Voters who are not wealthy or white are more likely to live in counties with fewer resources to ensure timely ballot counting, according to a new election index.
Research from Washington State University introduces the County Election Administration Index, which assesses election performance at the county level instead of the state level.
Electoral administration
Election administration includes the policies and processes that ensure access, integrity, and accuracy in elections. Despite claims of voter fraud in the last presidential election, researchers found that overall election performance in the U.S. improved from 2016 to 2020.
However, the study revealed significant variability in election administration among counties, even within the same state. Lower performance was linked to areas with higher numbers of low-income and minority populations.
“Most funding for election administration comes from the local tax base, so a county’s wealth greatly affects its ability to afford robust election administration,” the researchers explain.
Economic inequality
Economic inequality often correlates with racial and ethnic demographics, and the index showed that areas with more racial or ethnic minorities often had lower-performing election administrations. Many urban areas ranked lowest on the index.
In comparing metropolitan areas during the 2020 election, New York City had the lowest performance, followed by San Antonio, Texas, and San Diego, California. The highest performing was Louisville, Kentucky, followed by Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Seattle’s King County ranked fifth, with Clackamas and Multnomah counties in Portland, Oregon, among the top twenty.
The researchers developed the new index because the commonly used Election Performance Index focuses on states, while much of the election process—such as staffing polling sites and purchasing voting machines—occurs at the county level.
“The United States is unique among advanced democracies in its highly decentralized election administration,” they explain. “Federal and state governments set general directives for elections, but many actions are carried out by county governments.”
Diverse measures
The new index includes 19 measures of election administration, such as voter wait times, the percentage of rejected provisional ballots, and “residual voting” rates, which reflect the percentage of cast ballots that were not counted.
A high residual voting rate may indicate issues with the county-level process, such as inadequate poll worker training, malfunctioning voting machines, or ballot design problems.
Another key measure was the presence of post-election or risk-limiting audit laws, which help ensure that election machines work correctly and votes are accurately counted. Several states, including Alabama, Maine, Mississippi, and South Dakota, lack these audit laws.
The authors have made the County Election Index data available for researchers and election officials. They are developing an interactive website that will allow the public to look up their county’s performance. The researchers hope this data will help optimize election administration in the U.S. and empower voters to advocate for improvements.
