DOCSLIB.ORG

Referenda and Primary Elections for Hawaii, 1968-1990

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Referenda and Primary Elections for Hawaii, 1968-1990 ICPSR Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research Referenda and Primary Election Materials Part 50: Referenda Elections for Hawaii Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research ICPSR 0006 This document was previously available in paper format only. It was converted to Portable Document Format (PDF), with no manual editing, on the date below as part of ICPSR's electronic document conversion project. The document may not be completely searchable. No additional updating of this collection has been performed (pagination, missing pages, etc.). June 2002 ICPSR Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research Referenda and Primary Election Materials Part 50: Referenda Elections for Hawaii Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research ICPSR 0006 REFERENDAAND PRIMARY ELECTION MATERIALS (ICPSR 0006) Principal Investigator Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research P.O. Box 1248 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION Publications based on ICPSR data collections should acknowledge those sources by means of bibliographic citations. To ensure that such source attributions are captured for social science bibliographic utilities, citations must appear in footnotes or in the reference section of publications. The bibliographic citation for this data collection is: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. REFERENDA AND PRIMARY ELECTION MATERIALS [Computer file]. ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [producer and distributor], 1994. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON USE OF ICPSR RESOURCES To provide funding agencies with essential information about use of archival resources and to facilitate the exchange of information about ICPSR participants' research activities, users of ICPSR data are requested to send to ICPSR bibliographic citations for each completed manuscript or thesis abstract. Please indicate in a cover letter which data were used. DATA DISCLAIMER The original collector of the data, ICPSR, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for uses of this collection or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses. DATA COLLECTION DESCRIPTION Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research REFERENDA AND PRIMARY ELECTION MATERIALS (ICPSR 0006) COLLECTION CHANGES: Data for 1990 have been added to this collection, and SAS data definition statements (Parts 51-100) are now available for Parts 1-50. NOTE: Most of the information in this collection is available ONLY in typed and photocopied form. The exception is data from 1968 to 1990. ICPSR has converted all statewide referenda returns from 1968-1990 into machine-readable form. Included in this portion of the collection are the county vote breakdowns for approximately 4,241 referenda voted upon in primary and general elections throughout the United States. A typed hardcopy codebook accompanies each state file. The primary election data are NOT available in machine-readable form. It is possible to supply, on a cost basis, limited portions of the referenda and primary election returns in the form of photocopies. EXTENT OF COLLECTION: 50 data files + SAS data definition statements + SPSS data definition statements EXTENT OF PROCESSING: CONCHK.ICPSR/ UNDOCCHK.ICPSR/ MDATA.ICPSR DATA FORMAT: Logical Record Length with SAS and SPSS data definition statements Parts 1-50: Referenda Elections Parts 51-100: SAS Data for States . Definition Statements File Structure: rectangular Record Length: 80 Cases: 3 to 254 per part Variables: 13 to 1,251 per part Record Length: 85 to 7,919 per part Records Per Case: 1 NOTES ON HAWAII REFERENDA FILE ICPSR 0006 For a number of referenda, some counties will have missing data because the questions were not put statewide, but only in select counties. See, for example, variables 58 and 59 (a 1970 Proposition voted on only in Oahu county). 1 State Hawaii REFERENDA Var. # ~pio& Code 82 2' County or State Name 3 Identification Number Unique numeric identification number assigned to each county or independent city within a state. The identification number for state- level records is 0000. This identification number, when used in conjunction with the ICPSR state code, uniquely identifies each unit of analysis in the data file. 1968 Referendum Constitutional Amendment General Election, November 5, 1968 Yes = 149,200; No = 46.360 No. 1: Apportionment and Districting of legislature. Provides for the senatorial districts and representative districts and the number of members to be elected from each commencing at the 1970 general election (see next page) 4 Vote Yes (For) 5 Vote No (Against) 1968 Referendum Constitutional Amendment General Election, November 5, 1968 Yes = 152,962; No = 42,468 - No. 2: Provisions for Future Reapportionment. Establishes a commission to reapportion the number of legislators among and within basic island units on the registered voter basis every 8 years starting in 1973 and at such time to redis- (see next pane). 6 Vote Yes (For) 7 Vote No (Against) -2- Hawaii Source: spf Votes Cast, General Election, Tuesday, November 5, 1968 State of Hawaii, supplied by Office of the Lieutenant Governor of Hawaii Amendment No 1: (continued) (Constitutional Convention plan) until the next reapportionment; for the Convention plan to supersede the legislature's apportionment plan for the senate (S.B. No. 1102) if both are ratified; and for related changes. (Article XVI, Section I and new Section). Amendment No.2: (continued) trict where necessary according to the criteria provided: provides for the commission to be constituted on or before March 1, 1969 if the Constitutional Convention plan is not approved by the voters; a chief election officer; two-year terms for senators elected in 1968; each of the proposed apportionment and districting amendments as may be ratified to supersede the legislature's apportionment plan for the senate (S.B. No. 1102) to the extent in conflict therewith if the latter is also ratified; removes old provisions on senate apportion- ment based on geography; and provides for related changes. (Article III, Sections 2 and 4; Article XVI, new Sections). , -3- State Hawaii REFERENDUM Var. B Description. 