YALE VOTING CLIMATE REPORT Prepared by the Yale college democrats MARCH 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 0 1
Proposals 0 2
How Yale compares to peer institutions 0 5
Voting history at yale 1 4
Voter accessibility in private and public 2 3 Sectors
Concluding remarks 2 6 0 1
INTRODUCTION This report provides a comprehensive history of Yale’s past and present support of student voting. In analyzing recently collected data of over 1,000 undergraduate students, we document voting barriers to Yale students, peer institutions’ civic engagement models, and administrative efforts to support student voting.
This report has four sections. The first section introduces proposals and the remaining sections offer supporting evidence, using data analysis and archival research. Our proposals are intended to maximize voting accessibility for all Yale community members. In 2018, Yale had a registration rate of 75% but the voting rate of registered voters was only 62.4%, yielding a total voting rate of 46.8% among eligible student voters. These proposals would improve Yale's current voter education and registration tools, reduce student barriers to voting, and ultimately encourage community members to be engaged citizens. In the short term, New Haven has a mayoral and aldermanic election in the fall of 2021. In the long term, the registration and voting rates of eligible student voters should increase for all local, state, and national elections.
Many of these proposals are shared goals and are not unique to the Yale College Democrats. In particular, the university-wide Election Day holiday and civic engagement center proposals developed through on-going conversations with the Yale College Council and Every Vote Counts through the Yale Votes Task Force.
The following sections present information that compare Yale to peer institutions, insight into the voting tradition at Yale, and trends in public and private job sectors that indicate how voting functions in the post-college world. This report conveys the importance of institutionalized civic engagement practices at Yale and provides a comprehensive review of students' voting barriers. Our hope is that readers gain a better understanding of the significance of this time-sensitive matter.
Contributors: Grace Whittington '22, President Kennedy Bennett '22, Vice President Nicole Jefferson '22, Voter Engagement Coordinator Colby Bladow '24, Voter Engagement Fellow Vanessa Nunez '23, Voter Engagement Fellow MARCH 2021 Isabella Morales '24, Voter Engagement Fellow 0 2
PROPOSALS University-Wide Election Day Holiday
In the 2016 election, only 56.7% of Yale students cast their ballots. In the 2018 midterm elections, Yale voter participation decreased to 46.8% of eligible student voters. Voters consistently face long lines at the polls and misinformation regarding voting processes. In the 2020 YCC Fall Survey, students were asked if Yale should make Election Day a University Holiday, with the understanding that one break day would be subtracted from October Break, Summer Break, Fall Break or Winter Break. 76.5% of students who responded to the survey said they would be in favor, and the vast majority would prefer the day be taken from summer break.
Making Election Day a university holiday would not only increase student voter turnout but would also significantly increase accessibility to voting for faculty and staff. While professors are at individual discretion to cancel classes and not assign work, this decision is not uniform and therefore disadvantages some students over others. Although the physical act of casting the ballot once in the voting booth may not take all day, the survey showed that with Election Day as a university-wide holiday, students would pursue additional forms of civic engagement––being poll workers, helping others with the voting process, and serving as ballot counters. Additionally, long lines and wait times make it difficult to predict how long voting will take should students decide to vote in person. This requires restructuring of the day and potentially missing classes. A university-wide Election Day holiday would reduce these barriers to students, faculty, and staff and would contribute to higher rates of participation in civic engagement. P R O P O S A L S 0 3 Robust Absentee Ballot System
In 2018, it was a Yale policy to return absentee ballots to senders that were addressed to residential colleges. Consequently, students lost their ballots and tried to appeal to the administration to track their ballots. Many Yale College students do not have PO Boxes. The inability to access election related mail at residential colleges disproportionately affects low-income students who cannot afford to purchase a PO Box.
Exceptions were made in the 2020 election cycle due to the coronavirus pandemic. Students who lived on campus and did not have a PO Box were allowed to receive election related mail to residential college offices for the November 2020 presidential election. In the coming years, we hope that this change would become a permanent policy––enabling students to receive all election-related mail in their residential colleges. Standardizing this practice for years to come would create greater accessibility to students who receive absentee ballots and would reduce confusion. Include Registration Materials During First-Year Orientation The first weeks of a student’s Yale experience are influential to the rest of their college experience. During orientation, first-year students spend time getting to know peers in their residential college and FroCo group with scheduled workshops and programming. They are also required to attend Communication and Consent Educator trainings, sexual misconduct trainings, and are exposed to public safety information, as well as resources such as Mental Health and Counseling and SHARE.
