unavailable to them or unlikely to be responsive.<\/p>\n

      Whether these are citizen-driven grassroots initiatives or \u201castroturf\u201d campaigns facilitated by elites to give the appearance of mass participation, more and more Americans are engaging in this type of activity. Political protest<\/strong><\/span> is the most common form of extrainstitutional participation and takes many different forms.<\/p>\n

      People express significant, vocal opposition by assembling large crowds, marching, picketing, holding signs, and so on. Some engage in civil disobedience, peacefully and intentionally breaking a law as a form of protest. Some protest using their pocketbook by either boycotting (intentionally refusing to patronize a place) or buycotting (intentionally choosing to patronize a place) retailers based on political views. For example, just related to LGBTQ equality, Chick-fil-A, Bud Light, and Target all have been protested and counterprotested.[16]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

      \"Composite
      Figure 8.6 – Photos of Political Protest
      Source: “      Bans off my body<\/a>” by Gayatri Malhotra, [Black Lives Matter photo<\/a>] by Colin Lloyd, and [Red for Ed strikers photo<\/a>] by LaTerrian McIntosh on Unsplash \/ Unsplash License.<\/a><\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

      Historically, few Americans engage in protests. While the decade of the 1960s is perhaps rightly romanticized as a time of activism, roughly 250,000 people attended the famous March on Washington led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1963.[17]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> In contrast, between 2017 and the end of 2020, at least twenty-two million Americans (likely more) participated in some type of nonviolent protest as a conservative estimate.[18]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

      In response to Donald Trump\u2019s inauguration as president, estimates place somewhere between three and five million Americans participating as part of the January 21, 2017, Women\u2019s March by joining either the rally in Washington, DC, or organized events in many large cities throughout the country.[19]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

      State capitols have seen a significant number of organized and successful protests. For example, the \u201cRed for Ed\u201d movement led to teacher strikes and visits to capitols across many states. As a result, many teachers received raises, and class sizes were reduced in many instances.[20]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

      The largest protests in American history occurred during the summer of 2020 as part of the Black Lives Matter movement, as perhaps as many as 10 percent of the US population attended at least one protest during the summer of 2020 after the murder of George Floyd.[21]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

      Protest is not just a tool available to those on the political left. The Tea Party started off as a protest movement before becoming a more prominent faction of the Republican Party.[22]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Every year, thousands upon thousands descend on Washington, DC, for the March for Life, a rally against abortion rights, even after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade<\/em><\/span>.[23]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

      Protest can be effective in bringing attention to important issues and making the government responsive. Nonviolent protest has higher rates of success than political violence but is not always successful.[24]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Based on research on nonviolent protests, campaigns that have more than 3.5 percent of the total population participating have never failed to bring about change.[25]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

      \"United
      Figure 8.7 – Antiprotest Legislation by State
      Data Source: International Center for Not-for-Profit Law. \u201cUS Protest Law Tracker.\u201d n.d.       https:\/\/www.icnl.org\/usprotestlawtracker\/?location=&status=enacted&issue=&date=&type=legislative<\/a>. Map made by author.<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

      State governments, however, are not passive observers of citizen protests. Since January 2017, twenty-one states have successfully implemented legislation making protests more difficult. This type of legislation has been proposed in forty-five of the fifty states as of August 2024. These proposals include levying stiffer penalties, expanding resources for police to confront protesters, and broadening the definition of what constitutes rioting, among others.[26]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> The give-and-take between protesters and the protested surely will continue as the opportunities for institutional and extrainstitutional participation are shaped by this relationship. In theory, democratic government only works legitimately when it has the consent of the governed. To give that consent, broad participation is a prerequisite.<\/p>\n

      Who Participates, and Why Don\u2019t More People Participate?<\/h1>\n

      Political scientist E. E. Schattschneider famously wrote that the \u201cflaw in the pluralist heaven is that the heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper-class accent.\u201d[27]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> In a representative democracy, there is an expectation that all interests are free to compete and that the government ought to be responsive to the majority, in general, or at least produce outcomes that are generally agreeable (i.e., pluralism).<\/p>\n

      One of the reasons that Schattschneider argued about this flaw is because there is a bias in terms of who participates in American political life.[28]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> In general, those with more education and more income are much more likely to vote and participate in politics. As Americans get older, they are more likely to register and turn out to vote. Voters who are part of the active workforce are more likely to participate than those who are unemployed. While the racial gap between White and Black Americans has closed in recent years, there is a clear racial difference in voter turnout as well. Once differences in socioeconomic status are taken into account, however, this difference vanishes.[29]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

      \"Line \"Line \"Line \"Line<\/div>\n

      Figure 8.8 – <\/span>Voter Registration and Turnout Rates by Key Demographics<\/strong><\/em>
      \nData Source: United States Census Bureau. \u201cHistorical Reported Voting Rates.\u201d       https:\/\/www.census.gov\/data\/tables\/time-series\/demo\/voting-and-registration\/voting-historical-time-series.html<\/span><\/span><\/a>. Graphs made by author. <\/em>Note: Turnout by age group is calculated out of total population. Other figures are calculated using the citizen population.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

      These turnout figures represent an electorate that does not fully reflect the diversity of America.[30]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> In the 2022 election, 34 percent of voters were older than sixty-five years old, while 27 percent of nonvoters were under thirty years old. White Americans represent 75 percent of voters, while non-White Americans make up 45 percent of nonvoters. Those with at least a college degree account for 43 percent of voters, but those without a college degree account for 74 percent of nonvoters. Finally, 32 percent of voters possess a family income of more than $100,000 per year, while 80 percent of nonvoters earn less than a six-figure salary as a family. Even as America\u2019s electorate gets more diverse, voters, compared to nonvoters, are older, Whiter, and more formally educated and earn more in income.[31]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

      These, however, are national trends. Figure 8.9<\/span><\/span> reveals significant statewide variation in turnout. States like Minnesota and Maine have voter turnout, on average, higher than 65 percent over the last twenty years. Contrast that with Hawaii, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia, which have an average voter turnout of less than 45 percent. That is a considerable 20 percent difference between states at the more extreme ends of the distribution. More than thirty states have an average turnout of between 50 percent and 60 percent. What accounts for this considerable state variation?<\/p>\n

      \"United
      Figure 8.9 – Average Voter Turnout by State
      Data Source: McDonald, M. \u201c1980\u20132022 General Election Turnout Rates (v1.0).\u201d 2023.       https:\/\/election.lab.ufl.edu\/dataset\/1980-2022-general-election-turnout-rates\/<\/a>. Map made by author.<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

      The US Census asks registered voters their reasons for not voting. The single biggest factor why Americans report not voting is a lack of interest (18 percent). The second most cited reason for not voting is disliking the candidates or campaign issues (15 percent). Reviewing the rest of the list, many of these reasons may appear like minor items that could easily be overcome by many. Moreover, there is little reason to suspect that these reasons vary by state in ways similar to the trends presented in Figure 8.10<\/span><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      \"Bar
      Figure 8.10 – Most Common Reasons for Not Voting
      Data Source: United States Census Bureau. \u201cVoting and Registration in the Election of November 2020.\u201d       https:\/\/www.census.gov\/data\/tables\/time-series\/demo\/voting-and-registration\/p20-585.html.<\/a> Graph made by author.<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

      Political scientists have approached understanding voter participation by focusing on why people choose not<\/em><\/span> to vote rather than identifying why someone chooses to vote. In short, people do not participate because often they cannot, they will not, or nobody asked them to participate.[32]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> More broadly, while political scientists may be loath to share this, it is irrational to vote according to the leading theory, the rational calculus of voting<\/strong><\/span>.[33]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> The decision to vote is a function of weighing the costs and benefits of voting before making a decision. Mathematically, this is represented by the formula<\/p>\n

