CIRCLE The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement. Youth Voting in the 2004 Battleground States

Similar documents
CIRCLE The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

CIRCLE The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement. State Voter Registration and Election Day Laws

THE 2004 YOUTH VOTE MEDIA COVERAGE. Select Newspaper Reports and Commentary

CIRCLE The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement

The Youth Vote in 2008 By Emily Hoban Kirby and Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg 1 Updated August 17, 2009

2008 Voter Turnout Brief

CIRCLE The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement. Electoral Engagement Among Latino Youth

CIRCLE The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement

2008 Electoral Vote Preliminary Preview

Endnotes on Campaign 2000 SOME FINAL OBSERVATIONS ON VOTER OPINIONS

The Rising American Electorate

New Americans in. By Walter A. Ewing, Ph.D. and Guillermo Cantor, Ph.D.

The Youth Vote 2004 With a Historical Look at Youth Voting Patterns,

Matthew Miller, Bureau of Legislative Research

This report was prepared for the Immigration Policy Center of the American Immigration Law Foundation by Rob Paral and Associates, with writing by

Campaigns & Elections November 6, 2017 Dr. Michael Sullivan. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GOVT 2305 MoWe 5:30 6:50 MoWe 7 8:30

Components of Population Change by State

Marist College Institute for Public Opinion Poughkeepsie, NY Phone Fax

Youth Voter Turnout has Declined, by Any Measure By Peter Levine and Mark Hugo Lopez 1 September 2002

Should Politicians Choose Their Voters? League of Women Voters of MI Education Fund

More State s Apportionment Allocations Impacted by New Census Estimates; New Twist in Supreme Court Case

Union Byte By Cherrie Bucknor and John Schmitt* January 2015

Who Really Voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012?

December 30, 2008 Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote

In the Margins Political Victory in the Context of Technology Error, Residual Votes, and Incident Reports in 2004

Swing Voters in Swing States Troubled By Iraq, Economy; Unimpressed With Bush and Kerry, Annenberg Data Show

Representational Bias in the 2012 Electorate

12B,C: Voting Power and Apportionment

Election of Worksheet #1 - Candidates and Parties. Abraham Lincoln. Stephen A. Douglas. John C. Breckinridge. John Bell

Hispanics and the Changing Racial Demographics of the Intermountain West

PERMISSIBILITY OF ELECTRONIC VOTING IN THE UNITED STATES. Member Electronic Vote/ . Alabama No No Yes No. Alaska No No No No

The Rising American Electorate

Immigration Policy Brief August 2006

2016 Voter Registration Deadlines by State

The Changing Face of Labor,

Department of Justice

Federal Rate of Return. FY 2019 Update Texas Department of Transportation - Federal Affairs

Regional Variations in Public Opinion on the Affordable Care Act

Delegates: Understanding the numbers and the rules

Red Shift. The Domestic Policy Program. October 2010

America is facing an epidemic of the working hungry. Hunger Free America s analysis of federal data has determined:

Chapter 12: The Math of Democracy 12B,C: Voting Power and Apportionment - SOLUTIONS

Parties and Elections. Selections from Chapters 11 & 12

THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE: SOME FACTS AND FIGURES. by Andrew L. Roth

Background Information on Redistricting

AP PHOTO/MATT VOLZ. Voter Trends in A Final Examination. By Rob Griffin, Ruy Teixeira, and John Halpin November 2017

Growth in the Foreign-Born Workforce and Employment of the Native Born

NABPAC 2016 Biennial Post Election Conference

Official Voter Information for General Election Statute Titles

TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2016 ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES: 11

SMALL STATES FIRST; LARGE STATES LAST; WITH A SPORTS PLAYOFF SYSTEM

Key Factors That Shaped 2018 And A Brief Look Ahead

The sustained negative mood of the country drove voter attitudes.

New Census Estimates Show Slight Changes For Congressional Apportionment Now, But Point to Larger Changes by 2020

To understand the U.S. electoral college and, more generally, American democracy, it is critical to understand that when voters go to the polls on

Paul M. Sommers Alyssa A. Chong Monica B. Ralston And Andrew C. Waxman. March 2010 MIDDLEBURY COLLEGE ECONOMICS DISCUSSION PAPER NO.