In addition to the current workshops that offer students insight into the Yale community, we propose a uniform distribution of voter registration materials to first-year students via the FroCos. These workshops would include content about the voting process in New Haven, absentee ballot information, and would conclude by registering students through TurboVote. P R O P O S A L S 0 4 Include Registration Materials During First-Year Orientation
We believe integrating voter registration into first-year orientation is an optimal time in a Yalie’s career to introduce them to civic engagement efforts on campus. Making an effort to register students from the beginning advances the probability of participating in elections later on and will convey to first- year students that this is something Yale cares about as a collective.
Establish a Civic Engagement Center
Students' civic engagement efforts have poor support from Yale administrative offices compared to peer institutions. The major obstacle to student participation in civic engagement at Yale is that voting coalitions––such as the Yale Votes Task Force––have limited administrative support and lack a consistent structure. We propose that the Yale Votes Task Force be operated within a formal civic engagement center that is housed within a physical space on Yale’s campus.
Modeled similarly to the administratively-backed existing centers at Brown University, Harvard University, and Northwestern University, the Yale Civic Engagement center would be devoted to providing learning opportunities, resources, and community engagement initiatives. Brown’s Civic Engagement Center, also known as the Swearer Center operates within the Dean of the College’s Office. It consists of two student liaisons, an advisory committee, and working committees. Harvard’s civic engagement center is housed in the Institute of Politics and includes elected chairs and leadership positions for both students and administrators.
Establishing a civic engagement center at Yale would require faculty participation as well as significant administrative support. In the long term, we hope this could be a place that offers paid positions, extends beyond the scope of voting, and contributes to cultivating a more visible culture of civic engagement on Yale’s campus. 0 5 HOW YALE COMPARES TO PEER INSTITUTIONS Yale must make significant strides in institutionalizing civic engagement networks to meet the standards that peer institutions have established. Building more robust structures for civic engagement would ensure that all students and faculty are able to fully participate in and engage with electoral politics. Brown University and Columbia University have named Election Day a University holiday; Harvard University, Cornell University, and Northwestern University have integrated civic engagement efforts into established student centers on campus; even more universities have included civic education and registration in first- year orientation programming, course registration, and other university-wide opportunities to reach students. Yale has not instituted any of the aforementioned policies, and it is crucial that the university progresses.
THE NATIONAL STUDY OF LEARNING, VOTING, AND ENGAGEMENT
The National Study of Learning, Voting, and Engagement (NSLVE) provides resources to colleges and universities to better understand their students' voting patterns and is a research database on student voting, political engagement, and democracy across U.S. college and university campuses. It is operated through the Jonathan M. Tisch College of Civic Life at Tufts University. P E E R I N S T I T U T I O N S 0 6 ALL IN DEMOCRACY CHALLENGE
The ALL IN Democracy Challenge is a national awards program that encourages colleges and universities to help students become informed and engaged citizens, ensure civic engagement is a cornerstone of their campus, and ultimately increase student voting rates. In 2016 it became a part of Civic Nation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting positive social change. Over 600 campuses across the nation have participated in this challenge since its initial launch in 2016.
In September 2020, all eight presidents and chancellors of Ivy League universities signed onto the Ivy League Voting Challenge. Still, Yale was not one of the universities to submit a 2020 action plan laying out a concrete strategy to improve student voting rates. P E E R I N S T I T U T I O N S 0 7 HARVARD
In 2014, students and administrators of the The Institute of Politics (IOP) at the Harvard Kennedy School initiated the construction of their present civic engagement structures. Harvard Votes–– a nonpartisan student coalition––and HVOTE Initiative–– which registered and mobilized eligible voters––successfully advocated for voter registration to be implemented into in-person class registration at Harvard College. This registration process transformed into a course module that students completed during an online, pre-semester check-in; it integrated TurboVote–– a nonpartisan, online service designed to help students vote in local, state, and national elections. The Harvard Kennedy School adopted this process in 2018.
The IOP and Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation created the Harvard Votes Challenge (HVC) in 2018. This initiative expanded students’ civic engagement efforts to all 12 schools at Harvard, as well as the Division of Continuing Education (DCE). Over 125 students, faculty, and administrators accomplished this feat. At Harvard College, the HVC created the positions of Dorm and House Captains, who were responsible for organizing voter engagement efforts among student residents. The 11 graduate schools and DCE created the stipend position of Coalition Leaders to create hyperlocal plans for their schools. These plans were intended to support voter engagement, similarly to the House and Dorm Captains. Two Coalition Leaders at the Kennedy School partnered with the Ash Center and achieved more than a 90% sign-up rate through TurboVote among students at the Kennedy School.