      V = pB \u2013 C D.<\/p>\n

      This equation can be understood as follows: The decision of whether or not to vote (V) is a function of the probability (p) your vote is decisive multiplied by the benefits (B) you receive from voting, minus the costs (C) associated with voting, plus one\u2019s sense of civic duty (D).<\/p>\n

      V stands for the decision to vote or not. If (after doing all the computations on the right-hand side of the equation) the value of V is positive, the voter will turn out to vote. If the value is zero or negative, it would be irrational to vote\u2014so they abstain from voting. In the following paragraphs, each component of this equation will be explored in more depth.<\/p>\n

      The p term in the equation stands for the probability that your individual vote is decisive in determining the outcome of the election. More than 150 million Americans voted in the 2020 presidential election, and Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump by more than seven million votes, so the decision of any one voter to stay home or not surely did not decide the outcome, even in extremely contested presidential elections like the 2000 or 2016 elections, when the winner of the popular vote lost the Electoral College.<\/p>\n

      In theory, the probability that one\u2019s vote is decisive ought to increase as the election gets \u201csmaller\u201d or more local. When fewer people participate, a single vote carries more weight. Yet Americans frequently live in \u201cred states\u201d and \u201cblue states.\u201d More than 82 percent of Americans live in a state government trifecta, where one political party controls both chambers of the state legislator and the governorship.[34]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Americans are increasingly geographically sorted into heavily Republican and Democratic communities.[35]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Democrats increasingly dominate in urban areas, while Republicans dominate in rural areas. To the extent voters get a meaningful choice between the two parties, it is often in the suburbs. Whether it is the race for governor, mayor, state legislator, city council, and so on, most Americans do not have much of a meaningful choice, since most outcomes are all but secured well ahead of Election Day.<\/p>\n

      In 2022, the average margin of victory for contested state legislative races was 27.7 percent.[36]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> A nontrivial number of state legislative races do not even have candidates from both parties. During the 2022 elections, more than 30 percent were not contested (i.e., the race did not have at least both a Democrat and a Republican running against each other). Some of that is primarily a function of where Americans choose to live\u2014not necessarily rooted in politics. However, state governments are responsible for redistricting or drawing lines of legislative districts for Congress and their respective state legislatures after every Census. Sixteen states utilize commissions to draw their state legislative districts\u2014whether these are fully independent commissions or commissions that also incorporate politicians. The remaining thirty-four states leave the process to their state legislature.[37]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> These states are more prone to gerrymander<\/strong><\/span>, or intentionally draw district boundaries, during redistricting in a way that inequitably benefits a group or political party. (Fun fact: The term is often mispronounced. It should be pronounced with a hard G<\/em><\/span>, like \u201cGary.\u201d)[38]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
      Table 8.2 – <\/span>Average Margin of Victory in 2022 State Legislative Races<\/em>
      \nData Source<\/span>: Ballotpedia. \u201cMargin of Victory Analysis for the 2022 State Legislative Elections<\/a>.\u201d n.d. Table made by author.<\/em>
      \n<\/strong><\/caption>\n
      \n

      \n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      Upper Chamber (Senate)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      Lower Chamber (House)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      AL<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      53.6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      57.4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      AK<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      20.3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      21.6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      AZ<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      28.4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      12.4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      AR<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      41.9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      39.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      CA<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      17.9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      24.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      CO<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      19.8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      26.3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      CT<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      19.9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      23.0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      DE<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      26.4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      34.2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      FL<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      25.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      26.2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      GA<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      33.4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      33.7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      HI<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      39.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      36.8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      ID<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      37.0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      33.3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      IL<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      24.6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      28.9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      IN<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      30.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      32.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      IA<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      27.7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      26.0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      KS<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      N\/A<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      23.3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      KY<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      38.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      34.8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      ME<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      22.7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      23.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      MD<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      40.6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      19.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      MA<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      26.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      25.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      MI<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      25.2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      26.9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      MN<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      26.7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      28.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      MO<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      41.3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      30.0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      MT<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      19.9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      26.9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      NE<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      17.7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      N\/A<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      NV<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      16.0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      19.6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      NH<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      15.6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      10.6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      NM<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      N\/A<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      25.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      NY<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      26.3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      33.6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      NC<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      27.3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      27.2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      ND<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      28.8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      15.8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      OH<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      39.0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      32.0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      OK<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      28.9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      28.7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      OR<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      21.8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      31.7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      PA<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      27.2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      27.6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      RI<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      28.0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      24.9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      SC<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      N\/A<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      27.9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      SD<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      25.0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      12.3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      TN<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      51.0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      41.0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      TX<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      31.3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      32.6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      UT<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      43.0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      34.9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      VT<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      15.4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      19.9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      WA<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      30.2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      27.4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      WV<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      28.6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      30.4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      WI<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      25.7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      27.3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      WY<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      39.2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      33.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      TOTAL<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      29.2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      27.9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

      The B term in the equation stands for the benefits you receive as a voter should your preferred candidate win the election. While polarization between the two parties may be considered a negative, the growing ideological distance between the parties is actually associated with promoting higher levels of voter participation and civic engagement.[39]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> States controlled by either the Republican or the Democratic Party are moving further apart ideologically, raising the stakes for each election.[40]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

      The C term in the equation stands for the costs associated with voting. This is subtracted from the product of the p and B terms. Multiplying the p term (the probability that your vote decides the outcome) by the B term (the benefits you receive if your preferred candidates win) is likely going to be infinitely\/infinitesimally small. Thus, for almost all voters, the costs will outweigh the benefits of voting.<\/p>\n

      The first type of cost that voters face is information costs. Especially at the local level, knowing when to vote is important. While most general elections occur in November of even years (as previously discussed), primary, local, and school board elections all occur at different parts of the calendar and vary by state. Many state and local races are also featured as part of nonpartisan elections, when voters do not have the ability to rely on the partisanship of candidates to inform who they intend to support. In general, these low-information elections have lower levels of voter turnout, since many voters are unwilling to do the research to make an informed vote.[41]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

      Even if, however, voters know when and where to vote and then have taken the additional time to identify who they intend to support, there are additional costs to voting. Suffrage<\/strong><\/span>, or the right to vote, is not explicitly listed in the US Constitution. States, not the federal government, were given wide latitude to implement elections. As a result, most states initially only gave White landowning\/taxpaying men the ability to vote. However, states always have moved at different speeds, as states gave women and racial minorities the right to vote well before the federal government.[42]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> For example, New Jersey let people vote if they met property and tax requirements regardless of race or gender. Wyoming granted women the right to vote more than fifty years before the federal government intervened.<\/p>\n

      The federal government periodically intervenes to ensure that state requirements are uniform and that basic standards are upheld. After the Civil War, the Fifteenth Amendment ensured that states would not be able to deny the right to vote on account of race\u2014giving many Black Americans the first opportunity to vote. In 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified, giving women the right to vote. During the Vietnam War, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment was ratified, lowering the voting age to eighteen years old. Additional pieces of federal legislation, like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, also increased the power the federal government had over states to ensure voting rights were more equitably distributed.<\/p>\n

      Today, leading scholars are calling to add an amendment to the Constitution to specifically enshrine the right to vote.[43]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> To date, Congress has been unsuccessful in passing the For the People Act<\/span><\/a><\/span>, the Freedom to Vote Act<\/span><\/a><\/span>, or the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act<\/span><\/a><\/span>, three pieces of federal legislation that supporters argue would broaden voting rights. Given these stalled efforts, states are still at the forefront of the battle to extend or restrict voting rights. This discussion, perhaps more so than any other policy difference or institutional feature, echoes the competing themes of laboratories of democracy versus laboratories of autocracy. Who should be able to vote? How easy should it be for citizens to cast their ballot? What reasonable regulations are appropriate to ensure the integrity of our elections?<\/p>\n

