This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-69 
entitled 'Elections: Views on Implementing Federal Elections on a 
Weekend' which was released on January 12, 2012. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

January 2012: 

Elections: 

Views on Implementing Federal Elections on a Weekend: 

GAO-12-69: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-12-69, a report to congressional committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Many U.S. citizens who are eligible to vote in federal elections do 
not do so. For instance, in the 2008 general election, about 62 
percent of eligible citizens voted. To increase voter turnout by 
enhancing convenience, some states have implemented alternative voting 
methods, such as in-person early voting-—casting a ballot in person 
prior to Election Day without providing a reason—-and no-excuse 
absentee voting-—casting an absentee ballot, usually by mail, without 
providing a reason. In general, since 1845, federal law has required 
that federal elections be held on Tuesday. 

The committees on appropriations directed GAO to study and report on 
costs and benefits of implementing H.R. 254—-the Weekend Voting Act—-
including issues associated with conducting a weekend election. 
Specifically, this report addresses: (1) alternatives to voting on 
Tuesday that states provided for the November 2010 general election, 
(2) how election officials anticipate election administration and 
costs would be affected if the day for federal elections were moved to 
a weekend, and (3) what research and available data suggest about the 
potential effect of a weekend election on voter turnout. GAO reviewed 
H.R. 254 and analyzed state statutes and early voting turnout in the 
2010 Maryland elections, which had early voting over weekdays and 
weekends. GAO interviewed election officials in nine states, the 
District of Columbia (District), and 17 local jurisdictions that were 
selected on the basis of geographic dispersion and experience with 
weekend voting, among other things. Though not generalizable, the 
interviews provide insights. 

What GAO Found: 

For the 2010 general election, 35 states and the District provided 
voters at least one alternative to casting their ballot on Election 
Day through in-person early voting, no-excuse absentee voting, or 
voting by mail. Specifically, 33 states and the District provided in-
person early voting, 29 states and the District provided no-excuse 
absentee voting, and 2 states provided voting by mail to all or most 
voters. Of the 9 states and the District where GAO conducted 
interviews, all but 2 states provided voters the option of in-person 
early voting in the 2010 general election, and 5 states and the 
District offered both early voting and no-excuse absentee voting. 
Implementation and characteristics of in-person early voting varied 
among the 7 states and, in some cases, among the jurisdictions within 
a state. For example, 5 states and the District required local 
jurisdictions to include at least one Saturday, and 2 states allowed 
for some jurisdiction discretion to include weekend days. 

State and local election officials GAO interviewed identified 
challenges they would anticipate facing in planning and conducting 
Election Day activities on weekends-—specifically, finding poll 
workers and polling places, and securing ballots and voting equipment—-
and expected cost increases. Officials in all 17 jurisdictions and the 
District we contacted said they expected the number of poll workers 
needed for a 2-day weekend election would increase. Further, officials 
in 13 jurisdictions said that some poll workers would be less willing 
to work on the weekend because of other priorities, such as family 
obligations or attending religious services. Officials in 14 of the 17 
jurisdictions and the District expected that at least some of the 
polling places they used in past elections-—such as churches—-would 
not be available for a weekend election, and anticipated difficulty 
finding replacements. Officials in all 9 states, the District, and 15 
of the 17 local jurisdictions said ensuring the security of ballots 
and voting equipment over the Saturday night of a weekend election 
would be both challenging and expensive. Officials in 5 of the 7 
states and the District that conducted early voting and provided 
security over multiple days explained that the level of planning 
needed for overnight security for a weekend election would far surpass 
that of early voting due to the greater number and variety of Election 
Day polling places. For example, officials in one state said that for 
the 2010 general election, the state had fewer than 300 early voting 
sites-—which were selected to ensure security-—compared to more than 
2,750 polling places on Election Day, which are generally selected 
based on availability and proximity to voters. In addition, officials 
in all 9 states, the District, and 15 of the 17 local jurisdictions 
said they expected overnight security costs to increase. 