These combined efforts–– including voter registration into course registration, TurboVote, and integrating this system across all schools at Harvard––resulted in 48.6% of students casting their ballots in the 2018 midterm elections, a 25 percentage point increase from the 2014 midterm elections and 10 percentage points higher than the national average. P E E R I N S T I T U T I O N S 0 8 HARVARD
HVC expanded their first-year voter registration program during the fall of 2019. A paid team of undergraduate students talked with over 1000 first-year students about voter registration during move-in and orientation. Organizers received training inspired by the National Consortium of Full Voter Participation and were knowledgeable of voter registration processes in all 50 states. The Federal Voter Registration Application enabled organizers to adequately aid students and even mail applications on behalf of students, where allowed by state law. On National Voter Registration Day, HVC led a tabling event–– offering Boba tea and spray paint art while helping students register to vote; leading up to the Cambridge City Council Election, the organization led dorm-to-dorm get-out-the-vote canvassing to ensure students were aware of the upcoming election.
The Presidential Administrative Innovation Fund (PAIF) awarded HVC a grant in August of 2019. According to HVC’s 2020 All-In Action plan, the PAIF is “created to foster a culture of innovation and catalyze administrative innovation across Harvard by investing in staff-generated, reactive solutions that reduce administrative burden, enhance our ability to serve faculty and students, and invigorate our employees.” HVC received this grant to develop a Harvard-specific voter engagement toolkit and build voting teams that would lead voter participation efforts at each Harvard school.
HVC recognizes the importance of institutionalizing civic engagement procedures and hopes to continue their current work. Their most pressing goal as of now is to create voting teams at all Harvard schools and the DCE. These teams would manage the administrative voter engagement work (e.g. registration) and partner with a coach–– to support action plan development and hold the teams accountable to deadlines–– from the IOP or ASH Center, further institutionalizing voter engagement efforts at Harvard and allowing student organizers to focus their time on grassroots organizing to create a culture of voting on campus and build excitement in the community.
Sources: Harvard’s 2020 “All-in Challenge” Action Plan Harvard’s 2014 and 2018 NSLVE Report Harvard’s 2012 and 2016 NSLVE Report P E E R I N S T I T U T I O N S 0 9
CORNELL
Students and faculty members affiliated with Cornell’s Public Service Center (PSC) initiated all of the university’s civic engagement efforts in 2014 with the intention of registering and turning out students to vote. In 2018, Cornell students partnered with ambassadors and a staff advisor from Andrew Goodman Vote Everywhere––a national, non-partisan effort connecting student leaders and university partners with extensive training, resources, and a peer network from the Andrew Goodman Foundation. This successful partnership increased voter registration by 25.2% and voter participation by 27.5% for the midterm elections, compared to their 2014 numbers. Various on-campus partners and a coalition of student organizations also supported these civic engagement efforts.
In 2019, Cornell Votes submitted a proposal concerning how to institutionalize voting practices on campus. That fall, the Vice President for Student and Campus Life, Dr. Ryan Lombardi, endorsed the proposal. Within the same year, Cornell Votes established a fellowship to increase student involvement in their civic engagement efforts and formalized their on-campus partnerships into the Cornell Votes Student Coalition and the Cornell Votes Advisory Committee. Several student organizations constitute Cornell Votes, including the Cornell Student Assembly, sororities and fraternities, political clubs across the political spectrum, and athletic groups. The Cornell Votes Advisory Committee comprised faculty and staff from various parts of campus life and community organizations. Cornell Votes also fostered strong relationships with external organizations like the Upstate New York Vote Everywhere Coalition and the Andrew Goodman Foundation.
During the 2020-21 academic year, Cornell Votes established goals to further institutionalize civic engagement on campus: establish a registered student organization to contribute to a campus culture of civic engagement; start a civic engagement series with the Carol Tatkon Center for First Year Students and Office of Engagement Initiatives to better inform students about voting history and voter suppression while further strengthening their partnerships on and off campus. P E E R I N S T I T U T I O N S 1 0
CORNELL
Cornell Votes also aims to create an on-campus polling location, immerse voter registration into university-wide systems and processes, produce and disseminate comprehensive voter education guides, advocate for election day as a university holiday, collaborate with University Relations for mass messaging on voting, support voter related programs in residence halls and from student coalition members, and engage faculty in the process and create material to be shared in large lecture classes.
