Voter registration is widely viewed as a barrier to voter participation in general, and especially so for likely Democratic voters. A popular remedy for both turnout effects is election day registration (EDR), which eliminates the closing date by permitting registration at the polls. Following earlier research we posit a small positive effect of EDR on turnout. But contrary to conventional wisdom, we theorize that individuals most likely to take advantage of EDR are in fact Republican voters. To investigate these causal effects we make use of a natural experiment in Wisconsin. When EDR was implemented in Wisconsin in 1976, only municipalities that already required registration were affected by the change in the law. Analysis of this intervention shows that EDR did increase turnout in Wisconsin but actually decreased the Democratic share of the two-party vote for president.
AlvarezR. M.AnsolabehereS.WilsonC. H. (2002). Election day voter registration in the United States: How one-step voting can change the composition of the American electorate (VTP Working Paper No. 5). Pasadena, CA: California Institute of Technology.
2.
AngristJ. R.PischkeJ. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press.
3.
AnsolabehereS.KoniskyD. M. (2006). The introduction of voter registration and its effect on turnout. Political Analysis, 14, 83-100.
4.
BerinskyA. J.2005. The perverse consequences of electoral reform in the United States. American Politics Research, 33, 471-491.
5.
BriansC. L.GrofmanB. (1999). When registration barriers fall, who votes? An empirical test of a rational choice model. Public Choice, 99, 161-176.
6.
BriansC. L.GrofmanB. (2001). Election day registration’s effects on U.S. voter turnout. Social Science Quarterly, 82, 170-183.
7.
BrownR. D.WedekingJ. (2006). People who have their tickets but do not use them: “Motor voter,” registration, and turnout revisited. American Politics Research, 34, 479-504.
8.
BurdenB. C.CanonD. T.MayerK. R.MoynihanD. P. (2010). Election laws, mobilization, and turnout: The unanticipated consequences of election reform. Unpublished paper, University of Wisconsin–Madison, WI.
9.
BurdenB. C.NeiheiselJ. R. (In press). Election administration and the pure effect of voter registration on turnout. Political Research Quarterly. doi:10.1177/106591291143067110.1177/1065912911430671
10.
CalvertJ. W.GilchristJ. (1993). Suppose they held an election and almost everybody came!PS: Political Science and Politics, 26, 695-700.
11.
CitrinJ.SchicklerE.SidesJ. (2003). What if everyone voted? Simulating the impact of increased turnout in senate elections. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 75-90.
12.
ConantJ. K. (2006). Wisconsin politics and government: America’s laboratory of democracy. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
13.
DeNardoJ. (1980). Turnout and the vote: The joke’s on the Democrats. American Political Science Review, 74, 406-420.
14.
FensterM. J. (1994). The impact of allowing day of election registration voting on turnout in U.S. elections from 1960 to 1992: A research note. American Politics Quarterly, 22, 74-87.
15.
FitzgeraldM. (2005). Greater convenience but not greater turnout: The impact of alternative voting methods on electoral participation in the United States. American Politics Research, 33, 842-867.
16.
FranklinD. P.GrierE. E. (1997). Effects of motor voter legislation: Voter turnout, registration, and partisan advantage in the 1992 presidential election. American Politics Quarterly, 25, 104-117.
17.
HanmerM. J. (2007). An alternative approach to estimating who is most likely to respond to changes in registration laws. Political Behavior, 29, 1-30.
18.
HanmerM. J. (2009). Discount voting: Voter registration reforms and their effects. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
19.
HansfordT. G.GomezB. T. (2010). Estimating the electoral effects of voter turnout. American Political Science Review, 104, 268-288.
20.
HaydukR. (2005). Gatekeepers to the franchise: Shaping election administration in New York. De Kalb: Northern Illinois University Press.
21.
HightonB. (1997). Easy registration and voter turnout. Journal of Politics, 59, 565-575.
22.
HightonB.WolfingerR. E. (1998). Estimating the effects of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. Political Behavior, 20, 79-104.
23.
HightonB.WolfingerR. E. (2001). The political implications of higher turnout. British Journal of Political Science, 31, 179-192.
24.
HoechleD. (2007). Robust standard errors for panel regressions with cross-sectional dependence. Stata Journal, 7, 281-312.
25.
HuefnerS. F.TokajiD. P.FoleyE. B. (with CemenskaN. A.). (2007). From registration to recounts: The election ecosystems of five Midwestern states. Columbus: The Ohio State University Michael Moritz School of Law.
