Early Voting Changes and Voter Turnout: North Carolina in the 2016 General Election
North Carolina offers its residents the opportunity to cast early in-person (EIP) ballots prior to Election Day, a practice known locally as “One-Stop” voting. Following a successful legal challenge to the state’s controversial 2013 Voter Information and Verification Act, North Carolina’s 100 counti...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Political behavior 2019-12, Vol.41 (4), p.841-869 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 869 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 841 |
| container_title | Political behavior |
| container_volume | 41 |
| creator | Walker, Hannah L. Herron, Michael C. Smith, Daniel A. |
| description | North Carolina offers its residents the opportunity to cast early in-person (EIP) ballots prior to Election Day, a practice known locally as “One-Stop” voting. Following a successful legal challenge to the state’s controversial 2013 Voter Information and Verification Act, North Carolina’s 100 counties were given wide discretion over the hours and locations of EIP voting for the 2016 General Election. This discretion yielded a patchwork of election practices across the state, providing us with a set of natural experiments to study the effect of changes in early voting hours on voter turnout. Drawing on individual-level voting records from the North Carolina State Board of Elections, our research design matches voters on race, party, and geography. We find little evidence that changes to early opportunities in North Carolina had uniform effects on voter turnout. Nonetheless, we do identify areas in the presidential battleground state where voters appear to have reacted to local changes in early voting availability, albeit not always in directions consistent with the existing literature. We suspect that effects of changes to early voting rules are conditional on local conditions, and future research on the effects of election law changes on turnout should explore these conditions in detail. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11109-018-9473-5 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2058844499</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>48688551</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>48688551</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c404t-d799010729bd92e49bad3205032a9804930035792e157b995d07886d0dbf2dc43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEFLAzEQhYMouFZ_gAdhQfAWnWySTeYopVWh4KV6DdlmW7vU3ZrsHvrvnbKiN08Jmfe9N3mMXQu4FwDmIQkhADkIy1EZyfUJy4SmS1lac8oyEAgcZQHn7CKlBoAoaTN2N_Nxd8jfu37bbvLph283dcp9G45PdcyXQ2y7ob9kZ2u_S_XVzzlhb_PZcvrMF69PL9PHBV8pUD0PBpGcTYFVwKJWWPlAmRpk4dGCQkmp2tCIdqsQdQBjbRkgVOsirJScsNvRdx-7r6FOvWs62oAiHdlYq5RCJJUYVavYpRTrtdvH7aePByfAHetwYx2O6nDHOpwmphiZRFr6ZPxz_g-6GaEm9V38TVG2tFZrIb8BRSxong</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2058844499</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Early Voting Changes and Voter Turnout: North Carolina in the 2016 General Election</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>EBSCOhost Political Science Complete</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><creator>Walker, Hannah L. ; Herron, Michael C. ; Smith, Daniel A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Walker, Hannah L. ; Herron, Michael C. ; Smith, Daniel A.</creatorcontrib><description>North Carolina offers its residents the opportunity to cast early in-person (EIP) ballots prior to Election Day, a practice known locally as “One-Stop” voting. Following a successful legal challenge to the state’s controversial 2013 Voter Information and Verification Act, North Carolina’s 100 counties were given wide discretion over the hours and locations of EIP voting for the 2016 General Election. This discretion yielded a patchwork of election practices across the state, providing us with a set of natural experiments to study the effect of changes in early voting hours on voter turnout. Drawing on individual-level voting records from the North Carolina State Board of Elections, our research design matches voters on race, party, and geography. We find little evidence that changes to early opportunities in North Carolina had uniform effects on voter turnout. Nonetheless, we do identify areas in the presidential battleground state where voters appear to have reacted to local changes in early voting availability, albeit not always in directions consistent with the existing literature. We suspect that effects of changes to early voting rules are conditional on local conditions, and future research on the effects of election law changes on turnout should explore these conditions in detail.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0190-9320</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-6687</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11109-018-9473-5</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer Science + Business Media</publisher><subject>Ballots ; Counties ; Election law ; Electoral reform ; Experiments ; Geography ; ORIGINAL PAPER ; Political Science ; Political Science and International Relations ; Political Science and International Studies ; Presidential elections ; Race ; Research design ; Residents ; Sociology ; Verification ; Voter behavior ; Voter turnout ; Voting rules</subject><ispartof>Political behavior, 2019-12, Vol.41 (4), p.841-869</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018</rights><rights>Political Behavior is a copyright of Springer, (2018). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c404t-d799010729bd92e49bad3205032a9804930035792e157b995d07886d0dbf2dc43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c404t-d799010729bd92e49bad3205032a9804930035792e157b995d07886d0dbf2dc43</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/48688551$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/48688551$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,12824,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294,57992,58225</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Walker, Hannah L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herron, Michael C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Daniel A.