Sources: Cornell’s 2020 “All-in Challenge” Action Plan Cornell’s 2014 and 2018 NSLVE Report Cornell’s 2012 and 2016 NSLVE Report
BROWN
In 2017, Brown President Christina Paxson requested the Swearer Center for Public Service to pilot the Higher Education and Democratic Practice Initiative (HEDP). Brown’s 2020 All-in Action Plan describes the initiative’s purpose to “explore the role of higher education in cultivating deep democratic values, skills, and behaviors” and to establish the center “as a university entity that cares about democratic scholarship.” The Swearer Center approached these objectives by focusing on voter education, civic engagement, and university governance.
The Swearer Center offers panel discussions and workshops to prepare students to vote; their largest program, Community Corps, had 600 students participate. To increase awareness among the student body, the center collaborated with the Office of University Communications to spread voting messages, including a series of tweets from the office on National Voter Registration Day. Their civic engagement efforts have not gone unnoticed––Washington Monthly included Brown in its “Top Colleges for Student Voting.” Brown’s efforts also resulted in a 31.7% increase in voter participation from the 2014 to 2018 midterm elections. P E E R I N S T I T U T I O N S 1 1 BROWN
Forming deep bonds with internal and external organizations is imperative to the Swearer Center. For example, the Center funds all of Brown’s work with TurboVote, allowing students access to tools that help them become more informed voters. Their partnership with the Rhode Island Board of Elections and the Secretary of State’s office has helped the Swearer Center host voter registration drives and education forums and circulate accurate voter information (e.g., polling locations, registration deadlines, registration requirements). Working with a variety of student organizations, faculty members, student affairs services (e.g., mail center and student activities office) and campus offices (e.g., event and conference services, graduate and professional schools, libraries) ensure that all Brown community members receive civic engagement information. In joining The National Study of Learning, Voting, and Engagement (NSLVE), the center gained access to crucial voter data on their student population that allowed them to better shape get-out-the-vote strategies going forward (e.g., voter education materials, voter registration drives, mass communication).
In the future, the Swearer Center aims to supplement current voter participation and civic engagement information with greater detail, encourage faculty members to share this information with students, formalize TurboVote as part of the course registration or student orientation process, expand civic engagement efforts beyond the college and into the graduate and professional schools, create a voter education task force, improve student accessibility to voting materials (e.g., stamps and envelopes), add on- campus polling locations, and set up a physical space for a voting resource center.
Sources: Brown’s 2020 “All in Challenge” Action Plan Brown’s 2014 and 2018 NSLVE Report Brown’s 2012 and 2016 NSLVE Report P E E R I N S T I T U T I O N S 1 2
NORTHWESTERN
NU Votes, a non-partisan initiative of Northwestern University's Center for Civic Engagement, first led civic engagement efforts in 2011. It is supported by a Steering Committee, comprising faculty, staff, undergraduate, and graduate students across different departments and schools. This initiative serves over 8,000 undergraduate students and 13,000 graduate and professional students at Northwestern. Similar to other universities, Northwestern formed on-campus partnerships with the President’s Office, libraries, residential staff, student government, residential colleges, and political clubs. Their off-campus partnerships include the Cook County Board of Elections, Vote.org, and nationwide voting challenges.
In 2011, Northwestern published their University Strategic Plan and identified engagement–– “through strategic partnerships, engage locally, nationally, and internationally to heighten our global impact for the greater good”––as one of four key pillars to the university’s future success. Since then, Northwestern became one of the first institutions to integrate voter registration into student orientation, their President describing it as “an obligation” to The New York Times. They also created voter registration, education, and turnout activities implemented for all local, state, and national elections each year. In 2016, their efforts resulted in a 91% voter registration rate and a 64% voter turnout rate, resulting in several awards from the All In Challenge. In 2018, despite midterm elections historically generating lower voter turnout, Northwestern recorded an 86% registration rate and a 51.5% turnout rate, both of which were much higher than their 2014 numbers.
