Polling place hours and voter turnout

Kyle A. Dropp1

Polling place hours on Election Day vary considerably within and between states. Doesthis variation affect voter turnout? In the first study on the subject, I find that a 25%reduction in polling place hours exerts no influence on voter turnout. This study utilizesa regression discontinuity design and examines a Minnesota statute enabling jurisdictionswith fewer than 500 residents to delay opening their polls by three hours on Election Day.Since areas with slightly more than 500 residents are indistinguishable from areas justbelow the threshold, the research design produces a credible estimate of the causal impactof reducing polling place hours of operation on voter turnout. This paper’s main findingis that the hundreds of voting precincts with reduced hours do not exhibit lower levels ofturnout in November 2010. Precinct level observational data from a Northeastern statelends support to this finding.

1PhD candidate, Department of Political Science, Stanford University, dropp@stanford.edu

1

Introduction

Election Day polling place hours for presidential and midterm contests vary considerablywithin and between states, affecting the convenience of the voting process. A robust re-search literature has shown that increasing the convenience associated with casting a ballotincreases voter turnout. The current study employs a regression discontinuity design frame-work to test whether sizable reductions in polling place hours on Election Day reduce voterturnout.

This research project examines a Minnesota statute authorizing areas with fewer than500 residents to reduce polling place hours by up to three hours on Election Day. Whileapproximately 600 jurisdictions limited their hours of operation to 10 hours in November2010, polling places in all other jurisdictions remained open for 13 hours. Areas withslightly more than 500 residents are indistinguishable from areas just below the electionlaw population threshold.

This study’s main finding is that voter turnout is no different in areas with expansive hoursvis a vis those with limited operating hours. The null findings are consistent across a seriesof instrumental variables models and do not result from low statistical power – the precinctlevel dataset contains 4,100 observations, variation in voter turnout rates is low and thehypothesized treatment effects are considerable. Further, time series, cross-sectional datafrom a Northeast state with wide variation in polling place hours confirms the null findingin the regression discontinuity design.

These null findings stand in contrast to conventional wisdom and have important implica-tions for party mobilization efforts, political debates over polling place accessibility, localbudgets and public policy. This study is organized as follows. First, I discuss the literatureand hypotheses. Next, I describe the Minnesota statute in detail. Then, I discuss datacollection, research design and findings. The final section briefly concludes.

Theory and Hypotheses

Election Day polling place hours for presidential and midterm contests vary considerablywithin and between states.2 A long line of research in political science has demonstratedthat increasing costs associated with casting a ballot decreases voter turnout. Costs, de-fined broadly, may reference changes in election administration policies such as early voting,

2Intrastate variation is concentrated in Northeast states such as Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont.In Vermont, for instance, polls across the state stay open between nine and 13 hours. Neighboring statesalso exhibit strikingly different patterns. Polls stay open 14 hours in Iowa but only 13 in adjacent Illinois,Missouri, Wisconsin, 12 in Nebraska, and 10 in parts of Minnesota.

2

registration deadlines, residency requirments, motor voter or same day registration; phys-ical costs attributable to distance traveled, precinct consolidations or inclement weather;or effort required to obtain information about the candidates [Ansolabehere and Konisky,2006, Brady and McNulty, 2011, Burden and Neiheisel, 2011, Gomez et al., 2007, Gronkeet al., 2007, Haspel and Knotts, 2005, Knack, 1995, McNulty et al., 2009, Rosenstone andWolfinger, 1978, Wolfinger et al., 1990].

Since the utility an individual receives from voting is a function of the overall costs andbenefits associated with casting a ballot [Riker and Ordeshook, 1968], and voting costs risein areas with limited Election Day polling place hours, I predict that limited polling placehours will reduce voter turnout.

Many individuals have busy or constrained work and family schedules, and there is ampleevidence that these busy schedules affect voting patterns. First, 26 percent of registeredvoters who failed to cast a ballot in November 2010 selected “too busy, conflicting work orschool schedule” as their reason for not voting, according to the 2010 Current PopulationSurvey’s (CPS) November supplement. Non-voters cited conflicting schedules as their topreason for staying home on Election Day, and such work or school conflicts likely areexacerbated in locations with limited polling place hours in the morning or early evening.In areas with extended hours of operation, residents can vote before or after work; however,voters residing in jurisdictions with more limited hours must cast their vote during workhours.

