The Gatekeepers of US Elections: Exploring Street Level Bureaucrats in Montana

Rinfret, Sara R.; Barsky, Christina

doi:10.1080/01900692.2019.1669173

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Election workers who hold strong personal beliefs that the right to vote should not be infringed, for instance, may be motivated to leniency in checking mail ballot return signatures, especially if they have learned that initial rejections are often mistaken. Indeed, some scholars have found that election workers do hold “voter-centric” values and that they are seen as voter advocates by much of the public (Adona et al, 2019; Clark & James, 2021; Rinfret & Barsky, 2020). As Manion and colleagues put it, “local election officials are frontline workers who tend to hold a customer service orientation; they see it as their primary job to help voters successfully register to vote and cast their ballot” (Manion et al, 2021, p. 5).…”

Section: Why Election Workers May Limit the Number Of Signature Rejec...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These scholars contend that bureaucrats do often work hard, even without close monitoring or monetary incentives, due to norms of public service or professionalism, or because they respond to public pressure (Brehm & Gates, 1999;Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2022). Accordingly, in the elections context, there is evidence that election workers hold norms of accountability, are responsive to local voters, and are motivated to problem-solve so that elections run smoothly (Clark & James, 2021;Rinfret & Barsky, 2020), albeit, they may be more responsive to some voters than others (White et al, 2015). This means that, as election workers gain experience with mail ballots, they may learn that the signature verification process is error-proneand respond by reducing signature rejection rates.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Errors and Calibration in Mail Ballot Signature Rejections

Street

2024

American Politics Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many U.S. states require election workers to check signatures on ballots returned by mail, causing tens of thousands of ballots to be rejected at each general election. This paper applies Bayes’ theorem, along with findings from prior research, to show how rejection rates are likely to vary under plausible assumptions about signature checker accuracy and the prevalence of invalid signatures. This approach yields a pair of predictions. On the one hand, given findings from research on handwriting forensics, the Bayesian analysis implies election workers are more likely to wrongly reject valid ballots for purported signature mismatch than to correctly reject invalidly signed returns. On the other hand, research on election workers as problem-solvers suggests they may try to minimize the wrongful rejection of ballots. I find empirical support for each prediction, including signs that election workers learn from past errors to calibrate signature rejection rates downwards. This suggests election worker discretion may be an unexpected source of resilience against laws otherwise liable to disenfranchise eligible voters, although I also discuss conditions under which such discretion may conflict with democratic norms.

show abstract

Section: Why Election Workers May Limit the Number Of Signature Rejec...mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Errors and Calibration in Mail Ballot Signature Rejections

Street

2024

American Politics Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Kimball and Kropf (2006) were the first to classify election workers as street-level bureaucrats. Scholarship since has deeply examined this linkage (e.g., Barsky, 2020; Burden et al, 2012; Hale & Slaton, 2008; Hall et al, 2009; Rinfret & Barsky, 2020). By firmly planting election workers in the role of street-level bureaucrats and public servants, we seek to uncover the “personal demands of public jobs” as it pertains to elections (Guy et al, 2019, p. 10).…”

Section: Democracy Violence and Emotional Labormentioning

confidence: 99%

Heavy Lifting: Emotional Labor and Election Administration

Clark

Barsky

Bustinza

2022

Administration & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The American democratic system depends on the regular execution of free and fair elections, delivered by front-line public workers. Local election officials (LEOs), their staff, and temporary election workers are tasked with providing excellent constituent service and expertise with a high degree of professionalism. Following the 2020 U.S. presidential contest, the very institution of elections has been under attack. This exploratory study investigates the impact of emotional labor on election workers in this atmosphere. The authors uncover the presence and nuances of emotional labor in election administration and raise questions about what this means for the future of election administration.

show abstract

Do Street-Level Bureaucrats Exhibit Transformational Leadership for Influencing Sound Governance and Citizens’ Satisfaction?

Mishra

2020

International Journal of Public Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Gatekeepers of US Elections: Exploring Street Level Bureaucrats in Montana

Cited by 5 publications

References 13 publications

Errors and Calibration in Mail Ballot Signature Rejections

Errors and Calibration in Mail Ballot Signature Rejections

Heavy Lifting: Emotional Labor and Election Administration

Do Street-Level Bureaucrats Exhibit Transformational Leadership for Influencing Sound Governance and Citizens’ Satisfaction?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About