Automatic voter registration (AVR) is a recent innovation in voter registration in the United States, passed by 18 states plus DC in the last 4 years. AVR has generally escaped partisan polarization about election reform, having passed in Republican and Democratic controlled states. Using a survey experiment in the 2018 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, we investigate effects of source cues about support of AVR from different party elites and from election administrators on the public’s expectations about AVR’s impact on turnout, voter fraud, fairness, and election problems. Our experimental results show an asymmetric partisan effect. When AVR is endorsed by Democratic leaders, Republicans (and independents) expect AVR to reduce the fairness and legitimacy of elections, while Democrats are generally resistant to partisan cues.
AdonaN.GronkeP. (2018). Understanding the voter experience: The public’s view of election administration and reform. Democracy Fund.
2.
AhlquistJ. S.KennethR.JackmanM. S. (2014). Alien abduction and voter impersonation in the 2012 US general election: Evidence from a survey list experiment. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy, 13(4), 460–475.
3.
AnsolabehereS.LuksS.SchaffnerB. F. (2015). The perils of cherry picking low frequency events in large sample surveys. Electoral Studies, 40, 409–410.
4.
AtkesonL. R.AlvarezR. M.HallT. E. (2015). Voter confidence: How to measure it and how it differs from government support. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy, 14(3), 207–219.
5.
BarberM.PopeJ. C. (2019). Does party Trump ideology? Disentangling party and ideology in America. American Political Science Review, 113(1), 38–54.
6.
BenteleK. G.O’BrienE. E. (2013). Jim Crow 2.0? Why states consider and adopt restrictive voter access policies. Perspectives on Politics, 11(4), 1088–1116.
7.
BialikK. (2018). How Americans view some of the voting policies approved at the ballot box. Pew Research Center.
8.
BiggersD. R. (2019). Does partisan self-interest dictate support for election reform? Experimental evidence on the willingness of citizens to alter the costs of voting for electoral gain. Political Behavior, 41(4), 1025–1046.
9.
BiggersD. R.HanmerM. J. (2015). Who makes voting convenient? Explaining the adoption of early and no-excuse absentee voting in the American states. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 15(2), 192–210.
10.
BiggersD. R.HanmerM. J. (2017). Understanding the adoption of voter identification laws in the American states. American Politics Research, 45(4), 560–588.
BowlerS.BrunellT.DonovanT.GronkeP. (2015). Election administration and perceptions of fair elections. Electoral Studies, 38, 1–9.
13.
BowlerS.DonovanT. (2007). Reasoning about institutional change: Winners, losers and support for electoral reforms. British Journal of Political Science, 37(3), 455–476.
14.
BowlerS.DonovanT. (2018). Partisan predispositions and public support for making it easier to vote. American Politics Research, 46(6), 971–995.
15.
BroockmanD. E.ButlerD. M. (2017). The causal effects of elite position-taking on voter attitudes: Field experiments with elite communication. American Journal of Political Science, 61(1), 208–221.
16.
BullockJ. G. (2011). Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. American Political Science Review, 105(3), 496–515.
17.
BullockJ. G.GreenD. P.HaS. E. (2010). Yes, but what’s the mechanism? (Don’t expect an easy answer). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(4), 550–558.
18.
BurdenB. C.NeiheiselJ. R. (2013). Election administration and the pure effect of voter registration on turnout. Political Research Quarterly, 66(1), 77–90.
19.
FairchildA. J.MacKinnonD. P. (2009). A general model for testing mediation and moderation effects. Prevention Science, 10(2), 87–99.
20.
FischerI. (2018). Who cares about your error bar? A survey experiment on visualizing uncertainty in politics [Unpublished senior thesis]. Skidmore College.
GriffinR.GronkeP.WangT.KennedyL. (2017). Who votes with automatic voter registration? Impact analysis of Oregon’s first-in-the-nation program. Center for American Progress.
23.
HaleK.KingB. A. (Eds.). (2019). The future of election administration. Palgrave.
24.
HasenR. L. (2013). The voting wars: From Florida 2000 to the next election meltdown. Yale University Press.
25.
HicksW. D.McKeeS. C.SmithD. A. (2016a). A bipartisan election reform? Explaining support for online voter registration in the American states. American Politics Research, 44(6), 1008–1036.
26.
HicksW. D.McKeeS. C.SmithD. A. (2016b). The determinants of state legislator support for restrictive voter ID laws. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 16(4), 411–431
IyengarS.LelkesY.LevenduskyM.MalhotraN.WestwoodS. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22(1), 129–146.
29.
KamC. D. (2005). Who toes the party line? Cues, values, and individual differences. Political Behavior, 27(2), 163–182.
30.
KaneJ. V. (2017). Why can’t we agree on ID? Partisanship, perceptions of fraud, and public support for voter identification laws. Public Opinion Quarterly, 81(4), 943–955.
31.
KarpJ. A.NaiA.NorrisP. (2018). Dial “F” for fraud: Explaining citizens suspicions about elections. Electoral Studies, 53, 11–19.
32.
KlarS.KrupnikovY.RyanJ. B. (2018). Affective polarization or partisan disdain? Untangling a dislike for the opposing party from a dislike of partisanship. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(2), 379–390.
33.
LeeperT. J.SlothuusR. (2014). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and public opinion formation. Political Psychology, 35(Suppl. 1), 129–156.
34.
MannC.B.GronkePAdonaN. (2020). Replication Data for: Framing Automatic Voter Registration: Partisanship and Public Understanding of Automatic Voter Registration. Harvard Dataverse. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/CDGXU2
35.
MondakJ. T. (1993). Public opinion and heuristic processing of source cues. Political Behavior, 15(2), 167–192.
NicholsonS. P. (2011). Dominating cues and the limits of elite influence. The Journal of Politics, 73(4), 1165–1177.
38.
NicholsonS. P. (2012). Polarizing cues. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 52–66.
39.
NorrisP. (2014). Why electoral integrity matters. Cambridge University Press.
40.
SlothuusR. (2016). Assessing the influence of political parties on public opinion: The challenge from pretreatment effects. Political Communication, 33(2), 302–327.
41.
SlothuusR.de VreeseC. H. (2010). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and issue framing effects. The Journal of Politics, 72(3), 630–645.
42.
UdaniA.KimballD. C. (2018). Making American elections great again: Immigrant resentment, elite rhetoric and public support for voter identification restrictions. ResearchGate.
WilsonD. C.BrewerP. R. (2013). The foundations of public opinion on voter ID laws: Political predispositions, racial resentment, and information effects. Public Opinion Quarterly, 77(4), 962–984.
45.
WilsonD. C.BrewerP. R. (2016). Do frames emphasizing harm to age and racial-ethnic groups reduce support for voter ID laws?Social Science Quarterly, 97(2), 391–406.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