Much of Northwestern’s success is attributed to the strong support they receive from university leadership and institutionalizing voter education and registration. These two things combined have led to a strong culture of civic engagement among all members of the Northwestern community. During a Voter Van during Family Weekend one year, a student was heard telling their family member “we’re all about voting here.” The Center of Civic Engagement also plays a large role in this culture through their education efforts, student life staff, and student organizations. P E E R I N S T I T U T I O N S 1 3
NORTHWESTERN
In the future, NU Votes hopes to maintain high registration rates and increase turnout rates as well as reach communities within the university that have lower rates, like STEM majors and racial minority students. They would also like to expand efforts already in place, such as Voter Services Stations outside of their main campus and expanding the scope of the NU Ambassadors program––which has trained teams of both undergraduate and graduate students to promote voter engagement and raise awareness of upcoming elections among their peers since 2018. They intend on contacting more students through campus-wide emails approaching Election Day, voter education and registration workshops, and more broadly continuing their mission of offering civic learning and democratic engagement opportunities.
Sources: Northwestern's 2020 "All in Challenge" Action Plan Northwestern's 2018 "All in Challenge" Action Plan Northwestern's 2016 "All in Challenge" Action Plan Northwestern's 2014 and 2018 NSLVE Report Northwestern's 2012 and 2016 NSLVE Report 1 4 VOTING HISTORY AT YALE
Despite minimal involvement from Yale’s administrative divisions, student organizations and publications have successfully led civic engagement efforts at Yale. These groups spread voter information, mobilize voters at Yale and in New Haven, and host Election Day activities. However, students are typically at Yale for four short years. Without administrative support to ensure these civic engagement efforts are institutionalized and permanent, these efforts are not present every year. Most information reported below falls within the following time periods: 1960; 1967-1972; 1980-1994; and, 2016-present.
PROTECTING THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE Joseph Rubin '71 and Mark Lecinger '71 interviewed, researched, and wrote a final paper about the registrar denying Yale students the right to vote due to residency requirements. At that time New Haven mirrored the state of Connecticut and was fairly conservative (the Greater New Haven area voted for Nixon and Ford, respectively, in 1972 and 1976). Rubin and Lecinger brought their paper to Yale Law Professor Stephen Wizner who ran one of the Law School's legal clinics. With the support of graduate students, law professors, and the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union, 24 students won their lawsuit in 1971 against the City of New Haven in federal court. The lawsuit argued that the city discriminated against students by assuming that New Haven was not their permanent residence, but did not make the same assumption about other voters. V O T I N G H I S T O R Y 1 5
After the military draft and costly operations of the Vietnam War, the phrase "old enough to fight, old enough to vote" grew in popularity. The National Education Association, AFL-CIO and the NAACP among other organizations organized protests and lobbying efforts. In 1967, students Democratic and Republican students from Yale, Trinity, and University of Hartford among other Connecticut colleges attended a public hearing in Hartford concerning the voting age. The 26th amendment, which lowered the voting age from 21 to 18, was enacted in July of 1971. Challenges still arose, but the fall following the lawsuit against New Haven, undergraduate students at Yale could participate in the New Haven mayoral election.
VOTER ENGAGEMENT AT YALE Preceding the 1972 general election, the Yale Daily News published a spread in the paper with voter registration and absentee ballot information for every state. This spread included voter registration deadlines, ballot request deadlines, and other pertinent voting information. This useful compilation of information is a great example of student efforts to increase voter participation on campus. A few years later, during the 1980 general election season, the Yale Daily News made these efforts again, offering an “Election Insert” with candidates’ background information and policy stances for various races in the New Haven area. Here, the effort wasn’t just centered on voter engagement, but also on informing voters about candidates, for both local and national elections. These initiatives in both general elections were student-led, and would have likely remained election season staples had the institution supported civic engagement efforts on campus. V O T I N G H I S T O R Y 1 6
Yale Daily News, October 2, 1972: voter registration and absentee ballot information for all 50 states
VOTER ENGAGEMENT IN NEW HAVEN
Yale students have consistently put forth efforts to stay engaged and mobilize voters in New Haven. In 1960, the Yale College Democrats (then, Yale Young Democratic Club) declared their intentions to manage broad voter registration efforts, including “the establishment of a voter’s aid bureau to provide information and assistance for registering and voting by absentee ballot.” That October, the Yale Young Democratic Club, Yale Law School Young Democratic Club, and students of Albertus Magnus hosted a joint canvass to register New Haven residents. V O T I N G H I S T O R Y 1 7
The New Haven chapter of Project Vote, a national nonpartisan organization, led the efforts to make sure that “no one at Yale is going to forget it’s Election Day” for the 1992 general election. That year, 140 student volunteers (both Democrats and Republicans) monitored turnout rates compared to previous years, knocked on doors, drove elderly voters to the polls, and worked polling locations. Yale’s positive campus culture towards voting contributed to a New Haven-wide effort to increase voter turnout, and make voting easier.
