News

Mail-in voting has no partisan advantage, Stanford researchers say

Studies find increased turnout, particularly for blue-collar workers, young people

Studies by Stanford University researchers have found increased voter turnout in young people, blue-collar workers and people of color in mail-only elections. Photo by Adam Pardee.

Mail-in and absentee ballots improve voter turnout and make elections more democratic, but the argument that one political party would have an advantage over another in a mail-in ballot election doesn't appear credible, studies by multiple Stanford University researchers have found.

Implementing a broad mail-in ballot program could have some potential pitfalls in the November election, however, for states and counties when putting together the necessary infrastructure for distributing and sorting the ballots and ensuring that all of the votes are counted, they said.

In one study, Stanford political scientists Adam Bonica, an associate professor, and Hakeem Jefferson, an assistant professor, both of the Department of Political Science, analyzed election results in Colorado, one of the few states that conducts its elections completely by mail. Voter turnout increased about 9.4% after the program was rolled out in 2013, according to a working paper they co-authored, which studied data from five elections between 2010 and 2018. That percentage was even higher among people ages 30 and younger, where they found voter turnout increased by 15%.

Turnout was also high for blue-collar workers, voters without a high school diploma, those with less wealth and people of color, the researchers found.

"These findings suggest that making it easier to vote increases electoral participation among those who may otherwise remain unengaged," they wrote.

Sponsored
...
6 Steps to master the home buying process during a pandemic

Your no-stress guide to buying a home no matter what the circumstance.

...
Sponsored
6 Steps to master the home buying process during a pandemic

Your no-stress guide to buying a home no matter what the circumstance.

Bonica and Jefferson did not find that Colorado's all-mail voting disproportionately benefited either the Republican or Democratic parties, but turnout among Independents was nearly 12% higher than in previous elections, the researchers said.

"Colorado's experience demonstrates that all-mail voting is not only safer than in-person voting but also better for democratic representation, with all age, income, race, occupational and education groups benefiting from its introduction," according to the working paper.

To address rapid changes for this November's election, the researchers suggested states and counties should offer in-person voting options with safety measures to avoid duplicative voting and allow people who miss the deadline to receive a mail-in or absentee ballot a chance to head to the polls.

Another Stanford study by Andrew Hall, a political science professor, examined data from California, Utah and Washington, three states that have gradually expanded their vote-by-mail programs. Mail-in and absentee voting did not affect overall turnout for either Republicans or Democrats, and mail-in voting didn't affect the share of votes that went to Democratic candidates. Mail-in voting did increase turnout by about 2% on average, Hall and his team found.

"Our paper has a clear takeaway: claims that vote-by-mail fundamentally advantages one party over the other appear overblown," the researchers wrote.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

Hall is also continuing a study of absentee voting, which includes analysis of a primary election held during the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, his findings so far are consistent with the earlier study. But holding an election during the pandemic poses unprecedented challenges, and it's difficult to predict exactly what will happen in November, he said in an interview with Stanford News Service.

"Vote-by-mail is an extremely helpful part of the overall, nonpartisan election toolkit, but it is not a panacea. Voters should consider their local context, including prospects for logistical issues with vote-by-mail and the safety precautions their local officials are implementing to support in-person voting before deciding how they want to vote," he said.

Nathaniel Persily, a Stanford researcher and law professor, said he has concerns about ensuring that all mail-in ballots are counted.

"In such a short period of time it is very difficult for states to adapt to this new environment and it requires changes at every step in the administration of the election, from the beginning of registering votes to the end of counting their votes," Persily, former senior research director of the Presidential Commission on Election Administration, told Stanford News Service. He is co-leading research with Charles Stewart III of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology through the Healthy Elections Project.

In Florida's primary election earlier this year, Persily and Stewart found that mail-in ballots cast by African Americans, Latinos, first-time voters and young people were significantly less likely to be counted because the ballot was received late, signatures were missing or they did not match the signature on file.

"That's a real concern as we approach the (general) election," Persily said.

States would also need to develop infrastructure such as mail-in ballots, sorters and scanners to meet the increased demand, he said during an interview with Stanford Legal.

Americans must prepare to vote in a different way this year, he said.

"We need to start treating this election like we would a natural disaster, like a hurricane or earthquake. We need to mobilize around all levels of government and civil society and that includes Congress appropriating more money and it includes massive efforts about educating people about how to vote safely and we need people to volunteer," he said.

To help voters and election officials, the Healthy Elections Project has prepared a vote-by-mail resource guide, which includes tips on signature verification and vote tallying.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now

Follow Palo Alto Online and the Palo Alto Weekly on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

...
Sponsored
6 Steps to master the home buying process during a pandemic

Your no-stress guide to buying a home no matter what the circumstance.

Mail-in voting has no partisan advantage, Stanford researchers say

Studies find increased turnout, particularly for blue-collar workers, young people

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Tue, Sep 8, 2020, 12:26 pm

Mail-in and absentee ballots improve voter turnout and make elections more democratic, but the argument that one political party would have an advantage over another in a mail-in ballot election doesn't appear credible, studies by multiple Stanford University researchers have found.

Implementing a broad mail-in ballot program could have some potential pitfalls in the November election, however, for states and counties when putting together the necessary infrastructure for distributing and sorting the ballots and ensuring that all of the votes are counted, they said.

In one study, Stanford political scientists Adam Bonica, an associate professor, and Hakeem Jefferson, an assistant professor, both of the Department of Political Science, analyzed election results in Colorado, one of the few states that conducts its elections completely by mail. Voter turnout increased about 9.4% after the program was rolled out in 2013, according to a working paper they co-authored, which studied data from five elections between 2010 and 2018. That percentage was even higher among people ages 30 and younger, where they found voter turnout increased by 15%.

