Election Administration Finance in California Counties

Abstract

Over the past decade, the federal and state governments have made large financial investments to improve election administration, but there is little to no understanding of the real workings and implications of election administration finance. This article takes a first look at election administration finance by examining election expenditures in California counties for fiscal years 1992 through 2008 using a public sector cost model. Regression analysis shows that economies of scale and voting technology are significant determinants of election expenditures, as are other factors affecting the cost of the production of election administration. Factors that are expected to affect the demand for election administration are generally shown not to be significant. These results will hopefully be beneficial for policy makers as they face important decisions about changes in voting technology and election administration.

Keywords

election administration voting technology electronic voting public finance

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alvarez

R. M.

Hall

T. E.

(2005). Rational and pluralistic approaches to HAVA implementation: The cases of Georgia and California. Publius, 35(4), 559-577.

Alvarez

R. M.

Hall

T. E.

(2006). Controlling democracy: The principal-agent problems in election administration. Policy Studies Journal, 34(4), 491-510.

Alvarez

R. M.

Hall

T. E.

Llewellyn

(2008). Who should run elections in the United States? Policy Studies Journal, 36(3), 325-346.

Ansolabehere

Stewart

(2005). Residual votes attributable to technology. Journal of Politics, 67(2), 365-389.

Beck

Katz

(1995). What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data. American Political Science Review, 89(3), 634-647.

Berinsky

A. J.

(2005). The perverse consequences of electoral reform in the United States. American Politics Research, 33, 471-491.

California Secretary of State. (1988-2008). Statement of vote, primary and general elections. Sacramento: Office of the California Secretary of State.

California Secretary of State. (2002). Proposition 41: Voting Modernization Act of 2002. Retrieved June 21, 2006, from http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/vma/home.html

California State Auditor. (2004). Office of the Secretary of State: Clear and appropriate direction is lacking in its implementation of the federal Help America Vote Act. Sacramento: California Bureau of State Audits.

10.

California State Controller. (1993-1995). Annual report of assessed valuation of the counties of California as of September . . . for the fiscal year. Sacramento: State of California Office of the Controller.

11.

California State Controller. (1994-1996). Annual report of financial transactions concerning counties of California. Sacramento: State of California Office of the Controller.

12.

California State Controller. (1996-2008). State of California assessed valuation annual report. Sacramento: State of California Office of the Controller.

13.

California State Controller. (1997). Financial transactions concerning counties of California, annual report. Sacramento: State of California Office of the Controller.

14.

California State Controller. (1998-2008). Counties annual report. Sacramento: State of California Office of the Controller.

15.

California Voting Modernization Board. (2006). Voter verified paper audit trail (VVPAT) staff report. Retrieved from http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/vma/pdf/vmb/documents/staff_reports/vmb_vvpat_funding_staffreport.pdf

16.

Callan

S. J.

Santerre

R. E.

(1990). The production characteristics of local public education: A multiple product and input analysis. Southern Economic Journal, 57(2), 468-480.

17.

Caltech–MIT Voting Technology Project. (2001a). Voting—what is, what could be. Retrieved from http://www.vote.caltech.edu/2001report.htm

18.

Caltech–MIT Voting Technology Project. (2001b). Residual votes attributable to technology: An assessment of the reliability of existing voting technologies. Retrieved from http://www.votingtechnologyproject.org/media/documents/wps/vtp_wp2.pdf

19.

Chicoine

D. L.

Deller

S. C.

Walzer

(1989). The size efficiency of rural governments: The case of low-volume rural roads. Publius, 19(1), 127-138.

20.

Chicoine

D. L.

Walzer

(1985). Governmental structure and local public finance. Boston: Oelgeschlager, Gunn, & Hain.

21.

Donovan

(1989). Parties aggressively court absentee-voter bloc. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 47, 2894-2896.

22.

Dubin

J. A.

Kalsow

G. A.

(1996). Comparing absentee and precinct voters: A view over time. Political Behavior, 18(4), 369-392.

23.

Duncombe

Miner

Ruggiero

(1995). Potential cost savings from school district consolidation: a case study of New York. Economics of Education Review, 14(3), 265- 284.

24.

Hall

T. E.

Monson

J. Q.

Patterson

K. D.

(2008). The human dimension of elections: How poll workers shape public confidence in elections. Political Research Quarterly, 62(3), 507-522.

25.

Hamilton

R. H.

(1988). American all-mail balloting: A decade’s experience. Public Administration Review, 48(5), 860-866.

26.

Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California. (2006). Special elections in California. Retrieved June 21, 2006, from http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/library/HTSpecialElectionsinCalifornia.html#Topic3c

27.

Kimball

D. C.

Kropf

(2005). Ballot design and unrecorded votes on paper-based ballots. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69, 508-529.

28.

Liebschutz

S. F.

Palazzolo

D. J.

(2005). HAVA and the states. Publius, 35(4), 497-514.

29.

Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk. (2007). Multilingual voter services: English. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from http://www.lavote.net/VOTER/MULTILINGUAL/PDFS/MAIN_ENGLISH.pdf

30.

National Conference of State Legislators. (2004). Your state’s Help America Vote Act (HAVA) funding may be in jeopardy!! Retrieved June 29, 2006, from http://www.ncsl.org/standcomm/scbudg/elecreform.htm

31.

Public Policy Institute of California. (2007). Just the facts: California’s likely voters. Retrieved from http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_LikelyVotersJTF.pdf

32.

Public Policy Institute of California. (2008). Just the facts: Proposition 13: 30 years later. Retrieved from http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_Prop13JTF.pdf

33.

RAND California. California statistics: An online source for California and U.S. Statistics [Data files]. Retrieved March 11, 2011, from http://ca.rand.org/cgi-bin/homepage.cgi

34.

Shelley

(2003). My vote counts: California’s plan for voting in the 21^st century. Sacramento: Office of the California Secretary of State.

35.

Southwell

P. L.

(2004). Five years later: A re-assessment of Oregon’s vote by mail electoral process. PS, Political Science and Politics, 89-93.

36.

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2010). National income and product accounts table: Table 1.1.4 price indexes for gross domestic product [Data table]. Retrieved January 18, 2011 and June 21, 2006, from http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/index.asp

37.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2009). American community survey [Data]. Retrieved March 11, 2011, from http://factfinder.census.gov

38.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2006). Population estimates [Data file]. Retrieved June 21, 2006, from http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.php

39.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2008). About language minority voting rights. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/sec_203/activ_203.htm

40.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2011). Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Retrieved March 18, 2011, from http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/sec_5/about.php

41.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1997). Bilingual voting assistance: Assistance provided and costs. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/gg97081.pdf

42.

Verba

Scholzman

K. L.

Brady

H. E.

(1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.