THE IMPACT OF STATE LAWS ON THE VOTER TURNOUT OF YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE 2010 MIDTERM ELECTION IN THE UNITED STATES By: SIERRA RAYE YAMANAKA A Thesis Submitted to The Honors College In Partial Fulfillment of the Bachelors degree With Honors in Political Science THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA MAY 2 0 1 6 Approved by: Dr. Barbara rrander School of Government and Public Policy
Yamanaka 2 Table of Contents Abstract 3 Introduction..... 4 State Laws.8 State Law Summary... 12 Methodology 14 Results..15 Conclusion Findings 23 Suggestions for Further Research.25 Concluding Observations...26 References....27
Yamanaka 3 Abstract: Young people, particularly those aged 18-30 tend to not be as involved or interested in the political process as older adults. More young people are not identifying with a particular party, and are less active than other adults in politics as a whole. Participation goes beyond voting, though that is a key component. It would also include paying attention to news involving government and politics and participating in some form of campaign activity. This paper seeks to expose the contributing factors to the trend of a lack of youth participation, specifically looking at various state laws and their implications on the registration and voting process. It will then examine the empirical evidence of turnout and participation in the 2010 midterm election cycle and offer solutions to increasing youth participation.
Yamanaka 4 Introduction Young people have a history of having less engagement with the political process than other older generations. Eighteen year olds have only had the right to vote for 44 years, since the 26 th Amendment was ratified in 1971. Since then, the newly added portion of the electorate has not fully taken advantage of their opportunity to participate in American democracy. Since 1964, people in the 18-24 range have voted at a lower rate than older Americans (File, 2014). Research has shown that the youngest Americans are less likely to vote than older Americans (McDonald, 2010). Michael McGrath notes that it is not only young Americans that are less likely to vote, but also lower income voters, less educated voters and racial minority voters (McGrath, 2012). One important distinction when discussing voter turnout is the use of the voting age population versus the voting eligible population. The voting age population includes everyone living in the United States that are over the age of eighteen. Most turnout figures use the voting age population. The voting eligible population however only accounts for those who are actually allowed to vote, removing noncitizens and felons from the numbers. Voter turnout over all increases when looking at the voting eligible population rather than the voting age population. Turnout among voters 18-24 has dropped from 50.9 percent in 1972 to 38.0 percent in 2012 (File, 2014). While it may appear that young people have stopped coming out to vote, that is not the full picture. There has also been an increase in noncitizen youth in recent years. Because the turnout figures are using the voting age population and not the voting eligible population, this increase reflects in the turnout figures. In the 2008 presidential election, turnout among 18-24 year olds was 20 points lower than that of older voters, aged 65 and older (McDonald, 2010). If younger voters participated at higher levels, the United States would have a turnout rate that more closely resembled that of
Yamanaka 5 other developed nations. It would also impact the types of issues that are discussed and acted upon. Candidates talk about the issues their voters want to hear about. When they are talking to an older electorate, they are not going to talk about the issues facing young people as much. With higher youth turnout, the median age of the electorate decreases, forcing the candidates to talk about the issues that matter to young people (McDonald, 2010). According to Flannigan, young people are much less likely to vote than older people. They are much more likely to view the government as irrelevant to their lives, and in turn, candidates pay less attention to young voters than to older voters. Young people are also more likely to be unsettled in their lives or transitioning between places and therefore they do not make registering and voting a priority (Flannigan, 2015). Young people are less likely to identify with a specific political party than older people. Flannigan also notes that there are time-related sources of partisan change. One of those sources is period effects, or specific moments in history that affect the partisanship of all voters, regardless of age. Another is generational effects. If a voter becomes active during a particular moment in history, their partisanship can be affected for their lifetime. Finally, life-cycle effects impact a voter s partisanship at a particular age (Flannigan, 2015). Additionally, Americans are more liberal than they realize, particularly young voters. Though Americans would generally rate themselves as being conservative, when asked about their specific positions on a variety of issues, they held more liberal positions than they realized. Americans have grown more liberal on several issues such as same sex marriage and the legalization of marijuana (Zell, 2014). There has been an impressive social shift around these issues in a very short amount of time. There is also a generational gap, particularly with same sex marriage. According to a Pew Research poll, in 2005 the Millennial generation supported same
