itAli Murji, Dylan Chow, Jehanzeb Khan, and Nicolette Tepeneu

Introduction

The United States has notoriously held the title for having one of the worst voter turnouts among developed countries. According to a report released by Pew Research, out of the 35 most developed democracies around the world, the United States ranked as 31^st in terms of voter turnout. Arguably, the U.S. held (it’)s its The possessive its was done correctly elsewhere through rest of paper most contentious and riveting election last year, yet only garnered a turnout of 56.9%, which means that approximately one in two eligible voters didn’t show up to the polls. In 2016, Britain also held one if its most polarizing elections (regarding Brexit), yet was able to have a voter turnout of 65.4%, almost 10% higher than that of the U.S. Is voting really less restrictive in UK? The low voter turnout in the U.S. can largely be attributed to the stringent voting laws that many of its states have. New York State in particular has been receiving a lot of national (spotlight) attention regarding its voting laws, especially since it drew the second lowest voter turnout in the Presidential Primaries of 2016 and had an investigation launched into its Board of Elections by the U.S Justice Department.

New York’s strict voting laws and archaic voting system have led the state to all-time voting lows. The graph below is a good representation of the recent voter turnout trends in New York and how they compare with the voter turnout of the top ten states.

As shown by the graph, comma here the Presidential Elections no caps for pres elections of 2012, no comma here had a voter turnout of only 53.2% in New York State. In New York City the voter turnout for the 2012 Presidential elections was 58%, a forty-year low for the city. Furthermore, at the local level New York has seen a significant decline in voter turnout as well. This trend can be best seen in the graph displayed below.

Voter turnout for New York City Mayoral Elections decreased significantly over the past sixty years, dropping from 93% in 1953 to 26% in 2013. Additionally, New York’s turnout for the midterm elections have been declining as well. In the 2014 midterm elections, New York State had an overall turnout of only 31%, and New York City had a turnout of only 25%.  Both were forty-year lows. The federal Election Assistance Commission, which reports voter participation to Congress biannually, ranked New York 46th, 42nd, 47th and 36th respectively in its last four reports. New York City’s low voter turnout can be attributed to four main issues: unfriendly registration laws, no early access to the polls, poor management of election day operations and inefficient systems of election administration.

Voter Registration

One of the primary causes for low voter turnout in the United States is low voter registration. In order to vote in state, local, or federal elections citizens are required to be registered by a certain date before the election. People can  register in person, by visiting a state-affiliated election facility, or by mailing their registration forms, postmarked no later than the registration date. Additionally, only 31 states, including the District of Columbia, comma here give voters the option of registering online. Considering this fact and that we are living in an age with great technological advances, 31 states is far too few.

Voter registration has been a hot topic and widely accepted problem across the United States. Many of the political pundits and history textbooks point to the Republican-controlled states of the south for their discriminatory photo identification laws and other policies that marginalize minorities and prevent them from registering to vote. States like Arizona, North Carolina, and Texas are often criticized the most for their voter registration requirements and are condemned rightfully so in many instances. However, one of the states with the most suppressive voter registration laws that is often overlooked is New York, ironically, one of America’s most liberal and Democratic states.

Although New York doesn’t require its residents to bring a photo ID with them when they are registering, it has several other policies that make many of its voters feel disenfranchised. Unlike 14 other states and the District of Columbia, New York does not have an option of same-day registration or SDR. This battle for SDR has been ongoing in the New York State government for more than 3 decades. Furthermore, New York does not allow pre-registration for young voters. The purpose of pre-registration is to register voters younger than 18 years old and to encourage younger voters to be more active in the political process, since they have consistently been the group that has the lowest voter turnout. 27 states have already passed legislation that establishes pre-registration policies for future voters younger than the age of 18,; semicolon here b/c 2 separate sentences some states even have pre-registration policies for residents that are as young as 16. Republicans have started using New York’s suppressive voting laws to defend themselves when they are met with criticism regarding policies they have attempted to enact in their states. When John Kasich was questioned for cutting early voting from six to four weeks before the election, he attempted to justify his position by pointing out that New York doesn’t even have the option for early voting.

