Report Election Integrity

The Costs of Early Voting

October 3, 2017 25 min read Download Report

Hans von Spakovsky

@HvonSpakovsky

Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues – including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration.

Summary

Although voters may find early voting convenient, turnout data show that early voting may actually decrease turnout, not increase it. Early voting raises the costs of political campaigns, since expensive get-out-the-vote efforts must be spread out over a longer period of time. There is also no question that when voters cast their ballots weeks before Election Day, they do so without the same access to knowledge about the candidates and the issues as those who vote on Election Day. When there are late-breaking developments in campaigns that could be important to the choices made by voters, those who have voted early cannot change their votes.

Key Takeaways

Contrary to its intent, early voting may actually decrease voter turnout.

Early voting also lessens the social pressure to vote—as well as guidance on how and where to vote— that may contribute to higher turnouts.

Early voting periods can also increase the amount of money needed to campaign for office.

Copied

Select a Section 1/0

Until the late 1980s, Americans had two ways to vote: (1) in person on Election Day, or (2) absentee ballots sent through the mail or voted in person at county election departments prior to Election Day. Early voting—in-person voting in a limited number of locations prior to Election Day—was first implemented by a state (Texas) almost 30 years ago and has been pushed by proponents as a way of increasing turnout by making voting more convenient.

But while voters may find early voting more convenient, turnout data show that early voting may actually decrease turnout, not increase it. Early voting raises the costs of political campaigns, since expensive get-out-the-vote efforts must be spread out over a longer period of time. There is also no question that when voters cast their ballots weeks before Election Day, they do so without the same access to knowledge about the candidates and the issues as those who vote on Election Day. When there are late-breaking developments in campaigns that could be important to the choices made by voters, those who have voted early cannot change their votes.

The Development and Legality of Absentee Ballots

In-person voting on Election Day had been the traditional way of voting since the beginnings of the republic. Initially, “the Colonies mostly continued the English traditions of voting by a show of hands or by voice—viva voce voting.”1

John Doe No. 1 v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186, 224 (2010).

Voting remained “public until 1883 when the States began to adopt the Australian secret ballot,” and the states gradually changed to paper ballots.3

60 Ohio Laws 80, 80–84 (1863).

Nineteen states enacted “laws allowing soldiers the right to vote by absentee ballot.”4

Tracy Campbell, Deliver the Vote: A History of Election Fraud, an American Political Tradition – 1742–2004 53 (2005).

This was particularly important during the 1864 presidential election and explains why 19th-century Democrats generally opposed allowing absentee ballots: “[T]hey suspected loyal soldiers would vote for the party of Lincoln.”Id. at 57.

“>6

Id. at 57.

even though their ballots were only a small percentage of the total votes cast. Of the 50,000 Ohio soldiers who voted absentee in 1864, 41,000 voted for President Lincoln.7

Josiah Henry Benton, Voting in the Field: A Forgotten Chapter of the Civil War 78 (1915).

Absentee voting slowly advanced throughout the 1900s. Today, every state will mail an absentee ballot to a voter who requests one, and those ballots can be returned by mail or in person. At its beginning, states required a reason for absentee balloting, such as an unavoidable absence or a religious observance. Twenty states still require an excuse for absentee voting such as illness or employment that prevents the voter from getting to a polling location on Election Day. No-excuse absentee balloting is only a relatively recent phenomenon.8

Robert Stein & Greg Vonnahme, Early, Absentee, and Mail-In Voting, Oxford Handbook of American Elections and Political Behavior (Jan E. Leighley, ed. 2010).

Twenty-seven states and the District of Columbia now allow “no fault” absentee voting: No excuse is required. Three states mail ballots to every eligible voter.10

394 U.S. 802, 807 (1969).

States have, through legislation, made absentee ballots available to voters, and the federal government has done the same through federal law for members of the uniformed services and citizens of the United States who reside abroad.supra note 8.

“>12

Stein & Vonnahme, supra note 8.

It has now spread to 37 states and the District of Columbia (including three states that mail ballots to all voters).Id.

“>14

Id.

