Early Voting Changes and Voter Turnout: North Carolina in the 2016 General Election
North Carolina offers its residents the opportunity to cast early in-person (EIP) ballots prior to Election Day, a practice known locally as “One-Stop” voting. Following a successful legal challenge to the state’s controversial 2013 Voter Information and Verification Act, North Carolina’s 100 counties were given wide discretion over the hours and locations of EIP voting for the 2016 General Election. This discretion yielded a patchwork of election practices across the state, providing us with a set of natural experiments to study the effect of changes in early voting hours on voter turnout. Drawing on individual-level voting records from the North Carolina State Board of Elections, our research design matches voters on race, party, and geography. We find little evidence that changes to early opportunities in North Carolina had uniform effects on voter turnout. Nonetheless, we do identify areas in the presidential battleground state where voters appear to have reacted to local changes in early voting availability, albeit not always in directions consistent with the existing literature. We suspect that effects of changes to early voting rules are conditional on local conditions, and future research on the effects of election law changes on turnout should explore these conditions in detail.
KeywordsElections American politics Voting Political behavior Election reform Racial and ethnic politics
The authors would like to thank Matt Barreto, Loren Collingwood, Mackenzie Israel Trummel and Tye Rush for their support and feedback on this project. We are also grateful to our anonymous reviewers. Replication files are available here: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/2JCJLX.
- Alvarez, R. M., Bailey, D. , & Katz, J. (2007). The effect of voter identification laws on turnout. Working Papers 1267 California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences. https://ideas.repec.org/p/clt/sswopa/1267.html.
- Anderson, C. J. (2007). The interaction of structures and voter behavior. In R. J. Dalton & D. K. Hans (Eds.), The oxford handbook of political behavior (pp. 589–609). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Biggers, D. R., & Smith, D. A. (2018). Does threatening their franchise make registered voters more likely to participate? Evidence from an aborted voter purge. British Journal of Political Science forthcoming.Google Scholar
- Bradner, E. (2016). Why North Carolina is so important in 2016.Google Scholar
- Burden, B. C., & Gaines, B. J. (2015). Presidential commission on election administration: Absentee and early voting: Weighing the costs of convenience. Election Law Journal, 14(1), 32–37.Google Scholar
- Davidson, C. (1992). The voting rights act: A brief history. In B. Grofman & C. Davidson (Eds.), Controversies in minority voting: The voting rights act in perspective (pp. 7–34). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
- Del Pinal, J. (1995). Hispanics-Latinos: Diverse people in a multicultural society. Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census.Google Scholar
- Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (1998). The Latino/a condition: A critical reader. New York, NY: NYU Press.Google Scholar
- Erikson, R. S., & Minnite, L. C. (2009). Modeling problems in the voter identification—voter turnout debate. Election Law Journal, 8(2), 85–101.Google Scholar
- Graham, D. A. (2016). Have North Carolina republicans found a way to reinstate discriminatory voting rules.Google Scholar
- Graham, D. A. (2018). North Carolina’s landmark ruling against partisan gerrymanders.Google Scholar
- Grimmer, J., Hersh, E., Meredith, M., Mummolo, J., & Hall, C. (2017). Comment on voter identification laws and the suppression of minority votes. Unpublished working paper. https://stanford.edu/~jgrimmer/comment_spsfinal.pdf.
- Grofman, B., Handley, L., & Niemi, R. G. (1994). Minority representation and the quest for voting equality. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Gronke, P. (2012). Early voting: The quiet revolution in American elections. In M. Streb (Ed.), Law and election politics: The rules of the game (pp. 134–148). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Hasen, R. L. (2005). Beyond the margin of litigation: Reforming US election administration to avoid electoral meltdown. Washington & Lee Law Review, 62, 937.Google Scholar
- Herron, M. C., & Smith, D. A. (2015). Race, Shelby County, and the voter information verification act in North Carolina. Florida State University Law Review, 43, 465–506.Google Scholar
- Kaplan, E., & Yuan, H. (2017). Restrictive voting laws, voter turnout, and Partisan vote composition: Evidence from Ohio. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
- Leighley, J. E., & Nagler, J. (2014). Who votes now. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Southwell, P., & Burchett, J. (2000). Does changing the rules change the players? The effect of all-mail elections on the composition of the electorate. Social Science Quarterly, 81, 837–845.Google Scholar
- Stein, R. M., & Garcia-Monet, P. A. (1997). Voting early but not often. Social Science Quarterly, 78, 657–671.Google Scholar
- Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Williams, M. S. (2000). Voice, trust, and memory: Marginalized groups and the failings of liberal representation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Wolfinger, R. E., & Rosenstone, S. J. (1980). Who votes? (Vol. 22). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar