Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
org
AMERICA
Prepared by
Table of Contents
3 4 5
Voter Turnout in 2012 and the Historical Trend State Voter Turnout Rankings Change in Voter Turnout in the States The Swing State Factor Election Day Registration and Turnout Early Voting in 2012 Youth Vote 2012 Latino Vote 2012 Profile of the American Electorate 2012
Founded in 2005, Nonprofit VOTE partners with Americas nonprofits to help the people they serve participate and vote. We are the leading source of nonpartisan resources to help nonprofits integrate voter engagement into their ongoing activities and services. www.nonprofitvote.org
11 12 13 15 16
Special thanks to the primary sources for this report the U.S. Elections Project, Pew Hispanic Center, CIRCLE: the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement and the
National Election Exit Poll by Edison Research. The presentation, content and voter turnout highlights are entirely our own.
Voter Registration Modernization Expanding and Improving Early Voting Restoring Voting Rights for Ex-Offenders Nonpartisan Redistricting Youth Turnout: An Essay
INTRODUCTION
Welcome to America Goes to the Polls 2012, the fourth in a series of reports on voter turnout in midterm and presidential elections.
Nonprofit VOTE prepares America Goes to the Polls for our partners in the nonprofit and civic sector, as well as anyone interested in studying and encouraging voter participation. Active civic engagement is fundamental to our success as a democracy and voting is at the core of civic engagement. People who vote are more likely to be involved in their communities and to take part in other civic activities, and communities that vote are healthier and more likely to receive attention from elected officials. Nonprofits and community groups that help people vote are not only doing their civic duty, but are also promoting active citizenship and giving voice to their organization and the people they serve. America Goes to the Polls 2012 profiles voter turnout in the 2012 presidential election using official voter turnout data reported by the 50 states and the District of Columbia (for more information, see Primary Sources on page 4). The report ranks voter turnout by state and notes the relative change in turnout for each state compared to the last presidential election. Beyond the rankings, America Goes to the Polls documents the impact of factors like Election Day registration and swing or battleground status on voter turnout. It uses the most cited and reliable post-election analysis to report on key voting trends. Finally, the report concludes with a discussion of reforms that lead to greater voter participation and improve the voting experience for all voters, both new and old. These reforms include modernizing our voter registration system, expanding early voting, and others. If you have questions or wish to obtain data related to this publication, please visit Nonprofit VOTEs voter turnout webpage, the website of the U.S. Elections Project, or others cited in this report. George Pillsbury,
Executive Director
Julian Johannesen,
Research and Training Director
info@nonprofitvote.org
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
All 50 states have certified their results. The 2012 presidential election is officially in the books. The election survived Hurricane Sandy and a blizzard of proposed or enacted statelevel changes in voting procedures. An estimated 58.7% of eligible voters turned out to vote, below 2008s benchmark high but still above most presidential elections of the last 40 years in spite of a steep drop off in turnout in hurricane-impacted New York and New Jersey.
Minnesota first in turnout, Hawaii last
Minnesota was number one in the country in voter turnout as it has been for eight of the last nine national elections. Wisconsin came in 2nd with Colorado rising to 3rd. The nations most populous states California (41st), New York (44th) and Texas (48th) ranked in the bottom ten, dragging down national turnout.
Swing States and Election Day registration states are highest in turnout
Seven of the top ten turnout states had Election Day registration or swing state status or both. In 2012 voter turnout in states with Election Day registration where voters can register or update their registration on Election Day was 12 points higher than in those without that option, a turnout advantage consistent over the last six national elections. Voter turnout in the ten swing states most targeted by campaigns was 65%, seven points higher than in non-swing states, which had an average turnout of 58%.