New York’s voter registration policies that have garnered the most attention are its laws regarding registration for the Presidential primaries. In 2016 New York required its residents to register 193 days before the Presidential primaries that were held on April 19, 2016. That is more than six months prior to the actual election. It is also important to note that New York has closed primaries, explain closed and open primaries at the outset, for the reader so voters were required to choose a party affiliation by October 9th of 2015, which is before any of the major televised debates between the Democratic candidates, Bernie and Hilary, need comma even took place. Out of the 50 states in America, New York has the earliest registration deadline and is one of two states that requires its residents to choose a party affiliation in a year that is different than the actual primary. New York’s registration rules became highly controversial when many Bernie supporters felt disenfranchised because they couldn’t vote for him since they weren’t registered as Democrats. Moreover, New York’s registration for the primaries was so early that two of Trump’s children, Ivanka and Eric, need comma couldn’t vote for their father. New York’s early registration date for the primaries had a direct impact on its turnout for the primaries. New York’s voter turnout for the 2016 primaries ended being only 19.7%, need comma which was the second lowest in the nation.

The solutions to New York’s voter registration problems are clear, simple, and have the potential of rapidly changing New York’s voter turnout statistics.  Two of the key solutions to the registration problem are to implement automatic registration and/or same-day registration. Both of these solutions have evidence proving their effectiveness and have already resulted in greater voter turnout in several states.

There are multiple methods by which states have gone about automatically registering their residents. One of the more common methods is to automatically register all residents that have a valid driver’s license or state identification card issued by the DMV. Residents have the option of opting-out if they do not wish to be automatically registered. The benefits of automatic registration are profound. In 2015 Oregon was the first state to implement automatic registration and in the first year alone Oregon saw an increase in registration by 10 percent. 5 spell out number to start sentence, b/c otherwise confusing, looks like footnote  other states have followed in Oregon’s footsteps and have passed automatic registration legislation of their own while 29 additional states have considered measures to also implement automatic registration (New York can be added to this list as of January 2017) close parens. Do you mean NY can be added to list that are considering?.  Other benefits of automatic registration include reduced registration costs for states, more accurate voter registration lists and ultimately a more convenient and efficient process for voters.

Another highly effective solution that can drastically increase voter turnout is same-day registration. Same-day registration (SDR) is essentially when voters are given the ability to register and cast their ballots on election day, which has already been implemented in  14 states and the District of Colombia. Also, in 2014 voter turnout was approximately 12% higher in states that offered SDR compared to states that did not offer it. Seven out of the ten states that had the greatest voter turnout offered SDR, whereas the ten states with the worst voter turnout did not offer SDR. The graph below shows that states that offered same-day registration have consistently had a voter turnout that is at least 10% greater than the turnout of states that do not offer SDR. Furthermore, like automatic registration, SDR can prove to be very cost-effective and improve voter registration list maintenance.

Other solutions include allowing pre-registration for voters under the age of 18. More than half of America’s states have pre-registration programs. A statement released by the National Conference of State Legislatures cites a 2010 case study of Hawaii and Florida, which shows evidence that pre-registration leads to greater turnout among the younger generations. If New York acts now and passes pre-registration, it can reap the benefits of a more politically engaged and active future generation.

The good news is many of these of solutions have already been proposed by New York State and City officials, including but not limited to New York State Governor, no comma Andrew Cuomo, NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, and City Comptroller Scott Stringer. The bad news is that all of these policies need to be approved by the state legislature, which notoriously has had a track a record for stalling and not allowing many of these changes to be implemented. For instance, in 2014 the Democrat-controlled State-Assembly passed legislation that would establish 2 weeks of early voting, but the Republican-controlled State Senate blocked the legislation from passing.  Similarly, the battle for same-day registration in the state legislature has been ongoing since 1988, when Governor Mario Cuomo’s special task force recommended implementing same-day registration as a solution for low voter turnout . Furthermore, the existing power struggle between Democrats and Republicans in the state government has made it almost impossible to pass voter registration reform, but  New York’s future looks bright as there are more state officials supporting registration reforms.

Access to the Polls

Currently, New York is one of the states that fails to offer no-excuse absentee voting, early in-person voting, or vote-by-mail. The only form of early voting permitted under Article II, Section 2 of the New York State Constitution is absentee voting with excuse, which restricts access to absentee voting with a specific set of criteria (“The Constitution of the State of New York”).

At the moment, a plurality of states in the U.S. offer no-excuse absentee voting (Desilver and Geiger). This version of absentee voting allows every registered voter to request an absentee ballot regardless of his or her reason or desire to vote absentee. In New York, voters must offer one of the excuses seen in the image above to vote absentee.  As a result, groups such as the Office of the NYC Comptroller have criticized the restrictions for needlessly limiting access to voting and have recommended that no-excuse absentee voting be instituted to ease the voting process and potentially increase voter turnout (“Barriers to the Ballot”).