Yamanaka 6 sex marriage at a rate 26 points higher than the Silent generation. By 2015, that gap has grown to 34 points (Schwarz, 2015). Young people even more so underestimate their liberalism in comparison with the general population (Zell, 2014). An Alternative View of Party Identification and Youth Participation In The Apartisan American, Dalton uses an alternate system for party identification, breaking people into four categories. The first is apolitical independents who are not engaged in politics and do not have a particular party affiliation. They are not sophisticated in their issue positions and are not as likely to vote. Ritual partisans are the second category, and they are more partisan without being as cognitively mobilized. These are people who rely primarily on party loyalty to make their decisions, and may not be as informed about the actual issues. The third category is cognitive partisans. These are people that are both highly partisan but also have high cognitive mobilization. They are dedicated to their party but also can explain why they hold the positions that they do rather than simply relying on party loyalty. They turn out to vote at high levels, just as the ritual partisans. The final category is apartisans. They have high cognitive mobilization but are still unaffiliated with a party. They are able to look at the issues and decide not to be a part of a party based on informed decisions. They are still likely to vote, as they are highly informed. Young people are more likely to be apolitical independents or apartisans, often depending on their education level. Dalton defines one s ability to make sophisticated issue decisions as cognitive mobility. Cognitive mobilization refers to the fact that Americans now have more access to information and political resources to make their decisions than ever before. This means that people do not have to rely on party cues and loyalty to make their political decisions.
Yamanaka 7 Cognitive mobilization has the potential to create voters who are highly informed and engaged yet truly unaligned with a party. In general, there is the notion that youth are lazy, apathetic and ignorant about the world around them. The young people of this country are unable to answer basic questions about our government and do not participate in elections, campaigning or any part of the governmental process (Manning, 2014). However, there are also numerous examples of political activism being led by young people, the biggest of which is the Occupy movement. Manning determines that the youth are not apathetic, but rather the way that politics is being defined is too narrow. Farthing argues that perhaps a binary system does not properly represent how today s youth are engaged in politics, that is, they are entirely disengaged or entirely engaged. This notion overly generalizes about an entire generation and does not understand what young people are actually passionate about (Farthing, 2010). The internet age has entirely changed the political system, particularly the rise of social media. It is easier than ever to have access to political news. Even President Obama has a Facebook page now. Yet at the same time, there are studies that show that young people are less engaged, less knowledgeable and less informed than other Americans about the workings of the government, the political process and particularly the issues. Preregistration One of the potential solutions to low voter turnout among the youth in the United States is preregistration. Preregistration allows 16 and 17 year olds to register to vote, meaning they will automatically be ready to vote in the first election they are eligible for. There is a very high correlation between being registered to vote and participating in elections. Therefore, if
Yamanaka 8 registration rates among young people increase, so too will turnout among this demographic. People who begin voting early on in their lives are more likely to participate later in life as well. Preregistration allows for young voters to develop the habit of civic engagement and participation in the system early which can last their entire lives. If young people feel more comfortable navigating the system early on, they are more likely to continue participating (Cherry, 2012). Preregistration has already been implemented in 12 states and has been debated in 19 other state legislatures. It has proven to be effective in increasing turnout in a variety of categories including race, gender and party. However, it did not result in a significant advantage for either party, and the effects were nearly the same for each. Preregistration increased turnout by 7.6 percent among young Democrats and 7.4 percent among young Republicans (Holbein, 