1968 Referendum Constitutional Amendment General Election, November 5, 1968 _yes = 148.077; No = 47,451 No. 3 : Wnimum Representation for Basic Island Units. Provides. that anv basic island unit initially allocated less than a minimum of 2 senators and 3 representatives be allocated the number necessary to attain such minimums (see next paPe> 8 Vote Yes (For) 9 Vote No (Against) 1968 Referendum Constitutional Amendment General Election, November 5, 1968 Yes =.15.1,603; No = 43,927 0. 4: Invasions of Privacv. Guarantees additional protect= of the neonle avainst unreasonable invasions. of nrivacv. (Article I. Section 5). 10 Vote Yes (For) 11 Vote No (Against) -4- Hawaii Source: Result --of Votes Cast, General Election, Tuesday, November 5, 1968 State of Hawaii, supplied by Office of Lieutenant Governor of Hawaii. Amendment No. 3 - continued: in which case each of such senators and repres- entatives shall have a fractional vote; provides, as a transitional provision, for augmentation of Kauai with one additional senator to attain minimum of 2 senators with fractional votes; and for related changes. (Article III, Section 4; Article XVI, new Section). -5- State Hawaii REFERENDUM Var. # Description. 1968 Referendum ~ttltronal. Amendment General Yes = 5.682: No = 49,860 No. =I . Bail. Allows the court to dispense with bail if reasonably satisfied that the defendant or witness will appear when directed, except for a defendant charged with an offense punishable by life imprisonment. (Article I. Section 9). 12 Vote Yes (For) 13 Vote No (Against) 1968 Referendum Constitutional Amendment General Election, November 5, 1968 Yes = 152.113; No = 43,412 No. 6: Counsel for Indigents. Requires the State to provide counsel for an indigent defendant charged with an offense punishable by imprisonment for more than 60 days. (Article I. Section 11). 14 Vote Yes (For) 15 Vote No (Against) -6- State Hawaii REFERENDUM Var. I/ Description. 1968 Referendum Constitutional Amendment General Election, November 5, 1968 Yes = 152,815; No = 42,721 No. 7: Payment for Certain Damages to Private Property. Guarantees just compensation for private property damaged as well as taken for public use. (Article I, Section 18). 16 Vote Yes (For) 17 Vote No (Against) 1968 Referendum Constitutional Amendment General Election, November 5, 1968 Yes = 96,283; No = 99,257 No. 8 : Eighteen Year-old vote. Lowers the minimum voting age from 20 years to 18 years. (Article II, Section 1). 18 Vote Yes (For) ' 19 Vote No (Against) -7- State Hawaii Var. # Description, 4 1968 Referendum Constitutional Amendment General Election, November 5, 1968 Yes = 128,703; NO = 66,818 No. 9: Voting Rights of Felons. Restores the right to vote to felons upon their final discharge or earlier as provided by law. (Article II, Section 2). 20 Vote Yes (For) Vote No (Against) 21 1968Referendum Constitutional Amendment General Election, November 5, 1968 Yes = 120,431; No = 75,106 No. 10: Eliminating the Literacy Requirement to Vote. Removes the requirement that citizens be able, except for physical disability, to speak, read, and write Hawaiian or English in order to vote. (Article II, Section 1). 22 Vote Yes (For) ' 23 Vote No (Against) -8- State Hawaii REFERENDUM Var. # Description,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Indiana Referenda and Primary Election Materials
    :::: DISCLAIMER :::: The following document was uploaded by ballotpedia.org staff with the written permission of the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research for non-commercial use only. It is not intended for redistribution. For information on rights and usage of this file, please contact: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research P.O. Box 1248 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 www.icpsr.umich.edu For general information on rights and usage of Ballotpedia content, please contact: [email protected] ICPSR Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research Referenda and Primary Election Materials Part 12: Referenda Elections for Indiana Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research ICPSR 0006 This document was previously available in paper format only. It was converted to Portable Document Format (PDF), with no manual editing, on the date below as part of ICPSR's electronic document conversion project. The document may not be completely searchable. No additional updating of this collection has been performed (pagination, missing pages, etc.). June 2002 ICPSR Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research Referenda and Primary Election Materials Part 12: Referenda Elections for Indiana Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research ICPSR 0006 REFERENDAAND PRIMARY ELECTION MATERIALS (ICPSR 0006) Principal Investigator Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research P.O. Box 1248 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION Publications based on ICPSR data collections should acknowledge those sources by means of bibliographic citations. To ensure that such source attributions are captured for social science bibliographic utilities, citations must appear in footnotes or in the reference section of publications.