Second, and related, a sizable proportion of individuals can cast a ballot in person onlyin the morning. This subgroup is particularly susceptible to influence by minor shifts orreductions in precinct hours. Approximately one in six Americans can vote between 7:00a.m. and 10:00 a.m. but at no other time throughout the day, according to a Spring 2012survey.3

Third, despite recent gains in popularity for alternative types of voting such as absentee-by-mail or absentee-in-person voting, in-person Election Day voting remains the preeminentmethod. Three-in-four voters (75.1 percent) in 2010 cast their ballots on Election Day,according to the 2010 Current Population Survey.4 In Minnesota, nearly all voting is donein person on Election Day.5 In 2010, for example, absentee ballots represented only 6% ofall ballots cast.6

3The survey asked respondents on Amazon Mechanical Turk to list all hourly time periods between 7a.m. and 8 p.m. in which they could vote. 219 out of 1,355 (16%) respondents could vote prior to 10:00a.m. but not at any time thereafter.

4The 2010 CPS says 24.9 percent cast their ballots early, either in person or by mail http://

pewhispanic.org/files/reports/141.pdf5Residents must have an excuse to cast an absentee by ballot by mail, which leads to low rates of absentee

voting across the state.6http://www.sos.state.mn.us/index.aspx?page=1570

3

The Minnesota election statute (explained in detail below) shortened morning precincthours, one of the busiest times to vote, according to exit polls and surveys. Between one-quarter and one-third of voters say they cast their ballots between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00a.m., according to surveys and exit polls [Fuchs and Becker, 1968, Busch and Lieske, 1985].7

Forty-five percent of respondents to the 1992 Current Population Survey, for example, saidthey cast their ballot before noon on Election Day.

Finally, a series of recent studies demonstrate that similar shifts in election administrationpolicy can decrease voter turnout. Decreases in voter turnout have resulted from con-solidating precincts in Los Angeles County [Brady and McNulty, 2011], moving precinctpolling places [Haspel and Knotts, 2005], increasing the distance from the individual’s res-idence and polling place [Haspel and Knotts, 2005] and resulting from inclement weatheron Election Day [Gomez et al., 2007].

In summary, five reasons suggest that areas with shortened polling place hours on ElectionDay will exhibit lower voter turnout: recent literature has shown that similar changesin election administration policies such as precinct consolidation reduce participation, aplurality of non-voters cite scheduling conflicts for staying home, the vast majority of ballotsare still submitted on Election Day, many voters can only cast ballots in the morning andthe morning period is one of the busiest on Election Day. The next sections take thesepredictions to the data.

Polling place hours in Minnesota

This section focuses on a Minnesota statute that authorizes townships under a specifiedpopulation threshold to delay poll opening times on Election Day. The foregoing subsec-tions introduce the statute, describe its provisions, compare eligible and ineligible munici-palities, describe data collection efforts and present descriptive statistics such as complianceand balance tests.

7There is little contemporary data available on the subject. In Alameda County, California in 1968, 8.2percent voted before 8 a.m., 13.3 percent voted between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m., 14.0 percent voted between10 a.m. and noon, 11.6 percent voted between noon and 2 p.m., 12.2 percent voted between 2 p.m. and 4p.m., 11.3 percent voted between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m., 14.3 percent voted between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m., and4.4 percent voted between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m.[Fuchs and Becker, 1968] In 1972, 11.4 percent voted prior to8 a.m., 31.9 percent voted between 8 a.m. and noon, 21.4 percent voted between noon and 4 p.m., 21.2percent voted between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m., and 14.1 percent voted after 6 p.m, according to the CurrentPopulation Survey. In a 1981 Cleveland exit poll, Busch and Lieske find that 15.1 percent voted 6:30 a.m.to 9:00 a.m., 17.8 percent voted 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., 25.4 percent voted 11:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., 18.1percent voted 2:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. and 23.6 percent voted 4:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.[Busch and Lieske,1985] Forty-five percent of respondents to the 1992 Current Population Survey said they cast their ballotbefore noon, compared with 21 percent who said they voted between noon and 4 p.m., 19 percent whovoted between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m., and 15 percent who cast their ballot after 6 p.m.

4

The statute

In 2005, Minnesota revised an election law to grant specific jurisdictions the authority toreduce polling place hours on Election Day, and approximately 600 eligible areas shortenedtheir hours of operation in November 2010, the most recent midterm contest. For historicaldetails on the law dating back to 1981, see the footnote.8 The statute addresses three mainquestions: 1) what are acceptable poll opening and closing times for statewide generalelections, 2) which areas are eligible to reduce poll hours, and 3) what is the process fordeciding whether to reduce hours?

