Palmetto Postmortem: Examining the Effects of the South Carolina Voter Identification Statute

Hood, M. V.; Buchanan, Scott

doi:10.1177/1065912919837663

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the waning months prior to the 2018 general election, eight county supervisors of elections (SOEs) opened oncampus early voting locations on public colleges and universities. Building on recent scholarship assessing the impact of administrative rule changes (Hood III and Buchanan 2019;Keele and Titiunik 2018;Walker, Herron, and Smith 2019; Keele and Minozzi 2012;Amos, Smith, and Ste. Claire 2017), our study complements research drawing on crosssectional and survey data to examine the effect of election policies on voter turnout (Springer 2014;Burden et al 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mobilizing the Youth Vote? Early Voting on College Campuses

Shino

Smith

2020

Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Might additional opportunities to cast a ballot prior to Election Day increase the probability that an individual turns out to vote? More narrowly, does convenience voting have differential effects, altering the method of how some registrants cast their ballot? Scholars disagree as to whether convenience voting bolsters turnout, or even if it alters the method of voting. We argue that the targeted adoption of early in-person voting on the campuses of public colleges and universities lowers the barriers of casting a ballot, increasing the turnout of young registrants. Drawing on individual-level election administration data from Florida in the 2018 general election, we offer a series of models (differences-indifferences (DD), differences-indifferences-indifferences (DDD), and matching combined with differences-indifferences) to estimate the effect of the expansion of early in-person voting on eight public campuses. Although we find uneven effects of the policy reform on overall turnout, we find consistent evidence that the adoption of on-campus early voting not only made it more likely that young registrants exposed to the policy turned out to vote, but that it also shifted the timing of when these young voters cast a ballot.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mobilizing the Youth Vote? Early Voting on College Campuses

Shino

Smith

2020

Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several studies conclude that the impact of voter ID laws on turnout is negligible (Erikson and Minnite, 2009; Mycoff et al ., 2009; Grimmer et al ., 2018; Cantoni and Pons, 2021). Others find that the strictest laws have a depressive effect, but do not find differences among racial and ethnic groups (Hood and Bullock, 2012; Hood and Buchanan, 2020). In keeping with this, using an opt-in survey of Native Americans, Herrick and Mendez (2019) find that voter ID laws and court cases related to American Indian voting rights have no effect on the participation of Native Americans.…”

Section: Relevant Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Battling the Hydra: the disparate impact of voter ID requirements in North Dakota

Barreto

Sánchez

Walker

2022

J. Race Ethnicity Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Minority voters have experienced a renewed effort to curtail their access to the ballot box in recent years. Although a host of research has examined the impact of election changes on Black and Latino voters, scholars have dedicated much less attention to the rights of Native Americans, even as they face challenges to voting in states where they comprise a significant portion of the population. Many of these states are likewise increasingly important to national elections. Such laws may impact Native Americans when they intersect with the political geography of living on a reservation, and voting rights advocates have challenged them in places like MT, NV and ND. This paper empirically evaluates how such laws might uniquely impact Native American voters. We draw on North Dakota's voter identification law as a case study, but our analysis has wider implications, since residency is the primary means by which election administration uniquely impacts this group. Drawing on two rich survey datasets collected in 2015 and 2017, we offer descriptive evidence of the barriers individuals may encounter while trying to obtain an ID under North Dakota's law, and find that Native Americans are statistically less likely to have access to an ID than are whites. This gap is largely due to the requirement that an ID has a physical address and attendant difficulties in obtaining such an ID, given the remote nature of reservations. We bring needed attention to the impact of carefully crafted electoral rules on this often-overlooked group.

show abstract

“…Although attractive in theory, cross-state comparisons of cast and rejected provisional ballots may elide administrative nuance and variance among voters existing within states. As with other recent single-state analyses of the effects of election administration procedures (Amos, Smith, and Claire 2017; Hood and Buchanan 2019; Mohr et al 2019; Walker, Herron, and Smith 2018; Herron and Smith 2013), our study of provisional ballots cast in North Carolina allows us to delve into election administration practices and the possibility of the unequal treatment of voters who are relegated to casting ballots of last resort. Although perhaps limiting the generalizability of our findings, our study raises new questions about the nature of provisional ballots that scholars would be wise to explore in other states.…”

mentioning

confidence: 91%

A Failsafe for Voters? Cast and Rejected Provisional Ballots in North Carolina

Merivaki

Smith

2019

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Provisional ballots constitute a failsafe for voters who have their registration or voter identification questioned by poll workers. Scholars have yet to examine who is more likely to cast a provisional ballot, and more importantly, why some provisional ballots are rejected. We suggest that beyond individual-level factors, there are administrative reasons why some prospective voters are more likely to be required to cast provisional ballots than others, and why some provisional ballots are rejected. Drawing on county data collected by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s (EAC) biennial Election Administration and Voting Surveys (EAVS) from 2012 to 2016, and individual records of provisional ballots cast in the 2016 Presidential Election in North Carolina, we examine aggregate- and individual-level reasons to explain who casts provisional ballots and why some are rejected. Our findings raise normative questions concerning whether voters casting provisional ballots are treated equally under the law.

show abstract

Palmetto Postmortem: Examining the Effects of the South Carolina Voter Identification Statute

Cited by 8 publications

References 34 publications

Mobilizing the Youth Vote? Early Voting on College Campuses

Mobilizing the Youth Vote? Early Voting on College Campuses

Battling the Hydra: the disparate impact of voter ID requirements in North Dakota

A Failsafe for Voters? Cast and Rejected Provisional Ballots in North Carolina

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About