    [Show full text]
  • Voting & Vote-By-Mail
    VOTING & VOTE-BY-MAIL VOTING INFORMATION Designating Someone to Pick-Up Your Ballot How to Mark a Ballot Beginning nine (9) days before Election Day, you may To mark your ballot authorize, in writing, another person to pick up your properly, completely fill in vote-by-mail ballot. The person picking up your ballot must provide photo ID, signed written authorization the oval to the left of each of your choices. from you, and complete an affidavit signed by both. The affidavit can be printed from votesjc.gov. 2 0 2 2 V OTER G UIDE Voter Bill of Rights On Election Day, in addition to the above Vote and have his or her vote accurately counted requirements, vote-by-mail ballots shall only be issued Election Dates to a voter or voter’s immediate family member when Cast a vote if he or she is in line at the official closing of the polls in there is a stated emergency. that county Primary Election August 23, 2022 Completing Your Vote-By-Mail Ballot Return Envelope Ask for and receive assistance in voting **Important Information for Vote-By-Mail Voters** General Election November 8, 2022 The signature or identifying “mark” on the voter’s Receive up to two replacement ballots if he or she makes a mistake prior to the ballot being cast certificate on the return vote-by-mail ballot envelope Voter Registration & Party Change Deadlines must match the signature or identifying “mark” on file An explanation if his or her registration or identity is in question in your voter record; therefore, it is important to keep Primary Election July 25, 2022 your signature up-to-date.
    [Show full text]
  • Voter Fraud and Voter Intimidation
    U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS VOTER FRAUD VOTER INTIMIDATION BRIEFING REPORT U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Washington, DC 20425 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 SEPTEMBER 2008 Visit us on the Web: www.usccr.gov Voter Fraud and Voter Intimidation A Briefing Before The United States Commission on Civil Rights Held in Washington, DC, October 13, 2006 Briefing Report U.S. Commission on Civil Rights The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is an independent, bipartisan agency established by Congress in 1957. It is directed to: • Investigate complaints alleging that citizens are being deprived of their right to vote by reason of their race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or by reason of fraudulent practices. • Study and collect information relating to discrimination or a denial of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice. • Appraise federal laws and policies with respect to discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice. • Serve as a national clearinghouse for information in respect to discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin. • Submit reports, findings, and recommendations to the President and Congress. • Issue public service announcements to discourage discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws. Members of the Commission Gerald A. Reynolds, Chairman Abigail Thernstrom, Vice Chairman Todd Gaziano Gail Heriot Peter N.
    [Show full text]
  • Retelling the Story of the 2017 French Presidential Election: the Contribution of Approval Voting Antoinette Baujard, Isabelle Lebon
    Retelling the Story of the 2017 French Presidential Election: The contribution of Approval Voting Antoinette Baujard, Isabelle Lebon To cite this version: Antoinette Baujard, Isabelle Lebon. Retelling the Story of the 2017 French Presidential Election: The contribution of Approval Voting. 2020. halshs-02926773 HAL Id: halshs-02926773 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-02926773 Preprint submitted on 1 Sep 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. WP 2023 – August 2020 Retelling the Story of the 2017 French Presidential Election: The contribution of Approval VotingA Review Antoinette Baujard, Isabelle Lebon Abstract: This paper proposes an alternative reading of the politics of the 2017 French presidential election, using an unstudied source of information on voters’ preferences: experimental data on approval voting. We provide a new narrative of the election process and outcome. The principal approach for understanding the political context has for many decades been a distinction between left and right-wing political forces. We introduce a method for generating an endogenous political axis, and construct three indices so that we might understand how and why the conventional approach has become progressively irrelevant. We find no gender effect, but instead an age effect.