The amount of time provided for early voting ranges “in length from four days to 45 days.” The average is 19 days., A Brief History of Early Voting, Huffington Post (Sept. 28, 2016), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/a-brief-history-of-early_b_12240120.html.

“>16

Michael P. McDonald, A Brief History of Early Voting, Huffington Post (Sept. 28, 2016), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/a-brief-history-of-early_b_12240120.html.

In the 2016 election, according to the annual report to Congress of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 41.3 percent of all ballots were cast before Election Day. Of the total turnout, 17.2 percent of ballots were cast through in-person early voting and 23.7 percent were cast through by-mail absentee voting.17

The Election Administration and Voting Survey – 2016 Comprehensive Report, A Report to the 115th Congress, U.S. Election Assistance Commission, at 8.

In the 2016 election, more than 60 percent of the ballots cast in Arizona, Florida, Montana, North Carolina, Nevada, Oregon, and Texas were through in-person early voting. The number of early voting sites in various states varied greatly. There were on “average, 6.1 early voting sites per 100,000 voters.”appl. for stay denied, 137 S.Ct 28 (2016).

“>19

Ohio Democratic Party v. Husted, 834 F.3d 620, 623 (6th Cir. 2016), appl. for stay denied, 137 S.Ct 28 (2016).

In a lawsuit filed by the Ohio Democratic Party, it claimed that the state legislature violated both the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when it reduced the number of early voting days from 35 to “only” 29, even though 29 days of early voting is the tenth-longest among all the states. Because Ohio initially provided 35 days of early voting, the Democratic Party argued that “this prior accommodation…, which also created a six-day ‘Golden Week’ opportunity for same-day registration and voting—established a federal floor that Ohio may add to but never subtract from.”Id.

“>21

Id.

As the court explained:

Adopting plaintiffs’ theory of disenfranchisement would create a “one-way ratchet” that would discourage states from ever increasing early voting opportunities, lest they be prohibited by federal courts from later modifying their election procedures in response to changing circumstances. Further, while the challenged regulation may slightly diminish the convenience of registration and voting, it applies even-handedly to all voters, and, despite the change, Ohio continues to provide generous, reasonable, and accessible voting options to all Ohioans. The issue is not whether some voter somewhere would benefit from six additional days of early voting or from the opportunity to register and vote at the same time. Rather, the issue is whether the challenged law results in a cognizable injury under the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act. We conclude that it does not.Id. at 628.

“>23

Id. at 628.

This is particularly true when compared to other states like Kentucky and Michigan that do not allow any early voting and are under no constitutional requirement to do so.

The fact that there was evidence in the case that “some African-American voters may prefer voting” early or “avoiding the mail, or saving on postage, or voting after a nine-to-five day” did not provide a basis for a federal lawsuit or a violation of the law. To the extent the reduction in early voting days impacted such preferences, “its ‘burden’ clearly results more from a ‘matter of choice rather than a state-created obstacle.’” The Equal Protection Clause “simply cannot be reasonably understood as demanding recognition and accommodation of such variable personal preferences, even if the preferences are shown to be shared in higher numbers by members of identifiable segments of the voting public.”Id. at 629

“>25

Id. at 629

Such a claim would “disregard the Constitution’s clear mandate that the states (and not the courts) establish election protocols, instead reading the document to require all states to maximize voting convenience.” The Sixth Circuit warned that under this conception of the federal courts’ role, “little stretch of imagination is needed to fast-forward and envision a regime of judicially-mandated voting by text message or Tweet (assuming of course, that cell phones and Twitter handles are not disparately possessed by identifiable segments of the voting population).”27

Brown v. Detzner, 895 F.Supp.2d 1236 (M.D. Fla. 2012).

Although the parties in the case agreed there “is no fundamental right to an early voting option,” the plaintiffs challenged the reduction of early voting days from 12 to eight.Id. at 1246.

“>29

Id. at 1246.