1 2
Primary sources used in this report are detailed on page 4. Other resources appear in footnotes. Pew Center on the States, Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient: Evidence That Americas Voter Registration System Needs an Upgrade
STATE TURNOUT RANK STATE TURNOUT RANK STATE TURNOUT 12 (08) 12 (08)
RANK 12 (08)
Minnesota 76.1% Wisconsin 73.2% Colorado 71.1% New Hampshire 70.9% Iowa 70.2% Maine 69.2% Virginia 66.9% Maryland 66.8% Massachusetts 66.6% Michigan 65.3% North Carolina 65.2% Ohio 65.2% Washington 65.0% Oregon 64.3% Montana 63.6% Florida 64.0% DC 63.3%
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (5) 4 (4) 5 (6) 6 (3) 7 (11) 8 (12) 9 (20) 10 (8) 11 (21) 12 (16) 13 (15) 14 (9) 15 (17) 16 (13) 17 (22)
Missouri New Jersey Delaware Connecticut North Dakota Louisiana Idaho Vermont Nebraska Mississippi South Dakota Pennsylvania Alabama Illinois Wyoming Alaska Georgia
63.1% 62.6% 62.0% 61.5% 61.1% 61.0% 60.9% 60.9% 60.8% 60.3% 60.1% 59.9% 59.5% 59.3% 59.3% 59.2% 58.7%
18 (7) 19 (19) 20 (37) 21 (14) 22 (23) 23 (32) 24 (27) 25 (18) 26 (30) 27 (35) 28 (25) 29 (26) 30 (34) 31 (29) 32 (24) 33 (10) 34 (36)
Rhode Island Kansas Nevada South Carolina Utah Indiana California Kentucky New Mexico New York Arizona Tennessee Arkansas Texas Oklahoma West Virginia Hawaii
58.6% 58.1% 57.2% 57.1% 56.0% 56.0% 55.9% 55.9% 54.9% 53.6% 53.3% 52.6% 51.0% 50.1% 49.6% 46.8% 44.5%
35 (31) 36 (28) 37 (43) 38 (42) 39 (48) 40 (38) 41 (33) 42 (40) 43 (39) 44 (41) 45 (46) 46 (44) 47 (49) 48 (47) 49 (45) 50 (50) 51 (51)
Source: U.S. Elections Project. The table ranks states by total ballots cast as a percent of eligible voters in the 2012 general elections (see methodology page 4). 2008 turnout rank is in parenthesis.
3
80%
76.1%
73.2%
69.2%
70.2%
70.9%
71.1%
65.3%
66.6%
66.8%
66.9%
Iow
hig
ryla
gin
set
psh
lora
Ma
nsi
chu
Mic
Ma
Vir
Ham
Co
sco
Ma
ssa
New
Utah 2.6% DC 1.8% Colorado 1.0% Wisconsin 0.5% Massachusetts 0.1% Iowa 0.0% New Hampshire -1.5% Virginia -1.7% North Carolina -2.0% Maryland -2.3% Mississippi -2.3% Nevada -2.4% Minnesota -2.9% South Carolina -2.8% Louisiana -2.9% Ohio -3.5% Washington -3.9%
Source: Analysis of U.S. Elections Project data by Nonprofit VOTE. The table above ranks states by change in voter turnout between the 2008 and 2012 general elections. Turnout changes are adjusted to account for change in the voting eligible population in each state between 2008 and 2012. 8
Min
Wi
nes
ota
ine
do
i re
After adjusting for the growth or decline in the number of eligible voters, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Utah, and Wisconsin all saw an increase in voters casting ballots compared to four years ago.4 Utah, the home of the Mormon Church, saw the largest increase in turnout in 2012. The increase bumped Utah from 48th place in turnout in 2008, to 39th place in 2012. Four western, non-swing states saw double digit declines in percent of eligible voters turning out: Alaska, California, Hawaii, and Oklahoma. Californias adjusted 10.7% decline amounts to the loss of 1,650,706 voters - more people than voted in Alaska, the District of Columbia, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming combined.