      In terms of extending the right to vote, many local governments allow youth over the age of sixteen to vote in school board or local elections. Many states also allow seventeen-year-olds to vote in primaries if they will turn eighteen before the next general election.[44]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

      While the federal government already prevents legal noncitizens from voting in federal elections, the House of Representatives recently passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act.[45]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Currently, noncitizens only can vote in specific local elections in California, Maryland, and Vermont. In addition, many states are adding additional layers to prevent noncitizens from voting in state or local elections. Seven states previously amended their state constitutions to prevent noncitizens from voting.[46]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Voters in eight states will be voting on constitutional amendments adding language stating that US citizenship is a requirement for voting (Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wisconsin).[47]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

      The final group subject to considerable debate and public policy is felons. This varies considerably by state. People previously convicted of a felony never lost their voting rights in two states and Washington, DC. On the other end of the spectrum, ten states do not automatically restore voting rights to felons after they have completed their sentences. The remaining states vary as to how voting rights are restored for people convicted of a felony after they have completed their prison sentences or after they have completed their prison sentence, probation, and parole.[48]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

      Even within this legal framework, states have long found ways to make voting more difficult. After the Civil War, the American South implemented a series of Jim Crow laws that promoted racial segregation and further limited the rights of racial minorities, specifically Black Americans. These included literacy tests (requiring a demonstration of the ability to read and write in order to vote), poll taxes (fees that needed to be paid in order to vote), and grandfather clauses (in order to vote, your grandfather also needed to have the right to vote). To ensure that poor or illiterate Whites were able to participate, these restraints were selectively applied to voters of color. While the passage of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment outlawed poll taxes, many modern state proposals are often referred to as \u201cmodern Jim Crow laws\u201d or \u201cJim Crow 2.0.\u201d[49]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

      The electoral institutions adopted by states are associated with state variation in voter turnout.[50]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> So what aspects of today\u2019s election administration vary by state, and how might they be associated with rates of voter turnout? How do states affect the cost of voting?<\/p>\n

      The first cost is the requirement to register to vote. In most advanced industrial democracies, the government automatically registers its citizens. In the United States, that burden falls on the individual voter. Voter registration is required in forty-nine of the fifty states, with the exception of North Dakota.<\/p>\n

      Within states, the registration requirements and process vary considerably. Today, twenty-four states and Washington, DC, have automatic voter registration.[51]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> States are required to set registration deadlines within thirty days of an upcoming election. Fifteen states have deadlines between twenty-eight and thirty days. Nine states have deadlines between twenty and twenty-seven days before an election, while seven states have deadlines with one to fifteen days before an election.[52]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> The remaining nineteen states have a process called same-day registration (SDR) or election-day registration (EDR). In these states, citizens are able to register to vote on Election Day or to register and cast a ballot on the same day during an early voting period. Research suggests that this sort of reform is positively associated with voter turnout and reducing inequality in turnout.[53]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Without an external deadline, interested citizens can register on the spot (or update an address on their voter registration) and vote\u2014rather than having registration serve as an advance prerequisite to participate.<\/p>\n

      Another key aspect of the voting process that varies by state is where voting is allowed to occur. Historically, most voting occurs in person on Election Day. States have some degree of latitude on how long polls stay open on Election Day.[54]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> States also have latitude on how many polling locations they establish and where they choose to locate them. For example, college students are more likely to vote if they are able to participate on their campus.[55]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> For other voters, being able to utilize a voter center, a polling location that is not exclusive for only registered voters of certain precinct-based geographies, is associated with higher rates of voter turnout.[56]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> One of the reasons that voting centers are received favorably by voters is that they know where to go\u2014having to look up voting locations if they change from election to election is associated with lower rates of turnout.[57]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> The farther voters have to travel, the less likely they are to vote\u2014unless they are able to vote through \u201cnontraditional means\u201d like early voting or voting by mail.[58]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

      Increasingly, more and more Americans take advantage of the opportunity to vote early.[59]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> At this point, almost every state (forty-seven and Washington, DC) allows voters to cast their ballot in person ahead of Election Day.[60]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> In 2020 (during the pandemic), almost 70 percent of those who cast a ballot did so before Election Day. In spite of how widespread this opportunity is across the fifty states, the opportunity to vote early is not associated with increases in voter turnout in most cases.[61]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

      Eight states (California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Washington) and Washington, DC, allow elections to be conducted entirely by mail.[62]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Early research suggested that vote by mail (VBM) might be associated with lower rates of turnout;[63]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> more recent work points to higher turnout.[64]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Reviewing \u201call the major studies on vote by mail elections conducted in the United States in the last 25 years,\u201d political scientists have found that most studies find allowing ballots to be cast by mail is positively associated with higher rates of voter turnout.[65]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

      Short of allowing all voters to cast a ballot by mail, many voters have the opportunity to vote absentee. This process also varies considerably by state.[66]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Some states require voters to confirm they will be absent or unable to vote in person in order to vote absentee. Twenty-eight states do not require voters to provide any sort of excuse. Likewise, in some states, voters who would like to vote absentee have to fill out an application every election cycle. In other states, voters are permanently on a list to receive an absentee ballot. Overall, no-excuse or no-fault absentee voting is associated with higher rates of turnout.[67]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

      The final electoral reform to be discussed in this chapter is voter identification\u2014more specifically, photo identification requirements. Thirty-six states either require or request that voters show some form of identification when voting in person.[68]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Eleven states have strict photo identification laws where voters must show a photo ID in order to participate. In states with nonstrict laws, voters can provide alternative forms of acceptable identification or otherwise verify their identity. States that experience higher levels of electoral competition between the two parties and switch to Republican control of state government are most likely to implement voter identification laws.[69]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
      Table 8.3 – <\/span>Voter Identification Requirements by State<\/em>
      \nData Source<\/span>: National Conference of State Legislatures. \u201cVoter ID Laws.\u201d 2024. https:\/\/www.ncsl.org\/elections-and-campaigns\/voter-id<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/em>
      \n<\/strong><\/caption>\n
      \n

      Requirement<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      States<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      Strict Photo ID (11)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      Alabama<\/p>\n

      Arkansas<\/p>\n

      Georgia<\/p>\n

      Indiana<\/p>\n

      Kansas<\/p>\n

      Mississippi<\/p>\n

      North Carolina<\/p>\n

      Ohio<\/p>\n

      Tennessee<\/p>\n

      Wisconsin<\/p>\n

      Wyoming<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      Nonstrict Photo ID (12)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      Florida<\/p>\n

      Idaho<\/p>\n

      Louisiana<\/p>\n

      Michigan<\/p>\n

      Missouri<\/p>\n

      Montana<\/p>\n

      Nebraska<\/p>\n

      Oklahoma<\/p>\n

      Rhode Island<\/p>\n

      South Carolina<\/p>\n

      South Dakota<\/p>\n

      Texas<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      Strict Nonphoto ID (2)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      Arizona<\/p>\n

      North Dakota<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \n

      Nonstrict Nonphoto ID (11)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

      		\n

      Alaska<\/p>\n

      Colorado<\/p>\n

      Connecticut<\/p>\n

      Delaware<\/p>\n

      Iowa<\/p>\n

      Kentucky<\/p>\n

      New Hampshire<\/p>\n

      Utah<\/p>\n

      Virginia<\/p>\n

      Washington<\/p>\n

      West Virginia<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

      Michael Pomante, Scot Schraufnagel, and Quan Li have published a series of works based on their \u201cCost of Voting Index,\u201d which takes many of the previously discussed election administration components into account.[70]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> In states where the cost of voting is comparatively high, voter turnout is comparatively low. States with large or growing racial minority populations are more likely to implement most restrictions that increase the cost of voting. States are influenced by diffusion (adopting policies similar to neighboring states), partisan considerations, and yes, the racial composition of their citizens.[71]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> In part, this is why these forms of election administration are considered Jim Crow 2.0.<\/p>\n