The Electoral College And

Fuzzy Math: Wrong Way Reforms for Allocating Electoral College Votes

CIRCLE The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement

STATE LAWS SUMMARY: CHILD LABOR CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS BY STATE

THE STATE OF VOTING IN 2014

State Estimates of the Low-income Uninsured Not Eligible for the ACA Medicaid Expansion

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

State Trial Courts with Incidental Appellate Jurisdiction, 2010

Update on OFA Grassroots Organizing: Voter Registration and Early Voting

American Dental Association

The Social Policy & Politics Program. August 13, 2012

Incarcerated America Human Rights Watch Backgrounder April 2003

American Government. Workbook

New data from the Census Bureau show that the nation s immigrant population (legal and illegal), also

Mathematics of the Electoral College. Robbie Robinson Professor of Mathematics The George Washington University

Immigrants and the Direct Care Workforce

Battleground Districts July 2018 Midterm Survey Immigration Policy Attitudes

Introduction. 1 Freeman study is at: Cal-Tech/MIT study is at

Gender, Race, and Dissensus in State Supreme Courts

Racial Disparities in Youth Commitments and Arrests

How Many Illegal Aliens Currently Live in the United States?

Campaign Finance E-Filing Systems by State WHAT IS REQUIRED? WHO MUST E-FILE? Candidates (Annually, Monthly, Weekly, Daily).

1. A Republican edge in terms of self-described interest in the election. 2. Lower levels of self-described interest among younger and Latino

ACCESS TO STATE GOVERNMENT 1. Web Pages for State Laws, State Rules and State Departments of Health

National Latino Peace Officers Association

Notice N HCFB-1. March 25, Subject: FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OBLIGATION AUTHORITY FISCAL YEAR (FY) Classification Code

Please note: additional data sources are referenced throughout this presentation, including national exit polls and NBC/WSJ national survey data.

2008 Changes to the Constitution of International Union UNITED STEELWORKERS

For jurisdictions that reject for punctuation errors, is the rejection based on a policy decision or due to statutory provisions?

Case 3:15-md CRB Document 4700 Filed 01/29/18 Page 1 of 5

National State Law Survey: Statute of Limitations 1

Democratic Convention *Saturday 1 March 2008 *Monday 25 August - Thursday 28 August District of Columbia Non-binding Primary

MN LET THE PEOPLE VOTE COALITION INFORMATION SHEETS ON SOME PROPOSED CAUCUS RESOLUTIONS FOR FEBRUARY 6, 2018 CAUCUSES JANUARY 22, 2018

2015 ANNUAL OUTCOME GOAL PLAN (WITH FY 2014 OUTCOMES) Prepared in compliance with Government Performance and Results Act

The Great Immigration Turnaround

Race to the White House Drive to the 2016 Republican Nomination. Ron Nehring California Chairman, Ted Cruz for President

Bias Correction by Sub-population Weighting for the 2016 United States Presidential Election

If you have questions, please or call

A New America A New Majority A New Challenge

MEMORANDUM JUDGES SERVING AS ARBITRATORS AND MEDIATORS

Branches of Government

Employment debate in the context of NAFTA. September 2017

Decision Analyst Economic Index United States Census Divisions April 2017

2016 us election results

Transcription:

FACT SHEET CIRCLE The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement Youth Voting in the 2004 Battleground States By Emily Kirby and Chris Herbst 1 August 2004 As November 2 nd quickly approaches, much attention is being paid to young voters, especially in the closely contested battleground states. 2 The national population of 18-29s has grown substantially to 40.7 million eligible voters in the United States an increase of 1.9 million since 1992. Surveys conducted in recent years find that they are fairly evenly divided among Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. In 2000, in several large battleground states, young voters chose a different candidate from older voters. Thus they represent an important voting bloc. This fact sheet provides information about the size of the youth electorate in battleground states and past patterns of youth voting in those states. As the fact sheet demonstrates, voter turnout among 18 to 29 year olds varies substantially from state to state and from election to election. For example, in the last presidential election, 59 percent of young people in Maine turned out to vote, compared to only 32 percent in Arizona. 3 Youth Population by Battleground State The size of the youth population varies greatly among the battleground states. Table 1 contains estimates of the sizes of the youth population during the past three presidential elections as well as in the upcoming election. In 2004, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan have the largest number of eligible young voters while Wyoming, Maine, New Hampshire, and West Virginia have the smallest eligible youth populations. Since 1992, Southern and Western battleground states have seen the greatest growth in the number of new young voters, with Arizona, North Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, and New Mexico each gaining over 100,000 young eligible voters. Eight of the twenty battleground states witnessed a decline in their youth populations. These states, in order of decline, are Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, West Virginia, Maine, Iowa, New Hampshire and Minnesota. School of Public Policy 2101 Van Munching Hall University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742-1821 P: 301 405 2790 F: 301 314 9346 W: www.civicyouth.org CIRCLE was founded in 2001 with a generous grant from The Pew Charitable Trusts and is now also funded by Carnegie Corporation of New York. CIRCLE based in the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy.