Theoretically, no-excuse absentee legislation increases turnout numbers by providing further options for New Yorkers currently inconvenienced by the restrictive absentee criteria or one-day voting, but the evidence on the issue is unsettled. In the 2010 Political Research Quarterly study that examined aggregate turnout levels at the county level, Joseph Giammo and Brian Brox found that the non-excuse absentee voting gives an initial bump in turnout numbers but then declines by the third election following its implementation (299). This indicates that despite the absentee ballot being used more frequently, it does not necessarily equate to sustained voter turnout increases on a macro level. On the other hand, studies have shown the convenience measures aid the turnout of historically disenfranchised groups, such as Americans with disabilities. Political scientists Peter Miller and Sierra Powell reveal in their study that voting procedures like no-excuse absentee voting increase the probability that voters with a disability will cast a ballot by mail. Moreover, this finding is especially significant because since they also found that people with a disability are much less likely to vote on-site than a person without a disability, despite having access to handicap accessible polling sites (Miller and Powell). As a result, handicapped New Yorkers who wish to make their voices heard could benefit by making voting laws less restrictive with no-excuse absentee voting. Another convenience measure New York should and is exploring is in-person person early voting.

Currently, 21 states in the U.S. offer in-person early voting (Desilver and Geiger). This policy allows citizens to cast their ballots at a voting location for an allotted number of days before an election without offering an excuse. In states where it is enacted, early in-person has proved to be an increasingly popular mode of voting. For instance, despite North Carolina cutting its early-voting days from 17 to 10, early in-person voting usage still saw a 34.7% jump in 2014’s midterm elections (Hannah and Schwartz). Additionally, Dianna Kasdan’s report for the Brennan Center for Justice outlines early voting’s increasing popularity in presidential elections, displaying its growth in usage by the top nine turnout states that have in-person absentee voting from 8.4% in 2004 to 14% in 2012 (7). Unfortunately, the impact of in-person early voting on voter turnout is still in question.

Notably, the study by Joseph Giammo and Brian Bronx in the 2010 Political Research Quarterly also found that the early in-person voting gives an initial boost to turnout but fails to sustain the increase long-term (300). Potentially, this suggests there is a novelty effect of early in-person voting that wears off after its introduction or that there are factors impacting the results outside of the study’s scope. Alternatively, research has shown that cutting back on early voting programs can disproportionately impact African American voters. In a 2015 article published in SAGE Journals, Russell Weaver concluded that proposed legislation to restrict early voting would disproportionately raise the cost of voting for African American voters in Ohio.  There in one of the studied counties, African Americans were approximately 26 times more likely than Caucasian Americans to vote early in-person in 2008 and 20 times more likely in 2012 (Weaver). Consequently, by limiting early voting to avoid financial costs, the costs of voting will rise for individuals and potentially harm voter turnout out because of inconvenience, especially for constituents of minority groups. Therefore, despite in-person early voting’s inability to consistently raise turnout on a general level, New York City should consider easing the cost of voting with early in-person voting, since it can help people who have been historically disenfranchised by the system and discouraged from voting. Another sensible convenience measure is vote-by-mail.

Out of all of the convenience measures for early voting access, vote-by-mail has shown the most promise in increasing overall voter turnout. In a vote-by-mail system, every registered voter automatically receives a ballot a few weeks before the election, which they can fill out and mail back or drop off at a designated location. Though Oregon, Washington, and Colorado are the only states to currently have implemented vote-by-mail, all of them have had success in bringing out voters. For example, in the 2014 midterm elections, Colorado and Oregon finished 4th and 5th respectively in percentage turnout, while Washington finished 2.6 percentage points above the national average (Board). Additionally, in a 2007 article published by the American Political Science Association, the researchers found that voting by mail had a statistically significant positive impact on voter turnout for both presidential and midterm elections, increasing turnout by 4.7% and 4.4% respectively (Gronke et al. 643). Legislators can also look abroad for the success of vote-by-mail systems. For instance, researchers of a study published in the Swiss Political Science Review found that between 1970 and 2005, the implementation of postal voting led to an increase in turnout of approximately 4.1%  in Switzerland (Luechinger et al. 167). Moreover, New York City should vigorously pursue mail-by-vote for all in order to seriously combat its relatively low voter turnout numbers on the basis of the evidence available.