Weekend elections have not been studied, but studies of other voting 
alternatives determined that voter turnout is not strongly affected by 
them. Since nationwide federal elections have never been held on a 
weekend, it is difficult to draw valid conclusions about how moving 
federal elections to a weekend would affect voter turnout. GAO’s 
review of 24 studies found that, with the exception of vote by mail, 
each of the alternative voting methods was estimated to change turnout 
by no more than 4 percentage points. GAO’s analysis of early voter 
turnout data in Maryland found that 1.5 percent of voters we analyzed 
cast ballots on the weekend during the 2010 general election. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-69]. For more 
information, contact William O. Jenkins, Jr., at (202) 512-8777 or 
jenkinswo@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Most States Provided Early or No-Excuse Absentee Voting as 
Alternatives to Voting on Tuesday in the 2010 General Election: 

Most Election Officials We Interviewed Expect Greater Difficulty and 
Costs Associated with a Weekend Election: 

Weekend Elections Have Not Been Studied, but Studies of Other Voting 
Alternatives Suggest That Voter Turnout May Not Be Strongly Affected: 

Appendix I: Selected Characteristics of States and Local Election 
Jurisdictions We Contacted: 

Appendix II: Analysis of Weekend Voting in the 2010 Maryland State 
Elections: 

Appendix III: Alternative Voting Methods Provided in 50 States and the 
District for the 2004 and 2010 November General Elections: 

Appendix IV: Selected Details of Early and No-Excuse Absentee Voting 
for the 2010 General Election in States We Contacted: 

Appendix V: Selected Details of Early Voting for the 2010 General 
Election in Local Jurisdictions We Contacted: 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Bibliography: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Estimated Impacts of Alternative Voting Methods on Voter 
Turnout: 

Table 2: Turnout and Use of Saturday Poll Hours in the 2010 Maryland 
General Election: 

Table 3: Selected Information about the States and the District We 
Contacted: 

Table 4: Selected Information about the Local Election Jurisdictions 
and the District We Contacted: 

Table 5: Turnout and Use of Weekend Poll Hours in 2010 Maryland 
General Election, by Demographic Group: 

Table 6: Selected Details of Early and No-Excuse Absentee Voting 
Implementation for the November 2010 General Election in States We 
Contacted: 

Table 7: Selected Details of Early Voting Implementation for the 
November 2010 General Election in Local Jurisdictions We Contacted: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: The Election Process Involves the Integration of People, 
Process, and Technology: 

Figure 2: Thirty-Five States and the District Provided at Least One 
Alternative to Voting on Tuesday in the November 2010 General Election: 

Figure 3: Early Voting in Maryland's November 2010 General Election: 

Figure 4: In-person Early Voting and No-excuse Absentee Voting in 50 
States and the District for the 2004 and 2010 General Elections: 

Abbreviations: 

District: District of Columbia: 

DRE: direct recording electronic: 

EAC: Election Assistance Commission: 

EVIC: Early Voting Information Center: 

HAVA: Help America Vote Act: 

NASS: National Association of Secretaries of State: 

NCSL: National Conference of State Legislatures: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

January 12, 2012: 

The Honorable Richard Durbin: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Jerry Moran: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Jo Ann Emerson: 
Chairwoman: 
The Honorable José Serrano: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government: 
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives: 

Voting is fundamental to our democracy, yet many U.S. citizens who are 
eligible to vote do not take advantage of their constitutional right 
to vote in federal elections. For instance, about 62 percent of 
eligible citizens voted in the November 2008 general election and 
about 42 percent voted in the November 2010 general election.[Footnote 
1] Policymakers, legislators, researchers, and advocacy organizations 
have explored ways to make voting more convenient with the goal of 
increasing voter turnout. Some states have implemented alternative 
voting methods aimed at increasing convenience by offering citizens an 
alternative to voting on Election Day. These include in-person early 
voting--that is, casting a ballot in person prior to Election Day 
without providing a reason, and no-excuse absentee voting--that is, 
casting an absentee ballot, usually by mail, without providing a 
reason. 

Since 1845, federal law has required that federal Election Day for the 
offices of President and Vice President be held on Tuesday.[Footnote 
2] Subsequent legislation extended the Tuesday Election Day to House 
and Senate elections.[Footnote 3] Thus, while states or local 
jurisdictions may have held nonfederal elections on a weekend or 
conducted early voting during a period that included Saturdays or 
Sundays, nationwide general elections for federal offices have been 
held on Tuesdays. 

