A number of scholars have recently argued that ballot order effects give certain candidates an unfair advantage in elections and have urged states to randomize or rotate the order of candidate names to make elections more rational and fair. This article suggests that advocates of reform have been too quick to concede that static ordering methods are nondiscriminatory. One common method of ballot ordering, arranging candidates in alphabetical order by their last names, disadvantages specific minority populations by pushing their candidates down the ballot. To substantiate this argument, I engineer two computer simulation experiments which show a significant link between ballot position and racial/ethnic status under alphabetic ordering laws. Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders are particularly burdened by these laws. Because courts apply a higher level of scrutiny to election laws that infringe fundamental voting rights than laws that merely regulate elections, the discriminatory impact of alphabetic ordering rules significantly bolsters the case to rotate or randomize ballot order.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbakoumkinG. (2011). Forming Choice Preferences the Easy Way: Order and Familiarity Effects in Elections. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(11), 2689–2707.
2.
AlvarezR. M., and HallT. E. (2010). Electronic Elections: The Perils and Promises of Digital Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3.
AokiA., and TakedaO. (2008). Asian American Politics. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
4.
BainH. M., and HecockD. S. (1957). Ballot Position and Voter's Choice. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
5.
BeazleyM. B. (2013). Ballot Design as Fail-Safe: An Ounce of Rotation Is Worth a Pound of Litigation. Election Law Journal, 12(1), 18–52.
6.
BrockingtonD. (2003). A Low Information Theory of Ballot Position Effect. Political Behavior, 25(1), 1–27.
7.
BrookD., and UptonG. (1974). Biases in Local Government Elections Due to Position on the Ballot Paper. Applied Statistics, 23(3), 414–419.
8.
BrooksR. C. (1921). Voters' Vagaries: The Value of Position on a Ballot. National Municipal Review, 10(3), 161–165.
9.
BullockC. S., and JohnsonL. K. (1992). Runoff Elections in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
10.
CarseyT. M., BerryW. D., NiemiR. G., PowellL. W., and SnyderJ. M. (2007). State Legislative Election Returns, 1967–2003. Dataset available at <http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR21480.v1>.
11.
EdwardsB. C. (2013). Formulating Voting Rights Act Remedies to Address Current Conditions. American Politics Research. doi: 10.1177/1532673X13499624.
12.
EidsonS. (2013, Dec.4). Meet Eugene Yu: Born in South Korea, This Long-Time Augusta Resident is Battling against Career Politicians for the Seat of Retiring U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss, Metrospirit. Retrieved from <http://metrospirit.com/meet-eugene-yu>.
13.
HoD. E., and ImaiK. (2008). Estimating Causal Effects of Ballot Order from a Randomized Natural Experiment The California Alphabet Lottery, 1978–2002. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(2), 216–240.
14.
IntronaL. D., and NissenbaumH. (2000). Shaping the Web: Why the Politics of Search Engines Matters. The Information Society, 16(3), 169–185.
15.
JohnsonA. J., and MilesC. (2011). Order Effects of Ballot Position without Information-Induced Confirmatory Bias. British Politics, 6(4), 479–490.
16.
KoppellJ. G., and SteenJ. A. (2004). The Effects of Ballot Position on Election Outcomes. Journal of Politics, 66(1), 267–281.
17.
KrosnickJ. A. (1991). Response Strategies for Coping with the Cognitive Demands of Attitude Measures in Surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 213–236.
18.
KrosnickJ. A., MillerJ., and TichyM. (2004). An Unrecognized Need for Ballot Reform: The Effects of Candidate Name Order on Election Outcomes. In CriglerM. J. A., and McCafferyE. (Ed.), Rethinking the Vote: The Politics and Prospects of American Election Reform. New York: Oxford University Press.
19.
MackerrasM. (1968). The “Donkey Vote.”. The Australian Quarterly, 40(4), 89–92.
MeredithM., and SalantY. (2013). On the Causes and Consequences of Ballot Order Effects. Political Behavior, 35(1), 175–197.
22.
MichelsonM. R. (2010). Majority-Latino Districts and Latino Political Power. Duke Journal of Constitutional Law and Public Policy, 5, 159–175.
23.
MillerJ. M., and KrosnickJ. A. (1998). The Impact of Candidate Name Order on Election Outcomes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, 291–330.
24.
MillerL. (2010). Election by Lottery: Ballot Order, Equal Protection, and the Irrational Voter. New York University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, 13, 373–405.
25.
MuellerJ. E. (1969). Voting on the Propositions: Ballot Patterns and Historical Trends in California. American Political Science Review, 63(4), 1197–1212.
26.
MuellerJ. E. (1970). Choosing Among 133 Candidates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34(3), 395–402.
27.
MurphyJ., HofackerC., and MizerskiR. (2006). Primacy and Recency Effects on Clicking Behavior. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 522–535.
28.
NakanishiD. T., and LaiJ. S. (2003). Asian American Politics: Law, Participation, and Policy. Oxford, UK: Rowman & Littlefield.
29.
OrtizD. R. (1989). The Myth of Intent in Equal Protection. Stanford Law Review, 41(5), 1105–1151.
30.
PanB., HembrookeH., JoachimsT., LorigoL., GayG., and GrankaL. (2007). In Google We Trust: Users' Decisions on Rank, Position, and Relevance. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 12(3), 801–823.
31.
RichW. J. (2011). Modern Constitutional Law, Third Edition, Volume I. Eagan, MN: West.
32.
RotundaR. D., and NowakJ. E. (2007). Treatise on Constitutional Law: Substance and Procedure, Fourth Ed., Volume II. St. Paul, MN: Thomson West.
33.
SchildkrautD. J. (2012). Which Birds of a Feather Flock Together? Assessing Attitudes About Descriptive Representation Among Latinos and Asian Americans. American Politics Research, 41(4), 699–729.
34.
TokajiD. P. (2005). New Vote Denial: Where Election Reform Meets the Voting Rights Act, The. South Carolina Law Review, 57, 689–734.
35.
VolcansekM. L. (1981). An Exploration of the Judicial Election Process. The Western Political Quarterly, 34, 572–577.
36.
WhiteH. (1950). Voters Plump for First on List. National Municipal Review, 39(2), 110–111.
37.
WilsonW. (1910). Hide-and-Seek Politics. North American Review, 191(654), 585–601.
38.
YoshinoK. (2010). The New Equal Protection. Harvard Law Review, 124, 747–803.