Overall, our group feels it would be prudent for legislators to push for the three following bills currently being discussed in New York State government that push toward the goals of increasing overall turnout or aiding turnout of marginalized groups. Assembly Bill A3874B would effectively ensure absentee voting for all by removing the cause for absentee ballot voting (“NY State Assembly Bill A3874B”). Senate Bill S3813C establishes in-person early voting 8 days prior to an election, ensuring there is weekend access to voting prior to the election (“NY State Senate Bill S3813C”). Lastly, the legislature should consider Senate Bill S2739 that would initiate New York into the feasibility of voting by mail, among other methods (“NY State Senate Bill S2739”). Therefore, with these pieces of early access legislation that establish no-excuse absentee and in-person early voting and explore vote-by-mail, New York State can take huge steps towards creating a less restrictive voting system that raises voter turnout and empowers historically marginalized groups.

Election Day Operations

Election day operations play a huge role in increasing or in this case even decreasing voter turnout. In just the past primary elections, the attorney general’s office received a record number of complaints ranging from issues with poll workers to broken machines. During the recent primary day, the office received more than 1,000 complaints compared to the 150 complaints received during the presidential elections in 2012 (Millman). If voters are faced with issues such as poll sites opening late, long lines and inadequate training of poll workers, New York may continue to see decreasing voter turnout because these bad experiences could deter present and future voting.

Perhaps the most important issue under election day operations that needs to be addressed is enhancing poll worker recruitment and training. Over 30,000 poll workers are needed for election day, however, the New York City Board of Election has stated it has had difficulty finding and recruiting enough people (“Information for Pollworkers”). Besides just recruiting enough workers, they have to be properly trained in order to keep things running smoothly. Voting can be complicated and so when voters are confused or unsure of what to do, poll workers are supposed to be there to help them through the process. Thus, poorly trained poll workers who are unaware of the complex voting laws can burden voters and lower voters’ confidence tremendously.

Some of the most common problems that poll workers pose were highlighted in a 2013 report by the New York State Bar Association. These problems range anywhere from not knowing the proper procedures when in specific circumstances, such as what to do when a voter’s name does not appear in the registration book or using affidavit ballots instead of emergency ballots when a machine malfunctions, to failing to open polling places on time (“Special Committee”). In New York City, all poll sites are obligated to open at 6:00 am till 9:00 pm, however there have been numerous reports in the past where voters have had to wait on line anywhere between 30 minutes to an hour for the poll site to open. There are several steps that the New York City Board of Education can take to improve and expand recruitment and training.

First, it seems illogical and almost inhumane to have people work 16-hour shifts given they only hire people who can work the full shift. So besides having people who can work 16 hours a day, half-day shifts should also be implemented, that way people who can offer 8 hours a day can become poll workers. Not only will this make it easier to find and hire more poll workers, but it will also help avoid workers from being overworked as there have been complaints of poll workers sleeping on the job (“Barriers to the Ballot”).

In order to attract more New York City poll workers, their wages should be raised. Currently the wage is $200 a day, which is the equivalent of $12.50 an hour. However, the Office of the NYC Comptroller suggested it should be raised to at least $240 for a 16-hour shift or $120 for an 8-hour shift, which is equivalent to $15 an hour (“Barriers to the Ballot”).

Lastly, the Board of Elections is required by New York Election Law § 3-412 to conduct training for election inspectors, election coordinators and poll clerks on an annual basis (“State of New York 2016”). Nevertheless, high turnover rates translate to many first-time poll workers. As a matter of fact, during elections in 2015, up to 15% of New York City’s poll workers were on duty for the first time. In order to offset the inexperience, the election commissioners and Board of Education employees should be obligated to go to a mandatory training session within six months of appointment. Additionally, every year thereafter they should be educated about the changing procedures and voting laws. The New York State Board of Education would be responsible for establishing the curriculum as well as hosting an Education and Training Institute for certified poll worker training and train-the-trainer programs. Although this may be costly, it is important to provide adequate training as it will help alleviate problems voters are all too familiar with. So, in order to minimize the costs incurred by counties from the extra training required, counties should be reimbursed by New York State (Schneiderman).

Furthermore, to increase the number of possible poll workers and make it easier for the Board of Elections to find enough people, the State legislature should eliminate the requirement under New York Election Law § 3-400 and 3-401 that says poll workers must be registered members of either the Republican or Democratic party (“State of New York 2016”). In 2012, there was approximately 11 million active, registered voters in New York State, but only 8.1 million were registered members of the Republican or Democratic party. That leaves almost 2.9 million (26%) people who were either registered members of a smaller political party or unaffiliated, and hence unable to become poll workers (“Barriers to the Ballot”).

