Early voting: convenient, but...?

Busch, Andrew E.

Look at the TV pictures of eager voters, patiently waiting in line after walking six miles in the rain to the polling place. One thing you can be sure of: They're not in the United States. If there's any inconvenience at all, many Americans just don't vote.

With voter turnout declining steadily ftom 63 percent in 1960 to 50 percent in 1988, states have sought ways to increase participation by making it easier to register and more convenient to vote. The federal "motor-voter" bill of 1993 has increased the number of registered voters across the country, and reforms in two dozen states have led to a variety of "early voting" systems, including:

* Unrestricted (or "no excuse') absentee voting -- first used in California in 1978 and now used in a dozen states. Voters can apply for an absentee ballot for any reason and without notarization.

* Walk-in early voting -- first used by Texas in 1988 presidential elections. Seven states now use some variety. Voters can vote in person at their county clerk's offices or a satellite office usually 20 to 40 days before Election Day.

* Mail-ballot elections, permitted at the county level in 17 states (usually for local nonpartisan elections). All registered voters are automatically mailed a ballot. Nevada, North Dakota and Oregon have begun using it for statewide elections.

Although early voting proponents have framed citizenship primarily in quantitative terms -- that is, by rates of voter participation -- there are other important issues. What effect does early voting have on the ability of citizens to cast informed, well-reasoned and judicious votes? If people vote too early, will they miss important information that could sway their choice? Will early voting -- especially by mail -- erode our sense of democratic community?

VOTERS LIKE IT

The most obvious consideration of early voting is whether or not it succeeds in increasing the nwnber of people who vote. By all reports, it has proved to be quite popular. In California, approximately one out of every five voters casts an absentee ballot in general elections. Texas elections in 1992 and 1994 saw about one-third of the votes cast early. Polls indicated that voters in mail-ballot counties in Washington state supported the innovation at a rate of 7 to 1.

Despite the popularity of early voting, the effects on overall turnout are mixed. It is not yet clear whether the added convenience encourages new voters or simply makes voting easier for people who would have cast a ballot anyway. Looking at the percentage of registered voters who have voted in each of these states over time seems to suggest that the effects on turnout are minimal.

California, with the oldest unrestricted absentee program, has shown a broad decline in overall voter turnout since 1980. In general elections, absentee and precinct voting are evidently substitutes for going to the polls. Most absentee voters would have voted anyway, though this is less the case among primary voters.

Texas has the most experience with early walk-in voting. Tutnout remained stable in the first election using early voting, but then rose 6.7 percent from 1988 to 1992, approximately the same as the national increase. Midterm election tumout went up by about 3.5 percent from 1986 to 1990. Turnout in off-year local elections continues to hover around 10 percent to 20 percent, despite the option of early voting.

If there is a long-term effect on turnout, it is relatively modest and inconsistent. It will probably take several election cycles to thoroughly sort out this question. Many states have only recently adopted early voting, and many short-term increases have come at a time when turnout has been on the upswing nationally, even in states without early voting.

There does, however, seem to be a more substantial pattem of increased participation in traditionally low-turnout races when mail-ballot elections are used. A 1987 study of mail ballot elections in seven cities in California, Oregon and Washington indicated that mail-ballot elections produced increases of about 19 percent. In Washington's recent elections, officials in the secretary of state's office called mail-ballot elections "truly amazing." Turnout in the counties using mail ballots in the 1994 primary was 53 percent, compared with 38 percent in those same counties in 1990 and 33 percent in counties that did not use it. The two Washington counties that used mail-ballot voting in the 1994 general election saw turnout rise by 6 percent to 7 percent over 1990 (compared with a statewide increase of 1 percent). The few jurisdictions in Florida that have used mail-in ballots report high turnout. Collier County has seen unprecedented turnout of 65 percent to 80 percent for referenda elections since 1989.

In Colorado, mail-ballot voting has doubled or tripled turnout in local elections. A special school board vacancy election in Mesa County in early 1993 saw turnout rise from an average of 10 percent to an unheard-of 58 percent. Overall, the 29 Colorado counties that used mail ballots in 1993 had an overall turnout of 43.4 percent while only 27.6 percent of registered voters showed up at the polls in the other 34 counties.