The statute sets standard opening and closing times for polls in statewide general electionsacross the state: “Except as otherwise provided...hours for voting in every precinct in thestate shall begin at 7:00 a.m. and shall extend continuously until 8:00 p.m.”9

The law’s next subdivision exempts smaller jurisdictions outside of the Twin Cities metropoli-tan area10 from the strict hours requirement. These precincts can open their polling lo-cations as late as 10:00 a.m., up to three hours later than the 7:00 a.m. opening timeprescribed in the aforementioned statute. All precincts must maintain the standard 8:00p.m. closing time:

8In 1981, 204C.05, Subdivision 1 was changed to say “The governing body of a municipality of less than1,000 inhabitants, located entirely outside the metropolitan area as defined in Minnesota statutes, Section473.121, Subdivision 2, may fix a later time for voting to begin...it shall not be later than 9:00 a.m. for thestate general election.” https://www.revisor.mn.gov/data/revisor/law/1981/0/1981-029.pdf Section473.121 refers to counties near the Twin Cities.

In 1983, the clause was deleted and all polling places maintained full hours on Election Day https:

//www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?doctype=Chapter&year=1983&type=0&id=303.Two years later, in 1985, the statutes were amended to enable smaller jurisdictions to reduce hours: “Subd.

1a. ...The governing body of a town with less than 500 inhabitants according to the most recent federaldecennial census, which is located outside the metropolitan area as defined in section 473.121, subdivision 2,may fix a later time for voting to begin at state primary, special, or general elections, if approved by a voteof the town electors at the annual town meeting. The question of shorter voting hours must be included inthe notice of the annual town meeting before the question may be submitted to the electors at the meeting.The later time may not be later than 10:00 a.m. for special, primary, or general elections. The town clerkshall either post or publish notice of the changed hours and notify the county auditor of the change 30 daysbefore the election. Subd. 1b. [ELECTIONS; UNORGANIZED TERRITORY.] An unorganized territoryor unorganized territories which constitute a voting district may have shorter voting hours if at least 20percent of the registered voters residing in the voting district sign a petition for shorter hours and presentit to the county auditor. The later time may not be later than 10:00 a.m. for special, primary, or generalelections....” https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?doctype=Chapter&year=1985&type=0&id=169

Finally, in 2005, the definition of a metropolitan area switched from from 473.121 to a more inclu-sive 200.02.https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?doctype=Chapter&year=2005&type=0&id=156 Comparedwith 1985, the following areas were considered metropolitan areas and forced to maintain full hours onElection Day: Chisago, Dakota (part), Hennepin (part), Isanti, Scott (part), Sherburne, and Wright.

9Section 204C.05, Subdivision 110The Twin Cities Metro Area is referenced as Section 200.02, subdivision 24

5

The governing body of a town with less than 500 inhabitants according to themost recent federal decennial census, which is located outside the metropolitanarea as defined in section 200.02, subdivision 24, may fix a later time for votingto begin at state primary, special, or general elections, if approved by a vote ofthe town electors at the annual town meeting. The later time may not be laterthan 10:00 a.m. for special, primary, or general elections.” 11

The later opening time must be approved at a town meeting, an annual low-key gatheringwhere residents generally review year-end financial reports, discuss the budget and reviewcurrent or future maintenance projects.

Finally, while many eligible jurisdictions decide to reduce polling place hours of operation,more than 500 of the state’s tiniest precincts conduct their elections solely by mail-inballoting. Residents in such areas are mailed ballots approximately 20 days before anelection. The governing board of any municipality with fewer than 400 registered voters asof June 1 of the current election year may apply to the county auditor for permission toconduct balloting by mail.12

Eligible areas

To summarize the previous subsection, municipalities can reduce polling place hours if 1)they are located outside of the Twin Cities metropolitan area, 2) they have fewer than 500inhabitants according to the 2000 decennial Census and 3) if town electors approve thechange at an annual town meeting. Three thousand of the 4,100+ precincts in Minnesotaare located outside of the Twin Cities, nearly 1,800 satisfy conditions 1 and 2, and about600 reduced their polling place hours in 2010.