26.
KeeleL.MinozziW. (2010). How much is Minnesota like Wisconsin? States as counterfactuals. Unpublished paper, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
27.
KeyssarA. (2000). The right to vote: The contested history of democracy in the United States. New York, NY: Basic Books.
28.
KingJ. D. (1994). Political culture, registration laws, and voter turnout among the American states. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 24, 115-127.
29.
KingJ. D.WambeamR. A. (1995/1996). Impact of Election Day Registration on voter turnout: A quasi-experimental analysis. Policy Studies Review, 14, 263-278.
30.
KnackS. (1995). Does “Motor-voter” work? Evidence from state-level data. Journal of Politics, 57, 796-811.
31.
KnackS. (2001). Election day registration: The second wave. American Politics Research, 29, 65-78.
32.
KnackS.WhiteJ. (1998). Did states’ motor voter programs help the Democrats?American Politics Research, 26, 344-365.
33.
KnackS.WhiteJ. (2000). Election day registration and turnout inequality. Political Behavior, 22, 29-44.
34.
LacyD.BurdenB. C. (1999). The vote-stealing and turnout effects of Ross Perot in the 1992 U.S. presidential election. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 233-255.
35.
LeeD. S.LemieuxT. (2010). Regression discontinuity designs in economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 48, 281-355.
36.
LevenduskyM. S.PopeJ. C.JackmanS. D. (2008). Measuring district-level partisanship with implications for the analysis of U.S. elections. Journal of Politics, 70, 736-753.
37.
MartinezM. D.HillD. (1999). Did motor voter work?American Politics Quarterly, 27, 296-315.
38.
McDonaldM. P.PopkinS. L. (2001). The myth of the vanishing voter. American Political Science Review, 95, 963-974.
39.
MitchellG. E.WlezienC. (1995). The impact of legal restraints on voter registration, turnout, and the composition of the American electorate. Political Behavior, 17, 179-202.
40.
NallC. (2010). The road to conflict: How the interstate highway system divided communities and polarized politics. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
41.
Nicholson-CrottyS.MeierK. J. (2002). Size doesn’t matter: In defense of single-state studies. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 2, 411-422.
42.
NiemiR. G.AbramowitzA. I. (1994). Partisan redistricting and the 1992 congressional elections. Journal of Politics, 56, 811-817.
43.
RhineS. L. (1995). Registration reform and turnout change in the American states. American Politics Research, 23, 409-426.
44.
RhineS. L. (1996). An analysis of the impact of registration factors on turnout in 1992. Political Behavior, 18, 171-185.
45.
RigbyE.SpringerM. J. (2011). Does electoral reform increase (or decrease) political equality?Political Research Quarterly, 64, 420-434
46.
RosenstoneS. J.HansenJ. M. (2003). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York, NY: Pearson-Longman. (Original work published 1993)
47.
SchafferM. E.StillmanS. (2006). XTOVERID: Stata module to calculate tests of overidentifying restrictions after xtreg, xtivreg, xtivreg2, xthtaylor (Statistical Software Components S456779). Boston, MA: Boston College Department of Economics
48.
SchneiderW. (1985). The November 6 vote for president: What did it mean? In RanneyA. (Ed.), The American elections of 1984 (pp. 203-244). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
49.
SmolkaR. G. (1977). Election day registration: The Minnesota and Wisconsin experience in 1976. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
50.
SquireP.WolfingerR. E.GlassD. P. (1987). Residential mobility and voter turnout. American Political Science Review, 81, 45-65.
51.
SwainJ. W.BorrelliS. A.ReedB. C. (1998). Partisan consequences of the post-1990 redistricting for the U.S. House of Representatives. Political Research Quarterly, 51, 945-967.
52.
WernerT. (2011). The sound, the fury, and the nonevent: Business power and market reactions to the Citizens United decision. American Politics Research, 39, 118-141.
53.
Wisconsin State Elections Board. (1979). Election and campaign manual (Document ECM-9 [1179]). Madison, WI: Author.
54.
Wisconsin State Elections Board. (1980). Election and campaign manual (Document ECM-9 [5180]). Madison, WI: Author.
55.
WolfingerR. E.HightonB.MullinM. (2005). How postregistration laws affect the turnout of citizens registered to vote. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 5, 1-23.
56.
WolfingerR. E.RosenstoneS. J. (1980). Who votes?New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
57.
WooldridgeJ. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