</creatorcontrib><title>Early Voting Changes and Voter Turnout: North Carolina in the 2016 General Election</title><title>Political behavior</title><addtitle>Polit Behav</addtitle><description>North Carolina offers its residents the opportunity to cast early in-person (EIP) ballots prior to Election Day, a practice known locally as “One-Stop” voting. Following a successful legal challenge to the state’s controversial 2013 Voter Information and Verification Act, North Carolina’s 100 counties were given wide discretion over the hours and locations of EIP voting for the 2016 General Election. This discretion yielded a patchwork of election practices across the state, providing us with a set of natural experiments to study the effect of changes in early voting hours on voter turnout. Drawing on individual-level voting records from the North Carolina State Board of Elections, our research design matches voters on race, party, and geography. We find little evidence that changes to early opportunities in North Carolina had uniform effects on voter turnout. Nonetheless, we do identify areas in the presidential battleground state where voters appear to have reacted to local changes in early voting availability, albeit not always in directions consistent with the existing literature. We suspect that effects of changes to early voting rules are conditional on local conditions, and future research on the effects of election law changes on turnout should explore these conditions in detail.</description><subject>Ballots</subject><subject>Counties</subject><subject>Election law</subject><subject>Electoral reform</subject><subject>Experiments</subject><subject>Geography</subject><subject>ORIGINAL PAPER</subject><subject>Political Science</subject><subject>Political Science and International Relations</subject><subject>Political Science and International Studies</subject><subject>Presidential elections</subject><subject>Race</subject><subject>Research design</subject><subject>Residents</subject><subject>Sociology</subject><subject>Verification</subject><subject>Voter behavior</subject><subject>Voter turnout</subject><subject>Voting rules</subject><issn>0190-9320</issn><issn>1573-6687</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kEFLAzEQhYMouFZ_gAdhQfAWnWySTeYopVWh4KV6DdlmW7vU3ZrsHvrvnbKiN08Jmfe9N3mMXQu4FwDmIQkhADkIy1EZyfUJy4SmS1lac8oyEAgcZQHn7CKlBoAoaTN2N_Nxd8jfu37bbvLph283dcp9G45PdcyXQ2y7ob9kZ2u_S_XVzzlhb_PZcvrMF69PL9PHBV8pUD0PBpGcTYFVwKJWWPlAmRpk4dGCQkmp2tCIdqsQdQBjbRkgVOsirJScsNvRdx-7r6FOvWs62oAiHdlYq5RCJJUYVavYpRTrtdvH7aePByfAHetwYx2O6nDHOpwmphiZRFr6ZPxz_g-6GaEm9V38TVG2tFZrIb8BRSxong</recordid><startdate>20191201</startdate><enddate>20191201</enddate><creator>Walker, Hannah L.</creator><creator>Herron, Michael C.</creator><creator>Smith, Daniel A.</creator><general>Springer Science + Business Media</general><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20191201</creationdate><title>Early Voting Changes and Voter Turnout</title><author>Walker, Hannah L. ; Herron, Michael C. ; Smith, Daniel A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c404t-d799010729bd92e49bad3205032a9804930035792e157b995d07886d0dbf2dc43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Ballots</topic><topic>Counties</topic><topic>Election law</topic><topic>Electoral reform</topic><topic>Experiments</topic><topic>Geography</topic><topic>ORIGINAL PAPER</topic><topic>Political Science</topic><topic>Political Science and International Relations</topic><topic>Political Science and International Studies</topic><topic>Presidential elections</topic><topic>Race</topic><topic>Research design</topic><topic>Residents</topic><topic>Sociology</topic><topic>Verification</topic><topic>Voter behavior</topic><topic>Voter turnout</topic><topic>Voting rules</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Walker, Hannah L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herron, Michael C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Daniel A.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Political behavior</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Walker, Hannah L.</au><au>Herron, Michael C.</au><au>Smith, Daniel A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Early Voting Changes and Voter Turnout: North Carolina in the 2016 General Election</atitle><jtitle>Political behavior</jtitle><stitle>Polit Behav</stitle><date>2019-12-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>41</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>841</spage><epage>869</epage><pages>841-869</pages><issn>0190-9320</issn><eissn>1573-6687</eissn><abstract>North Carolina offers its residents the opportunity to cast early in-person (EIP) ballots prior to Election Day, a practice known locally as “One-Stop” voting. Following a successful legal challenge to the state’s controversial 2013 Voter Information and Verification Act, North Carolina’s 100 counties were given wide discretion over the hours and locations of EIP voting for the 2016 General Election. This discretion yielded a patchwork of election practices across the state, providing us with a set of natural experiments to study the effect of changes in early voting hours on voter turnout. Drawing on individual-level voting records from the North Carolina State Board of Elections, our research design matches voters on race, party, and geography. We find little evidence that changes to early opportunities in North Carolina had uniform effects on voter turnout. Nonetheless, we do identify areas in the presidential battleground state where voters appear to have reacted to local changes in early voting availability, albeit not always in directions consistent with the existing literature. We suspect that effects of changes to early voting rules are conditional on local conditions, and future research on the effects of election law changes on turnout should explore these conditions in detail.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer Science + Business Media</pub><doi>10.1007/s11109-018-9473-5</doi><tpages>29</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0190-9320 |
| ispartof | Political behavior, 2019-12, Vol.41 (4), p.841-869 |
| issn | 0190-9320 1573-6687 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2058844499 |
| source | Jstor Complete Legacy; EBSCOhost Political Science Complete; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts |
| subjects | Ballots Counties Election law Electoral reform Experiments Geography ORIGINAL PAPER Political Science Political Science and International Relations Political Science and International Studies Presidential elections Race Research design Residents Sociology Verification Voter behavior Voter turnout Voting rules |
| title | Early Voting Changes and Voter Turnout: North Carolina in the 2016 General Election |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-13T23%3A17%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Early%20Voting%20Changes%20and%20Voter%20Turnout:%20North%20Carolina%20in%20the%202016%20General%20Election&rft.jtitle=Political%20behavior&rft.au=Walker,%20Hannah%20L.&rft.date=2019-12-01&rft.volume=41&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=841&rft.epage=869&rft.pages=841-869&rft.issn=0190-9320&rft.eissn=1573-6687&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11109-018-9473-5&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E48688551%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2058844499&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=48688551&rfr_iscdi=true |