There are hundreds of precincts slightly above or below the 500 person threshold, providingrelatively high statistical power for a regression discontinuity design.

Figure 1 on Page 14 displays a histogram of the population of precincts in the non-metropolitan areas. There are 350 precincts either above or below the threshold within100 persons, more than 500 precincts within 150 persons and 750 within 200 persons eitherway.

[Figure 1 about here]

11From Subd. 1a. Elections; organized town.12https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=204B.45&year=2011 “A municipality having

fewer than 400 registered voters on June 1 of an election year and not located in a metropolitan county asdefined by section 473.121 may provide balloting by mail at any municipal, county, or state election withno polling place other than the office of the auditor or clerk or other locations designated by the auditor orclerk. The governing body may apply to the county auditor for permission to conduct balloting by mail. ”

6

Figure 2 displays the eligible counties, all counties outside of the Twin Cities Metropolitanarea, in yellow. Figure 3 displays the actions taken by these jurisdictions. Areas shadedred maintained full polling place hours in 2010, yellow areas reduced hours, and white areasconducted mail-in elections. In many suburban and rural counties, small cities maintainedfull hours while the outlying areas reduced hours. This trend is most apparent in southwestMinnesota.

[Figures 2 and 3 about here]

Data collection

Precinct level election returns for 2008 and 2010 were obtained from the Minnesota Sec-retary of State’s office. The data includes total voter turnout, votes for each office andabsentee balloting in each voting district.

The Secretary of State’s office does not maintain a statewide database of polling placehours of operation. Polling place opening and closing times for the 2010 midterm electionwere obtained from the state’s 87 county auditors via phone correspondences and emailrequests.13

The voting returns were matched with Census data from the National Historical GeographicInformation System site, supplementing the datasets with extensive voting district leveldemographic information.14 Merged Census variables include racial composition, hispanicbackground, median age, housing unit tenure, rental status, urban vs. rural, marital status,employment status, work commute, educational attainment, college enrollment, citizenship,industry type, occupation type, median household income and poverty rate. The precinct’s2000 Census population was used to note whether it was eligible to reduce hours and servesas an instrument in the two stage least squares models (described in the next section).

Descriptive statistics

Table 1 on Page 16 displays the relationship between municipality size and polling placehours of operation. There is an inverse relationship between size and the decision to reducehours on Election Day. The top half demonstrates that nearly all jurisdictions complied

13Nearly all County auditors provided spreadsheets with this information.14First, the precinct level vote returns were matched with 2010 Census voting district files. Second, 2000

Block Group level demographic information was linked with the 2010 voting district level file. This paperuses 2000 data because there was no Census long form in the most recent decennial Census. A possiblenext step is to link five year 2006-10 American Community estimates to voting districts and to aggregaterace, hispanic background, median age from the 2010 block level to the 2010 voting district level.

7

with the election statute: only 12 areas with populations above 500 reduced hours whilemore than 500 with populations under the threshold reduced their hours. The bottomhalf shows that there are hundreds of precincts on each side of the 500 person threshold.Precincts with fewer than 250 inhabitants were most likely to reduce their hours or conducttheir elections by mail-in ballots.

[Table 1 about here]

Figure 4 on Page 17 displays the relationship between population size and the probabil-ity of reducing precinct hours. The plot demonstrates that the instrument satisfies theinclusion restriction, as it is correlated with the endogenous explanatory variable at con-ventional levels of significance.15 Each precinct is represented by a black dot, and separatesmoothed lines have been created for precincts above and below the 500 person populationthreshold.

Precincts containing slightly less than 500 persons are much more likely to reduce hours.Approximately half of the smallest precincts limit polling place hours of operation andone in four precincts with between 400 and 500 persons limits hours. By contrast, only ahandful of larger precincts reduce hours. No jurisdictions with 650 or more residents limitpolling place hours.

[Figure 4 about here]

Table 2 on Page 18 demonstrates that precincts on both sides of the 500 person populationthreshold are nearly identical across demographic variables such as age, race, educationalattainment, political views and median income. For instance, residents in voting districtsabove and below the cutoff by 150 persons typically are white, middle class, and married.Table 2 provides separate balance statistics for precincts within 150 persons of the thresholdon either side and those within 250 persons of the threshold.

[Table 2 about here]

In summary, there are hundreds of voting districts on either side of the 500 person thresh-old identified in the election statute, areas on both sides are similar across a series ofimportant demographic characteristics, and the threshold predicts precinct polling hoursof operations.

