Suchergebnisse
Filter
18 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
Democracy's Bureaucracy: The Complicated Case of Voter Registration Lists
In: 103 B.U. L. Rev. 2123 (2023)
SSRN
The Future of Felon Disenfranchisement Reform: Evidence from the Campaign to Restore Voting Rights in Florida
In: California Law Review, Band 109, Heft 3
SSRN
Discretionary Disenfranchisement: The Case of Legal Financial Obligations
In: Journal of Legal Studies, Band 46, S. 309-338
SSRN
The Politics of the Restoration of Ex-Felon Voting Rights: The Case of Iowa
In: Quarterly journal of political science: QJPS, Band 10, Heft 1, S. 41-100
ISSN: 1554-0634
The Politics of the Restoration of Ex-Felon Voting Rights: The Case of Iowa
In: Quarterly Journal of Political Science, Band 10, S. 41-100
SSRN
Do Voting Rights Notification Laws Increase Ex-Felon Turnout?
In: The annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Band 651, Heft 1, S. 220-249
ISSN: 1552-3349
Previous research documents widespread confusion about who can and cannot vote among people who have come into contact with the criminal justice system. This research, and considerable activism drawing attention to the issue, has spurred a number of state legislatures to pass laws requiring the states to notify ex-felons about their voting rights. The purpose of this article is to better understand the policy processes that produce these notification laws and to assess whether the laws affect ex-felons' registration and turnout rates. Data on discharges from the correctional system and voter files are merged from three states that have recently passed notification laws: New Mexico, New York, and North Carolina. Our findings show little evidence of an increase in ex-felon registration or turnout after notification laws are implemented. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright The American Academy of Political and Social Science.]
Do Voting Rights Notification Laws Increase Ex-Felon Turnout?
In: The annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Band 651, Heft 1, S. 220-249
ISSN: 1552-3349
Previous research documents widespread confusion about who can and cannot vote among people who have come into contact with the criminal justice system. This research, and considerable activism drawing attention to the issue, has spurred a number of state legislatures to pass laws requiring the states to notify ex-felons about their voting rights. The purpose of this article is to better understand the policy processes that produce these notification laws and to assess whether the laws affect ex-felons' registration and turnout rates. Data on discharges from the correctional system and voter files are merged from three states that have recently passed notification laws: New Mexico, New York, and North Carolina. Our findings show little evidence of an increase in ex-felon registration or turnout after notification laws are implemented.
SSRN
Who Votes Without Identification? Using Individual-Level Administrative Data to Measure the Burden of Strict Voter Identification Laws
In: Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, Forthcoming
SSRN
Working paper
The Growing and Broad Nature of Legal Financial Obligations: Evidence from Alabama Court Records
In: Connecticut Law Review, Band 48, Heft 4
SSRN
Donating to the District Attorney
In: UC Davis Law Review, Band 56, Heft 4
SSRN
The Racial Burden of Voter List Maintenance Errors: Evidence from Wisconsin's Supplemental Movers Poll Books
In: Science Advances, Band 7, Heft 8
SSRN
One Person, One Vote: Estimating the Prevalence of Double Voting in U.S. Presidential Elections
In: American political science review, Band 114, Heft 2, S. 456-469
ISSN: 1537-5943
Beliefs about the incidence of voter fraud inform how people view the trade-off between electoral integrity and voter accessibility. To better inform such beliefs about the rate of double voting, we develop and apply a method to estimate how many people voted twice in the 2012 presidential election. We estimate that about one in 4,000 voters cast two ballots, although an audit suggests that the true rate may be lower due to small errors in electronic vote records. We corroborate our estimates and extend our analysis using data from a subset of states that share social security numbers, making it easier to quantify who may have voted twice. For this subset of states, we find that one suggested strategy to reduce double voting—removing the registration with an earlier registration date when two share the same name and birthdate—could impede approximately 300 legitimate votes for each double vote prevented.