2015). Preregistration also instills excitement about the political process early on in a person s life while they are malleable in school and can be taught to be an active, participatory citizen (Holbein, 2015). State Laws One of the biggest factors that discourage new voters can be the process required in order to vote in their first election. Every state has a different set of laws regarding the registration and voting process, which can be confusing to someone that has never navigated the system before. Registration The first step is registering to vote. States vary in their laws regarding registration. Some have the option to preregister before the voter turns eighteen. Others specify that the voter must be eighteen by Election Day to register for that election. Currently 12 states allow
Yamanaka 9 preregistration. Every state has a different requirement regarding the length of time a person has to register before the next election. Some states have laws requiring voter registrations be received in the County Recorder s office as many as 30 days prior to Election Day. Other states require that the registration be postmarked by a certain date, not necessarily received by a specific deadline. Thirty one states and the District of Colombia have laws with a postmark deadline for voter registration. Twenty eight states have laws that require a voter registration be received by a specific deadline. rth Dakota is the only state without voter registration. Additionally, states have different laws regarding Election Day registration. Only 11 states allow people to register to vote on Election Day itself. If someone decides to participate in an election within the last month of campaign and they are not registered, they would only be allowed to participate in 11 states and Washington D.C. Young people are known for being technologically savvy. They are able to use the internet for just about every aspect of their lives, why shouldn t they use it to register to vote as well? Less than half of the states have the capability of online voter registration. Twenty three states and the District of Colombia allow for voter registration to be done online. Even though most states have the paper registration form available on line, it still must be filled out and returned to the County Recorder s office in the other 27 states. Early and Absentee Voting Early and absentee voting extends the amount of time a voter has to participate in an election. longer is Election Day limited to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in vember. Depending on the state s laws and the calendar of a particular year, through early voting opportunities, Election Day can be extended anywhere from early October to the
Yamanaka 10 beginning of vember. Early and absentee voting caters to those who are unable or unwilling to go to the polls on Election Day. Thirty three states have early voting in some form. The early voting periods vary in length from state to state, as do the days in which early voting is available. Early voting can begin anywhere from 45 days before the election to the Friday before Election Day. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia have early voting available on Saturday and four states allow early voting on Sunday. Additionally, for voters that plan to be out of town or unavailable on Election Day, every state offers absentee voting. However, twenty states require an excuse as to why a voter needs an absentee ballot. The remaining states do not require an excuse for a voter to request an absentee ballot and they will be sent one for any reason. Eight states have a permanent absentee voter list and once someone requests to be sent an absentee ballot, they will continue to receive one automatically for each election. Three states have all mail elections. Colorado, Oregon and Washington do not have polling locations on Election Day and instead conduct all elections through the mail, eliminating the need for early or absentee voting. Primary Voting Throughout the United States, there are four different types of primary elections open, closed, hybrid and top two. Open primaries allow voters to participate in whichever party s primary they prefer, regardless of the voter s party affiliation. Eleven states have open primaries. Closed primaries only allow people who are registered with a specific party to participate in that party s primary. Eleven states have closed primaries. Twenty four states have hybrid primary
Yamanaka 11 systems. This means that the state s primary system falls somewhere between open and closed, particularly with regard to voters registered as independent. Some states allow independent voters to select the party s primary they wish to participate in on the day of the election. For some states, a selection of a party s ballot is registration into that party. Some states allow each state s party to select who they want to participate. Finally, three states have top two primaries, meaning the two candidates with the most votes, regardless of party, are selected to move on to the general election. All voters receive the same ballot listing the candidates so each party does not have its own ballot.