Turnout for New Haven’s Board of Alders elections has varied over the years. In 2003, only 129 of Ward 1’s 850 registered Democrats voted in the September Democratic primary. Nearly 1,000 voters turned out for the 2011 Ward 1 aldermanic election, setting a record in turnout history. Yale Daily News, November 3, 1992: information about where students should vote according to their residential college VOTING AND IDENTITY Black Solidarity Day has been celebrated at Yale since 1986, and culminated in a speak-out event, dinner, and performance in 1992. This day is intentionally set the day before Election Day each year. The organizers of the Yale student event noted this timing, which is intended to remind politicians of the issues that face Black voters. Voting has never been solely a personal issue, voting impacts communities that will be disproportionately affected by the people who are elected, both at a local and national level. Elections deeply impact members of the community who are low income, working class, racial and religious minorities, or members of the LGBTQ+ community. V O T I N G H I S T O R Y 1 8
ELECTION DAY In 1982, the Yale College Democrats helped students registered in New Haven get to the polls. They offered buses, cars and escorts for registered Yale students on Election Day, who voted in the midterm elections. Although there was no Presidential race in 1982, New Haven voters were voting in U.S. Senate, House of Representatives, attorney general, and gubernatorial races, among other local and state races. That year, the Yale College Republicans turned outward and made more non-Yale efforts to encourage voting via phone calls. In 1992, the voter registrar of the Yale College Democrats along with 13 other students registered over 1,000 peers.
The day of the 2016 general election, student groups at Yale planned a variety of different events, offering a safe space for students to decompress election anxiety, or socialize at a watch party. Both the Afro-American Cultural Center and La Casa Cultural held watch parties. Some academic departments offered discussion sessions and seminars, demonstrating faculty support for civic engagement. Other students chose to stay within their smaller circles of friends, and all of the projectors from Bass were checked out for the evening.
Yale Daily News, November 2, 1982: shuttles to escort students to their polling location V O T I N G H I S T O R Y 1 9 ACCESSIBILITY OF ABSENTEE BALLOTS
During the 2018 midterm election, at least 26.6% of Yale students relied on a dependable on-campus mail service to cast their ballot (Figure 1). Prior to the 2020 general election, campus mail policy did not allow students to receive mail at their residential college. If a student wanted to request and mail in an absentee ballot, they would have to purchase a PO Box. According to the USPS website, an XS-sized PO Box at 206 Elm St. would cost $39 USD for 3 months, $67 USD for 6 months, or $134 USD for 12 months. Because of this cost barrier, many students entered Fall 2018 without a place to reliably send and receive mail.
Believing mail could be received at their residential college, students began to request absentee ballots be sent there. By the midterm elections, this policy caused widespread confusion as students’ absentee ballots were returned to sender without notifying the recipients. Without their mail-in ballots, students arrived at City Hall to same-day register and vote, but were met with long lines and four-hour long waits, which caused them to miss class, assignment deadlines, work, and other responsibilities. These long lines caused by an ineffective mailing system were seen in the 2014 midterms where 100 people were turned away from the polls and in the 2016 general election.
In 2020, this policy changed slightly allowing for exceptions to be made for absentee ballots, passports, and jury duty notices. The policy change allowing absentee ballots to be received at the colleges had wide, positive impacts on the 2020 election proceedings. While students account for a small percentage of absentee ballots being sent in from the city, they typically account for a large proportion of attempts to same-day register and vote in City Hall. Thus, because students were largely removed from the equation, Election Day as a whole in New Haven ran much smoother than 2018. This change was informally enacted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but in order to ensure that voting remains accessible at Yale in years to come, this policy change must be formalized and publicized to all of Yale’s students. V O T I N G H I S T O R Y 2 0
Figure 1: 2018 Voting Methods at Figure 1: 2018 Voting Methods at Yale Yale from Yale's 2018 NSLVE Report: Students who voted in-person on Election Day most ABSENTEE BALLOT likely voted in New Haven. These students may have requested absentee ballots prior to Election Day and had them returned by IN-PERSON, their college; so, ELECTION DAY their only opportunity to vote would be to same- day register at New Haven’s City Hall and subsequently EARLY VOTE cast their vote.