Various bills have been introduced in Congress since 1995 to increase 
voter convenience by changing the day of presidential and 
congressional elections from Tuesday to the weekend.[Footnote 4] 
Specifically, legislation has been introduced to move the day for 
regularly scheduled federal elections from the Tuesday after the first 
Monday in November to the Saturday and Sunday after the first Friday 
in November, and to synchronize the opening and closing times of 
polling places within the continental United States for federal 
elections. As of December 2011, the most recent bill, introduced in 
January 2009, was H.R. 254--the Weekend Voting Act. The committees on 
appropriations directed us to study and report on costs and benefits 
of implementing H.R. 254, including the anticipated costs to state and 
federal election administration officials, the effects on polling 
places, and the estimated increase in voter turnout.[Footnote 5] 

Since 2001, we have issued a series of reports covering aspects of the 
election process primarily with respect to federal elections. For 
example, after the November 2000 and 2004 elections, we issued 
comprehensive reports on processes involved in and challenges 
associated with administering those elections.[Footnote 6] This report 
focuses on issues related to implementing weekend elections as 
described in H.R. 254. Specifically, it addresses the following 
questions: 

* What alternatives to voting on Tuesday did states provide for the 
November 2010 general election? 

* How, if at all, do election officials anticipate election 
administration and associated costs would be affected if the day for 
federal elections were moved to a weekend? 

* What do research and available data suggest about the potential 
effect of a weekend election on voter turnout? 

To address our objectives, we reviewed H.R. 254, the U.S. Election 
Assistance Commission's (EAC) study of Alternative Voting Methods and 
2010 Statutory Overview report,[Footnote 7] the Center for Democracy 
and Election Management's Election Administration Profiles of All 
Fifty States,[Footnote 8] and states' and local jurisdictions' 
election websites. We also conducted interviews with election 
officials in a nonprobability sample of nine states and the District 
of Columbia (District), and a nonprobability sample of 17 local 
jurisdictions within those states, about if and how they implemented 
alternative voting methods and their views on how election 
administration and voter turnout would likely be affected in their 
state or jurisdiction if the day for regularly scheduled federal 
elections were moved to a weekend.[Footnote 9] To obtain a range of 
perspectives, we selected states that varied according to, among other 
things, geographic region, experience with voting on weekends (such as 
with early voting on Saturdays or Sundays) and alternative voting 
methods in federal elections, and the level of local government 
responsible for administering elections (e.g., county or township). To 
obtain different perspectives at the local level, we selected 17 
jurisdictions to reflect variation in factors including demographics 
(e.g., population and median household income), experience with 
weekend voting, and other characteristics such as having a large 
military or student population. Appendix I provides information about 
the states and 17 local jurisdictions we selected. The results of our 
interviews cannot be generalized to all states and local election 
jurisdictions; however, they provide important information about how 
alternative voting methods were implemented in different states and 
local jurisdictions. They also provide perspectives on how, if at all, 
elements of elections administration (e.g., voter registration, poll 
worker recruitment, security of voting equipment, and costs) or voter 
turnout might be affected if the day for regularly scheduled federal 
elections were on a weekend. 

Moreover, to address objective 1, we analyzed state statutes regarding 
three such methods--in-person early voting, no-excuse absentee voting, 
and voting by mail.[Footnote 10] Specifically, we assessed which of 
the 50 states and the District provided these methods for the November 
2010 general election. We used EAC's 2010 Statutory Overview as a 
source for the state statute references, as well as our own research, 
and also reviewed information provided about these three methods from 
organizations that have compiled election information--the EAC, Early 
Voting Information Center (EVIC), National Association of Secretaries 
of State (NASS), and National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). 
If we needed clarification regarding a state statute, we called the 
relevant Secretary of State's or election office. To see whether and 
how the number of states that provided each alternative voting method 
changed between November 2004 and 2010, we compared the results of our 
analysis with information we previously reported on the 2004 general 
election.[Footnote 11] We supplemented information on the 50 states 
with additional details, such as whether the early voting period 
included weekend hours, which we obtained from election Web sites of 
the selected states and local jurisdictions as well as interviews with 
and documents provided by those election officials. 

