Election Reform after HAVA: Voter Verification in Congress and the States

Palazzolo, Daniel J.; Moscardelli, Vincent G.; Patrick, Meredith; Rubin, Doug

doi:10.1093/publius/pjn013

Cited by 23 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…What motivates states to innovate in defiance of federal law? Past research demonstrates that internal demand, institutional capacity, and financial constraints are associated with state decisions to shirk the implementation of federal policy (Balla & Deering, 2015;Palazzolo, Moscardelli, Patrick, & Rubin, 2008;Regan & Deering, 2009); however, we take this a step further to test whether these dynamics hold in the case of states sabotaging federal law by defiantly innovating new policy. We find that, in the case of medical marijuana policy, policy adoption was most clearly associated with components of a state's ecological capacity (the initiative, evangelical rate, and citizen liberalism).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Defiant Innovation: The Adoption of Medical Marijuana Laws in the American States

Hannah¹,

Mallinson²

2017

Policy Studies Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diffusion research often characterizes the role of the federal government in innovation adoption as a supportive one, either increasing the likelihood of adoption or its speed. We examine the adoption of medical marijuana laws (MMLs) from 1996 to 2014 to shed light on what motivates states to adopt innovations that are in explicit defiance of federal law. Furthermore, we examine whether federal signals have any influence on the likelihood of adoption. In doing so, we utilize implementation theory to expand our understanding of how the federal government's position impacts state policy innovation adoption. We find mixed evidence for the influence of federal signals on the adoption of MMLs. The results suggest that medical marijuana policies are much more likely to be adopted in states when proponents have the political or institutional capital, rather than a medical or fiscal need. Moreover, this political capital is sufficient independent of the federal government's real or perceived position.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Defiant Innovation: The Adoption of Medical Marijuana Laws in the American States

Hannah¹,

Mallinson²

2017

Policy Studies Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other states kept DREs but required the addition of voter‐verified paper trails, devices that produce paper copies of the votes and allow voters to check them before recording the vote electronically. Twenty‐nine states adopted such requirements between 2003 and 2007 (Palazzolo et al 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Changing Nature … and Costs … of Election Administration

Montjoy

2010

Public Administration Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Changes during the last decade have significantly altered the nature of election administration and driven up its costs. Interviews with practitioner representatives from the elections community reveal a number of issues that continue to influence this field. Expense data from two counties illustrate how policy changes affect election costs. Scheduled ending of federal funding threatens a “perfect storm” in election finance that may undermine hard‐won advances from 2000 to 2010. Possible cost reduction measures as well as critical challenges facing election administration are forecast for 2010 and the years ahead.

show abstract

“…This should not surprise us. Partisanship has historically been enmeshed with election administration at all levels (Keyssar ; Valelly ), and it is a feature of contemporary election policy adoption (Hale and McNeil 2010; Palazzolo et al ).…”

Section: The Policy Setting: Election Administrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, these officials were required to respond to the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which created significant new requirements for voting and registration systems. Election officials in some states had to further contend with a backlash against the electronic voting machines that HAVA encouraged, leading to state mandates for additional protections when these machines were utilized, such as voter‐verified printed ballots or audit trails (Palazzolo et al ). States often added their own new requirements to HAVA‐based reforms or pursued unrelated reforms such as early voting requirements or voter identification laws (Hale and McNeil 2010).…”

Section: The Policy Setting: Election Administrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Administrative Burden on Bureaucratic Perception of Policies: Evidence from Election Administration

Burden

Canon

Mayer

et al. 2012

Public Administration Review

257

169

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article argues that administrative burden—that is, an individual's experience of policy implementation as onerous—is an important consideration for administrators and influences their views on policy and governance options. The authors test this proposition in the policy area of election administration using a mixed‐method assessment of local election officials. They find that the perceived administrative burden of policies is associated with a preference to shift responsibilities to others, perceptions of greater flaws and lesser merit in policies that have created the burden (to the point that such judgments are demonstrably wrong), and opposition to related policy innovations.

show abstract

Election Reform after HAVA: Voter Verification in Congress and the States

Cited by 23 publications

References 20 publications

Defiant Innovation: The Adoption of Medical Marijuana Laws in the American States

Defiant Innovation: The Adoption of Medical Marijuana Laws in the American States

The Changing Nature … and Costs … of Election Administration

The Effect of Administrative Burden on Bureaucratic Perception of Policies: Evidence from Election Administration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About