Furthermore, many states do not have any form of early voting. The court noted:

[By extending] [p]laintiffs’ theory to its next logical step, it would seem that if a state with a higher percentage of registered African-American voters than Florida did not implement an early voting program a Section 2 [of the Voting Rights Act] violation would occur because African-American voters in that state would have less of an opportunity to vote than voters in Florida. It would also follow that a Section 2 violation could occur in Florida if a state with a lower percentage of African-American voters employed an early voting system…that lasts three weeks instead of the two week system currently used in Florida. This simply cannot be the standard for establishing a Section 2 violation.cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 1399 (2017). In the denial of certiorari, Chief Justice John Roberts stated that there was a question over whether the petition for certiorari was before the Court. The governor, attorney general, and state legislature were disputing who had authority to represent North Carolina, with the attorney general attempting to withdraw the petition and the legislature attempting to keep the petition before the Court. The Chief Justice wrote that “[g]iven the blizzard of filings over who is and who is not authorized to seek review in this Court under North Carolina law, it is important to recall our frequent admonition that ‘[t]he denial of a writ of certiorari imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case.’” Id. at 1400 (citations omitted).

“>31

North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory, 831 F.3d 204 (2016), cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 1399 (2017). In the denial of certiorari, Chief Justice John Roberts stated that there was a question over whether the petition for certiorari was before the Court. The governor, attorney general, and state legislature were disputing who had authority to represent North Carolina, with the attorney general attempting to withdraw the petition and the legislature attempting to keep the petition before the Court. The Chief Justice wrote that “[g]iven the blizzard of filings over who is and who is not authorized to seek review in this Court under North Carolina law, it is important to recall our frequent admonition that ‘[t]he denial of a writ of certiorari imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case.’” Id. at 1400 (citations omitted).

In effect, the Fourth Circuit panel took the “preferences” that the Sixth Circuit said were simply matters of choice of voters—such as whether to vote on Election Day or during an early voting period—and converted them into a legal right.

The Effect of Early Voting

For proponents of early voting who believe that giving voters more time to vote will increase turnout, various studies show that the exact opposite seems to be true: Early voting may actually hurt turnout.

In 2008, American University released a report on the general election that concluded that the efforts of states to increase turnout by implementing different forms of “convenience” voting such as no-excuse absentee balloting and early voting were a “failure.”http://www.american.edu/research/news/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=23907.

“>33

African-Americans, Anger, Fear and Youth Propel Turnout to Highest Level Since 1960, Am. U. (Dec. 17, 2008), http://www.american.edu/research/news/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=23907.

Yet of the 12 states that saw turnout declines in 2008 over the 2004 election, “ten had some form of convenience voting.” Of the 13 states with the largest increase in turnout, “seven had none of the forms of convenience voting.”Id.

“>35

Id.

In 2013, another study released by professors from the University of Wisconsin came to a similar conclusion by comparing early voting states to those without early voting. A statistical analysis of turnout in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections showed that early voting led to lower turnout.Id.

“>37

Id.

As the study concluded, this “result is counterintuitive, and it certainly runs against the grain of conventional wisdom.” However, the fact that early voting “actually decreases turnout…[is] an unanticipated consequence that has significant implications for policy and for theories of how state governments can influence turnout.”See Voter Turnout Rates, U.S. Election Project, http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/voter-turnout-data.

“>39

See Voter Turnout Rates, U.S. Election Project, http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/voter-turnout-data.

In 2012, the state’s turnout was 1.6 percentage points below the national average, and in 2008 it was 4.6 percentage points below the national average. As the Las Vegas Review-Journal has pointed out, “Nevada trends don’t look much different” than what the Wisconsin study showed.41

834 F.3d at 639.

Similarly, in the North Carolina case where the Fourth Circuit ruled against the state’s reduction of early voting from 17 to 10 days, turnout actually increased while the reduction was in force. As the district court (which had ruled in favor of the state) pointed out, the reduction in the early voting period was in effect in the 2014 primary and general election.42

North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory, 182 F.Supp.3d 320 (M.D. N.C. 2016).