Yamanaka 12 State Law Summary E-Day VR Online VR Early Voting Absentee Voting Permanent Absentee Preregistration Primary Type Alabama Excuse Open Alaska Yes Excuse Hybrid Arizona Yes Yes Excuse Yes Hybrid Arkansas Yes Excuse Open California Yes Yes Excuse Yes Yes Top Two Colorado Yes Yes All Mail All Mail Yes Hybrid Conneticut Yes Yes Excuse Hybrid Delaware Yes Excuse Yes Closed DC Yes Yes Yes Excuse Yes Yes Closed Florida Yes Excuse Yes Closed Georgia Yes Yes Excuse Open Hawaii Yes Yes Excuse Yes Yes Open Idaho Yes Excuse Hybrid Illinois Yes Yes Excuse Hybrid Indiana Yes Excuse Hybrid Iowa Yes Excuse Hybrid Kansas Yes Yes Excuse Closed Kentucky Excuse Closed Lousiana Yes Yes Excuse Yes Top Two Maine Yes Excuse Closed Maryland Yes Yes Excuse Yes Hybrid Massachusetts Yes Excuse Hybrid Michigan Excuse Open Minnesota Yes Yes Excuse Yes Open Mississippi Excuse Hybrid
Yamanaka 13 Missouri Yes Excuse Open Montana Yes Excuse Yes Open Nebraska Yes Yes Excuse Closed Nevada Yes Excuse Closed New Hampshire Yes Excuse Hybrid New Jersey Excuse Yes Closed New Mexico Yes Excuse Closed New York Yes Excuse Closed rth Carolina Yes Yes Excuse Hybrid rth Dakota Yes Excuse Open Ohio Excuse Hybrid Oklahoma Excuse Hybrid Oregon Yes All Mail All Mail Hybrid Pennsylvania Yes Excuse Closed Rhode Island Yes Excuse Yes Hybrid South Carolina Yes Excuse Hybrid South Dakota Excuse Hybrid Tennessee Yes Excuse Hybrid Texas Yes Excuse Hybrid Utah Yes Yes Excuse Yes Yes Hybrid Vermont Excuse Open Virginia Yes Excuse Hybrid Washington Yes All Mail All Mail Top Two West Virginia Yes Excuse Hybrid Wisconsin Yes Excuse Open Wyoming Excuse Closed
Yamanaka 14 Methodology To examine the impact of state laws on the voter turnout of young people in the 2010 midterm election, I used the data published in the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES). The CCES seeks to study how Americans view Congress and hold their representatives accountable during elections, how they voted and their electoral experiences, and how their behavior and experiences vary with political geography and social context (Ansolabehere, 2012). This study was particularly useful because after the survey responses were given on whether that person voted or not in 2010, their responses were verified with each state to ensure that the person voted if they said they did. Using the data from the CCES, it was narrowed down to the group being focused on, young people. For the purposes of this investigation, only the data used was from those between the ages of 18-30. Using STATA, crosstabs were run using that data and the data added by the author on each of the laws in each state. A separate crosstab was run for each type of state law. These included Election Day voter registration, online voter registration, early voting, absentee voting, permanent absentee voting, all-mail elections, preregistration and primary type. With the exception of primary type, each state was placed into a 0 or 1 category based on whether the law was seen as making the voting process easier or more difficult in each state. For states that allow Election Day voter registration, they were placed into the 1 category. For states that do not allow Election Day voter registration, they were placed into the 0 category. This method was used for each of the other state law types. The primary type law was split into four categories based on the four different types of primaries found throughout the United States.
Yamanaka 15 Results Table 1: The Influence of the Ability to Register to Vote on Election Day on Turnout among People under the Age of 30 in the 2010 Midterm Election Voter Registration is t Available on Election Day Voter Registration is Available on Election Day Did t Vote 61% 57% Voted 39% 43% Total Column Percent 100% 100% Number of Cases = 8840 Chi squared = 3.19, p=.18 Source: 2012 Cooperative Congressional Election Study Table 1 shows that 39 percent of the people surveyed who live in states where voter registration is not available on Election Day voted in the 2010 midterm election. This is compared with 43 percent of those surveyed who live in states where voter registration is available online who voted. There is a small relationship between the ability to register to vote online and voting in the 2010 midterm election, given the difference of 4 percentage points. However, the confidence interval is large at p =.18, meaning there is a low degree of confidence in the relationship between the ability to register to vote on Election Day and voting in the 2010 midterm election. This relationship is not statistically significant at this interval.
