Michael J. Hanmer. Discount Voting: Voter Registration Reforms and Their Effects

Springer, Melanie J.

doi:10.1093/poq/nfq029

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There have been a number of articles using cross-state comparisons that find null results for the effects of early voting on turnout (Fitzgerald 2005;Gronke, Galanes-Rosenbaum, and Miller 2007;Primo, Jacobmeier, and Milyo 2007;Wolfinger, Highton, and Mullin 2005), and Burden et al (2014) find a surprising negative effect of early voting on turnout in 2008. 8 However, identification of turnout effects from observational data using traditional statistical approaches such as regression or matching relies on the absence of unobserved confounders that affect both election laws and turnout (Hanmer 2009). If these unobserved confounders vary across elections, then traditional difference-in-differences estimators will also be biased.…”

Section: Illustrative Application: Early Votingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…() find a surprising negative effect of early voting on turnout in 2008 . However, identification of turnout effects from observational data using traditional statistical approaches such as regression or matching relies on the absence of unobserved confounders that affect both election laws and turnout (Hanmer ). If these unobserved confounders vary across elections, then traditional difference‐in‐differences estimators will also be biased.…”

Section: Illustrative Application: Early Votingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Front‐Door Difference‐in‐Differences Estimators

Glynn

Kashin

2017

American J Political Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We develop front‐door difference‐in‐differences estimators as an extension of front‐door estimators. Under one‐sided noncompliance, an exclusion restriction, and assumptions analogous to parallel trends assumptions, this extension allows identification when the front‐door criterion does not hold. Even if the assumptions are relaxed, we show that the front‐door and front‐door difference‐in‐differences estimators may be combined to form bounds. Finally, we show that under one‐sided noncompliance, these techniques do not require the use of control units. We illustrate these points with an application to a job training study and with an application to Florida's early in‐person voting program. For the job training study, we show that these techniques can recover an experimental benchmark. For the Florida program, we find some evidence that early in‐person voting had small positive effects on turnout in 2008. This provides a counterpoint to recent claims that early voting had a negative effect on turnout in 2008.

show abstract

Section: Illustrative Application: Early Votingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Illustrative Application: Early Votingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Front‐Door Difference‐in‐Differences Estimators

Glynn

Kashin

2017

American J Political Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Election and state politics scholars have engaged similar questions but rarely speak in the language of democratization and backsliding (see Flavin and Shufeldt 2019). For example, studies have examined the adoption of various convenience voting reforms (Gronke et al 2008;Hanmer 2009) or more narrowly focusing on the adoption of a specific type of electoral reform, such as voter identification laws (Hicks et al 2015;Biggers and Hanmer 2017).…”

Section: Democracy Backsliding and The Fifty Statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Citizens’ perceptions of the quality of democracy in the American states

Flavin,

Shufeldt

2024

Social Science Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveWe examine the relationship between citizens’ evaluations of democratic performance in their state of residence and demographic, political, and institutional factors.MethodsWe fielded two original surveys (summer 2021 and summer 2022) that asked respondents to evaluate democratic performance in their state both in general and for specific metrics.ResultsCitizens who identify with the political party that controls state government have more positive evaluations of state democratic performance while Republicans (controlling for a litany of covariates) have more negative evaluations. Strikingly, citizens’ perceptions are not related to an objective measure of state democratic performance even when they are primed with information about where their state ranks in a survey experiment.ConclusionCitizens’ assessments of democratic quality appear to be yet another feature of American politics that has become politicized and polarized, with important implications for system support and legitimacy going forward.

show abstract

“…states, they did so in order to avoid having to implement the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) (Hanmer 2009). Between 2005 and 2019, 15 additional states adopted EDR (NCSL[c] 2020).…”

Section: State Politics and Policy Quarterlymentioning

confidence: 99%

Divergent Electoral Policies: Why Some States Increase Ballot Access

Smith

Hill

Ancheva

2022

State Politics Policy Q.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why have some states adopted policies expanding ballot access while others have restricted access to the ballot? Since the 1990s, some states have been adopting policies restricting access to the ballot such as requiring identification. At the same time, states have been adopting a variety of registration reforms that lower the barriers to registration and voting. Using an original, 45-state dataset, we examine state innovation within the policy domain of electoral reforms in US states. We find reforms have an independent and, sometimes, negative effect on the innovation of states in electoral reforms. Next, we use dyad analysis to examine the spread of a single policy: automatic voter registration. We find that the propensity to innovate both within and across a state makes the spread of automatic voter registration more likely. Our paper contributes to the broader understanding of why states adopt electoral reforms.

show abstract

Michael J. Hanmer. Discount Voting: Voter Registration Reforms and Their Effects

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Front‐Door Difference‐in‐Differences Estimators

Front‐Door Difference‐in‐Differences Estimators

Citizens’ perceptions of the quality of democracy in the American states

Divergent Electoral Policies: Why Some States Increase Ballot Access

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About