Oregon election officials were pleased with the turnout in the nation's first all-mail state elections in December 1995 and January 1996. This special election and its primary were held to fill the U.S. Senate seat of Bob Packwood and saw turnout of 57 percent in the primary, the highest for a nonpresidential primary in Oregon history and far higher than the 43 percent recorded for the 1994 primary. Turnout for the special election was 66 percent, a bit lower than the 68 percent in the regularly scheduled 1994 general election, but much higher than in other special elections.

While most evidence indicates that mail-ballot voting positively affects turnout, there are exceptions. Clark County, Nev., reported a decline in turnout in its 1996 Republican presidential primary compared with 1976 and 1980.

VOTING FROM YOUR EASY CHAIR

Aside from the uncertain tufnout effects, early voting clearly has the potential to affect citizenship in a number of other important ways. These issues may be more difficult to assess than the sheer numbers of participation, but they are no less important and should be thoroughly considered by policymakers considering early voting. In the absence of clear turnout trends, other citizenship issues become that much more important. Two major arguments favor earlv voting from a citizenship standpoint, besides whatever statistical increase in turnout may be attributable to it.

Importance of local politics. Supporters of early voting can argue that it is particularly well-suited to enhancing participation at the local level. To whatever extent there are turnout effects, they seem to be greatest in local races. This is especially true of mail-ballot elections. When people participate at the local level, they can more easily gain hands-on experience in self-government. Even if early voting does not substantially increase turnout in national elections, it may have a positive effect by stimulating interest and participation in local elections.

Better-informed voting. Early voting proponents also argue that voters are likely to be better informed and to make electoral judgments more carefully. In this view, cited by election analyst Margafet Rosenfield, early voting "will force campaigns to get more information to voters earlier instead of waiting for a last-minute blitz." Voters using unrestricted absentee rules or participating in a mail-ballot election will also be able to review information about candidates and issues, and perhaps even discuss it with family members, immediately before voting at home.

Even in a walk-in setting, early voters have more time in the voting booth to consider their decisions. If a large percentage of the electorate uses the option, regular voters will have more time on Election Day because lines will be shorter. If early voting becomes common, last-minute campaign smears won't be as effective. Supporters hope that early voting will improve campaign discourse and information.

QUESTIONS OF CITIZENSHIP

There are two major arguments against early voting from a standpoint of citizenship and judicious voting. Citizens may vote too soon, perhaps before important information is uncovered. And early, vote-at-home methods may separate citizens even more from the political community.

Premature voting. Constraints on late information flow lauded by early-vote proponents could be a mixed blessing. Just as early voting might discourage last-minute smears, it might also prevent voters from taking into account late-breaking developments that should play a legitimate part in their decisions. In Texas, for example, the Dallas Morning News reported that "in 1990, significant changes in voter sentiment occurred during the final week of the campaign" when Ann Richards overcame Clayton Williams in the race for governor. Republican officials in Califomia complained in 1992 that hundreds of thousands of people had already voted before economic statistics were released in late October showing strong national economic growth.

These concerns seemed to be validated in the 1994 Colorado secretary of state's race. Both daily Denver newspapers -- the Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News -- initially endorsed the Democratic candidate, Sherrie Wolff, over her Republican opponent, Vikki Buckley. As the result of campaign controversies that included her misleading the press over her husband's tax troubles, both papers withdrew their endorsements in late October, 16 days after early voting had begun.

This turn of events seemed to have a substantial effect on voters. In two of seven representative counties reviewed, Buckley lost the early votes, but won the precinct votes on Election Day; in all seven, she did better on Election Day than in early votes. In those seven counties, Buckley averaged 55.1 percent of early votes and 60.2 percent on Election Day. This is all the more significant given that Republicans statewide tended to do much better among early voters than on Election Day.

A Denver Post column two days before Election Day pointed to the Wolff-Buckley race as an example of the problems associated with early voting, pointing out that the withdrawn endorsement came "too late for thousands of early voters."

Reduced sense of community. Many observers also have criticized early voting for reducing the sense of political community. Standing in line with neighbors to cast a vote on Election Day is one of the few civic rituals remaining in American democracy. Early voting destroys that ritual and undermines "a feeling of political cohesion." This problem is particularly acute in the cases of unrestricted absentee voting and mail-ballot elections. One party offidal in California has called his state's absentee program "a violation of the sacrament of democracy, which is walking or driving to your polling place and seeing the faces of your fellow citizens."

Gary King, a voter residing in Olympia, Wash., complained that the 1994 mail-ballot primary meant that "there was absolutely no sense of community." To King, mail voting felt "like paying a bill." It can be argued that this is hardly the sort of active, citizenship-enhancing local participation that we should desire.