Another major concern that has continued to receive numerous complaints year after year is the ballot design and its legibility. Bad ballot designs can deter voting,  result in voter error and ultimately, loss in votes. Ballot flaws such as listing candidates for the same office more than once, instructions that are full of legal or election jargon, and difficult for many voters to understand, etc. have also decreased voter turnout. Under New York’s election law, the ballot design was drafted for older lever machines, instead of the optical scanner machines that are now in use today which use paper ballots (“Special Committee”).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moreover, due to New York Election Law § 7-104, New York City ballots are barely legible because the State Board of Elections is required to meet the full-face constraint. This requires that all ballots contain all candidates for each office and that all propositions appear on a single face or display at one time (“State of New York 2016”). As noted by the New York City Bar Association, most electronic voting systems do not use a full-face system and those that do are significantly more expensive, as a matter of fact only 2 voting systems use the full-face ballot and they cost about 60% more. These machines also have been criticized by disability advocates for the difficulties it presents for voters with cognitive disabilities (“Special Committee”).

Ballot designs should be improved in order to simplify ballots and avoid votes from not being counted due to errors. Precisely, the changes that should be made to the new ballot are as follows. First, require a minimum font size of 12 point for all the information on the ballot, as there currently isn’t any minimum requirement for the current ballots. Along with this, a more readable format should be included, such as sans serif type. Next, the instructions should be shortened and clarified using simplified English as well as having all the instructions at the top of the page with illustrations provided. Another very important change would be to try as best as possible to fit all candidates for an office in a single column or row. As of now, if the maximum positions needed for an office exceeds 8, then a second column or row is created for that office. This can result in a person mistakenly voting for a candidate twice as their name appears on two lines. As a result, the person’s vote will not be counted due to overvoting, consequently this proposed change will have a major impact on avoiding voter errors. Other things like different shades, borders, box sizes, and capitalizations should also be included to just help make the ballot easier on the eyes. These new set standards for the ballot will help ensure that New Yorkers vote with confidence and make less errors. On a side note, sample ballots should be made more readily available for voters, so that they may familiarize themselves more with the ballot and its instructions. This will hopefully reduce some of the errors that are made by voters when seeing and completing the complex ballots for the first time at polling sites (“Special Committee”).

In all, we evaluated two very important problems dealing with election day operations: poll worker recruiting and training and the ballot design. With the many problems brought forth in, we believe the solutions we provided would be the best approach to bring efficiency and avoid long wait times, while also being the most practical methods. Enhancing poll worker recruitment and training and making the ballot design more efficient is the crucial to increasing voter turnout.

Election Administration

Improvements in election administration serve as the final critical focus when evaluating methods to increase voter turnout. The New York City Board of Elections, which is comprised of bipartisan commissioners from each borough who are appointed by the City Council, controls low-level administration of the election process, overseeing many of the responsibilities previously mentioned that fall under voter registration, access to the polls, and election day operations. However, high-level administration of elections is controlled by the New York State Legislature, which is comprised of the Senate and Assembly. The elected representatives serving in the Legislature created the election laws that the Board of Elections enforces. As such, election administration in New York City begins with the State Legislature and ends with the New York City Board of Elections. The focus of this section will be on administration by the Legislature, which creates laws addressing issues such as language access, instant runoff voting, and state and federal primaries.

Expanding language access is the first and simplest step the Legislature can take to increase voter turnout. Language access encompasses measures such as the deployment of bilingual poll workers, advisory groups for voters with disabilities, and the printing of plain language ballots. By way of background, in 2013, the Supreme Court struck down a key section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 requiring the U.S. Department of Justice to clear changes to voting procedures. However, the Language Access Provision of Section 203 still holds that when more than five percent of the citizens of voting age are members of a single language minority or such citizens number more than 10,000, cities or states must provide translation of ballots. As such, New York City provides translations of voter information in English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, and Bengali. However, bills and proposals from the State Assembly, New York City Council, and other interest groups propose expanding Section 203 to include more language translations than just the top 5 most common in New York City.

While these efforts are admirable in that they advocate providing additional multilingual ballots and other election materials, the Legislature can take other, nontraditional steps to expand language access. For instance, current New York State law does not provide for bilingual poll workers to assist non-English speakers or advisory groups to assist voters with disabilities. Proficient English speakers, too, are affected by language access law in that New York State does not require that ballots be written in “plain language,” which alienates the 43% of American adults who read at basic or below basic levels. Plain language measures can easily be enforced with regular, pre-existing testing methods including paraphrase testing, usability testing, and controlled comparative studies.