Yamanaka 16 Table 2: The Influence of the Ability to Register to Vote Online on Turnout among People under the Age of 30 in the 2010 Midterm Election Voter Registration is t Available Online Voter Registration is Available Online Did t Vote 64% 59% Voted 37% 41% Total Column Percent 101% 100% Number of Cases = 8840 Chi squared = 8.77, p=.02 Source: 2012 Cooperative Congressional Election Study Table 2 shows that 37 percent of the people surveyed who live in states where voter registration is not available online voted in the 2010 midterm election. This is compared with 41 percent of those surveyed who live in states where voter registration is available online who voted. There is a small relationship between the ability to register to vote online and voting in the 2010 midterm election, given the difference of 4 percentage points. The confidence interval is small at p =.02, meaning there is a high degree of confidence in the relationship between the ability to register to vote online and voting in the 2010 midterm election. This relationship is statistically significant at this interval.
Yamanaka 17 Table 3: The Influence of the Ability to Vote Early on Turnout among People under the Age of 30 in the 2010 Midterm Election Early Voting is t Early Voting is Available Available Did t Vote 65% 57% Voted 35% 43% Total Column Percent 100% 100% Number of Cases = 8840 Chi squared = 24.50, p=.00 Source: 2012 Cooperative Congressional Election Study Table 3 shows that 35 percent of the people surveyed who live in states where early voting is not available voted in the 2010 midterm election. This is compared with 43 percent of those surveyed who live in states where early voting is available who voted. There is a small relationship between the ability to vote early and voting in the 2010 midterm election, given the difference of 8 percentage points. The confidence interval is small at p =.00, meaning there is a high degree of confidence in the relationship between the ability to vote early and voting in the 2010 midterm election. This relationship is statistically significant at this interval.
Yamanaka 18 Table 4: The Influence of the Ability to Vote by Absentee Ballot without Excuse on Turnout among People under the Age of 30 in the 2010 Midterm Election State Requires Excuse to Use Absentee Ballot State Does t Require Excuse to Use Absentee Ballot Did t Vote 67% 56% Voted 33% 44% Total Column Percent 100% 100% Number of Cases = 8840 Chi squared = 52.78, p=.00 Source: 2012 Cooperative Congressional Election Study Table 4 shows that 33 percent of the people surveyed who live in states where the state requires an excuse to use an absentee ballot voted in the 2010 midterm election. This is compared with 44 percent of those surveyed who live in states where the state does not require an excuse to use an absentee ballot who voted. There is a moderate relationship between the ability to vote using an absentee ballot without an excuse and voting in the 2010 midterm election, given the difference of 11 percentage points. The confidence interval is small at p =.00, meaning there is a high degree of confidence in the relationship between the ability to vote using an absentee ballot without an excuse and voting in the 2010 midterm election. This relationship is statistically significant at this interval.
Yamanaka 19 Table 5: The Influence of a Permanent Absentee Voter List on Turnout among People under the Age of 30 in the 2010 Midterm Election State Does t Have a Permanent Absentee Voter State Has a Permanent Absentee Voter List List Did t Vote 63% 53% Voted 37% 47% Total Column Percent 100% 100% Number of Cases = 8840 Chi squared = 29.16, p=.00 Source: 2012 Cooperative Congressional Election Study Table 5 shows that 37 percent of the people surveyed who live in states where the state does not have a permanent absentee voter list voted in the 2010 midterm election. This is compared with 47 percent of those surveyed who live in states where the state has a permanent absentee voter list who voted. There is a moderate relationship between the ability to be on a permanent absentee voter list and voting in the 2010 midterm election, given the difference of 10 percentage points. The confidence interval is small at p =.00, meaning there is a high degree of confidence in the relationship between the ability to be on a permanent absentee voter list and voting in the 2010 midterm election. This relationship is statistically significant at this interval.