In the May 19 primary, the turnout of registered white voters “increased from 15.6% to 17.4%; among registered African American voters, it increased from 11.4% to 13.4%; and among registered Hispanic voters, it increased from 2.9% to 3.3%,” when compared to the 2010 midterm primary election.43

182 F.Supp.3d at 349.

The same results were seen in the 2014 general election. In comparison to the 2010 election, “voter participation increased: among registered white voters, it increased from 45.7% to 46.8%; among registered African American voters, it increased from 40.4% to 42.2%; and among registered Hispanic voters, it increased from 19.9% to 20.5%.” In fact, with 10 days of early voting as opposed to 17, African-American turnout increased “more than other groups in 2014,” and the general election “saw the smallest white-African American [sic] turnout disparity in any midterm election from 2002 to 2014.”Id. at 383 (citations omitted).

“>45

Id. at 383 (citations omitted).

The court also cited another expert hired by the plaintiffs who wrote that early voting results “in lower net turnout…. Our unambiguous empirical claims are based on multiple data sources and methods: despite being a popular election reform, early voting depresses net voter turnout.”supra note 32.

“>47

African-Americans, Anger, Fear and Youth Propel Turnout to Highest Level Since 1960, supra note 32.

Campaigns and political parties spend an enormous amount of time and resources on get-out-the-vote (GOTV) efforts just before Election Day. If those GOTV efforts are spread out over several weeks, they will not have the same intensity and may not be as effective in reminding and convincing individuals to cast a ballot.

The Wisconsin study suggested the same thing, that early voting reduces “the civic significance of elections for individuals” and alters “the incentives for political campaigns to invest in mobilization.” As the report says, “rather than building up to a frenzied election day in which media coverage and interpersonal conversation revolve around politics, early voting makes voting a more private and less intense process.” This lessens the “social pressure” to vote, as well as “guidance on how and where to vote.” All of these “reductions in stimulation—both strategic and nonstrategic mobilization—are greater than the modest positive benefits of additional convenience that accrue largely to those who would vote in any case.”supra note 32.

“>49

Much-hyped Turnout Record Fails to Materialize; Convenience Voting Fails to Boost Balloting, supra note 32.

Early voters are voting with a different set of facts than those who vote on Election Day:

They may cast their ballots without the knowledge that comes from later candidate debates (think of the all-important Kennedy–Nixon debates, which ran from late September 1960 until late October); without further media scrutiny of candidates; or without seeing how they respond to unexpected national or international events—the proverbial “October surprise.”, It’s Election Day in Montana, and Gianforte’s Assault Charge Might Not Even Matter, L.A. Times (May 25, 2017).

“>51

Mark Z. Barabak, It’s Election Day in Montana, and Gianforte’s Assault Charge Might Not Even Matter, L.A. Times (May 25, 2017).

But by that time, 70 percent of Montanans had already cast their votehttp://abcnews.go.com/Politics/republican-greg-gianforte-wins-montana-special-election-body/story?id=47652910.

and had no opportunity—if they thought this incident was important to their choice—to change their votes.

Gianforte won the election by 5.6 percentage points and a little over 21,000 votes.http://sos.mt.gov/Portals/142/Elections/archives/2010s/2017/2017-Special-Official-Statewide-Canvass.pdf?dt=1497555121034&dt=1497555299184&dt=1497892315130&dt=1501618127647.

Tom Nichols, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College, wrote a commentary in the New York Times whose title captured the concern that early voting raises: “Now Montana Knows Why Early Voting Is Bad.”http://apps.azsos.gov/election/2016/PPE/canvass2016ppe.pdf.

“>55

State of Arizona Official Canvass, 2016 Presidential Preference Election – March 22, 2016, Arizona Sec. of State, http://apps.azsos.gov/election/2016/PPE/canvass2016ppe.pdf.

As CNN put it, Kasich was beaten by “Rubio’s ghost in Arizona,” leading “some to question the utility of allowing weeks of early voting in a highly volatile primary in which candidates tend to abruptly leave the race if they have a poor showing in a key state.”2016 General Election Debate Schedule, USA Today (Sept. 23, 2015), https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2015/09/23/2016-general-election-debate-schedule/81238502/.

“>57

Cooper Allen, 2016 General Election Debate Schedule, USA Today (Sept. 23, 2015), https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2015/09/23/2016-general-election-debate-schedule/81238502/.

That meant that millions of voters throughout the country cast their ballots in early voting states before they had even seen all of the debates between the candidates. As J. Christian Adams of the Public Interest Legal Foundation says, “[E]arly voting produces less-informed voters.” After they cast their early ballots, “they check out of the national debate. They won’t care about the televised debates, they won’t consider options, and won’t fully participate in the political process.”supra note 32.