15The McFadden’s Pseudo R-squared for a regression of an indicator for reducing hours on population is.18 and the coefficient is significant.

8

Research Design and Findings

In general, observational approaches cannot provide a credible causal estimate of the impactof polling place hours on voter turnout. Extending hours of operation may amplify turnout,but, if officials in areas with lower turnout expectations extend polling place hours, then itwill appear that such extensions reduce voter turnout.

The challenge, therefore, is in finding polling places that are identical but for our primaryindependent variable – polling place hours of operation. Jurisdictions in Minnesota withslightly more than 500 residents should be indistinguishable from those with slightly fewerthan 500; however, the first subset maintains full hours on Election Day and the latter candelay poll opening times by up to three hours.

Regression Discontinuity Design

The defining characteristic of a regression discontinuity design is that the probability ofreceiving treatment varies discontinuously as a function of an underlying variable [Hahnet al., 2001]. In the primary specification, I treat polling place hours in 2010 as an endoge-nous explanatory variable and instrument for this variable using the 500-person populationthreshold. That is, the first stage equation regresses polling place hours on the populationthreshold, while the second stage regresses voter 2010 turnout on predictions from the firststage.

Table 3 on Page 19 displays results for three instrumental variables models across twopopulation thresholds. The first stage in these models was estimated by an OLS regressionof polling place hours on the population threshold, along with demographic controls andprevious turnout. Models 1 - 3 compare precincts with 500 to 750 persons to those with250-499 persons, while Models 4-6 compare precincts with 500 to 650 persons to those with350-499 residents. Overall, the main explanatory variable, Hours, does not significantlypredict 2010 voter turnout in any of the models. Background control variables such asage, marital status, educational attainment and median income are all in the expecteddirection

[Table 3 about here]

Table 4 on Page 20 reports results for another set of instrumental variables models that useda first stage logistic regression (rather than OLS).16 As in Table 3, there is no relationshipbetween the decision to reduce polling place hours and voter participation.

16Precincts that reduce hours are coded as 1 while those that maintain full hours are coded as 0.

9

[Table 4 about here]

Finally, precincts were matched using genetic matching across the 500 resident threshold onage, race, educational attainment and median household income. There was no differencein turnout across the threshold. Given the relative balance displayed in Table 2 on Page 18,it is not surprising that these estimates are nearly identical to the instrumental variablesestimates in Tables 3 and 4.

Overall, differences in polling place hours across precincts exert little effect on voterturnout, despite the large dataset and relatively low variation in turnout across voterprecincts.

Variation in Polling Hours in Vermont

Polling place hours of operation vary considerable within Vermont, staying open betweennine and 13 hours on Election Day for general elections.17 I test whether polling placeswith longer hours exhibit higher levels of turnout on Election Day using time-series, cross-sectional data from the state. Overall, neither cross-sectional differences in hours, norwithin precinct changes in polling place hours over time, affect political participation.

I obtained data on polling place hours of operation in Vermont at the township level from2004 through 2010. Next, I merged this data with voter turnout data from the VermontSecretary of State’s office and Census demographic data.

Table 5 illustrates that there is no relationship between polling place hours on ElectionDay and voter turnout in Vermont.18 Models 1-3 use the voting age population as thedependent variable, while Models 4-6 use the number of registered voters. Each of themodels includes fixed effects for the four midterm and general election years.

[Table 5 about here]

Table 6 examines both cross-sectional differences in polling hours and within precinctchanges over time. The variable Opening Time Difference is 0 if the polling place opened at

17Vermont polling places are open between nine and 13 hours on Election Day. The modes are at nineand 12 hours. In the state, polling places must close at 7 p.m. but opening times range from 6 a.m. to 10a.m. According to Kathleen Scheele, Vermont’s Director or Elections and Campaign Finance, local “BCAs[Boards of Civil Authority] have had the power to set the opening hours for over 30 years. There is alwaysvariations in Vermont primarily based upon the number of voters in the town.” Nearly all townships largerthan 4,000 residents have polling places that remain open 12 or 13 hours, while a majority of municipalitiesunder 1,000 residents have a limited, nine hour voting period.

18The main independent variable, Poll Opening Time, is coded 1 to 5, where precincts opening at 6 a.m.are 1 and precincts opening at 10 a.m. are 5.