Absentee ballots are cast in lieu of voting in-person while mail-in ballots are MAIL-IN BALLOT automatically sent by the state to eligible voters’ home addresses. 2020 VOTING REFLECTIONS Despite the change to the mail collection system, the Yale Votes Website launch, and multiple student initiatives led by student groups, election proceedings in 2020 were not without obstacles. Widespread confusion persisted as polling location information was inaccurate on multiple official and unofficial communications channels from Yale College and extracurricular organizations. While this issue happens almost every single year, it spotlighted the work left to be done to make voting accessible for students new to the city––primarily in making Election Day a university-wide holiday. V O T I N G H I S T O R Y 2 1
On November 9th, 2020, the Yale College Council released the 2020 Fall Survey in which students were prompted to reflect on the remote semester, the academic calendar, and civic engagement accessibility at Yale. From this survey, over 75% of Yale students support Election Day becoming a university holiday regardless of a subtraction of one day from one of Yale’s academic breaks (Figure 2). Students overwhelmingly supported subtracting one day from summer break to establish Election Day as a holiday (Figure 3). If Election Day were made a university holiday, at least 972 students would be more likely to participate in civic engagement related activities––serving as poll workers, voting, and assisting members of the community to get to the polls (Figure 4).
Figure 2: Should Yale make Election Day a University Holiday? Note: One break day would be subtracted from Summer, Winter or October Break
1,235
379
YES NO
Figure 2: Responses to the question “Should Yale make Election Day a University Holiday?”: This question received responses from 1,614 undergraduate students. Approximately 76.52% of respondents believe that Yale should establish Election Day as a university-wide holiday, even after they acknowledged that one break day would be subtracted elsewhere. V O T I N G H I S T O R Y 2 2 Figure 3: If Election Day were recognized as a university holiday, from which break would you prefer a day be subtracted? E
C Figure 3: Responses to the I 766 O question “If Election Day H 174 C were recognized as a T
S 68 1 university holiday, from which break would you prefer a day be subtracted?”:
E This question received C
I 198
O responses from 1,008 H 676 C undergraduate students,
D about 600 less responses N 134 2 than the previous question. Students were presented
E with the choices of Summer C
I 44
O Break, Winter Break, and H 158 C
October Break to have one D
R 806 break day removed. 3 Approximately 76% of respondents ranked summer break as their first choice. SUMMER BREAK WINTER BREAK OCTOBER BREAK
Figure 4: If Election Day were a university holiday, I would be more likely to...
972 879 899
780
675 Figure 4: Responses to the 627 prompt “If Election Day were a University Holiday, I would be more likely to…”: Note that this prompt asked
360 respondents to select all that apply; students may have both been more likely to serve as poll workers and vote. Note that this question received only 30 less responses than the question preceding it.
VOTE SERVE AS SERVE AS ASSIST EDUCATE WORK WITH WATCH A POLL A BALLOT MEMBERS OF MYSELF ON A VOTING ELECTORAL THE WORKER COUNTER CANDIDATES/ RIGHTS RESULTS AS COMMUNITY PROPOSI GROUP THEY COME GET TO THE -TIONS IN POLLS 2 3 VOTING ACCESSIBILITY IN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SPHERES
Currently, the United States’ voter turnout is one of the lowest in the industrialized world. The most cited reasons for the lack of voting are being too busy or having a conflicting work schedule. For those with a strict schedule, it is difficult to find time before or after work to get to the polls and cast their vote, especially if there are long lines and wait times in their localities. Therefore, efforts by businesses and cities to accommodate voting largely impact the people’s ability to vote. CASE STUDIES IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR In the past 2020 Presidential Election, several major corporations made considerable strides towards securing benefits for employees on Election Day. As of October 2020, more than 1,800 companies joined Time to Vote, a nonpartisan group that aims to increase voter participation in the U.S. elections through either "paid time off on Election Day or making it a day without meetings.” It was an effort created by three California-based companies––Levi Strauss & Co., Patagonia and PayPal––but has now expanded into a national movement that includes some of the largest companies in the U.S., including Walmart, Target, Best Buy, Nike, the Coca-Cola Company, VISA and many more.