To address objective 2, we interviewed state and local election 
officials. When available, we obtained information on costs, such as 
poll worker costs, that jurisdictions incurred for the 2010 general 
election, as well as officials' estimates of what their costs might be 
if the day for federal elections were moved to a weekend. However, 
because no state or jurisdiction had experience with conducting a 
federal general election on a weekend, the estimates we obtained are 
uncertain. To obtain additional views, we attended conferences and 
meetings held by the National Association of State Election Directors, 
Joint Election Officials Liaison Committee, and National Association 
of Counties, and solicited views of attending members. We also 
interviewed representatives of these organizations as well as 
elections experts and researchers from the EAC, Election Center, EVIC, 
Pew Center on the States, NCSL, League of Women Voters, Why Tuesday?, 
[Footnote 12] and the University of Maryland. 

To address objective 3, we (1) identified methodological challenges 
one would encounter when determining the effect; (2) reviewed what 
researchers have concluded about how alternative voting methods have 
influenced voter turnout; and (3) analyzed voter turnout in Maryland, 
which conducted early voting on weekdays and weekends in the November 
2010 elections. To describe challenges, we identified jurisdictions in 
the United States that have experimented with weekend voting and 
assessed the availability of their voter turnout and demographic data. 
However, because federal elections nationwide have never been held on 
a weekend, we could not use historical data to directly estimate how 
changing the day of federal elections would affect voter turnout. To 
review research on how voting methods affect turnout, we searched 
databases of political science journals and reports of foundations and 
think tanks with expertise in election reform published since 1985. 
[Footnote 13] We identified 24 studies that estimated how alternative 
voting methods have affected turnout in state and local elections in 
the United States from 1972 through 2008 and collected the estimates 
from each study.[Footnote 14] To analyze voter turnout, we estimated 
how turnout varied in Maryland between weekday and weekend early 
voting periods and whether certain demographic groups of voters, such 
as those who voted in previous elections, were more likely to vote on 
the weekend. We selected Maryland for our analysis from among the nine 
states where we conducted interviews because they maintained reliable 
and detailed electronic data on voter turnout and voter registration. 
We interviewed state election officials responsible for maintaining 
the data and conducted electronic tests for logic and accuracy, and we 
determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. 
However, the experiences of Maryland do not predict how turnout would 
change if federal elections were held on weekends nationwide. Further, 
our analysis was unable to account for several factors, including 
differences in polling hours across jurisdictions and voter 
demographics, such as education, not measured by state voter 
databases. Appendix II describes our data analysis. 

We conducted this performance audit from December 2010 to January 2012 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

Election Authority: 

The basic goal of the elections system in the United States is that 
all eligible voters have the opportunity to cast their vote and have 
their valid ballot counted accurately. Election authority is shared by 
federal, state, and local officials, and the election system is highly 
decentralized. States are responsible for the administration of their 
own elections as well as federal elections, and states regulate 
various aspects of elections including registration procedures, 
absentee voting requirements, alternative voting methods, 
establishment of polling places, provision of Election Day workers, 
testing and certification of voting equipment, and counting and 
certification of the vote.[Footnote 15] 

As the U.S. election system is highly decentralized, primary 
responsibility for managing, planning, and conducting elections 
resides locally with about 10,500 local election jurisdictions 
nationwide. In most states, election responsibility resides at the 
county level, although some states have delegated election 
responsibility to subcounty governmental units, such as cities, 
villages, and townships.[Footnote 16] Local election jurisdictions 
vary widely in size and complexity, ranging from small New England 
townships to Los Angeles County, where the number of registered voters 
exceeds that of 42 states. Some states have mandated statewide 
election administration guidelines and procedures that foster 
uniformity in the way local jurisdictions conduct elections. Others 
have guidelines that generally permit local election jurisdictions 
considerable autonomy and discretion in the way they run elections. 
Although some states bear some election costs, it is local 
jurisdictions that pay for elections. According to the Executive 
Director of the EAC, costs are not tracked in uniform ways because of 
the decentralized nature of elections and the variation in state and 
jurisdiction size and funding structures. 