    [Show full text]
  • THE FRENCH SOCIALIST PARTY Membership Between Closed and Open Primaries
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Archivio istituzionale della ricerca - Università di Cagliari PA rtecipazione e CO nflitto * The Open Journal of Sociopolitical Studies http://siba-ese.unisalento.it/index.php/paco ISSN: 1972-7623 (print version) ISSN: 2035-6609 (electronic version) PACO, Issue 8(1) 2015: 264-283 DOI: 10.1285/i20356609v8i1p264 Published in March 15, 2015 Work licensed under a Creative Commons At- tribution-Non commercial-Share alike 3.0 Italian License RESEARCH ARTICLE THE FRENCH SOCIALIST PARTY Membership between closed and open primaries Marino De Luca University of Cagliari ABSTRACT: For some years now the clamor for democratisation of parties' internal functioning has been spreading across democracies. Among them, France has advanced impressively in the past few years. In 2006, the Socialist Party (PS) launched a closed primary to choose the socialist candidate, Ségolène Royal, for the 2007 presidential election. Approaching the 2012 presidential elections, the leftist coalition (PS and PRG) launched open primary elections to select its chief-executive candidates, with François Hollande fi- nally emerging as a nominee. In this article, we shall examine how the socialist membership changed during the past three socialist con- gresses, analysing the outcome of the two above-mentioned primary elections. In particular, we shall ob- serve the Le Mans (2005), Reims (2008) and Toulouse (2012) Congresses, and describe membership, par- ticipation, and competitiveness within the PS. The study was based on data collected from an administra- tive unit, the French départements. KEYWORDS: France, membership, party congress, primary election, Socialist Party COORESPONDING AUTHOR: Marino De Luca, email: [email protected] PACO, ISSN: 2035-6609 - Copyright © 2015 - University of Salento, SIBA: http://siba-ese.unisalento.it Partecipazione e conflitto, 8(1) 2015: 264-283, DOI: 10.1285/i20356609v8i1p264 1.
    [Show full text]
  • How Partisan Gerrymandering Limits Voting Rights by Alex Tausanovitch and Danielle Root July 8, 2020
    How Partisan Gerrymandering Limits Voting Rights By Alex Tausanovitch and Danielle Root July 8, 2020 Every 10 years, each U.S. state redraws its electoral districts—lines on a map that have serious real-world consequences. If districts are drawn fairly, then the public can elect representatives who reflect the views of the population as a whole. But if the district lines are manipulated through partisan gerrymandering, then the legislature will be untethered from the popular will. The Center for American Progress has published a series of reports that analyze how partisan gerrymandering affects issues from gun violence prevention to access to health insurance to policies that are important to children and families.1 This issue brief explores how gerrymandering affects voting rights. In recent years, gerrymandered legislatures have pioneered other tools to stay in power, including making it harder for voters who oppose them to cast a ballot. It is a power grab on top of a power grab. Fortunately, both of these interrelated problems—gerrymandering and limits on the right to vote—are fixable. Indeed, citizens across the country seem to be fired up about reform.2 This could be the political moment to solve these problems and get American democracy back on track. This issue brief examines the only four states where, after the 2018 elections, the party that won a majority of state legislative seats received only a minority of the total statewide vote: North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Because of gerrymandering, these four states dramatically failed a basic test of democracy—votes did not translate into political power.
    [Show full text]
  • INITIATIVE 872 to the PEOPLE (“The People’S Choice Initiative of 2004")
    August 2004 SUMMARY OF INITIATIVE 872 TO THE PEOPLE (“The People’s Choice Initiative of 2004") This information has been prepared in response to various requests for a summary of the provisions of Initiative 872, which will be before the voters at the statewide general election on November 2, 2004. The material in this summary is provided for informational purposes only. It is provided for use by members of the Legislature and legislative staff. It is not provided as an expression for or against any of the provisions of Initiative 872. A copy of the initiative is available from the Secretary of State’s office directly or on the Web at http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i872.pdf. BRIEF SUMMARY Initiative 872 proposes a new system of conducting partisan primary elections throughout the state. Rather than using the primary process to select the single candidate from each political party for each office, the primary is used to winnow candidates for office to a final list of two for each office. Voters are free to cast votes for any candidate in the primary election without any limitation based on party preference or affiliation of either the voter or the candidate. The candidates’ self-declared party preference or affiliation, if any, will appear on the primary and general election ballots. The names of the two candidates who receive the greatest number of votes in the primary election will appear on the general election ballot. This is the origin of the term “top two” as sometimes is used in general parlance.