“>59

Much-hyped Turnout Record Fails to Materialize; Convenience Voting Fails to Boost Balloting, supra note 32.

The failure to do so “weakens civic cohesiveness.”supra note 58.

“>61

Adams, supra note 58.

As American University said in its 2008 report, early voting and other forms of “convenience” voting address a real problem—low turnout—but “with the wrong solutions.” The “participation problem is, at heart, not procedural but motivational.”Id.

“>63

Id.

Hans A. von Spakovsky is a Senior Legal Fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, of the Institute for Constitutional Government, at The Heritage Foundation.

[1]

John Doe No. 1 v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186, 224 (2010).

[2]

Id.

[3]

60 Ohio Laws 80, 80–84 (1863).

[4]

Tracy Campbell, Deliver the Vote: A History of Election Fraud, an American Political Tradition – 1742–2004 53 (2005).

[5]

Id.

[6]

Id. at 57.

[7]

Josiah Henry Benton, Voting in the Field: A Forgotten Chapter of the Civil War 78 (1915).

[8]

Robert Stein & Greg Vonnahme, Early, Absentee, and Mail-In Voting, Oxford Handbook of American Elections and Political Behavior (Jan E. Leighley, ed. 2010).

[9]

Absentee and Early Voting, Nat’l Conf. of State Legislatures, http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/absentee-and-early-voting.aspx.

[10]

394 U.S. 802, 807 (1969).

[11]

Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986, codified at 52 U.S.C. § 20301 et seq. The fact that UOCAVA treats some voters differently than others in making absentee ballots available only to Americans overseas is not unconstitutional. See Igartua De La Rosa v. U.S., 32 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1049 (1995); Romeu v. Cohen, 265 F.3d 118 (2nd Cir. 2001) (holding that Congress acted in accordance with the Equal Protection Clause in requiring States and territories to extend voting rights in federal elections to former resident citizens residing outside the U.S., but not to former resident citizens residing in either a State or territory of the U.S.).

[12]

Stein & Vonnahme, supra note 8.

[13]

Absentee and Early Voting, supra note 9.

[14]

Id.

[15]

Id. For a detailed listing of the rules in each state, see State Laws Governing Early Voting, Nat’l Conf. of State Legislatures, http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/early-voting-in-state-elections.aspx.

[16]

Michael P. McDonald, A Brief History of Early Voting, Huffington Post (Sept. 28, 2016), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/a-brief-history-of-early_b_12240120.html.

[17]

The Election Administration and Voting Survey – 2016 Comprehensive Report, A Report to the 115th Congress, U.S. Election Assistance Commission, at 8.

[18]

Id. at 12.

[19]

Ohio Democratic Party v. Husted, 834 F.3d 620, 623 (6th Cir. 2016), appl. for stay denied, 137 S.Ct 28 (2016).

[20]

Id. at 623.

[21]

Id.

[22]

Id.

[23]

Id. at 628.

[24]

Id. at 630.

[25]

Id. at 629

[26]

Id.

[27]

Brown v. Detzner, 895 F.Supp.2d 1236 (M.D. Fla. 2012).

[28]

Id. at 1239.

[29]

Id. at 1246.

[30]

Id. at 1254 (citations omitted).

[31]

North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory, 831 F.3d 204 (2016), cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 1399 (2017). In the denial of certiorari, Chief Justice John Roberts stated that there was a question over whether the petition for certiorari was before the Court. The governor, attorney general, and state legislature were disputing who had authority to represent North Carolina, with the attorney general attempting to withdraw the petition and the legislature attempting to keep the petition before the Court. The Chief Justice wrote that “[g]iven the blizzard of filings over who is and who is not authorized to seek review in this Court under North Carolina law, it is important to recall our frequent admonition that ‘[t]he denial of a writ of certiorari imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case.’” Id. at 1400 (citations omitted).