Starbucks gave its 200,000 U.S. employees increased flexibility on Election Day, letting them choose between working their shift or voting on or before Election Day. Employees were offered a free one-way Lyft ride up to $75 to either vote at the polls, volunteer as a poll worker, or drop off a ballot at an official ballot drop location. Additionally, the Starbucks App provided information on where and how to vote, how to volunteer at polling places, and news on specific policy issues like COVID and healthcare. In a letter to partners, Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson shared how “The upcoming election is a reminder that we, as citizens, play an active role in our society by simply getting involved and voting.” P U B L I C & P R I V A T E S E C T O R 2 4
Over 1.5 million Walmart associates received up to three hours of paid voting time if their work schedule didn’t accommodate at least three consecutive hours of off-duty time while the polls were open. Beginning two years ago, customers and associates can see signs in Walmart stores concerning voting practices such as requesting an absentee ballot, voter registration deadlines, polling locations, and candidates on the ballot.
Other companies have adopted similar policies such as Apple providing retail and hourly employees four hours off with pay, and GAP Inc. and North Face providing three hours off, respectively. The Coca-Cola Company and J.Crew both made Election Day a paid holiday for their full-time employees.
OTHER APPROACHES IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR
In addition to having paid time off for voting, some companies have incentivized their employees to become poll workers or participate in other voter engagement activities. Levi Strauss offered five hours of paid time off for all employees to vote on Election Day as well as five hours of paid time off each month for workers to volunteer for voter engagement efforts. Old Navy compensated store associates who served as poll workers with eight hours of pay, regardless if they were scheduled to work on Election Day itself.
The practice of having Election Day as a holiday isn’t entirely new or exclusive to 2020 for private organizations. General Motors, Ford and Fiat Chrysler have given employees the day off to vote since 1999 due to an agreement with the United Auto Workers union. Patagonia began the practice in 2016 by closing its stores, offices, and distribution centers for Election Day. In the upcoming years, it is most likely that more accommodations towards Election Day will occur within organizations throughout the United States. P U B L I C & P R I V A T E S E C T O R 2 5 CASE STUDIES IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR In addition to private and public businesses, state and city governments have launched initiatives to encourage voting behavior and break down some of the structural barriers to voting.
Within the last 2020 election cycle, twenty-eight states required employers to grant employees time off to vote. Each state varied in terms of whether that time off must be paid and how much notice must be given. In Illinois, Governor J.B. Pritzker declared the 2020 Election Day as a State holiday, requiring all government offices (except election officials, K-12 schools, and some post- secondary schools) to close for Election Day.
In Los Angeles, California, Metro buses and trains offered free rides throughout Election Day, increasing accessibility to the polls. Additionally, the Metro Bike Share program provided the first 30 minutes of bike rental for free, followed by a $1.75 rate for every subsequent 30 minutes, a reduced rate. These free and reduced fares were offered by the Los Angeles Department of Transportation, Culver City Bus, Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority, Pasadena Transit, and Montebello Bus Lines. This expansion of transportation on Election Day was also accomplished by cities comparable to New Haven in size. In Lynchburg, Virginia, buses and trains were also free on Election Day to and from polling locations. The return trips were on a “first-come, first-serve basis.”
Cities have also partnered with companies to offer reduced or free transportation as well. Motivate, one of the nation’s largest bike-share operators, provided free rides on Election Day in 2018 to transport voters to the polls. Motivate runs bike- sharing programs in 8 different cities under different namesakes: Citi Bike in New York; Divvy in Chicago; Ford GoBikes in the Bay Area; Blue Bikes in Boston; CoGo in Columbus, Ohio; Biketown in Portland, Oregon; Capital Bikeshare in Washington, D.C.; and Nice Ride in the Twin Cities, Minnesota.
Efforts by private and public companies and cities to increase voter turnout have been conducted in the past elections. They are making headway in giving employees and citizens the time and the tools they require to exercise their right to vote. 2 6 CONCLUDING REMARKS
We hope that readers gain a better understanding of civic engagement at Yale and the importance of creating a strong infrastructure to continue these efforts in years to come. We have laid out short term and long term goals with the intention that they will improve voter turnout among Yale college students, increase voter education resources, and decrease substantial barriers to participating in elections.
Through analyzing recent survey data from the YCC, NSLVE reports, YDN archives, and other external sources, our report provides thorough evidence that demonstrates Yale's performance as a whole over time. We hope that this information will be helpful in future university-wide civic engagement strategies. Looking at the patterns and trends that the professional world is moving toward, as well as wanting to keep pace with our peer institutions, it is essential that Yale considers amending the current system.
We appreciate the time and consideration for reading the report. We would like to thank the Yale College Democrats board, members of the Yale Votes Task Force, and the Voter Engagement Fellows.