    [Show full text]
  • Gerrymandering in Wisconsin
    72% GERRYMANDERING IN WISCONSIN 72% If 72% of Wisconsin people want something, and it would be a good thing and a doable thing- it should probably happen, right? 72% Now, 72% of Wisconsinites may wish the winter were shorter, but that isn’t doable! httpswww.wausaudailyherald.comstorynews20190128wisconsin-cold-weather-records-five-facts-lowest-temperatures2703679002 72% And 72% of us may want to keep partying and never come home from vacations, but that again isn’t doable, and our livers probably would say it isn’t a good thing! 72% But some things are both doable and right. https://vector.childrenshospital.org/2014/02/report-cards-help-childrens-hospitals-improve-appendicitis-care/ 72% of Wisconsinites favor nonpartisan redistricting (NPR) according to a 72% Marquette Law School poll conducted in 2019 (https://law.marquette.edu/poll/?s=NONPARTISAN+REDISTRICTING) 72% What is nonpartisan redistricting? Why should I care? https://www.ijeomakola.com/reader-question-dandruff/confused-black-woman/ 72% Your individual vote for Wisconsin State Senate, Assembly races, and for Congressional House of Representative races has been relatively less meaningful, at times nearly meaningless, since 2012 (as compared with prior to 2012) What? That can’t be! 72% It’s true! In 2011, Wisconsin became very gerrymandered. This means the election district maps were redrawn to heavily favor one party over the other (in other words, extremely partisan). https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/the-most-serious-challenge-to-gerrymandering-in-modern-times-reaches-the-supreme-court/ 72% Gerrymandering is named after Elbridge Gerry, governor of Massachusetts in 1812, who created a district in Boston in the shape of a salamander to favor his party.
    [Show full text]
  • Party Primaries for Candidate Selection? Right Question, Wrong Answer
    964 UNSW Law Journal Volume 34(3) PARTY PRIMARIES FOR CANDIDATE SELECTION? RIGHT QUESTION, WRONG ANSWER GRAEME ORR ∗ I INTRODUCTION Political parties act as gatekeepers to Parliament,1 and hence to law-making and ministerial government. Theirs is gatekeeping in a special sense, however. Occupational gatekeepers screen entrants to professions using defined and transparent measures. The process of becoming an MP, however, is a thoroughly political one. As Lord Hoffmann observed, ‘the main criterion is likely to be the popularity of the candidate with the voters … the candidate who, for whatever reason, seems … most likely to win’. 2 Along with that criterion, internal party ideology, rivalries and factionalism may play a part. Given the long-standing dominance by parties of electoral politics – and hence of Parliaments, law- making and executive governance – the gatekeeping role of parties is not merely a matter of internal party concern, but of considerable interest to the wider community and to public law itself. In the common law world, this parliamentary gatekeeping is described as candidate ‘endorsement’ or ‘preselection’. 3 These very terms imply that the process is within the party’s control. They assume a coherent, intentional body, identifiable as ‘the party’, which gives its imprimatur to candidates to contest general elections on its behalf. In contrast, candidate selection in the United States of America (‘US’) is taken out of the hands of parties, and placed in the hands of a broader electorate. Through the mechanism of the direct primary election, candidate selection in the US is more open, and even more political (in the public sense), 4 than elsewhere.