      \"Bar
      Figure 8.11 – <\/span>Cost of Voting Index by State
      Source: “      2022 COVI rank and values<\/a>” by Scott Schraufnagel, Michael J. Pomante, and Quan Li in \u201cCost of Voting in the American States: 2022.\u201d Election Law Journal \/ CC BY. <\/a><\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

      The final part of the equation to understand whether it is rational to vote is the D term. If the formula for the calculus of voting was merely pB \u2013 C, then it would be irrational for almost any voter to participate. To make sense of this, voters add the D term to the equation, which stands for a voter\u2019s sense of civic duty. While many countries have compulsory voting, where participation is required by law and voters face a small fine for not casting a ballot, the United States gives citizens the opportunity to choose not to vote. As a result, many voters are socialized into participating\u2014through civic education in schools, parental influence, and other forces that help develop a sense that voting is something that one ought to do. Many Americans choose to cast a ballot in elections even though they are aware that their vote is unlikely to help produce the outcome they want. Yet they still choose to participate because voting is one of the most powerful ways to signal your preferences to the government. At the end of the day, who votes? Voters vote.<\/p>\n

      As a result, many measures of convenience voting<\/strong><\/span>\u2014reforms like same-day registration, early voting, and vote by mail\u2014do not impact voter turnout as much as one might think.[72]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> In many cases, these reforms make voting convenient\u2014but only for preexisting voters who were already inclined to participate. Likewise, states that adopt convenience measures already are more likely to have a political culture that promotes widespread voter participation. The reforms that are most associated with increases in participation and voter turnout are the ones that change the complexion of who could choose to become a voter.<\/p>\n

      \n
      \n

      Bibliography<\/p>\n<\/header>\n

      \n

      All About Redistricting. \u201cNational Summary.\u201d n.d. https:\/\/redistricting.lls.edu\/national-overview<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Arceneaux, K., T. Kousser, and M. Mullin. \u201cGet Out the Vote-by-Mail? A Randomized Field Experiment Testing the Effect of Mobilization in Traditional and Vote-by-Mail Precincts.\u201d Political Research Quarterly<\/em><\/span> 65 (2012): 882\u2013894.<\/p>\n

      Associated Press. \u201cSupreme Court: \u2018Gerrymandering\u2019 Pronounced with Hard \u2018G.\u2019\u201d 2018. https:\/\/apnews.com\/general-news-8874fb32cc514f49a5b2aaf1783955f0<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Ballotpedia. \u201cEarly Voting.\u201d n.d. https:\/\/ballotpedia.org\/Early_voting<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Ballotpedia. \u201cLaws Permitting Noncitizens to Vote in the United States.\u201d n.d. https:\/\/ballotpedia.org\/Laws_permitting_noncitizens_to_vote_in_the_United_States<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Ballotpedia. \u201cMargin of Victory Analysis for the 2022 State Legislative Elections.\u201d n.d. https:\/\/ballotpedia.org\/Margin_of_victory_analysis_for_the_2022_state_legislative_elections<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Ballotpedia. \u201cOff-Cycle Elections.\u201d n.d. https:\/\/ballotpedia.org\/Off-cycle_elections<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Ballotpedia. \u201cOregon Measure 60, Vote by Mail for Biennial Elections Initiative (1998).\u201d n.d. https:\/\/ballotpedia.org\/Oregon_Measure_60,_Vote_by_Mail_for_Biennial_Elections_Initiative_(1998)<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Ballotpedia. \u201cRedistricting Commissions.\u201d n.d. https:\/\/ballotpedia.org\/Redistricting_commissions<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Ballotpedia. \u201cState Government Trifectas.\u201d n.d. https:\/\/ballotpedia.org\/State_government_trifectas<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Ballotpedia. \u201cState Poll Opening and Closing Times (2024).\u201d n.d. https:\/\/ballotpedia.org\/State_Poll_Opening_and_Closing_Times_(2024)<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Ballotpedia. \u201c2024 Ballot Measures.\u201d n.d. https:\/\/ballotpedia.org\/2024_ballot_measures<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Ballotpedia. \u201cVoting Rights for People Convicted of a Felony.\u201d n.d. https:\/\/ballotpedia.org\/Voting_rights_for_people_convicted_of_a_felony<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Barber, M. \u201cDonation Motivations: Testing Theories of Access and Ideology.\u201d Political Research Quarterly<\/em><\/span> 69 (2016): 148\u2013159.<\/p>\n

      Bergman, E., and P. Yates. \u201cChanging Election Methods: How Does Mandated Vote-by-Mail Affect Individual Registrants?\u201d Election Law Journal<\/em><\/span> 10 (2011): 115\u2013127.<\/p>\n

      Berinsky, A. \u201cThe Perverse Consequence of Electoral Reform in the United States.\u201d American Politics Research<\/em><\/span> 33 (2005): 471\u2013491.<\/p>\n

      Bernstein, R., A. Chadha, and R. Montjoy. \u201cOverreporting Voting: Why It Happens and Why It Matters.\u201d Public Opinion Quarterly<\/em><\/span> 65 (2001): 22\u201344.<\/p>\n

      Biggers, D., and M. Hanmer. \u201cUnderstanding the Adoption of Voter Identification Laws in the American States.\u201d American Politics Research<\/em><\/span> 45 (2017): 560\u2013588.<\/p>\n

      Biggers, D., and M. Hanmer. \u201cWho Makes Voting Convenient? Explaining the Adoption of Early and No-Excuse Absentee Voting in the American States.\u201d State Politics & Policy Quarterly<\/em><\/span> 15 (2015): 192\u2013210.<\/p>\n

      Bishop, B. The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America Is Tearing Us Apart<\/em><\/span>. Houghton Mifflin, 2008.<\/p>\n

      Blanc, E. Red State Revolt: The Teachers\u2019 Strike Wave and Working-Class Politics<\/em><\/span>. Verso, 2019.<\/p>\n

      Blum, R. How the Tea Party Captured the GOP: Insurgent Factions in American Politics<\/em><\/span>. University of Chicago Press, 2020.<\/p>\n

      Bonica, A., J. Grumbach, C. Hill, and H. Jefferson. \u201cAll-Mail Voting in Colorado Increases Turnout and Reduces Turnout Inequality.\u201d Electoral Studies<\/em><\/span> 72 (2021): 102363.<\/p>\n

      Bouton, L., M. Castanheira, and A. Drazen. \u201cA Theory of Small Campaign Contributions.\u201d Economic Journal<\/em><\/span> 134, no. 662 (2024): 2351\u20132390. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/ej\/ueae021<\/span><\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

      Brady, H., and J. McNulty. \u201cTurnout Out to Vote: The Costs of Finding and Getting to the Polling Place.\u201d American Political Science<\/em><\/span> 105 (2011): 115\u2013134.<\/p>\n

      Brian, C., and B. Grofman. \u201cElection Day Registration\u2019s Effect on U.S. Voter Turnout.\u201d Social Science Quarterly<\/em><\/span> 82 (2001): 170\u2013183.<\/p>\n

      Brockell, G. \u201cSome Call Voting Restrictions Upheld by Supreme Court \u2018Jim Crow 2.0.\u2019 Here\u2019s the Ugly History Behind That Phrase.\u201d The Washington Post<\/em><\/span>, 2021. https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/history\/2021\/07\/02\/jim-crow-voting-restrictions-supreme-court\/<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Brower, M. \u201cWhat Does the Constitution Say About the Right to Vote?\u201d Democracy Docket, 2022. https:\/\/www.democracydocket.com\/analysis\/what-does-the-constitution-say-about-the-right-to-vote\/<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Brown, J., and R. Enos. \u201cThe Measurement of Partisan Sorting for 180 Million Voters.\u201d Nature Human Behavior<\/em><\/span> 5 (2021): 998\u20131008.<\/p>\n