4 5 6
The percentage growth or decline in a states voter turnout is adjusted for the four year change, up or down, in its voting eligible population as estimated by the U.S. Elections Project. Washington Post, Mad Money: TV ads in the 2012 presidential campaign, updated Nov. 14th, 2012 FairVOTE, Presidential Tracker. A campaign event is an event meant to woo voters in that area. A rally or town hall is a campaign event, but a national television appearance or fundraiser is not. 9
70%
65.2%
58.0%
200
173
150 100
73 97 55 31 34 39 57
150
151
50 0
nia
ada
i re
ia
nsi
Iow
olin
psh
Nev
lora
lva
gin
Oh
sco
Car
nsy
Ham
Pen
Wi
Co
New
Source: Washington Post Online, Mad Money: TV ads in the 2012 presidential campaign
No
rth
Vir
Flo
rida
do
io
10
71%
North Carolinas one-stop early voting program allows voters to register and vote at the same time during the early voting period beginning 19 days before Election Day and ending three days before Election Day. North Carolina allows same day registration but not Election Day registration, and thus is not included in our calculations for the chart above.
7
11
40%
35%
30% 20%
14% 23%
31%
10%
11%
0%
1996 2000 2004 2008 2012
Source: U.S. Elections Project, Census Voting and Registration Supplement, estimated for 2012
8 9 10
11 12 13 14
Gallup Polls, In U.S., 15% of Registered Voters Have Already Cast Ballots, Romney 49%, Obama 48% in Gallups Final Election Survey National Conference of State Legislatures, Absentee and Early Voting In 2008, the same Gallup poll found that 33% of voters had voted or planned to vote before Election Day. Post-election analysis by the US Election Project found 31% did vote early in 2008. Figures are not yet available for 2012. Gallup Polls, Ibid Michael C. Herron and Daniel A. Smith, Floridas 2012 General Election under HB 1355: Early Voting, Provisional Ballots, and Absentee Ballots Professor Theodor Allen of Ohio State University , the Orlando Sentinel, 201,000 in Florida Didnt Vote Because of Long Lines 12 Northeast Ohio Voter Advocates, Analysis of Early In-Person and Mail-In Absentee Voting in the Ohio 2012 General Election Compared to 2008
Category Already voted All Registered Voters Region East Midwest South West Age 18 to 29 30 to 49 50-64 65 + 4% 13% 17% 25% 7% 11% 16% 26% 15%
33%
Source: Gallup Poll, In U.S., 15% of Registered Voters Have Already Cast Ballots
CIRCLE, Youth Turnout was 50% in 2012; Youth Turnout in Battleground States 58% CNN, National Election Exit Poll 17 CIRCLE, At Least 80 Electoral Votes Depended on Youth 18 CIRCLE, Youth Turnout op. cit. 19 CIRCLE, Diverse Electorate: A deeper look into the Millennial Vote
15 16
13
60%
52%
48%
50%
50%
40%
37%
41%
30%
1996 2000 2004 2008 2012
Source: CIRCLE
76%
12%
8% 2% 2%
30+
58%
17%
18%
5%
2%
18-29
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
White
Black
Hispanic Asian
Other
Source: CIRCLE, Diverse Electorate: A deeper look into the Millennial Vote
14
11% 10% 9% 8% 7% 6%
2000 2004 2008 2012
Source: National Election Exit Poll
10% 9%
8% 7%
20 21 22 23
24
Pew Research Hispanic Center, An Awakened Giant National Election Exit Poll, op. cit. Pew Research Hispanic Center, Latino Voters in the 2012 Election United States Census, ST-EST00INT-SEXRACEHISP: Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin for States and the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2010. Further estimated for 2012. National Election Exit Poll, op. cit.
15
40%
37%
30%
20%
18%
18%
17% 14%
10%
New Mexico
Arizona
Nevada
Florida
Colorado
Source: National Election Exit Poll. Only certain states were included in the poll. For example, California was not included.
25 26 27
Pew Hispanic Center, Latino Voters in the 2012 Election, op. cit. National Election Exit Poll, op. cit. CIRCLE, Diverse Electorate op. cit.
