ABSTRACT
Contemporary election reforms that are purported to increase or decrease turnout tend to have neg
ligible effects on election outcomes. We offer an analytical framework to explain why. Contrary to
heated political rhetoric, election policies have small effects on outcomes because they tend to target
small shares of the electorate, have a small effect on turnout, and/or affect voters who are relatively
balanced in their partisanship. After developing this framework, we address how the findings bear on
minority voting rights. We then show that countermobilization from political parties cannot explain
the small effects of election laws. We explain that even when a state passes multiple policies at the
same time, the reforms will still only have a marginal effect on turnout and an ambiguous effect on
whowins. Finally, we explain what policies should raise alarm about affecting outcomes.
- INTRODUCTION
Thirty years ago, Congress passed a law allowing eligible citizens to register to vote at departments of
motor vehicles. The debate leading up to the bill’s passage had several features familiar to anyone who
follows debates about voting laws: the law was passed largely on a partisan basis, it was accompanied
by accusations that the law’s supporters had a partisan motive, and it was subject to years of litigation
(‘Motor Voter’ After 5 Years, 1993). The actual effect of the law did not match the political rhetoric: after
the policy was implemented and scholars measured its partisan political consequences, they found
basically no change at all (Knack & White, 1998).
Election laws, in general—from voter identification and felon disenfranchisement to automatic regis
tration and no-excuse mail voting—are presumed to have the intent or effect of influencing who votes,
and, in turn, they are expected to impact partisan election outcomes. Such policies are highly polariz
ing. They are passed by legislatures along partisan lines and sometimes litigated in court. Many people
express dismay about laws they disagree with, arguing the laws have dire consequences for American
democracy, such as they generate fraud or they amount to “democratic backsliding”.
And yet, the reality of research on election administration does not support the dire rhetoric from
either side. Policies beget studies and evidence. And the evidence shows the laws have small effects on
turnout and essentially no effect on partisan advantage in a state. This is the puzzle we address: Why
do election laws bear such a modest relationship to who wins and who loses?