      Buchanan, L., Q. Bui, and J. Patel. \u201cBlack Lives Matter May Be the Largest Movement in U.S. History.\u201d The New York Times<\/em><\/span>, 2020. https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/interactive\/2020\/07\/03\/us\/george-floyd-protests-crowd-size.html<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Bump, P. \u201cA Brief History of People Who Have Actually Been Elected Dogcatcher.\u201d The Washington Post<\/em><\/span>, 2014. https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/news\/the-fix\/wp\/2014\/06\/02\/a-brief-history-of-people-who-have-actually-been-elected-dog-catcher\/<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Burden, B., D. Canon, K. Mayer, and D. Moynihan. \u201cElection Laws, Mobilization, and Turnout: The Unanticipated Consequences of Election Reform.\u201d American Journal of Political Science<\/em><\/span> 58 (2014): 95\u2013109.<\/p>\n

      Burnette, D. \u201cWhat Is #RedforED? Behind the Hashtag That\u2019s All the Rage in Teacher Strikes.\u201d Education Week<\/em><\/span>, 2018. https:\/\/www.edweek.org\/education\/what-is-redfored-behind-the-hashtag-thats-all-the-rage-in-teacher-strikes\/2018\/05<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Camhi, T. \u201cHow Oregon Became the First State to Vote by Mail in a Presidential Election.\u201d Oregon Public Broadcasting, 2020. https:\/\/www.opb.org\/news\/article\/history-vote-by-mail-oregon-elections\/<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Chenoweth, E., and M. Stephan. Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict<\/em><\/span>. Columbia University Press, 2011.<\/p>\n

      Cook, R. \u201cThe \u2018Big Sort\u2019 Continues, with Trump as a Driving Force.\u201d The Center for Politics, 2022. https:\/\/centerforpolitics.org\/crystalball\/the-big-sort-continues-with-trump-as-a-driving-force\/<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Crowd Counting Consortium. n.d. Crowdcounting.org, accessed August 10, 2024. https:\/\/ash.harvard.edu\/programs\/crowd-counting-consortium\/<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Cunningham, M. \u201c\u2018The New Jim Crow\u2019: Republicans and Democrats at Odds over Voting Rights.\u201d ABC News, 2021. https:\/\/abcnews.go.com\/Politics\/jim-crow-republicans-democrats-odds-voting-rights\/story?id=77188460<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Devine, K. \u201cVisualizing Voter Turnout in Local and School Board Elections.\u201d Carnegie Corporation of New York, 2022. https:\/\/www.carnegie.org\/our-work\/article\/visualizing-voter-turnout-local-school-board-elections\/<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Diaz, J. \u201cIt\u2019s Cold and Snowing in D.C. but the March for Life Goes on\u2014After Roe Ends.\u201d National Public Radio, 2024. https:\/\/www.npr.org\/2024\/01\/19\/1225736660\/cold-snowing-d-c-march-for-life-roe<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Downs, A. An Economic Theory of Democracy<\/em><\/span>. Harper & Row, 1957.<\/p>\n

      Dyck, J., and J. Gimpel. \u201cDistance, Turnout, and the Convenience of Voting.\u201d Social Science Quarterly<\/em><\/span> 86 (2005): 531\u2013548.<\/p>\n

      Elazar, D. American Federalism: A View from the States<\/em><\/span>. 3rd ed. Harper and Row, 1984.<\/p>\n

      Gabbatt, A. \u201cRepublicans Push \u2018Tsunami\u2019 of Harsh Anti-Protest Laws After BLM Rallies.\u201d The Guardian<\/em><\/span>, 2021. https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/world\/2021\/apr\/12\/republicans-push-anti-protest-laws-blm-demonstrations<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Greenfield, B. \u201cWhy Are People Mad at Chick-fil-A? A Rundown of the Chain\u2019s Past and Present Anti-LGBTQ Controversies.\u201d Yahoo!Life, 2021. https:\/\/www.yahoo.com\/lifestyle\/why-are-people-mad-chick-fil-a-anti-lgbtq-controversies-205302238.html<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Gronke, P. \u201cBallot Integrity and Voting by Mail: The Oregon Experience.\u201d Report prepared for the National Commission on Election Reform, 2005. https:\/\/evic.reed.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/04\/Ballot-Integrity-and-Voting-by-Mail-The-Oregon-Experience.pdf<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Gronke, P., E. Galanes-Rosenbaum, and P. Miller. \u201cEarly Voting and Turnout.\u201d PS: Political Science & Politics<\/em><\/span> 40 (2007): 639\u2013645.<\/p>\n

      Gronke, P., E. Galanes-Rosenbaum, P. Miller, and D. Toffey. \u201cConvenience Voting.\u201d Annual Review of Political Science<\/em><\/span> 11 (2008): 437\u2013455.<\/p>\n

      Gronke, P., and P. Miller. \u201cVoting by Mail and Turnout in Oregon: Revisiting Southwell and Burchett.\u201d American Politics Research<\/em><\/span> 40 (2012): 976\u2013997.<\/p>\n

      Grumbach, J., and C. Hill. \u201cRock the Registration: Same Day Registration Increases Turnout of Young Voters.\u201d Journal of Politics<\/em><\/span> 84 (2021): 405\u2013417.<\/p>\n

      Hajnal, Z. \u201cWhy Does No One Vote in Local Elections?\u201d The New York Times<\/em><\/span>, 2018. https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2018\/10\/22\/opinion\/why-does-no-one-vote-in-local-elections.html<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Halliday, E., and R. Hanna. \u201cState Anti-Protest Laws and Their Constitutional Implications.\u201d Lawfare, 2021. https:\/\/www.lawfaremedia.org\/article\/state-anti-protest-laws-and-their-constitutional-implications<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Hanmer, M. Discount Voting: Voter Registration Reforms and Their Effects<\/em><\/span>. Cambridge University Press, 2009.<\/p>\n

      Hartig, H., A. Daniller, S. Keeter, and T. Van Green. \u201cRepublican Gains in 2022 Midterms Driven Mostly by Turnout Advantage.\u201d Pew Research Center, 2023. https:\/\/www.pewresearch.org\/politics\/2023\/07\/12\/republican-gains-in-2022-midterms-driven-mostly-by-turnout-advantage\/<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Hartocoliis, A., and Y. Alcindor. \u201cWomen\u2019s March Highlights as Huge Crowds Protest Trump: \u2018We\u2019re Not Going Away.\u2019\u201d The New York Times<\/em><\/span>, 2017. https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2017\/01\/21\/us\/womens-march.html<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Hasen, R. A Real Right to Vote: How a Constitutional Amendment Can Safeguard American Democracy<\/em><\/span>. Princeton University Press, 2024.<\/p>\n

      Hemmer, N. \u201cWhat Jim Crow Looks like in 2021.\u201d CNN, 2021. https:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2021\/03\/25\/opinions\/voting-rights-suppression-is-jim-crow-suit-and-tie-hemmer\/index.html<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Henrickson, K., and E. Johnson. \u201cIncreasing Voter Participation by Altering the Costs and Stakes of Voting.\u201d Social Science Quarterly<\/em><\/span> 100 (2019): 869\u2013884.<\/p>\n

      Hetherington, M. \u201cTurned Off or Turned On? How Polarization Affects Political Engagement.\u201d In Red and Blue Nation? Consequences and Correction of America\u2019s Polarized Politics<\/em><\/span>, vol. 2, edited by N. Nivola and D. Brady. Brookings Institution Press, 2008.<\/p>\n

      Hicks, W., S. McKee, and D. Smith. \u201cA Principle or a Strategy? Voted Identification Laws and Partisan Competition in the American States.\u201d Political Research Quarterly<\/em><\/span> 68 (2015): 18\u201333.<\/p>\n