16
Black turnout as percentage of the eligible black population may have exceeded white turnout for the first time in the 2012 presidential election. Pew Research notes that black turnout has risen in each presidential election since 1996, reaching 65.2% in 2008. At the same time, white turnout declined between 2004 and 2008 by 1.1%, falling to 66.1%. Currently available data suggest these trends continued in 2012. The Census Voting and Registration Supplement will shed more light on the subject when released in the spring of 2013.28 Gains made by blacks in share of the electorate were due to higher turnout, not demographic changes. Blacks over-performed in 2012 by casting a higher share of votes than their share of the eligible electorate. Black voters accounted for an estimated 13% of all votes cast, but make up only 12% of the eligible electorate. In contrast Hispanic and Asian voters cast a lower share of votes (10% and 3%, respectively) than their share of eligible voters (11% and 4%, respectively).29 In 2012, black, Hispanic, and Asian-American voters supported President Barack Obama by large margins. AsianAmericans supported president Obama by a 49 point margin and Hispanics by 44 points. White voters, on the other hand, supported Governor Mitt Romney by a 20 point margin.
Partisan Choice 2008 2008 Dem 49% 56% 43% 95% 67% 62% 66% 66% 52% 60% 49% Rep 48% 43% 55% 40% 31% 35% 31% 32% 46% 38% 49%
2012 Dem 45% 55% 39% 93% 71% 73% 58% 60% N/A 60% 45%
2012 Rep 52% 44% 59% 6% 27% 26% 38% 37% N/A 38% 53%
Male Female White Black Latino Asian Other 18-29 30+ < $50 K > $50 K 48% 52% 81% 10% 7% 2% 0% 17% 83% 47% 53% 46% 54% 77% 11% 8% 2% 2% 17% 83% 45% 55% 47% 53% 75% 13% 9% 2% 2% 18% 82% 38% 62% 47% 53% 72% 13% 10% 3% 2% 19% 81% 41% 59%
28 29
Pew Research Social and Demographic Trends, The growing electoral clout of blacks is driven by turnout, not demographics Ibid.
17
Connecticut** 2012
* Not fully paperless ** Not implemented yet
As of February 2013, at least nine states had proposed bills to adopt online registration.36
30 31 32 33 34 35 36
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), Electronic or Online Voter Registration Pew Research Center on the States, Online Voter Registration Update Brennan Center for Justice, Voter Registration Modernization Pew Research Center on the States, op. cit. Pew, Research Center on the States, op. cit. Pew, Research Center on the States, op. cit. NCSL op. cit.
18
California* Connecticut
**
2005
Wyoming
1994
District of Columbia
*Californias Election Day registration will take effect on January 1 of the year following the certification of a statewide voter registration database--no sooner than January 2014. **Connecticuts Election Day registration takes effect July 1, 2013. ***Rhode Island only offers Election Day registration for presidential elections. Source: National Council of State Legislatures
As of February 2013, Election Day registration legislation had been proposed in 14 states.37
Pre-Registration
Pre-registration allows youth to complete the registration process (but not vote) before they turn 18, welcoming young people to the political process and building enthusiasm early on that can turn voting into a lifelong habit. Pre-registration is important because many young people visit the DMV for the first time years before theyre eligible to vote. According to the Delaware Division of Motor Vehicles, more than 26,800 16- and 17-year-olds applied for their drivers license from 2007 to 2009. During the same three-year period, the state Department of Elections reported that about 14,000 18-year-olds registered to vote.38
37 38
NCSL, Same Day Registration Milford Beacon, New voter pre-registration law encourages youths civic participation
19
By allowing youth to pre-register to vote, states can take advantage of opportunities like DMV visits to help close the gap between youth and adult registration rates. The registration rate among eligible voters is 71%, but when looking at eligible voters aged 18-24, that number falls to just 59%.39 When they are registered, young people do vote. In 2008, 83% of registered 18-24 year olds voted.40 By taking care of the registration requirement early, pre-registration prepares young people for active citizenship as soon as they turn 18 and can support and drive positive civic habits. Active Voter Registration Because voter registration is required but not automatic in every state except North Dakota, national, state, and local government should be working to actively register voters. The National Voter Registration Act (1993) requires that departments of motor vehicles and public assistance offices that administer food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, disability assistance, and child health programs proactively register voters. Until recently, adherence to NVRA among public assistance offices has been lax but over the last few years, lawsuits have brought a number of states into compliance. The results have been overwhelming: in Ohio in the first six months of 2010, more than 100,000 low-income residents applied to register to vote at public assistance offices. That number (17,000 applications per month) is almost a ten-fold increase in the number of registration applications public assistance offices collected before the lawsuit (1,775 per month).41 In 2011, the United States Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) revised its guidelines on voter registration applications at naturalization ceremonies. For the first time ever, the USCIS committed to providing new citizens the opportunity to register at every administrative naturalization ceremony in the country. While many elections officials and local community organizations have worked to register new citizens at naturalization ceremonies, this directive heralded a concerted effort to reach new voters as soon as they are eligible. This can help close the registration gap between native born and naturalized citizens who are registered at 71.8% and 60.5%, respectively.42 Recommendations Improve the registration experience and streamline the process for elections officials by: Implementing online, paperless voter registration. Allowing Election Day registration or same-day registration during early voting periods. Enabling young people to pre-register to vote. Actively registering voters during all interactions with government agencies.