10

the same time across two election cycles, positive if the polling place opened later (shorterhours) in the second comparison year, and negative if the polling place opened earlier in thesecond year. Models 1-4 regress the change in turnout for elections two years apart (e.g.,2004 to 2006; 2006 to 2008; 2008 to 2010) on the opening time difference and poll openingtime, while Models 5-8 examine change only across midterm contests (e.g., 2006 to 2010)or presidential elections (e.g., 2004 to 2008). The full models with demographic controlvariables suggest that poll opening times exert little to no influence on voter turnout acrossthe state.

[Table 6 about here]

Conclusion

This study’s main finding is that voter turnout is no different in areas with expansive hoursvis a vis those with limited operating hours. The null findings are consistent across a seriesof instrumental variables models and do not result from low statistical power – the precinctlevel dataset contains 4,100 observations, variation in voter turnout rates is low and thehypothesized treatment effects are considerable. Further, time series, cross-sectional datafrom a Northeast state with wide variation in polling place hours confirms the null findingin the regression discontinuity design.

The finding is unintuitive, since nearly all Minnesota voters cast their ballots in person onElection Day and exit polls and other studies show that a significant proportion of voterstypically cast their ballots in the affected morning hours. It suggests that municipalitiesmay be able to save money on Election Day without concomitantly reducing voter partic-ipation rates. This section addresses the generalizability and potential limitations of thisstudy.

The statute under examination applies to suburban and rural areas in the state of Min-nesota, along with the state of Vermont, thus excluding diverse, urban areas. Changes inpolling place hours of operation affect urban residents differently than suburban or ruralvoters.

The treatment may not have been strong enough. While hundreds of precincts opened at10 a.m. rather than 7 a.m., this disruption may not have been a strong enough treatment.Morning voters could return a few hours later. Future studies can test when closing a pollexerts a larger impact on turnout, compared with opening a poll late.

Voters may be well informed of these polling place hours changes. Residents in Minnesotamust approve election law changes at an annual town meeting and the county auditor and

11

local officials must provide notice of polling place hours and other election informationprior to each election. Finally, voting is habitual, and if these hours have been in place formultiple election cycles, voters may adjust their schedules accordingly.

References

S. Ansolabehere and D. M. Konisky. The introduction of voter registration and its effecton turnout. Political Analysis, 14(1):83aAS100, 2006.

H. E. Brady and J. E. McNulty. Turning out to vote: The costs of finding and getting tothe polling place. American Political Science Review, 105(1):115–134, 2011.

B. C. Burden and J. R. Neiheisel. Election administration and the pure effect of voterregistration on turnout. Political Research Quarterly, 2011.

R. J. Busch and J. A. Lieske. Does time of voting affect exit poll results? Public OpinionQuarterly, 49(1):94–104, 1985.

D. A. Fuchs and J. Becker. A brief report on the time of day when people vote. The PublicOpinion Quarterly, 32(3):437–440, 1968.

B. T. Gomez, T. G. Hansford, and G. A. Krause. The republicans should pray for rain:Weather, turnout, and voting in US presidential elections. Journal of Politics, 69(3):649–663, 2007.

P. Gronke, E. Galanes-Rosenbaum, and P. A. Miller. Early voting and turnout. PS:Political Science & Politics, 40(04):639–645, 2007.

Jinyong Hahn, Petra Todd, and Wilbert Van der Klaauw. Identification and estimation oftreatment effects with a regression-discontinuity design. Econometrica, 69(1):201–209,2001.

Moshe Haspel and H. Gibbs Knotts. Location, location, location: Precinct placement andthe costs of voting. Journal of Politics, 67(2):560–573, 2005.

Stephen Knack. Does ”Motor voter” work? evidence from state-level data. The Journal ofPolitics, 57(03):796–811, 1995.

J. E. McNulty, C. M. Dowling, and M. H. Ariotti. Driving saints to sin: How increasingthe difficulty of voting dissuades even the most motivated voters. Political Analysis, 17(4):435–455, 2009.

W. H. Riker and P. C. Ordeshook. A theory of the calculus of voting. The AmericanPolitical Science Review, 62(1):25–42, 1968.

12

S. J. Rosenstone and R. E. Wolfinger. The effect of registration laws on voter turnout. TheAmerican Political Science Review, pages 22–45, 1978.

W. Van der Klaauw. Estimating the effect of financial aid offers on college enrollment:A regression-discontinuity approach. International Economic Review, 43(4):1249–1287,2002.