Traditional absentee voting programs have recently fallen victim to fraud in several localities, most notably Philadelphia, Penn., where the courts ordered a reversal of a 1994 state Senate race because of rampant absentee voting fraud. Critics fear that liberalized rules merely increase the danger of fraud, especially in mail-ballot elections and no-excuse absentee voting. Proponents of the reforms counter that election officials have devised elaborate safeguards against fraud and that documented instances of fraud in early-voting jurisdictions have been minimal. San Francisco Registrar Germaine Wong testified before Congress in 1994 that "we have never had more than three voters who voted more than one ballot in an election." Nevertheless, even the perception that fraud is a real possibility might undermine public confidence in the electoral process.

IS IT WORTH THE RISKS?

Policymakers must weigh the possible advantages of early voting against the risks of premature voting, fraud and an erosion of our sense of democratic community. Mail-ballot elections, which clearly have the greatest potential for increasing turnout, also carry the most serious questions. Elections conducted purely by mail are probably most subject to the potential of fraud and threaten to reduce the act of voting to one of little more significance than returning one's Family Publishers Sweepstakes entry. So far, many of these questions have barely been considered in the rush toward voter convenience.

FOR 'NONE OF THE ABOVE' PRESS 7

In 1940, inventor Buckminster Fuller called for citizens to be able to use the telephone to vote on "all prominent questions before Congress." Today, a proposed ballot initiative in California asks citizens whether voters should be able to register to vote, sign petitions and vote through computers, telephones, kiosks, interactive television or any other device capable of transmitting a "secure digital signal."

No state has used phone or computer voting yet, but New Mexico is in the process of developing a multimillion-dollar televote system. The state is working with Sandia National Labs to develop the system. Televoting would like absentee voting. Citizens wishing to vote by phone would have to apply ahead of time and would have two to three weeks to phone in their votes before Election Day. New Mexico hopes to sell the technology to other states once its effectiveness has been proved.

Citizens of Boulder, Colo., voted on an initiative in a 1993 election that would have allowed them to vote using their telephones or computers. The measure failed, but locals are once again considering putting the electronic voting proposition on the ballot. The original initiative did not specify whether electronic voting would be conducted on Election Day or during the absentee balloting period.

Boulder's city council struggled with many controversial issues surrounding electronic voting when the measure was first proposed in 1993. Security, voter fraud and voter coercion were big concerns, as was the possibility of disenfranchising that segment of the community that lacked the needed technology. The initiative's supporters pointed out that every vote would be published; voters could compare their votes to the published results. The proponents also noted that phone voters are no more susceptible to coercion than absentee voters.

There is debate over whether electronic voting would increase voter turnout. Proponents of electronic voting generally emphasize that the elderly, poor and disabled would most appreciate the benefits of voting by phone or computer. On the other side are those who doubt that electronic voting would attract potential voters. They point out that the current process is quite simple, yet less than half of the registered voters turn out in most elections.

The main issue in the electronic voting discussion is the conflict between direct and representative democracy. Proponents of electronic voting see it as a way to bring government back to the people. Advances in communications allow people to voice their opinions on any issue almost instaneously. Electronic voting supporters would take advantage of this technology to permit the public to decide issues itself. Critics wonder what this will do to representative government. If the public can vote on any national issue merely by picking up the phone or logging onto a home computer -- what is an elected representative's place in the process? Electronic voting opponents also argue that some issues are too complex to be solved by feeling the nation's electronic pulse. Clicking a box on a computer screen oversimplifies the policymaking process, they contend.

The "virtual voting rights initiative" put these issues on the table in California this year, but failed to collect enough signatures for a place on the ballot. Marc Strassman, the initiative's proponent and the head of the Campaign for Digital Democracy, notes that California voters currently record their votes on computer punch card ballots, "so it's not like computers aren't used in voting now." He also points out that electronic voting is considerably cheaper than current voting and tallying methods. Los Angeles' 1995 municipal elections cost almost $13 per vote; Boulder's 1995 election cost approximately $2 per vote. In comparison, phone-in voting is estimated to cost 25 to 75 cents per vote intially and will cost less as installation costs are amortized.

Although the merits of electronic voting are still being debated, the technology is availability today. Considering that respondents to an October 1994 survey in Macworld indicated that the single service that consumers most want from the national information infrastructure is electronic voting, it promises to be a topic for discussion in political and technical circles for several election cycles to come.