39 40 41 42
FairVote, Youth Pre-Registration Ibid U.S. Department of Justice, NVRA FAQ Demos, Voter Registration for New Americans
20
43 44 45 46
National Conference of State Legislatures, Absentee and Early Voting New York Times, Early Voting is a Crucial Fix, but Its Not Flawless Elizabeth Bergman et al, How Does Vote By Mail Affect Voters?: A natural experiment examining individual-level turnout, Pew Center on the States New York Times, Error and Fraud at Issue as Absentee Voting Rises
21
NONPARTISAN REDISTRICTING
2012 was the first election in new legislative districts drawn after the decennial U.S. Census. Reapportionment by partisan elected officials is democracy in reverse. Incumbents use sophisticated software to choose their voters before voters get to choose them. The party in power cracks and packs communities into districts that are safe for incumbents and that make meaningful opposition much more difficult.
47 48
New York Times, The Great Gerrymander of 2012 Florida Parole Commission, Status Updated: Restoration of Civil Rights (RCR) Cases Granted 2009 and 2010
22
2012 was no different. Republicans did what Democrats have done artfully in the past. In seven states where Republicans redrew the districts, voters were relatively evenly split between Republicans and Democrats, 16.7 million to 16.4 million. Despite this, these seven states elected 73 Republicans and only 34 Democrats to Congress.49 Whoever is doing the gerrymandering, whether the party in power or both parties colluding, the bottom line is still fewer choices for voters and disproportionate results. Recommendations No democracy in the 21st century should have incumbent partisan officials designing their own districts. Drawing districts that are the building blocks of our representative process should be as nonpartisan as possible. Many states have already adopted nonpartisan commissions made up of respected officials with a range of views.50 The results can create more competitive districts with results more fairly reflecting the views of voters.
23
But fifty percent turnout is still not impressive. The United States routinely posts the lowest voter turnout rates of any true democracy in the world, and young Americans lag 15 points or more behind older Americans in voting. Also, the new normal of massive youth voting is in some ways just a return to the old normal. In seven of the 10 elections since 1976, youth turnout has been just about 50%. One way to read the trend is to say that youth turnout is stuck at about half of eligible young citizens. Equally stubborn are disparities in voting by social class. Whereas young people with some college experience voted at a rate of about 63% this November, the turnout of non-college-educated young people was just 36%. Those non-voters were diverse ideologically and included a substantial proportion who liked Mitt Romney better than Barack Obama. But they failed to vote for any candidate. The whole infrastructure of churches, grassroots political parties, local newspapers, and unions that once introduced working-class young people to politics is now shattered. And the sophisticated turnout operations of modern presidential campaigns focus on likely voters, meaning that college campuses get lots of attention but no one reaches young people who work in retail, service industries, and manufacturing. The hyper-efficient Obama campaign contacted just 5.8% of youth without college experience. Young voters are back. They turn out in good years and bad and make the difference in close elections. But half of our young people are still non-voters, and their detachment from politics reflects their general alienation from civic life. We cant be satisfied until we reengage them. Peter Levine is Lincoln Filene Professor of Citizenship & Public Affairs and Director of CIRCLE: the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement at Tufts Universitys Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service
24