R. E. Wolfinger, D. P. Glass, and P. Squire. Predictors of electoral turnout: An internationalcomparison. Review of Policy Research, 9(3):551–574, 1990.

13

Figure 1: Voting precinct population in Minnesota

Population, 2000 Census

Frequency

0 200 400 600 800

050

100

150

200

250

14

Figure 2: Areas eligible to reduce hours

Figure 3: Polling place hours. Red is full,yellow is reduced, white is mail-in

15

Table 1: Precincts by Polling Place Hours and 2000 PopulationFull Reduced Mail-in Total

Metropolitan

1153 0 0 1153

Non-Metropolitan

Under 250 people 363 346 283 1015250-349 147 159 32 370350-499 214 73 15 306500-650 200 11 3 215651-750 123 0 1 124751-1000 213 1 2 216

16

Figure 4: 2000 Population and probability of reducing hours in 2010

200 300 400 500 600 700 800

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

2000 Population

Pro

babi

lity

of re

duci

ng h

ours

17

Table 2: Balance summary across Census demographic variablesPrecinct Population

250-499 500-750 350-499 500-650

% Dayton - Gov 2010 .39 .39 .39 .39% White .98 .98 .98 .97% Married .63 .64 .64 .64% Never Married .23 .22 .23 .23% Urban .11 .08 .12 .09% Renter .15 .15 16 .15% Poverty .08 .08 .09 .09% Age 18-29 .12 .12 .13 .12% Age 65+ .16 .17 .17 .18% Citizens .99 1.00 .99 .99Median HH Income 41,836 42,085 41,866 41,159

Cases 555 323 279 205

18

Table 3: IV estimates polling place hours and 2010 voter turnout, Minnesota - OLS firststage

+/- 250 residents +/- 150 residents

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

Hours -0.0099 0.0010 -0.0009 -0.0162 0.0025 -0.0021(range is 10-13) (0.0058) (0.0038) (0.0039) (0.0128) (0.0082) (0.0079)% White 0.1824 * 0.0733 * 0.2106 * 0.0818

(0.0513) (0.0343) (0.0688) (0.0428)Median HH 0.0014 * 0.0001 0.0027 * 0.0001Income (1,000s) (0.0006) (0.0004) (0.0008) (0.0005)

% College 0.2440 * 0.1467 * 0.2220 * 0.1822 *(0.0589) (0.0392) (0.0853) (0.0527)

% Married 0.1146 * 0.0679 -0.0402 0.0160(0.0548) (0.0364) (0.0785) (0.0486)

% 20 yrs+ -0.0466 -0.0268 -0.0002 0.0063Housing Tenure (0.0320) (0.0213) (0.0482) (0.0298)

% Age 55+ 0.3421 * 0.1501 * 0.4427 * 0.1623 *(0.0405) (0.0276) (0.0599) (0.0384)

Turnout ’08 0.7837 * 0.7254 * 0.8414 * 0.7843 *(0.0210) (0.0214) (0.0273) (0.0279)

Constant 0.2312 * -0.0218 -0.1398 * 0.2696 -0.0827 -0.1709(0.0817) (0.0522) (0.0565) (0.1514) (0.1056) (0.0950)

N 945 945 945 497 497 497adj. R2 0.1660 0.6022 0.6317 0.1740 0.6563 0.6849Resid. sd 0.0827 0.0571 0.0549 0.0853 0.0550 0.0527

Standard errors in parentheses

∗ indicates significance at p < 0.05

19

Table 4: IV estimates of polling place hours and 2010 voter turnout, Minnesota - logit firststage

+/- 250 residents +/- 150 residents

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

Reduced Hours -0.0099 -0.0054 -0.0009 0.0255 -0.0061 -0.0018(0.0058) (0.0112) (0.0039) (0.0353) (0.0239) (0.0218)

% White 0.1824 * 0.0733 * 0.2036 * 0.0757(0.0513) (0.0343) (0.0728) (0.0452)

Median HH 0.0014 * 0.0001 0.0027 * 0.0001Income (1,000s) (0.0006) (0.0004) (0.0008) (0.0005)

% College 0.2440 * 0.1467 * 0.2202 * 0.1826 *(0.0589) (0.0392) (0.0855) (0.0528)

% Married 0.1146 * 0.0679 -0.0331 0.0215(0.0548) (0.0364) (0.0813) (0.0502)