      Highton, B. \u201cVoter Registration and Turnout in the United States.\u201d Perspectives on Politics<\/em><\/span> 2 (2004): 507\u2013515.<\/p>\n

      Igielnik, R., and A. Budiman. \u201cThe Changing Racial and Ethnic Composition of the U.S. Electorate.\u201d Pew Research Center, 2020. https:\/\/www.pewresearch.org\/social-trends\/2020\/09\/23\/the-changing-racial-and-ethnic-composition-of-the-u-s-electorate\/<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Jones, J. \u201cChurch Attendance Has Declined in Most U.S. Religious Groups.\u201d Gallup, 2024. https:\/\/news.gallup.com\/poll\/642548\/church-attendance-declined-religious-groups.aspx<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Jones, J. \u201cEarly Voting Higher Than in Past U.S. Midterms.\u201d Gallup, 2022. https:\/\/news.gallup.com\/poll\/404558\/early-voting-higher-past-midterms.aspx<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Knack, S., and J. White. \u201cElection-Day Registration and Turnout Inequality.\u201d Political Behavior<\/em><\/span> 22 (2000): 29\u201344.<\/p>\n

      Kousser, T., and M. Mullin. \u201cDoes Voting by Mail Increase Participation? Using Matching to Analyze a Natural Experiment.\u201d Political Analysis<\/em><\/span> 15 (2007): 428\u2013445.<\/p>\n

      Kuckuk, A. \u201cOdd Ones Out: Just 4 States Hold Off-Year Elections.\u201d National Conference of State Legislatures, 2023. https:\/\/www.ncsl.org\/state-legislatures-news\/details\/odd-ones-out-just-4-states-hold-off-year-elections<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      LaRaja, R., and B. Schaffner. Campaign Finance and Political Polarization: When Purists Prevail<\/em><\/span>. University of Michigan Press, 2015.<\/p>\n

      Larocca, R., and J. Klemanski. \u201cU.S. State Election Reform and Turnout in Presidential Elections.\u201d State Politics & Policy Quarterly<\/em><\/span> 11 (2011): 76\u2013101.<\/p>\n

      Leighley, J., and J. Nagler. \u201cSocioeconomic Class Bias in Turnout, 1964\u20131988: The Voters Remain the Same.\u201d American Political Science Review<\/em><\/span> 86 (1992): 725\u2013735.<\/p>\n

      Leighley, J., and J. Nagler. Who Votes Now? Demographics, Issues, Inequality, and Turnout in the United States<\/em><\/span>. Princeton University Press, 2014.<\/p>\n

      Lewis, K. \u201cTarget Hit with Backlash for Decision on LGBTQ Merchandise.\u201d Newsweek<\/em><\/span>, 2024. https:\/\/www.newsweek.com\/target-backlash-lgbtq-merchandise-1899479<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Li, Q., M. Pomante, and S. Schraufnagel. \u201cCost of Voting in the American States.\u201d Election Law Journal<\/em><\/span> 17 (2018): 234\u2013247.<\/p>\n

      Liaukonyte, J., A. Tuchman, and X. Zhu. \u201cLessons from the Bud Light Boycott, One Year Later.\u201d Harvard Business Review<\/em><\/span>, 2024. https:\/\/hbr.org\/2024\/03\/lessons-from-the-bud-light-boycott-one-year-later<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Lopez, G. \u201cDoes America Vote Too Much?\u201d The New York Times<\/em><\/span>, 2022. https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2022\/11\/07\/briefing\/midterms-voting.html<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      McDonald, M. \u201cPortable Voter Registration.\u201d Political Behavior<\/em><\/span> 30 (2008): 491\u2013501.<\/p>\n

      McDonald, M. \u201c2022 November General Election Turnout Rates.\u201d US Elections Project, 2023. https:\/\/www.electproject.org\/2022g<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      McDonald, M., E. Shino, D. Smith, P. Lussier, and D. Dietz. \u201cCampus Voting During the COVID-19 Pandemic.\u201d American Politics Research<\/em><\/span> 52 (2024): 225\u2013238.<\/p>\n

      Mehta, J. \u201cWhat Has and Hasn\u2019t Changed for Teachers in the 5 Years Since \u2018Red for Ed\u2019 Walkouts.\u201d National Public Radio, 2023. https:\/\/www.npr.org\/2023\/05\/22\/1177576762\/what-has-and-hasnt-changed-for-teachers-in-the-5-years-since-red-for-ed-walkouts<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Menger, A., R. Stein, and G. Vonnahme. \u201cTurnout Effects from Vote by Mail Elections.\u201d Conference on Election Administration and Reform. Paper presented at the Conference on New Trends in Election Administration, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, June 2015.<\/p>\n

      Morgan, D. \u201cUS House Approves Trump-Backed Bill on Non-Citizen Voting.\u201d Reuters, 2024. https:\/\/www.reuters.com\/world\/us\/us-house-vote-trump-backed-bill-targeting-non-citizen-voting-2024-07-10\/<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Motel, S. \u201cWho Runs for Office? A Profile of the 2%.\u201d Pew Research Center, 2014. https:\/\/www.pewresearch.org\/short-reads\/2014\/09\/03\/who-runs-for-office-a-profile-of-<\/span>the-2\/<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      National Conference of State Legislatures. \u201cAutomatic Voter Registration.\u201d 2024. https:\/\/www.ncsl.org\/elections-and-campaigns\/automatic-voter-registration<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      National Conference of State Legislatures. \u201cStates with Mostly-Mail Elections.\u201d 2024. https:\/\/www.ncsl.org\/elections-and-campaigns\/table-18-states-with-all-mail-elections<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      National Conference of State Legislatures. \u201cVoter Registration Deadlines.\u201d 2023. https:\/\/www.ncsl.org\/elections-and-campaigns\/voter-registration-deadlines<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      National Conference of State Legislatures. \u201cVoting Outside the Polling Place: Absentee, All-Mail and Other Voting at Home Options.\u201d 2024. https:\/\/www.ncsl.org\/elections-and-campaigns\/voting-outside-the-polling-place<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      National Park Service. \u201cMarch on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.\u201d n.d. https:\/\/www.nps.gov\/articles\/march-on-washington.htm#:~:text=It was the largest gathering,from all over the country<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      National Youth Rights Association. \u201cVoting Age Status Report.\u201d n.d. https:\/\/www.youthrights.org\/issues\/voting-age\/voting-age-status-report\/<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Neiheisel, J., and B. Burden. \u201cThe Impact of Election Day Registration on Voter Turnout and Election Outcomes.\u201d American Politics Research<\/em><\/span> 40 (2012): 636\u2013664.<\/p>\n

      Newport, F. \u201cIn U.S., Four in 10 Report Attending Church in Last Week.\u201d Gallup, December 24, 2013. https:\/\/news.gallup.com\/poll\/166613\/four-report-attending-church-last-week.aspx<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Parks, M. \u201c2020 Changed How America Voters. The Question Now Is Whether Those Changes Stick.\u201d National Public Radio, 2022. https:\/\/www.npr.org\/2022\/10\/28\/1128695831\/united-states-2022-patterns-mail-early-voting<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Pildes, R. \u201cSmall Dollars, Big Changes.\u201d The Washington Post<\/em><\/span>, 2020. https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/outlook\/2020\/02\/06\/small-dollars-big-changes\/?itid=lk_inline_manual_2<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Piper, J., P. Friedrich, A. Wiederkehr, and M. Fernandez. \u201cHow Online Donations Are Fueling the Election.\u201d Politico, 2024. https:\/\/www.politico.com\/interactives\/2024\/campaign-finance-april-2024\/<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Pomante, M., S. Schraufnagel, and Q. Li. The Costs of Voting in the American States<\/em><\/span>. University Press of Kansas, 2023.<\/p>\n

      Putnam, R. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community<\/em><\/span>. Simon & Schuster, 2000.<\/p>\n

