Early Voting

Not so long ago, Americans assembled on one designated day — Election Day — to choose our national leaders.

For those unable to cast votes on Election Day, early voting and absentee ballots are available options. In-person early voting has the advantage of the individual citizen at a polling place after check-in by election officials.

Today, however, early voting periods have been stretched to absurd lengths, with some states beginning their voting for the November election more than a month or more in advance. There is no empirical evidence that early voting increases turnout, but it does have serious downsides, including:

    • Producing less-informed voters. After casting an early ballot, a voter checks out of the national debate regardless of what happens. They won’t care about the televised debates, won’t consider options, and won’t fully participate in the political process. Many voters have occasionally complained to election officials and representatives of a desire to recast their vote because they have changed their mind. In most, if not all states, this is impossible to do with early voting.
    • Increasing election administration and campaign costs. Elections that drag on for weeks require the logistical costs of administering an election, including more poll workers and salaries associated with the voting process.
    • Facilitating double voting and vote fraud. Counties that utilize early voting need to have the necessary technology to ensure simultaneous verification and record of vote history. Early voting allows voters to vote anywhere in the county, not simply in their precinct. The jurisdictions must have the necessary voting equipment, statewide registration system, and electronic poll book system to prevent individuals from voting more than once in the state or county during the early voting period. It is also more difficult for political parties to secure sufficient poll watchers to monitor polling places for an extended early voting period.

ACRU Commentary

News

The Voter Suppression Myth Takes Another Hit

Federal lawsuits against North Carolina claim that recent changes to the state's election laws will "suppress" minority votes. For example, in N.C. State Conf. of NAACP v. McCrory, plaintiffs assert that the new laws "impose a disproportionate burden on the ability of African Americans to vote" and will "raise costs for voters and deter participation." They highlight testimony by a former director of the State Board of Elections who asserted that the laws will "ultimately reduc[e] turnout in comparison to comparable elections." Turnout data for the 2014 election, posted Dec. 10 on the state's Board of Elections website, tell a different story. Black turnout and registration for the November 2014 election increased by every relevant measure compared with November 2010, the last non-presidential general election. Last July, North Carolina adopted electoral reforms that eliminated same-day registration, reduced the number of days of early voting to 10 from 17, and required ballots to be cast in a voter's home precinct. It also instituted a voter-ID requirement that will take full effect in 2016. Two sets of plaintiffs, led by the NAACP and the League of Women Voters, sued in federal court on Aug. 12, 2013. They were followed a few weeks later by the Justice Department. Attorney General Eric Holder asserted that the state's new laws would restrict "access and ease of voter participation" and "would shrink, rather than expand, access to the franchise." All three suits alleged that the reforms will inflict "burdens" on North Carolina voters--and in particular, on minority voters. These allegations were backed by reams of expert reports submitted by social scientists predicting that these burdens would depress voter registration and turnout. One expert in the Justice Department lawsuit claimed that more than 200,000 black voters, along with 700,000 white voters, would be "burdened" in an off-year election. Another expert concluded that particular provisions "will lower turnout overall" and "will have a disparate impact on African-American voters." Those predictions were not borne out. The 2014 elections were the first test of the impact of North Carolina's new laws, including a "soft rollout" of its voter-ID requirement--under which poll workers asked voters if they had ID and if not, to acknowledge the new requirement in writing. Board of Elections data showed that the percentage of age-eligible, non-Hispanic black residents who turned out to vote in North Carolina rose to 41.1% in November 2014 from 38.5% in November 2010.

Politician Whose Son Is Senator’s Chief of Staff Urges Supporters to ‘Vote Twice’

Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu's chief-of-staff was present at an event held a day before the midterm election in which his father, a Louisiana mayor, urged people to vote twice in order to re-elect Landrieu. The Black Conservatives Fund published video of the event, recorded on Nov. 3, showing Opelousas mayor Don Cravins Sr. telling a crowd that if they had already cast an early voting ballot in the election that they should vote again. "If you early voted, go vote again tomorrow," Cravins Sr. told the crowd which was gathered at the Charcoal Lounge. Cravins Sr. is a former state senator and Democratic Party operative. He is currently facing a run-off against another Democrat. The mayor's son is Don Cravins Jr., Landrieu's chief-of-staff. According to the Black Conservatives Fund, he was present at the event when his father urged voters to engage in fraud. "One more time's not going to hurt," Cravins Sr. says. "Tomorrow we're going to elect Earl Taylor as D.A. so he won't prosecute you if you vote twice."

Appeals Court Upholds Texas Voter ID Law

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Tuesday afternoon gave the state of Texas permission to enforce its strict voter ID law, finding that a federal judge's ruling last week barring the use of that law "substantially disrupts the election process . . . just nine days before early voting begins...next Monday." The three-judge panel commented that the Supreme Court "has repeatedly instructed courts to carefully consider the importance of preserving the status quo on the eve of an election." That was a controlling reason, it said, for permitting the law to govern voting in the remaining days before the November 4 election. Opponents on Tuesday immediately filed an application to the U.S. Supreme Court to block the law.

Supreme Court Upholds North Carolina Voting Law

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld North Carolina's new voting law, which cuts back on early voting and eliminates same-day registration. The ruling affects North Carolina, scene of a tight Senate race that could help decide which party wins control of that chamber for the final two years of President Obama's term. The justices reversed a federal appeals court's decision that would have allowed same-day registration and counted votes cast mistakenly in the wrong precincts. Those were among several other procedures eliminated by the state Legislature last year.

Courts Strike Down Wisconsin, Texas Voter ID Laws

The U.S. Supreme Court late Thursday blocked Wisconsin from enforcing its strict voter identification law in November's election. By a 6-3 vote, the justices granted an emergency appeal from civil rights lawyers, who argued it was too late to put the rule into effect this year. Lawyers for the ACLU noted that the state had already sent out thousands of absentee ballots without mentioning the need for voters to return a copy of their photo identification. At nearly the same time, a federal judge in Texas struck down that state's new voter ID law on the grounds that it violated the constitutional right to vote and discriminated against racial minorities. Texas Atty. Gen. Gregg Abbott said the state would appeal. The Wisconsin and Texas cases were the two most closely watched tests of new voter rules this year. In both states, Republican-led legislatures sought to tighten the rules for voting and to require all registered voters who did not have a driver's license to obtain a photo ID card at a state motor vehicles office.

Court’s Ohio Decision on Early Voting Could Affect Other States

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court delayed the start of early voting in Ohio on Sept. 27, a day before it was scheduled to begin, temporarily blocking a victory won by voting rights groups in lower courts. The decision has potential implications for other states, including Wisconsin, North Carolina, Texas and Arkansas, where state efforts to tighten up voting procedures are opposed by civil rights groups who say they disproportionately affect minorities. Ohio's was the first of those cases to reach the high court, and the conservative majority blocked lower court rulings that would have jump-started early voting Tuesday. Their action, opposed by the court's four liberal justices, reversed a federal appeals court decision that had blocked the state from reducing early voting from 35 to 28 days. The lower court also had ordered the state to restore some evening and Sunday voting that the Legislature had eliminated. Those reductions remain in place as a result of the high court's order. The justices invited the state to seek a full ruling on the merits of the case. If that request is denied or the state loses in court, the expanded voting hours would be restored -- albeit too late for this year's election.