% 20 yrs+ -0.0466 -0.0268 -0.0052 0.0044Housing Tenure (0.0320) (0.0213) (0.0482) (0.0298)

% Age 55+ 0.3421 * 0.1501 * 0.4337 * 0.1580 *(0.0405) (0.0276) (0.0604) (0.0386)

Turnout ’08 0.7842 * 0.7254 * 0.8413 * 0.7851 *(0.0209) (0.0214) (0.0273) (0.0279)

Constant 0.2312 * -0.0088 -0.1398 * 0.0693 -0.0504 * -0.1925 *(0.0817) (0.0153) (0.0565) (0.0704) (0.0204) (0.0442)

N 945 945 945 497 497 497adj. R2 0.1660 0.6022 0.6317 0.1721 0.6563 0.6849Resid. sd 0.0827 0.0571 0.0549 0.0854 0.0550 0.0527

Standard errors in parentheses

∗ indicates significance at p < 0.05

20

Table 5: OLS models that regress turnout on poll opening hours, Vermont(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

%VAP %VAP %VAP %RVs %RVs %RVs

Poll Opening Time -0.006 * -0.003 -0.001 -0.000 -0.001 0.001(6 to 10 a.m.) (0.003) (0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.002)

Log of Median HH Income 0.243 * 0.298 * 0.154 * 0.199 *(0.017) (0.019) (0.016) (0.018)

% College 0.169 * 0.136 * 0.009 0.011(0.027) (0.029) (0.026) (0.028)

Voting Age Population -0.002 * -0.002 * -0.002 * -0.001 *(square root) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)Constant 0.690 * -1.856 * -2.478 * 0.710 * -0.851 * -1.326 *

(0.022) (0.177) (0.199) (0.016) (0.171) (0.192)N 1064 1064 1064 1064 1064 1064adj. R2 0.301 0.693 0.715 0.461 0.608 0.638Resid. sd 4.350 2.883 2.778 3.271 2.789 2.680

Year Fixed Effects Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesCounty Fixed Effects No No Yes No No Yes

Standard errors in parentheses

∗ indicates significance at p < 0.05

21

Tab

le6:

Diff

eren

cein

Turn

out

Mod

els,

Ver

mont

Mod

el1

Model

2M

odel

3M

od

el4

Model

5M

od

el6

Model

7M

odel

8

%V

AP

Turn

out

Diff

-E

lect

ion

tvs.

t-1

%V

AP

Turn

ou

tD

iff-

Ele

ctio

nt

vs.

t-2

Op

enin

gT

ime

Diff

eren

ce0.

003

0.00

3-0

.002

-0.0

030.

002

0.00

10.0

140.0

04

(0.0

02)

(0.0

02)

(0.0

12)

(0.0

12)

(0.0

02)

(0.0

02)

(0.0

12)

(0.0

12)

Log

ofM

edia

nH

HIn

com

e0.

021

0.01

60.0

53*

0.0

52

*(0

.011

)(0

.011

)(0

.012)

(0.0

12)

%C

olle

ge

-0.0

19-0

.021

-0.0

06

-0.0

06

(0.0

18)

(0.0

18)

(0.0

20)

(0.0

20)

Pol

ling

Op

enin

gT

ime

-0.0

03*

-0.0

02-0

.004

*-0

.000

(0.0

01)

(0.0

01)

(0.0

01)

(0.0

01)

Pol

ling

Op

enin

gT

ime

*0.

001

0.00

1-0

.001

-0.0

00

Op

enin

gT

ime

Diff

eren

ce(0

.002

)(0

.002

)(0

.002

)(0

.001)

Con

stant

-0.1

02*

-0.3

16*

-0.0

81*

-0.2

54*

0.02

6*

-0.5

35

*0.

058

*-0

.520

*(0

.002

)(0

.111

)(0

.010

)(0

.116

)(0

.002)

(0.1

23)

(0.0

11)

(0.1

30)

N79

879

879

879

853

253

2532

532

adj.

R2

0.90

90.

909

0.91

00.

910

0.41

30.4

57

0.4

210.4

55

Res

id.

sd1.

651

1.64

91.

647

1.64

71.

554

1.4

951.

543

1.4

97

Yea

rF

ixed

Eff

ects

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Sta

ndard

erro

rsin

pare

nth

eses

∗in

dic

ate

ssi

gnifi

cance

atp<

0.0

5

22