Turnout was also high for blue-collar workers, voters without a high school diploma, those with less wealth and people of color, the researchers found.

"These findings suggest that making it easier to vote increases electoral participation among those who may otherwise remain unengaged," they wrote.

Bonica and Jefferson did not find that Colorado's all-mail voting disproportionately benefited either the Republican or Democratic parties, but turnout among Independents was nearly 12% higher than in previous elections, the researchers said.

"Colorado's experience demonstrates that all-mail voting is not only safer than in-person voting but also better for democratic representation, with all age, income, race, occupational and education groups benefiting from its introduction," according to the working paper.

To address rapid changes for this November's election, the researchers suggested states and counties should offer in-person voting options with safety measures to avoid duplicative voting and allow people who miss the deadline to receive a mail-in or absentee ballot a chance to head to the polls.

Another Stanford study by Andrew Hall, a political science professor, examined data from California, Utah and Washington, three states that have gradually expanded their vote-by-mail programs. Mail-in and absentee voting did not affect overall turnout for either Republicans or Democrats, and mail-in voting didn't affect the share of votes that went to Democratic candidates. Mail-in voting did increase turnout by about 2% on average, Hall and his team found.

"Our paper has a clear takeaway: claims that vote-by-mail fundamentally advantages one party over the other appear overblown," the researchers wrote.

Hall is also continuing a study of absentee voting, which includes analysis of a primary election held during the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, his findings so far are consistent with the earlier study. But holding an election during the pandemic poses unprecedented challenges, and it's difficult to predict exactly what will happen in November, he said in an interview with Stanford News Service.

"Vote-by-mail is an extremely helpful part of the overall, nonpartisan election toolkit, but it is not a panacea. Voters should consider their local context, including prospects for logistical issues with vote-by-mail and the safety precautions their local officials are implementing to support in-person voting before deciding how they want to vote," he said.

Nathaniel Persily, a Stanford researcher and law professor, said he has concerns about ensuring that all mail-in ballots are counted.

"In such a short period of time it is very difficult for states to adapt to this new environment and it requires changes at every step in the administration of the election, from the beginning of registering votes to the end of counting their votes," Persily, former senior research director of the Presidential Commission on Election Administration, told Stanford News Service. He is co-leading research with Charles Stewart III of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology through the Healthy Elections Project.

In Florida's primary election earlier this year, Persily and Stewart found that mail-in ballots cast by African Americans, Latinos, first-time voters and young people were significantly less likely to be counted because the ballot was received late, signatures were missing or they did not match the signature on file.

"That's a real concern as we approach the (general) election," Persily said.

States would also need to develop infrastructure such as mail-in ballots, sorters and scanners to meet the increased demand, he said during an interview with Stanford Legal.

Americans must prepare to vote in a different way this year, he said.

"We need to start treating this election like we would a natural disaster, like a hurricane or earthquake. We need to mobilize around all levels of government and civil society and that includes Congress appropriating more money and it includes massive efforts about educating people about how to vote safely and we need people to volunteer," he said.

To help voters and election officials, the Healthy Elections Project has prepared a vote-by-mail resource guide, which includes tips on signature verification and vote tallying.

Comments

Michael O.
Registered user
Gunn High School
on Sep 9, 2020 at 11:45 pm
Michael O., Gunn High School
Registered user
on Sep 9, 2020 at 11:45 pm
8 people like this

Just wanted to add here that Doug Moran should not be permitted to blog here. He could fund his own blog, but his lack of commitment to discourse (I.e. speech with which he disagrees) should be alarming to the editor and publisher here. He should not be able to silence those voices here. Feel free to agree or disagree.


Douglas Moran
Registered user
Barron Park
on Sep 10, 2020 at 12:49 am
Douglas Moran, Barron Park
Registered user
on Sep 10, 2020 at 12:49 am
Like this comment

Re: Michael O.
His comment, and a follow-up, were deleted for violating the blog's guidelines against ad hominem attacks.

Link to explanation of deletion: Web Link


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 10, 2020 at 11:26 am
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
Registered user
on Sep 10, 2020 at 11:26 am
Like this comment

In the last vote Santa Clara County did not print the final votes for the Jerry Hill replacement. The early voters got their paper in and then the assortment of D candidates competed with each other - dragging out the count with all of their staggered papers. Yes - we now have two people to consider and we are not going to tolerate the dragging out of late votes.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 10, 2020 at 11:44 am
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
Registered user
on Sep 10, 2020 at 11:44 am
Like this comment

Each state has a decidedly distinct population and how that population is folded into the census, DMV issuance of licenses, and legal recognition within the state regarding legal status and immigration. We already know the answers to those questions and it is like desperately trying to count everyone no matter their citizenship status. The attempts in those actions have gone around the bend of credibility. Those decisions do not lend any trust in what ever is produced as results. All of those "experts" live on grants and those grants are provided to produce specific results. They do like to make money too.


Michael O.
Registered user
Gunn High School
on Sep 10, 2020 at 6:48 pm
Michael O., Gunn High School
Registered user
on Sep 10, 2020 at 6:48 pm
5 people like this

Doug Moran appears not to understand the term “ad hominem”. He seems to think that criticism of his ideas and pointing out the logical fallacies of his arguments are “as hominem” attacks. They are not. Doug, stop deleting replies to your blog and let your readers decide what to think.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.