What would happen if voting by mail became compulsory? Laws allowing no excuse absentee voting are on the books in twenty-nine states. Enhanced voting options appear to be popular among voters; in the 2008 presidential election more than one-third of the electorate voted early, and in California's May 2009 statewide election a record 62.19% of voters cast their ballots by mail. These participation rates are notable, but in all but two states casting a ballot by mail is optional. As such, voters chose to cast their ballot by mail, thus the participation data are based on self-selected behavior. What would happen to registrants when they have no choice and are required to cast their ballot by mail? We answer that question in this article. In this study we exploit a natural quasi-experiment in California to test how the utilization of mail-only balloting affects the turnout of registrants. We analyzed the behavior of 97,381 individual voters across four elections from 2006 to 2008 and found that when all-mail balloting was implemented, the estimated odds of an individual registrant voting decreased by 13.2%.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AistrupJoseph A.2004. Constituency Diversity and Party Competition: A County and State Level Analysis. Political Research Quarterly, 57,2:267–281.
2.
ArceneauxKevin, KousserThad, MullinMegan. 2009. Get Out the Vote-by-Mail? Evidence from a Natural/Field Experiment. Paper presented at the West Coast Experimental Political Science Conference, Del Mar, CA, May 15.
3.
AtkesonL. R., Ann BryantLisa, HallThad E., SaundersKyle, AlvarezR. Michael. 2010. A New Barrier to Participation: Heterogeneous Application of Voter Identification Policies. Electoral Studies, 70:542–555.
4.
AvilaJoaquin, LeeEugene, A.Terry M.2006. Voting Rights in California: 1982–2006. http://www.renewtheVRA.orgRetrievedSept22, 2009.
5.
BarretoMatt, StrebMatthew, MarksMara, GuerraFernando. 2006. Do Absentee Voters Differ From Polling Place Voters? New Evidence From California. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70:224–234.
6.
BarretoMatt, SeguraGary M., WoodsNathan D.2004. The Mobilizing Effect of Majority-Minority Districts on Latino Turnout. American Politics Science Review, 98,1:65–75.
7.
BerinskyAdam J.2005. The Perverse Consequences of Electoral Reform in the United States. American Politics Research, 33,4:471–491.
8.
BerinskyAdam J., BurnsNancy, TraugottMichael W.2001. Who Votes By Mail? A Dynamic Model of the Individual-level Consequences of Voting-By-Mail Systems. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65:178–197.
9.
BullockC.S.III, HoodM.V.III, GonzalezJ.2007. Examining Methods for Identifying Latino Voters. Election Law Journal, 6,2:202–208.
10.
Deering's California Code Annotated. 2011. Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.
GerberAlan, KesslerDaniel, MeredithMarc. 2008. The Persuasive Effects of Direct Mail: A Regression Discontinuity Approach. http://electionupdates.caltech.edu/blog.htmlRetrievedJuly22, 2008.
13.
GiammoJoseph D., BroxBrian J.2010. Reducing the Costs of Participation: Are States Getting a Return on Early Voting?Political Research Quarterly, 63,2:295–303.
14.
GronkePaul, MillerPeter D.2007. Early Voting and Turnout: A Replication and Extension. Paper prepared for the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago IL.
15.
HanmerMichael J., TraugottMichael W.2004. The Impact of Voting by Mail on Voter Behavior. American Politics Research, 32:375–405.
16.
KarpJeffrey A., BanducciSusan A. 2000. Going Postal: How All-Mail Elections Influence Turnout. Political Behavior, 22,3:223–239.
17.
KousserThad, MullinMegan. 2007. Does Voting by Mail Increase Participation? Using Matching to Analyze a Natural Experiment. Political Analysis, 15:428–445.
18.
LauderdaleDiane S., KestenbaumBert. 2000. Asian American Ethnic Identification by Surname. Population Research and Policy Review, 19:283–300.
McGheeEric, SidesJohn. 2010. Do Campaigns Drive Partisan Turnout?Political Behavior 10.1007/s11109-010-9127-8.
21.
MeredithMarc, MalhotraNeil. 2008. Can October Surprise? A Natural Experiment Assessing Late Campaign Effects. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association annual meeting, August.
22.
RicheySean. 2005. Who Votes Alone? The Impact of Voting by Mail on Political Discussion. Australian Journal of Political Science, 40,3:435–442.
23.
RicheySean. 2008. Voting by Mail: Turnout and Institutional Reform in Oregon. Social Science Quarterly, 89,4:902–915.
24.
SouthwellPriscilla L., BurchettJustin. 2000. The Effect of All-Mail Elections on Voter Turnout. American Politics Quarterly, 28:72–9.
25.
SouthwellPriscilla. 2004. Five Years Later: A Re-assessment of Oregon's Vote by Mail Electoral Process. Political Science and Politics, 98,1:254–61.
26.
SouthwellPricilla. 2009. Analysis of the Turnout Effects of Vote by Mail Elections, 1980–2007. The Social Science Journal, 46,1:211–217.
ThompsonDennis F.2004. Election Time: Normative Implications of Temporal Properties of the Electoral Process in the United States. American Political Science Review, 98,1:51–65.
29.
WolfingerRaymond E., RosenstoneStephen J.1980. Who Votes?New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
30.
WolfingerR., HightonB., MullinM.2005. How Postregistration Laws Affect the Turnout of Citizens Registered to Vote. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 5,1:1–23.
31.
WongJanelle S.2005. Mobilizing Asian American Voters: A Field Experiment. Annals of the Academy of Political and Social Science, 601:102–114.
32.
WordDavid L., PerkinsR. ColbyJr. 1996. Building a Spanish Surname List for the 1990's—A New Approach to an Old Problem. Technical Working Paper No. 13, Population Division, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington D.C.
33.
YangMin, GoldsteinHarvey, HeathAnthony. 2000. Multilevel Models for Repeated Binary Outcomes: Attitudes and Voting over the Electoral Cycle. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 163,1:49–62.
