Poll Worker Decision Making at the American Ballot Box

Abstract

Street-level bureaucrats set the terms for policy implementation and often operate under limited oversight. In American elections, poll workers are the street-level bureaucrats tasked with implementing a jurisdiction’s laws for verifying voter eligibility. Using in-depth interviews with 24 poll workers from the city of Chicago, this article assesses how poll workers make decisions about voter eligibility under Illinois’ signature-matching law. Respondents discussed a range of considerations used when they examine voter eligibility. The evidence I present suggests they rely on personal perspectives and experiences in their evaluations. Respondents also offered a range of responses for how they would proceed in the instance of a mismatching signature—including requesting voters provide identification even though it is not a requirement in Illinois unless a voter is challenged. Broadly, these results illustrate how poll workers’ subjective interpretations of election law shape their decisions and can lead to idiosyncratic applications of election law.

Vote-by-mail Ballot Rejection and Experience with Mail-in Voting

“…One limitation in our interpreting the rates of these phenomena is that such ostensible errors reflect local election clerk discretion. An elections clerk who infers in conjunction with local procedures that a voter’s signature does not match a signature on file is making a choice much like any street-level bureaucrat, including those who assess in-person voter identities (King & Barnes, 2019; Suttmann-Lea, 2020). Accordingly, the rates we calculate for voter errors are confounded by local discretion.…”

From the Parliament to a Polling Station: How to Make Electoral Laws More Comprehensible to Election Administrators

“…The limitations of the proposed approach lie in the extent to which it limits the discretion of poll workers: even the most comprehensible instructions might not convince poll workers to follow them. Previous research (Atkeson et al 2014;Suttmann-Lea 2020) established that poll workers' beliefs and perceptions of fairness might more accurately explain variations in policy implementation. Another limitation relates to using the English translation of the law (even though the official one) which means we might be missing some (cognitive-) linguistic dimensions (Goldkuhl 2016).…”

“…First, the legal language of electoral laws might be difficult to comprehend for non-lawyers. Second, some electoral laws allow for multiple interpretations (Kropf, Vercellotti, and Kimball 2013;Suttmann-Lea 2020). Third, electoral laws change frequently, which does not make the task of implementing laws easier.…”

Vote Centers and the Voter Experience

“…Even if some voters have to travel a greater distance from their place of residence, the ability to choose a location may reduce perceived opportunity costs. Additionally, though some voters may have to travel a greater distance, the time could be made up by increased efficiency of more numerous and experienced poll workers which reduces the number of people in line, the time it takes to check in, and the overall time spent in the polling place itself (see Atkeson et al, 2014; Stein et al, 2019; Suttman-Lea, 2020).…”

“…In the administration of in-person elections, poll workers act as street-level bureaucrats charged with the frontline implementation of voting rules. Consequently, poll worker interactions can impact polling place experience as the implementation of in-person elections relies on the varied subjective judgments of individual poll workers (Suttman-Lea, 2020). For example, the most substantive interaction between voters and poll workers usually occurs during the voter check-in process.…”