      Quinton, S. \u201cEight States Enact Anti-Protest Laws.\u201d Stateline, 2021. https:\/\/stateline.org\/2021\/06\/21\/eight-states-enact-anti-protest-laws\/#:~:text=New laws enacted in Arkansas,people that threatens public safety<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Richey, S. \u201cVoting by Mail: Turnout and Institutional Reform in Oregon.\u201d Social Science Quarterly<\/em><\/span> 89 (2008): 902\u2013915.<\/p>\n

      Riker, W., and P. Ordeshook. \u201cA Theory of the Calculus of Voting.\u201d American Political Science Review<\/em><\/span> 61 (1968): 25\u201342.<\/p>\n

      Robson, D. \u201cThe \u20183.5% Rule\u2019: How a Small Minority Can Change the World.\u201d BBC, 2019. https:\/\/www.bbc.com\/future\/article\/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Rosenstone, S., and J. Hansen. Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America<\/em><\/span>. Macmillan, 1993.<\/p>\n

      Schaffner, B., M. Streb, and G. Wright. \u201cTeams Without Uniforms: The Nonpartisan Ballot in State and Local Elections.\u201d Political Research Quarterly<\/em><\/span> 54 (2001): 7\u201330.<\/p>\n

      Schattschneider, E. The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist\u2019s View of Democracy in America<\/em><\/span>. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1960.<\/p>\n

      Schraufnagel, S., M. Pomante, and Q. Li. \u201cCost of Voting in the American States: 2020.\u201d Election Law Journal<\/em><\/span> 19 (2020): 503\u2013509.<\/p>\n

      Schraufnagel, S., M. Pomante, and Q. Li. \u201cCost of Voting in the American States: 2022.\u201d Election Law Journal<\/em><\/span> 21 (2022): 220\u2013228.<\/p>\n

      Shino, E., and D. Smith. \u201cMobilizing the Youth Vote? Early Voting on College Campuses.\u201d Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy<\/em><\/span> 19 (2020): 524\u2013541.<\/p>\n

      Shor, B., and N. McCarty. \u201cThe Ideological Mapping of American Legislatures.\u201d American Political Science Review<\/em><\/span> 105 (2011): 530\u2013551.<\/p>\n

      Shor, B., and N. McCarty. \u201cTwo Decades of Polarization in American State Legislatures.\u201d Journal of Political Institutions and Political Economy<\/em><\/span> 3 (2022): 343\u2013370.<\/p>\n

      Shumway, J. \u201cU.S. Supreme Court Won\u2019t Hear Oregon Lawsuit That Sought to End Mail Voting.\u201d Oregon Capital Chronicle<\/em><\/span>, 2024. https:\/\/oregoncapitalchronicle.com\/2024\/05\/20\/u-s-supreme-court-wont-hear-oregon-lawsuit-that-sought-to-end-mail-voting\/<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Skocpol, T. Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civil Life<\/em><\/span>. Oxford University Press, 2004.<\/p>\n

      Smith, K., D. Hill, and S. Ancheva. \u201cDivergent Electoral Policies: Why Some States Increase Ballot Access.\u201d State Politics & Policy Quarterly<\/em><\/span> 23 (2023): 26\u201347.<\/p>\n

      Southwell, P. \u201cAnalysis of the Turnout Effects of Vote by Mail Elections, 1980\u20132007.\u201d Social Science Journal<\/em><\/span> 46 (2009): 211\u2013217.<\/p>\n

      Southwell, P. \u201cFive Years Later: A Re-Assessment of Oregon\u2019s Vote by Mail Electoral Process.\u201d PS: Political Science & Politics<\/em><\/span> 37 (2004): 89\u201393.<\/p>\n

      Southwell, P., and J. Burchett. \u201cThe Effect of All-Mail Elections on Voter Turnout.\u201d American Politics Quarterly<\/em><\/span> 28 (2000): 72\u201379.<\/p>\n

      Springer, M. \u201cState Electoral Institutions and Voter Turnout in Presidential Elections, 1920\u20132000.\u201d State Politics & Policy Quarterly<\/em><\/span> 12, no. 3 (2012): 252\u2013283.<\/p>\n

      Stein, R., and G. Vonnahme. \u201cEngaging the Unengaged Voter: Vote Centers and Voter Turnout.\u201d Journal of Politics<\/em><\/span> 70 (2008): 487\u2013497.<\/p>\n

      Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America<\/em><\/span>. Dearborn & Co., 1838.<\/p>\n

      Tufekci, Z. \u201cDo Protests Even Work?\u201d The Atlantic<\/em><\/span>, 2020. https:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/technology\/archive\/2020\/06\/why-protests-work\/613420\/<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Verba, S., K. Schlozman, and H. Brady. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics<\/em><\/span>. Harvard University Press, 1995.<\/p>\n

      Wasserman, D. \u201cPurple America Has All but Disappeared.\u201d FiveThirtyEight, 2017. https:\/\/fivethirtyeight.com\/features\/purple-america-has-all-but-disappeared\/<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Wike, R., L. Silver, and L. Clancy. \u201cWhat Makes Someone a Good Member of Society?\u201d Pew Research Center, 2022. https:\/\/www.pewresearch.org\/global\/2022\/11\/16\/what-makes-someone-a-good-member-of-society\/<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Wolfinger, R., and S. Rosenstone. Who Votes?<\/em><\/span> Yale University Press, 1980.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