Yamanaka 20 Table 6: The Influence of an All-Mail Election on Turnout among People under the Age of 30 in the 2010 Midterm Election State Does t Conduct Elections Entirely By Mail State Conducts Elections Entirely By Mail Did t Vote 61% 50% Voted 39% 50% Total Column Percent 100% 100% Number of Cases = 8840 Chi squared = 12.03, p=.01 Source: 2012 Cooperative Congressional Election Study Table 6 shows that 39 percent of the people surveyed who live in states where the state does not conduct elections entirely by mail voted in the 2010 midterm election. This is compared with 50 percent of those surveyed who live in states where the state conducts elections entirely by mail who voted. There is a moderate relationship between the ability to vote entirely by mail and voting in the 2010 midterm election, given the difference of 11 percentage points. The confidence interval is small at p =.01, meaning there is a high degree of confidence in the relationship between the ability to vote entirely by mail and voting in the 2010 midterm election. This relationship is statistically significant at this interval.
Yamanaka 21 Table 7: The Influence of Preregistration on Turnout among People under the Age of 30 in the 2010 Midterm Election State Does t Allow 16 Year Olds to Register to State Allows 16 Year Olds to Register to Vote Vote Did t Vote 63% 53% Voted 37% 47% Total Column Percent 100% 100% Number of Cases = 8840 Chi squared = 36.94, p=.00 Source: 2012 Cooperative Congressional Election Study Table 7 shows that 37 percent of the people surveyed who live in states where the state does not allow sixteen year olds to register to vote voted in the 2010 midterm election. This is compared with 47 percent of those surveyed who live in states where the state allows sixteen year olds to register to vote who voted. There is a moderate relationship between the ability to register to vote at age sixteen and voting in the 2010 midterm election, given the difference of 10 percentage points. The confidence interval is small at p =.00, meaning there is a high degree of confidence in the relationship between the ability to register to vote at the age of sixteen and voting in the 2010 midterm election. This relationship is statistically significant at this interval.
Yamanaka 22 Table 8: The Influence of Primary Type on Turnout among People under the Age of 30 in the 2010 Midterm Election Close Primary Open Primary Top Two Hybrid Primary Primary Did t Vote 65% 63% 47% 62% Voted 35% 37% 53% 38% Total Column 100% 100% 100% 100% Percent Number of Cases = 8840 Chi squared = 55.53, p=.00 Source: 2012 Cooperative Congressional Election Study Table 8 shows that 35 percent of the people surveyed who live in states with a closed primary voted in the 2010 midterm election. This is compared with 37 percent of those surveyed who live in states that have open primaries who voted. For people that live in states with a top two primary system, they voted at a rate of 53 percent, compared to states with a hybrid primary system, where those voters turned out at a rate of 38 percent. There is a moderate relationship between the top two primary type and voting in the 2010 midterm election, given the difference of 10 percentage points. The confidence interval is small at p =.00, meaning there is a high degree of confidence in the relationship between the top two primary type and voting in the 2010 midterm election. This relationship is statistically significant at this interval.
Yamanaka 23 Conclusion Findings Seven of the eight state laws investigated proved to have a significant impact on the turnout of voters aged 18-30 in the 2010 midterm election. Young people who live in states that allow Election Day voter registration voted at a slightly higher rate than those who live in states that do not allow Election Day voter registration, though the result was not significant. For the others however, each finding was significant. Young people who live in states that have online voter registration voted at a higher rate than those who live in states where online voter registration is not an option. Young people who live in states where early voting is available voted at a higher rate than those who live in states where early voting is not an option. Young people who live in states that do not require an excuse to use an absentee ballot voted at a higher rate than those who live in states that require an excuse to use an absentee ballot. Young people who live in states that maintain a permanent absentee voter list voted at a higher rate than those who live in states that do not maintain a permanent absentee voter list. Young people who live in states that vote entirely by mail voted at a higher rate than those who live in states that still conduct elections at polling places. Young people who live in states that allow sixteen year olds to register to vote voted at a higher rate than those who live in states that do not allow sixteen year olds to register. Young people who live in states with a top two primary system voted at a higher rate than those who live in states that have closed, open or hybrid primary types. The overall conclusion that can be drawn is that the individual laws that each state passes have a direct impact on the voter turnout among people aged 18-30. Only eight laws were reviewed here, and though each step of the electoral process was included, there are even more
Yamanaka 24 that could have been reviewed. The time in which a new voter has to register, the method by which they register, the age at which they can register, the method by which they cast a ballot, each of these can serve as a deterrent to voting, especially for young people. Young people are already less engaged, so when barriers are put up to being involved in the process, it is young people that are impacted the most. So what can be done about this? This study aimed to demonstrate the true implications of laws passed by state legislatures across the United States and the ways in which they disenfranchise young voters by making the process more difficult than it needs to be. The clear answer is for all states to pass laws making voting a more simple process. These laws would include the following: allow Election Day voter registration, allow online voter registration, allow early voting, do not require an excuse to vote using an absentee ballot, maintain a permanent absentee voter list, conduct elections entirely by mail, allow sixteen year olds to register to vote and use a top two primary system.