[32]

Much-hyped Turnout Record Fails to Materialize; Convenience Voting Fails to Boost Balloting, Am. U (Nov. 6, 2006), https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5A1lFQvBa-iMzJmOWI0OGItMTRlZi00MjQwLTk4YzEtY2QxY2Q3NjEzZmZk/view.

[33]

African-Americans, Anger, Fear and Youth Propel Turnout to Highest Level Since 1960, Am. U. (Dec. 17, 2008), http://www.american.edu/research/news/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=23907.

[34]

Id.

[35]

Id.

[36]

Barry C. Burden, et al., Election Laws, Mobilization, and Turnout: The Unanticipated Consequences of Election Reform, 58 Am. J. Pol. Science 95 (Jan. 2014), http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajps.12063/full.

[37]

Id.

[38]

Id.

[39]

See Voter Turnout Rates, U.S. Election Project, http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/voter-turnout-data.

[40]

More Studies Conclude that Early Voting Doesn’t Boost Participation, L.V. Rev. J. (Jan. 9, 2017).

[41]

834 F.3d at 639.

[42]

North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory, 182 F.Supp.3d 320 (M.D. N.C. 2016).

[43]

182 F.Supp.3d at 349.

[44]

Id. at 350.

[45]

Id. at 383 (citations omitted).

[46]

Id. at 384 (citations omitted).

[47]

African-Americans, Anger, Fear and Youth Propel Turnout to Highest Level Since 1960, supra note 32.

[48]

Burden, supra note 35.

[49]

Much-hyped Turnout Record Fails to Materialize; Convenience Voting Fails to Boost Balloting, supra note 32.

[50]

Eugene Kontorovich & John McGinnis, The Case Against Early Voting, Politico Mag. (Jan. 28, 2014), http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/early-voting-the-case-against-102748.

[51]

Mark Z. Barabak, It’s Election Day in Montana, and Gianforte’s Assault Charge Might Not Even Matter, L.A. Times (May 25, 2017).

[52]

Ryan Struyk & Riley Beggin, Greg Gianforte Wins Montana Special Election a Day After Being Charged with Assault, ABC News (May 26, 2017), http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/republican-greg-gianforte-wins-montana-special-election-body/story?id=47652910.

[53]

2017 Statewide Special Election Canvass, Montana Sec. of State, http://sos.mt.gov/Portals/142/Elections/archives/2010s/2017/2017-Special-Official-Statewide-Canvass.pdf?dt=1497555121034&dt=1497555299184&dt=1497892315130&dt=1501618127647.

[54]

Tom Nichols, Now Montana Knows Why Early Voting Is Bad, N.Y. Times (May 25, 2017). Gianforte pleaded guilty in June and received a six-month deferred sentence and no jail time. Merrit Kennedy, Montana’s Gianforte Pleads Guilty, Won’t Serve Jail Time In Assault On Journalist, NPR (June 12, 2017), http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/12/532613316/montanas-gianforte-pleads-guilty-wont-serve-jail-time-in-assault-on-journalist.

[55]

State of Arizona Official Canvass, 2016 Presidential Preference Election – March 22, 2016, Arizona Sec. of State, http://apps.azsos.gov/election/2016/PPE/canvass2016ppe.pdf.

[56]

Chris Moody, Kasich Lost to Rubio’s Ghost in Arizona, CNN (Mar. 23, 2016), http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/arizona-republican-primary-john-kasich/index.html.

[57]

Cooper Allen, 2016 General Election Debate Schedule, USA Today (Sept. 23, 2015), https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2015/09/23/2016-general-election-debate-schedule/81238502/.

[58]

  1. Christian Adams, Eight Reasons for Halting Early Voting, Wash. Times (Feb. 5, 2014), http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/5/adams-eight-reasons-for-halting-early-voting/.

[59]

Much-hyped Turnout Record Fails to Materialize; Convenience Voting Fails to Boost Balloting, supra note 32.

[60]

Kontorovich & McGinnis, supra note 50.

[61]

Adams, supra note 58.

[62]

Much-hyped Turnout Record Fails to Materialize; Convenience Voting Fails to Boost Balloting, supra note 32.

[63]

Id.

Authors

Hans von Spakovsky

Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow

This article is republished with permission from our friends at The Heritage Foundation.