Runoff voting, or the two-round system, in New York City occurs when no candidate for citywide office receives forty percent of the vote. In these cases, the top two candidates of the first round proceed to a second round, the results of which determine a winner. Runoffs are typically administered two weeks after the primary election and have the effect of reducing turnout and costing taxpayers millions of dollars. For example, in New York City in 2013, the runoff election for Public Advocate reduced turnout to 7% from 23% in the first round, and cost the city $13 million dollars. Inconvenience for the standard voter, lack of second round access for absentee voters, and the cost of new space, labor, and extra materials for the second round all contribute to low turnout and additional costs to the taxpayer.

The best alternative to this current system is Instant Runoff Voting, which allows voters to rank candidates by preference on a single ballot, eliminating the need for a second day of elections. While in this system the top two candidates continue to a second round as they would have in a runoff election – assuming neither reaches a forty percent majority – all votes cast for eliminated candidates in the first round are then applied toward the vote count of the remaining two candidates in the second round. Because voters are able to rank candidates in order of preference, during the second round, the final two candidates are allocated additional votes based on their rank on each individual ballot. Such a system is much more efficient than requiring that voters take time off again to vote on a second day – and with this efficiency comes lower costs to the city. San Francisco was able to successfully implement IRV in 2004 by advertising the change via direct mail, public transportation, media, and community groups. As a result of the city’s efforts, only three percent of voters did not understand IRV going into the first IVR election. While the change to Instant Runoff Voting would require the same amount of effort in New York City as it did in San Francisco, the benefits of lower costs and lesser inconvenience greatly outweigh any amount of money spent on an advertising campaign. Most importantly, voters would be more incentivized to vote in every round of every election. A number of bills supported by the State Assembly and City Council have been introduced to implement the change; however, no bill has officially passed.

New York State currently administers either two or three primaries every four years depending on the seats up for reelection that cycle: a primary for President, a primary for federal officeholders, and a primary for state and local positions. Each primary is held two to three months apart and the dates are chosen every year by Democrats and Republicans in the State Senate, who often disagree on which months the primaries should be held. Historically, primaries were all scheduled for one day; however, a federal court order in 2012 moved the congressional primary from the traditional September to June so that New York State would be in compliance with the federal MOVE Act of 2009, which requires that overseas military personnel should have absentee ballots at least 45 days before an election. As a result of the MOVE Act, the timeline of election law has been in flux because New York needs to send ballots much earlier than it did. However, in 2016, this meant that the two extra primaries cost the city an extra $25 million and cost voters extra time.

The next logical step is to consolidate state and federal primaries as New York State had done since the 1970s. While Instant Runoff Voting saves voters time and taxpayers’ money, consolidation would have an even greater impact on increasing turnout, especially because the national trend has been toward higher turnout for presidential elections than congressional, state, or local elections. By consolidating all primaries into one, voters have the opportunity to voice their concerns at all levels rather than just at the national level. One bill in particular is making its way through the Senate now, which would move non-presidential primary dates to August, when the Legislature is free from state budget negotiations and coincides with the end-of-year legislative session.

Conclusion

Overall, New York legislators should take a multi-faceted approach to increase voter turnout and create a more convenient voting process. In terms of increasing access to early voting, legislators should enact current Assembly and Senate proposals that striving toward no-excuse absentee voting, early in-person voting, and vote-by-mail. As for improving voter registration, New York should look toward expanding pre-registration for young voters and implementing automatic voter registration and same-day registration. Additionally, enhancing poll worker recruitment and training and making the ballot design more efficient can greatly improve Election Day operations. Lastly, improving election administration can be done by expanding language access, embracing instant runoff voting, consolidating State and Federal Primaries. Therefore, New York should combat the issues of low turnout and inconvenient voting practices by implementing policies that make access to early voting easier, registration less restrictive, operations less confusing, and administration more efficient.