2 Table 1 Youth Citizen Population in the Battleground States 1992-2004, Ages 18-29 (in thousands) 1992 1996 2000 2004 Arizona 455 678 755 779 Arkansas 377 394 415 430 Colorado 547 618 676 646 Florida 1,901 1,872 1,834 2,052 Iowa 484 489 393 459 Louisiana 668 775 750 811 Maine 213 172 194 180 Michigan 1,441 1,639 1,390 1,506 Minnesota 796 737 766 782 Missouri 968 930 748 909 Nevada 193 178 226 286 New Hampshire 186 189 154 172 New Mexico 204 265 252 306 North Carolina 1,051 1,151 1,073 1,205 Ohio 1,724 1,767 1,653 1,625 Oregon 448 485 418 495 Pennsylvania 1,988 1,848 1,594 1,722 Washington 790 825 852 943 West Virginia 294 254 307 252 Wisconsin 787 720 721 855 National Total 38,739 39,524 39,332 40,667 Source: November 2000, 1996, and 1992 Supplement of the Current Population Survey; March 2004 Annual Demographic File of the Current Population Survey. In the 2004 presidential election, 18 to 29 year olds will account for 21 percent of the eligible voters in the United States a substantial voting bloc. To put this in perspective, Latinos make up 12 percent of eligible voters while African Americans make up 8 percent of eligible voters. Moreover, in some key battleground states young people represent an even greater proportion of their respective state s population. For example, in Louisiana, young voters represent 25 percent of all eligible voters. Across all battleground states, young people represent at least 18 percent of eligible voters. Table 2 provides an estimate of the proportion of eligible voters who are between the ages of 18 and 29 by battleground state.

3 Table 2 2004 Proportion of Eligible Voters who are Youth, by Battleground State (in thousands) 2004 18-29 citizens 2004 18+ citizens Percent of total state voting eligible population that is 18-29 years old Arizona 779 3,470 22% Arkansas 430 1,976 22% Colorado 646 3,091 21% Florida 2,052 11,514 18% Iowa 459 2,134 22% Louisiana 811 3,203 25% Maine 180 990 18% Michigan 1,506 7,209 21% Minnesota 782 3,626 22% Missouri 909 4,101 22% Nevada 286 1,468 19% New Hampshire 172 941 18% New Mexico 306 1,308 23% North Carolina 1,205 5,660 21% Ohio 1,625 8,261 20% Oregon 495 2,503 20% Pennsylvania 1,722 9,064 19% Washington 943 4,207 22% West Virginia 252 1,387 18% Wisconsin 855 3,923 22% National Total 40,667 195,828 21% Source: 2004 Current Population Survey's March Annual Demographic file.

4 Youth Turnout Since 1992 Table 3 shows how the youth vote has fluctuated since 1992 in the battleground states. While the turnout rates of young voters in Arkansas and West Virginia grew in 2000, in the rest of the battleground states the turnout rates of young people either remained the same or declined. Table 3 Voter Turnout Among 18 29 Year Old Citizens in Battleground States, 1992-2000 1992 1996 2000 Percentage Point Change between 1992 and 2000 Arizona 53% 37% 32% -20.8% Arkansas 42% 37% 44% 2.9% Colorado 59% 43% 43% -15.7% Florida 47% 35% 45% -1.4% Iowa 62% 46% 54% -8.2% Louisiana 60% 55% 55% -4.5% Maine 73% 53% 59% -13.6% Michigan 59% 48% 48% -11.1% Minnesota 72% 53% 58% -14.4% Missouri 56% 46% 44% -11.9% Nevada 45% 30% 37% -8.7% New Hampshire 49% 37% 49% 0.1% New Mexico 52% 36% 37% -15.2% North Carolina 49% 44% 43% -5.5% Ohio 56% 45% 45% -10.9% Oregon 63% 43% 53% -10.1% Pennsylvania 46% 38% 39% -7.9% Washington 59% 46% 47% -12.0% West Virginia 38% 31% 41% 3.0% Wisconsin 67% 53% 56% -11.3% National Total 54% 44% 46% -8.3% Source: Current Population Survey, November Supplements 2000, 1996, and 1992. Political Preferences of Young Voters Surveys conducted in recent years generally show that young voters are drawn to the major parties in roughly equal numbers, and many are independents. For example, a survey conducted by CIRCLE and the Council for Excellence in Government in January 2004 found that 15-25s were evenly divided among Democrats (32 percent), Republicans (28 percent), and independents (25 percent). Additionally, 15 percent of young people were undecided. Unfortunately, current polling data does not report on how partisanship varies between the battleground states. Given this limitation, the next best option is to look at how young people have voted in the past. Generally, in the 1992 and

