Poll Workers, Election Administration, and the Problem of Implicit Bias

Abstract

Racial bias in election administration-more specifically, in the interaction between poll workers and voters at a polling place on election day-may be implicit, or unconscious. Indeed, the operation of a polling place may present an "optimal" setting for unconscious racial bias. Poll workers sometimes have legal discretion to decide whether or not a prospective voter gets to cast a ballot, and they operate in an environment where they may have to make quick decisions, based on little information, with few concrete incentives for accuracy, and with little opportunity to learn from their errors. Even where the letter of the law does not explicitly allow for a poll worker to exercise discretion, there is a strong possibility that unconscious bias could play a role in poll worker decision-making. Wihether a poll workers' discretion is de jure or de facto, the result may be race-based discrimination between prospective voters. This Article addresses how unconscious bias may play a role in the interaction between poll workers and prospective voters and discusses some ways in which the potential for unconscious bias to operate in America's polling places may be mitigated.

Who Asks For Voter Identification? Explaining Poll-Worker Discretion

“…Furthermore, there is some research that finds that voter confidence can influence turnout (Alvarez, Hall, and Llewellyn 2008;Kerevel 2009), suggesting that pollworker discretion can have substantial consequences for voters. Second, previous research has suggested certain groups of voters may be disproportionately impacted by poll-worker discretion in the application of voter identification laws (Ansolabehere 2009;Cobb et al 2012;Page and Pitts 2009). If poll workers can use their discretion to discriminate against particular voters, as feared by Page and Pitts (2009), policy makers may wish to consider election reforms that restrict the ability of poll workers to use their own discretion in deciding what type of identification to accept from voters.…”

“…Second, previous research has suggested certain groups of voters may be disproportionately impacted by poll-worker discretion in the application of voter identification laws (Ansolabehere 2009;Cobb et al 2012;Page and Pitts 2009). If poll workers can use their discretion to discriminate against particular voters, as feared by Page and Pitts (2009), policy makers may wish to consider election reforms that restrict the ability of poll workers to use their own discretion in deciding what type of identification to accept from voters. Clear guidelines and procedures that prevent poll workers from using their discretion are likely the best way for this to be achieved.…”

Predicting ethnic and racial discrimination: A meta-analysis of IAT criterion studies.

“…In courtrooms, expert witnesses invoke IAT research to support the proposition that unconscious bias is a pervasive cause of employment discrimination (Greenwald, 2006; Scheck, 2004). Law professors (e.g., Kang, 2005; Page & Pitts, 2009; Shin, 2010) and sitting federal judges (Bennett, 2010) cite IAT research conclusions as grounds for changing laws. Indeed, the National Center for State Courts and the American Bar Association have launched programs to educate judges, lawyers, and court administrators on the dangers of implicit bias in the legal system, and many of the lessons in these programs are drawn directly from the IAT literature (Drummond, 2011; Irwin & Real, 2010).…”

Can Voter ID Laws Be Administered in a Race-Neutral Manner? Evidence from the City of Boston in 2008

“…What explains our results? Following Page and Pitts (2009), we hypothesize that a plausible explanation is unconscious 15 stereotyping or assumptions on the part of poll workers, the street level bureaucrats (Lipsky, 1980) charged with administering election laws. Rarely are poll workers even considered an arm of the state, or ''as provider[s] of a service, even though they clearly operate as extensions of a government agency and do provide a service to the voter'' (Hall et al, 2008).…”

“…As Page and Pitts (2009) suggest, such trying circumstances provide a setting in which subconscious assumptions regarding race and the need for additional verification of eligibility may operate.…”