Further Discussion

Beyond the legislative measures mentioned in the sections above, the issues of voter apathy and cost deserve further exploration. Anecdotally, numerous registered voters in New York, like people interviewed by Campbell Robertson of the NY Times, decided not to vote purely because of the seeming futility of voting in a rigged system or voting for the lesser of two evils (Robertson). Naturally, a larger systematic study of voter apathy in New York could prove to be beneficial and offer key insights to the root causes of New York City’s historically low voter turnout. Additionally, the costs of implementing voting turnout measures is an important factor that should be taken into account when considering enacting the legislation. To accomplish this, exploratory committees could be formed to conduct cost-benefit analysis on each proposal. This is to ensure the plans are practical both in terms of impact on turnout and cost. Hence, actions to study voter apathy and program cost are judicious steps to implementing more effective and targeted voter turnout legislation.

Work Cited

“2016 Election Administration & Voting Survey.” U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), www.eac.gov/research-and-data/election-administration-voting-survey/.

“About Language Minority Voting Rights.” The United States Department of Justice. N.p., n.d. Web. 

Annual Report 2013. The City of New York: Board of Elections, 2013. PDF. http://vote.nyc.ny.us/downloads/pdf/documents/boe/AnnualReports/BOEAnnualReport13.pdf

“Bad Ballot Design Results in Staggering Numbers of Lost Votes.” Brennan Center for Justice, New York University School of Law, 21 July 2008, www.brennancenter.org/press-release/bad-ballot-design-results-staggering-numbers-lost-votes.

“Barriers to the Ballot: Voting Reform in New York City.” (n.d.): 8. Comptroller.nyc.gov. Office of the New York City Comptroller Scott M. Stringer, Apr. 2016. Web.

Board, The Editorial. “The Worst Voter Turnout in 72 Years.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 11 Nov. 2014. Web.

“Voting Machines.” New York State Board of Elections, New York State Board of Elections, www.elections.ny.gov/VotingMachines.html.

BOE – About NYC Board of Elections. N.p., n.d. Web. 

“BOE Annual Report 2012.” Board of Elections in the City of New York. The Board of Elections , 2012. Web. <http://vote.nyc.ny.us/downloads/pdf/documents/boe/AnnualReports/BOEAnnualReport12.pdf>.

“BOE Annual Report 2015.” Board of Elections in the City of New York. The Board of Elections , 2015. Web. <http://vote.nyc.ny.us/downloads/pdf/documents/boe/AnnualReports/BOEAnnualReport12.pdf>.

Bureau, Jon Campbell Albany. “Three primaries cost county taxpayers.” Pressconnects. N.p., 05 Feb. 2016. Web. 

“The Constitution of the State of New York.” Search Results New York State Department of State. New York State, n.d. Web.

“Controlled Comparative Studies.” Federal Plain Language Guidelines: Controlled Comparative Studies. N.p., n.d. Web. 

DeSilver, Drew, and Abigail Geiger. “For Many Americans, Election Day Is Already Here.” Pew Research Center. N.p., 21 Oct. 2016. Web.

“Fact Sheet: Move Act.” The United States Department of Justice. N.p., 27 Oct. 2010. Web. 

FairVote.org. “New York City Includes RCV in State Legislative Agenda.” FairVote. N.p., n.d. Web. 

Flynn, Megan. “Absentee Voting: A Guide for Students.” Fordham Observer. N.p., 25 Sept. 2012. Web.

Giammo, Joseph D., et al. “Reducing the Costs of Participation: Are States Getting a Return on Early Voting?” Political Research Quarterly 63.2 (2008): 295-303. JSTOR. Web.

“Governor Cuomo Announces 9th Proposal of 2017 State of the State: Modernizing Voting in New York to Increase Participation in the Democratic System.” Governor Andrew M. Cuomo. N.p., 11 Jan. 2017. Web.

Gronke, Paul, et al. “Early Voting and Turnout.” PS: Political Science & Politics 40.04 (2007): 639-45. JSTOR [JSTOR]. Web.

“Information for Pollworkers.” BOE – Vote the New Way, Board of Elections in the City of New York, vote.nyc.ny.us/html/newway_en/info_pollworker.shtml.

“Instituting No-Excuse Absentee Voting In New York.” The New York Bar (n.d.): 13. Nycbar.org. Comitee on Election Law, May 2017. Web.

Justice, The Brennan Center for. “Automatic Permanent Voter Registration: How It Works.” Scribd. Scribd, n.d. Web.

Kasdan, Diana. “Early Voting: What Works.” (n.d.): 1-36. Brennancenter.org. Brennan Center for Justice, 2013. Web.

Lachman, Samantha. “Outrage Over New York’s Terrible Voting Laws Could Actually Do Some Good.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 20 Apr. 2016. Web.