Yamanaka 25 Suggestions for Further Research Voter identification laws have been a wide source of controversy in recent years, particularly following the Supreme Court decision on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which said that states no longer need preclearance from the United States Department of Justice before making changes to their state laws. This would be an interesting topic to do more research on, particularly with data more recent than from 2010. The states have such wide and varying laws on the identification need to register and to show at the polls. Some states do not require any form of identification to be shown at the polls, while others require photo ID with no non-photo ID option (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2016). It would also be interesting to look at the various ways states conduct their voter registration process, particularly the amount of time a voter has to register prior to Election Day. This perhaps goes hand in hand with the laws regarding Election Day registration, but is broader. States have laws that differ on whether a registration must be received or postmarked by a certain deadline, and those deadlines are not consistent between states (Rock the Vote, 2016). Another study would be to categorize the state laws in some manner to analyze how those regulations in particular impact disenfranchisement. Additionally, beyond passing laws, the states have an obligation to educate the electorate on the laws and necessary steps needed to properly cast a ballot. What happens after a law is passed? How is that new information distributed to the voters? Is it done in a fair and efficient manner? How do the government s efforts compare to other voter advocacy organizations, such as the League of Women Voters or Rock the Vote?
Yamanaka 26 Concluding Observations There is still work to be done throughout the country to ensure that all people have equal ballot access, and this work starts in each state s legislature. That is where the power lies to make the laws more consistent between states and to make the process easier for all people, especially those in the youth demographic. The question that remains is, what is prevent the legislators from acting to make the changes to the laws that would bring down the barriers to voting rather than putting them up? If young people want to expand voting access, this is the question they must be asking their legislators.
Yamanaka 27 References Absentee and Early Voting. (2015). Retrieved December 12, 2015, from http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/absentee-and-early-voting.aspx Cherry, C. (2012). Increasing youth participation: The case for a national voter preregistration law. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 45(2), 481-515. Farthing, R. (2010). The politics of youthful antipolitics: Representing the issue of youth participation in politics. Journal of Youth Studies, 13(2), 181-195. File, T. (2014, April 1). Young Adult Voting: An Analysis of Presidential Elections, 1964-2012. Retrieved vember 17, 2015, from https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p20-573.pdf Flanigan, W., & Zingale, N. (2015). Political behavior of the American electorate (13th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press. Holbein, J., & Hillygus, D. (2015). Making Young Voters: The Impact of Preregistration on Youth Turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 0(0), 1-19. Manning, N. (2012). The relational self and the political engagements of young adults. Journal of Sociology, 50(4), 486-500. McDonald, M., & Thornburg, M. (2010). Registering the youth through voter preregistration. NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, 13(551), 551-572. McGrath, M. (2012). Election reform and voter turnout: A review of the history. National Civic Review, 101(3), 38-43. Voter Registration Deadlines. (2015). Retrieved December 12, 2015, from http://www.rockthevote.com/get-informed/elections/voter-registrationdeadlines.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/
Yamanaka 28 Zell, E., & Bernstein, M. (2013). You May Think You're Right... Young Adults Are More Liberal Than They Realize. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(4), 326-333.