Pew's 2012 Index: Election Performance Improving, But Some States (Despite Progress) Still Lag
[Image courtesy of The Pew Charitable Trusts]
Pew’s election team has released the latest version of its Elections Performance Index based on 2012 data and the results show that overall, performance is improving – though not everywhere, and not equally. From Pew’s release:
Between 2008 and 2012, state election performance overall improved by 4.4 percentage points, according to The Pew Charitable Trusts’ latest Elections Performance Index, released today. The expanded index makes it possible for all 50 states and the District of Columbia to measure how well they conducted elections compared not only with other states, but also over time.
This annual study allows states to measure election administration by looking at such indicators as wait times at polling locations, availability of voting information tools online, rejection of voter registrations, problems with registration or absentee ballots, rejection of military and overseas ballots, voter turnout, and accuracy of voting technology …
Overall, 40 states and the District improved their scores in the 2012 election, compared with 2008. The scores of 21 states and the District rose at a rate greater than the national average, 19 states’ averages improved but didn’t keep pace with the national average, and 10 states’ performance declined.
Singled out in the report were the District of Columbia, which showed the greatest improvement despite still scoring low overall and Georgia, which saw its overall ranking drop based on 2012 data.
The report digs further into some state- and region-specific findings:
• 13 states offered online voter registration in 2012, compared with just two in 2008.
• Wait times decreased, on average, about 3 minutes since 2008. Florida had the longest wait and the largest increase in wait time in 2012–up 16.1 minutes from 2008 to 2012. Although both South Carolina and Georgia had long wait times in 2012, they also had the largest decreases, down 36.3 and 19.8 minutes, respectively.
• 18 states and the district reported 100 percent complete data in 2012, compared with only seven in 2008. Improved data collection allows analysts to more finely assess how well elections are run and how to fine-tune them.
• Overall voter turnout dropped 3.4 percentage points in 2012 from 2008. Turnout percentages in the Midwest and Northeast were higher than in the South in 2012. Two Midwestern states–Minnesota and Wisconsin–had the highest turnout rate in both 2008 and 2012.
• Although the percentage of eligible voters casting ballots dropped in 2012, compared with 2008, the rate of those deterred by illness or disability or because of problems with registration or absentee ballots also fell.
• More states offered online voter information tools in 2012.
• 30 states and the District required post-election audits of voting equipment performance in 2012, compared with 22 in 2008. Mandating a post-election audit allows states to ensure that voting equipment is functioning properly and delivering an accurate result.
• The highest-performing states–those in the top 25 percent–were Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Washington, and Wisconsin.
• The lowest performers–those in the bottom 25 percent–were Alabama, Arkansas, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Six of these–Alabama, California, Mississippi, New York, Oklahoma, and West Virginia–were also ranked at the bottom in 2008 and 2010, and Mississippi was the lowest performer in all three years tracked.
The report’s messages – that things are improving overall but not everywhere and even states showing modest improvement run the risk of being left behind – is consistent with Pew’s relentless push for modernization across the board in election administration.
The report and release, along with a full interactive of the 2012 data, are available here.
Kudos to The Pew team for all of their hard work on this project – and I look forward to a deeper dive on individual state and issue findings in the weeks to come!