Lerner, Susan. Election Administration: How Does New York State Compare? N.p.: New York Common Cause, Jan. 2017. PDF. file:///Users/nicolettehussain/Downloads/NYSElectionLawReport_FINALcorrected_31402_0_31420_0.pdf

Luechinger, Simon, et al, “The Impact of Postal Voting on Participation: Evidence for Switzerland.” Swiss Political Science Review 13.2 (2007): 167-202. Web.

Miller, Peter, and Sierra Powell. “Overcoming Voting Obstacles.” Journal.sagepub.com. SAGE Journals, 28 May 2015. Web.

Millman, Jennifer. “Broken Machines, Huge Lines, Missing Records Plague Voters.” NBC New York, NBC New York, www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Polling-Problems-New-York-New-Jersey-Connecticut-Vote-Report-Issue-400380091.html.

Mike McAndrew. “NY could save $25M if 2016 primary elections were held same day.” Syracuse.com. Syracuse.com, 02 Feb. 2016. Web. 

NYS Senate Democratic Policy Group Report. 7 Shocking Facts About New York’s Voting Laws(n.d.). Web.

“NY State Assembly Bill A3874B.” NY State Senate. N.p., 27 Sept. 2016. Web.

“NY State Senate Bill S2739.” NY State Senate. N.p., 27 Sept. 2016. Web.

“NY State Senate Bill S3813C.” NY State Senate. N.p., 27 Sept. 2016. Web.

“NY State Senate Bill S4110.” NY State Senate. N.p., 03 Feb. 2017. Web. 

“NY State Senate Bill S6604.” NY State Senate. N.p., 27 Sept. 2016. Web. 

“Online Voter Registration.” National Conference of State Legislatures. N.p., 31 Jan. 2017. Web.

“Paraphrase Testing.” Federal Plain Language Guidelines: Paraphrase Testing. N.p., n.d. Web. 

“Poor Ballot Design Hurts New York’s Minor Parties…Again | Brennan Center for Justice.” Brennan Center for Justice, New York University School of Law, 23 Oct. 2014, www.brennancenter.org/blog/poor-ballot-design-hurts-new-yorks-minor-parties-again.

“Preregistration for Younger Voters.” National Conference of State Legislatures. N.p., n.d. Web.Robertson, Campbell. “Millions on Election Day Make a Different Decision: Not Voting.”The New York Times. The New York Times, 08 Nov. 2016. Web.

Roth, Zachary. “Why Does New York Make It so Hard to Vote?” MSNBC. NBCUniversal News Group, 15 Apr. 2016. Web.

“Same Day Voter Registration.” National Conference of State Legislatures. N.p., 11 Jan. 2017. Web.

Schneiderman, Eric T. “A.G. Schneiderman Introduces Comprehensive Bill To Protect And Expand Voting Rights In New York.” New York State Attorney General, 8 Feb. 2017, ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-introduces-comprehensive-bill-protect-and-expand-voting-rights-new.

Seth. “STATS | Illiteracy Statistics and Demographics.” Statistic Brain. Statistic Brain, 03 Sept. 2016. Web. 

SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA v. HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. . N.p.: Supreme Court of the United States, Aug. & sept. 2012. PDF. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf

“Special Committee on Voter Participation.” New York State Bar Association. New York State Bar Association House of Delegates, 25 Jan. 2013. Web. <http://www.nysba.org/voterreport/>.

“State of New York 2016 Election Law.” Board of Elections in the City of New York. State Board of Elections, 2016. Web. <https://www.elections.ny.gov/NYSBOE/download/law/2016NYElectionLaw.pdf>.

Taylor, Adam. “Analysis | American Voter Turnout Is Still Lower than Most Other Wealthy Nations.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 10 Nov. 2016, www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/11/10/even-in-a-historic-election-americans-dont-vote-as-much-as-those-from-other-nations/?utm_term=.36e9b6376c10.

“Usability Testing.” Federal Plain Language Guidelines: Usability Testing. N.p., n.d. Web. 

Weaver, Russell. “The Racial Context of Convenience Voting Cutbacks.” SAGE Journals (2015): n. pag. EBSCOhost. Web. 5 Aug. 2015.

Webster, Hannah, and Benji Schwartz. “Early Voting in NC Midterm ElectionTops 1.1 Million.” The Daily Tar Heel. N.p., 4 Nov. 2014. Web.

Yee, Vivian. “Justice Dept. Seeks to Join Suit Over 117,000 Purged Brooklyn Voters.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 12 Jan. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/nyregion/board-of-elections-brooklyn-votes.html?_r=1.