      1. Tocqueville, Democracy in America. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      2. Newport, \u201cIn U.S., Four in 10 Report.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      3. Skocpol, Diminished Democracy. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      4. Putnam, Bowline Alone. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      5. Jones, \u201cChurch Attendance.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      6. Elazar, American Federalism. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      7. Bernstein, Chadha, and Montjoy et al., \u201cOverreporting Voting,\u201d 22\u201344. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      8. Bump, \u201cBrief History.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      9. Piper et al., \u201cHow Online Donations Are Fueling.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      10. Barber, \u201cDonation Motivations,\u201d 148\u2013159; LaRaja and Schaffner, Campaign Finance and Political Polarization; Bouton, Castanheira, and Drazen et al., \u201cTheory of Small Campaign Contributions\u201d; Pildes, \u201cSmall Dollars, Big Changes.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      11. Motel, \u201cWho Runs for Office?\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      12. Wike, Silver, and Clancy et al., \u201cWhat Makes Someone a Good Member.?\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      13. Lopez, \u201cDoes America Vote Too Much?\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      14. Kuckuk, \u201cOdd Ones Out\u201d; Ballotpedia, \u201cOff-Cycle Elections.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      15. Devine, \u201cVisualizing Voter Turnout\u201d; Hajnal, \u201cWhy Does No One Vote?\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      16. Greenfield, \u201cWhy Are People Mad?\u201d; Liaukonyte, Tuchman, and Zhu et al., \u201cLessons from the Bud Light Boycott\u201d; Lewis, \u201cTarget Hit.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      17. National Park Service, \u201cMarch on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      18. Crowd Counting Consortium. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      19. Hartocoliis and Alcindor, \u201cWomen\u2019s March Highlights.\u2019\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      20. Burnette, \u201cWhat Is #RedforED?\u201d; Blanc, Red State Revolt; Mehta, \u201cWhat Has and Hasn\u2019t Changed.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      21. Buchanan, Bui, and Patel et al., \u201cBlack Lives Matter.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      22. Blum, How the Tea Party Captured. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      23. Diaz, \u201cIt\u2019s Cold and Snowing.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      24. Chenoweth and Stephan, Why Civil Resistance Works; Tufekci, \u201cDo Protests Even Work?\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      25. Robson, \u201cThe \u20183.5% Rule.\u2019\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      26. Halliday and Hanna, \u201cState Anti-Protest Laws\u201d; Quinton, \u201cEight States Enact\u201d; Gabbatt, \u201cRepublicans Push \u2018Tsunami.\u2019\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      27. Schattschneider, Semi-Sovereign People. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      28. Wolfinger and Rosenstone, Who Votes?; Rosenstone and Hansen, Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America; Leighley and Nagler, \u201cSocioeconomic Class Bias,\u201d 725\u2013735; Leighley and Nagler, Who Votes Now? ↵<\/a><\/li>
      29. Leighley and Nagler, \u201cSocioeconomic Class Bias,\u201d 725\u2013735. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      30. Hartig et al., \u201cRepublican Gains.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      31. Igielnik and Budiman, \u201cChanging Racial and Ethnic Composition.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      32. Verba, Schlozman, and Brady et al., Voice and Equality. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      33. Downs, Economic Theory of Democracy; Riker and Ordeshook, \u201cTheory of the Calculus,\u201d 25\u201342. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      34. Ballotpedia, \u201cState Government Trifectas.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      35. Bishop, The Big Sort; Wasserman, \u201cPurple America\u201d; Brown and Enos, \u201cMeasurement of Partisan Sorting,\u201d 998\u20131008; Cook, \u201c\u2018Big Sort\u2019 Continues.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      36. Ballotpedia, \u201cMargin of Victory.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      37. All About Redistricting, \u201cNational Summary\u201d; Ballotpedia, \u201cRedistricting Commissions.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      38. Associated Press, \u201cSupreme Court.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      39. Hetherington, \u201cTurned Off or Turned On?\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      40. Shor and McCarty, \u201cTwo Decades of Polarization,\u201d 343\u2013370; Shor and McCarty, \u201cIdeological Mapping,\u201d 530\u2013551. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      41. Schaffner, Streb, and Wright et al., \u201cTeams Without Uniforms,\u201d 7\u201330. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      42. Brower, \u201cWhat Does the Constitution Say?\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      43. Hasen, Real Right to Vote. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      44. National Youth Rights Association, \u201cVoting Age Status Report.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      45. Morgan, \u201cUS House Approves.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      46. Ballotpedia, \u201cLaws Permitting Noncitizens.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      47. Ballotpedia, \u201c2024 Ballot Measures.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      48. Ballotpedia, \u201cVoting Rights.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      49. Brockell, \u201cSome Call Voting Restrictions\u201d; Cunningham, \u201c\u2018New Jim Crow\u2019\u201d; Hemmer, \u201cWhat Jim Crow Looks Like.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      50. Springer, \u201cState Electoral Institutions,\u201d 252\u2013283. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      51. National Conference of State Legislatures, \u201cAutomatic Voter Registration.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      52. National Conference of State Legislatures, \u201cVoter Registration Deadlines.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      53. Knack and White, \u201cElection-Day Registration,\u201d 29\u201344; Brian and Grofman, \u201cElection Day Registration\u2019s Effect,\u201d 170\u2013183; McDonald, \u201cPortable Voter Registration,\u201d 491\u2013501; Neiheisel and Burden, \u201cImpact of Election Day Registration,\u201d 636\u2013664; Grumbach and Hill, \u201cRock the Registration,\u201d 405\u2013417. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      54. Ballotpedia, \u201cState Poll Opening and Closing Times (2024).\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      55. Shino and Smith, \u201cMobilizing the Youth Vote?,\u201d 524\u2013541; McDonald et al., \u201cCampus Voting,\u201d 225\u2013238. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      56. Stein and Vonnahme, \u201cEngaging the Unengaged Voter,\u201d 487\u2013497. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      57. Brady and McNulty, \u201cTurnout Out to Vote,\u201d 115\u2013134. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      58. Dyck and Gimpel, \u201cDistance, Turnout,\u201d 531\u2013548. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      59. Jones, \u201cEarly Voting Higher\u201d; Parks, \u201c2020 Changed.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      60. Ballotpedia, \u201cEarly Voting.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      61. Gronke, Galanes-Rosenbaum, and Miller et al., \u201cEarly Voting and Turnout,\u201d 639\u2013645. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      62. National Conference of State Legislatures, \u201cStates with Mostly-Mail Elections.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      63. Kousser and Mullin, \u201cDoes Voting by Mail Increase?,\u201d 428\u2013445; Bergman and Yates, \u201cChanging Election Methods,\u201d 115\u2013127; Arceneaux, Kousser, and Mullin et al., \u201cGet Out the Vote-by-Mail?,\u201d 882\u2013894. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      64. Southwell and Burchett, \u201cEffect of All-Mail Elections,\u201d 72\u201379; Southwell, \u201cFive Years Later,\u201d 89\u201393; Southwell, \u201cAnalysis of the Turnout,\u201d 211\u2013217; Gronke, Galanes-Rosenbaum, Miller and Toffey et al., \u201cConvenience Voting,\u201d 437\u2013455; Gronke, Galanes-Rosenbaum, and Miller et al., \u201cEarly Voting and Turnout,\u201d 639\u2013645; Gronke and Miller, \u201cVoting by Mail,\u201d 976\u2013997; Richey, \u201cVoting by Mail,\u201d 902\u2013915; Henrickson and Johnson, \u201cIncreasing Voter Participation,\u201d 869\u2013884; Bonica et al., \u201cAll-Mail Voting,\u201d 102363. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      65. Menger, Stein, and Vonnahme et al., \u201cTurnout Effects.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      66. National Conference of State Legislatures, \u201cVoting Outside.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      67. Larocca and Klemanski, \u201cU.S. State Election Reform,\u201d 76\u2013101. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      68. National Conference of State Legislatures, \u201cVoter ID Laws.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      69. Hicks, McKee, and Smith et al., \u201cPrinciple or a Strategy?,\u201d 18\u201333; Biggers and Hanmer, \u201cUnderstanding the Adoption,\u201d 560\u2013588. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      70. Li, Pomante, and Schraufnagel et al., \u201cCost of Voting,\u201d 234\u2013247; Schraufnagel, Pomante, and Li et al., \u201cCost of Voting in the American States: 2020,\u201d 503\u2013509; Schraufnagel, Pomante, and Li et al., \u201cCost of Voting in the American States: 2022,\u201d 220\u2013228; Pomante, Schraufnagel, and Li et al., Costs of Voting. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      71. Biggers and Hanmer, \u201cWho Makes Voting Convenient?,\u201d 192\u2013210; Smith, Hill and Ancheva et al., \u201cDivergent Electoral Policies,\u201d 26\u201347. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      72. Highton, \u201cVoter Registration and Turnout,\u201d 507\u2013515; Berinsky, \u201cPerverse Consequence,\u201d 471\u2013491; Gronke, Galanes-Rosenbaum, Miller and Toffey et al., \u201cConvenience Voting,\u201d 437\u2013455; Hanmer, Discount Voting; Burden et al., \u201cElection Laws,\u201d 95\u2013109. ↵<\/a><\/li><\/ol><\/div>","protected":false},"author":3,"menu_order":16,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":["gregory-shufeldt"],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[63],"license":[],"part":3,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/theexcitingdynamicsofstateandlocalgovernment\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/56"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/theexcitingdynamicsofstateandlocalgovernment\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/theexcitingdynamicsofstateandlocalgovernment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/theexcitingdynamicsofstateandlocalgovernment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"version-history":[{"count":26,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/theexcitingdynamicsofstateandlocalgovernment\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/56\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":520,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/theexcitingdynamicsofstateandlocalgovernment\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/56\/revisions\/520"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/theexcitingdynamicsofstateandlocalgovernment\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/3"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/theexcitingdynamicsofstateandlocalgovernment\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/56\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/theexcitingdynamicsofstateandlocalgovernment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=56"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/theexcitingdynamicsofstateandlocalgovernment\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=56"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/theexcitingdynamicsofstateandlocalgovernment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=56"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/theexcitingdynamicsofstateandlocalgovernment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=56"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}