5 1996 elections young people voted similarly to the overall population. Table 5 shows which candidate won the most votes among 18 to 29 year olds in the 1992, 1996, and 2000 elections. Table 5- Candidate Favored by the Majority of Young Voters and General Voters, 1992 to 2000 1992 1996 2000 18-29 voters All Voters Difference 18-29 voters All Voters Difference 18-29 voters All Voters Difference Arizona Perot Bush Clinton Clinton Bush Bush Arkansas Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Bush Bush Colorado Clinton Clinton Clinton Dole Gore Bush Florida Bush Clinton/Bush Clinton Clinton Gore Bush/Gore* Iowa Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Bush Gore/Bush* Louisiana Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Bush Bush Maine Perot Clinton Clinton Clinton Bush Gore Michigan Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Gore Gore Minnesota Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Bush Gore Missouri Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Gore/Bush* Bush Nevada Bush Clinton Clinton Clinton Bush Bush New Hampshire Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Gore Bush New Mexico Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Gore Gore North Carolina Bush Bush Dole/Clinton Dole Bush Bush Ohio Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Bush Bush Oregon Clinton Clinton ** ** ** ** Pennsylvania Bush Clinton Clinton Clinton Gore Gore Washington Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Gore Gore West Virginia Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Bush Bush Wisconsin Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Gore Gore/Bush* Source: Exit polls in 1996 & 2000 were conducted by Voter News Service (VNS). Exit polls in 1992 were conducted by Voter Research & Surveys (VRS). *The first candidate listed polled ahead by less than one percentage point. **No exit poll data were available from VNS for Oregon in the years 1996 & 2000.

6 1 Research Associate and Research Assistant respectively at the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. We thank Carrie Donovan, Mark Lopez and Peter Levine for their assistance in composing this fact sheet. All errors in fact or interpretation are our own. 2 Based on the National Journal s July definition of the 2004 battleground states. 3 Measuring youth voter turnout raises difficult issues, and there is not a single clearly correct turnout figure for youth in any given year. However, no matter how we measure youth and adult voter turnout, there has been a significant decline in voter turnout since 1972. The simplest and most common measure used by researchers of voter turnout is the number of voters divided by the number of adult residents. Voter turnout in this fact sheet is calculated for U.S. citizens only, which generates higher voter turnout figures than those reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. Furthermore, we adjust the voter turnout rate for non-responses in the voting question. While the quality of data from the CPS is generally excellent, there are survey participants who do not answer every question presented in the survey. CIRCLE excludes those individuals who did not answer the voting question from our calculations when determining voter turnout; we do not count them as non-voters, because we believe that this would understate voter turnout. Typically, researchers who do count non-answers as no s find a lower turnout rate in each year than we present here. For this report, we calculate turnout for citizens in the following manner: Voter Turnout citizens no missing = (# of self-reported voters) (# of U.S. Citizens over age 18 who answered the voting question). Our voter turnout figures are based on the 2002 and 2000 U.S. Census Bureau s Current Population Survey (CPS) November Supplements respectively. The November supplement of the Current Population survey is generally completed within two weeks of the November election, and samples the non-institutionalized population of the U.S. For each survey, approximately 90,000 adults ages 18 or older were interviewed. All data are publicly available, and all programs used to generate these data are available upon request. For more information on issues related to estimating voter turnout, see Youth Voter Turnout Has Declined by Any Measure by Peter Levine and Mark Lopez of the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), September 2002.