    [Show full text]
  • The Erosion of Democracy: Gerrymandering in the United States
    University of Northern Iowa UNI ScholarWorks Dissertations and Theses @ UNI Student Work 2019 The erosion of democracy: Gerrymandering in the United States Matthew P. Ruiz University of Northern Iowa Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy Copyright ©2019 Matthew P. Ruiz Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/etd Part of the American Politics Commons, and the Human Geography Commons Recommended Citation Ruiz, Matthew P., "The erosion of democracy: Gerrymandering in the United States" (2019). Dissertations and Theses @ UNI. 954. https://scholarworks.uni.edu/etd/954 This Open Access Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Work at UNI ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses @ UNI by an authorized administrator of UNI ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Copyright by MATTHEW P. RUIZ 2019 All Rights Reserved THE EROSION OF DEMOCRACY: GERRYMANDERING IN THE UNITED STATES An Abstract of a Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts Matthew P. Ruiz University of Northern Iowa May 2019 ABSTRACT Every ten years in the United States, we redraw our congressional districts that elect the 435 members of the House of Representatives after the decennial census data has been collected and organized. Politicians around the country have taken to using these map revisions for their party’s own political gains and have been doing so since the time even before the United States Constitution was ratified. This process where politicians draw district lines to favor their own party and expand their political power is called gerrymandering (Trickey, 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • Quantifying the Level of Gerrymandering in Michigan
    June 2018 | Report 402 102 YEARS OF UNCOMPROMISING POLICY RESEARCH Quantifying the Level of Gerrymandering in Michigan 38777 Six Mile Road, Suite 208 | Livonia, MI 48152 | 734.542.8001 115 West Allegan, Suite 480 | Lansing, MI 48933 | 517.485.9444 P.O. Box 1612 | Holland, MI 49422 | 616-294-8359 | crcmich.org BOARD OF DIRECTORS Chair Daniel Domenicucci Anne Mervenne Aleksandra A. Miziolek Ernst & Young LLP Mervenne & Company Terence M. Donnelly Aleksandra A. Miziolek Vice Chair Dickinson Wright PLLC Cooper Standard Michael P. McGee Randall W. Eberts Paul R. Obermeyer Treasurer W. E. Upjohn Institute Comerica Bank Richard A. Favor, Jr. James M. Polehna Laura Appel Deloitte Kelly Services June Summers Haas Julie Ridenour Todd Anderson Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP Steelcase Foundation Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Jim Holcomb Camilo Serna Laura Appel Michigan Chamber of Commerce DTE Energy Michigan Health & Hospital Association Marybeth S. Howe Carolee K. Smith Beth A. Bialy Wells Fargo Bank Consumers Energy Plante Moran, PLLC Wendy Lewis Jackson Christine Mason Soneral Lawrence N. Bluth The Kresge Foundation ITC Holdings Corp. Penske Corporation Harry Kemp Kathleen Wilbur Chase Cantrell Lear Corporation Michigan State University Building Community Value Michael P. McGee Stephan W. Currie Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone PLC Michigan Association of Counties BOARD OF TRUSTEES Chair David O. Egner Daniel J. Kelly James M. Nicholson Eugene A. Gargaro, Jr. Ralph C. Wilson, Jr. Foundation Deloitte. Retired PVS Chemicals David L. Eisler Mary Kramer Don R. Parfet Ferris State University Crain Communications, Inc. Apjohn Group LLC Terence E. Adderley Kelly Services, Inc. Fritz Erickson William J.
    [Show full text]
  • How Did Absentee Voting Affect the 2020 U.S. Election?
    HOW DID ABSENTEE VOTING AFFECT THE 2020 U.S. ELECTION? Jesse Yoder Daniel M. Thompson Stanford University UCLA Cassandra Handan-Nader Jennifer A. Wu Stanford University Stanford University Andrew Myers Chenoa Yorgason Stanford University Stanford University Tobias Nowacki Andrew B. Hall Stanford University Stanford University March, 2021 Working Paper No. 21-011 How Did Absentee Voting Affect the 2020 U.S. Election?∗ Jesse Yoder,y Cassandra Handan-Nader,y Andrew Myers,z Tobias Nowacki,y Daniel M. Thompson,x Jennifer A. Wu,{ Chenoa Yorgason,{ and Andrew B. Hallk Democracy & Polarization Lab, Stanford University March 5, 2021 Abstract The 2020 U.S. election saw high turnout, a huge increase in absentee voting, and brought unified Democratic control at the federal level|yet, contrary to conventional wisdom, these facts do not imply that vote-by-mail increased turnout or had partisan effects. Using nationwide data, we find that states newly implementing no-excuse absentee voting for 2020 did not see larger increases in turnout than states that did not. Focusing on a natural experiment in Texas, we find that 65-year-olds turned out at nearly the same rate as 64-year-olds, even though 65-year-olds voted absentee at much higher rates than 64-year-olds because they could do so without having to provide an excuse. Being old enough to vote no-excuse absentee did not substantially increase Democratic turnout relative to Republican turnout, as the increase in Democratic absentee voting was offset by decreases in Democratic in-person voting. Together, the results suggest that no-excuse absentee voting mobilized relatively few voters and had at most a muted partisan effect despite the historic pandemic.
    [Show full text]