However, Congress has authority to affect the administration of 
elections in certain ways. Congress' authority to regulate elections 
derives from various constitutional sources, depending upon the type 
of election.[Footnote 17] Federal legislation has been enacted in 
major functional areas of the voting process, such as voter 
registration, absentee voting requirements, accessibility provisions 
for the elderly and voters with disabilities, and prohibitions against 
discriminatory voting practices. With regard to the administration of 
federal elections, Congress has constitutional authority over both 
presidential and congressional elections, including the timing of 
federal elections.[Footnote 18] Under federal statute, the Tuesday 
after the first Monday in November in an even-numbered year is 
established as the day for federal congressional elections.[Footnote 
19] Federal statute also sets this same day for the selection of 
presidential electors--the Tuesday after the first Monday in November 
in every 4th year succeeding every election of a President and Vice 
President.[Footnote 20] In general, these are the federal statutes 
that the previously pending weekend voting bills would have amended to 
move the November Tuesday federal Election Day to Saturday and Sunday. 
Such a change in federal law would, in effect, likely require states 
to change their laws and regulations governing the implementation of 
federal elections to mirror the day(s) established in federal law. 
Current federal law does not dictate the hours that polling places are 
required to be open on Election Day. 

The timing of state and local elections is not mandated by the federal 
election calendar. Nevertheless, many state and local government 
officials are also elected on federal Election Day as a matter of 
convenience and to save costs. According to the EAC, some states and 
local jurisdictions have held nonfederal elections or primaries on 
Saturdays, believing that it might be more convenient for voters and, 
in turn, might increase voter turnout.[Footnote 21] For example, in 
Louisiana, all nonfederal elections take place on Saturdays and, in 
Texas, some nonfederal elections such as general elections for cities 
and schools take place on Saturdays. From 1978 through 2006, Delaware 
held local elections, including primaries, on Saturdays. It held its 
first Saturday presidential primary in 1996. However, according to the 
EAC, because the Jewish Sabbath is on Saturday and, additionally, the 
state's 2002 primary fell on the Jewish New Year, Delaware moved the 
presidential primary to Tuesday in 2004 and the state primary to 
Tuesday in 2006. 

Election System Elements: 

The U.S. election system is based on a complex interaction of people 
(voters, election officials, and poll workers), process, and 
technology that must work effectively together to achieve a successful 
election, as shown in figure 1. 

Figure 1: The Election Process Involves the Integration of People, 
Process, and Technology: 

[Refer PDF for image: illustration] 

People and Technology are integrated into each aspect of Process: 

Process: 
Voter registration; 
Absentee and early voting; 
Planning and conducting Election Day activities; 
Voting with provisional ballots; 
Vote counting and certification. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The election process is dependent on the citizens who cast ballots; 
however, election officials and poll workers are also essential to 
making the system work.[Footnote 22] State and local election 
officials are either elected or appointed and are responsible for 
carrying out federal and state election requirements. This can be a 
year-round effort. Among other things, election officials register 
eligible voters and maintain voter registration lists; design ballots; 
educate voters on how to vote; arrange for polling places; recruit, 
train, organize, and mobilize poll workers; prepare and test voting 
equipment for use; count ballots; and certify the final vote count. 
However, elections also depend on an army of poll workers--about 2 
million for a federal election--who are willing to staff the polls on 
Election Day. Some poll workers are elected, some are appointed by 
political parties, and some are volunteers. Compensation varies by the 
level of responsibility of the poll worker and the state or 
jurisdiction in which they work. As we reported in 2006, increasingly, 
poll workers are needed with different skills, such as computer or 
technical skills, and across the country jurisdictions have faced 
challenges finding poll workers.[Footnote 23] 

Voting methods and related technology also play a critical part in the 
success of an election. Voting methods are tools for accommodating the 
millions of voters in our nation's approximately 10,500 local election 
jurisdictions. Since the 1980s, ballots in the United States, to 
varying degrees, have been cast and counted using five methods: paper 
ballots, lever machines, punch cards, optical scan,[Footnote 24] and 
direct recording electronic (DRE) machines.[Footnote 25] Four of these 
methods involve technology; only the paper ballot system does not. For 
example, many DREs use computers to present the ballot to the voter, 
and optical scan and DRE systems depend on computers to tally votes. 
The way voting systems are designed, developed, tested, installed, and 
operated can lead to a variety of situations where misunderstanding, 
confusion, error, or deliberate actions by voters or election workers 
can, in turn, affect the equipment's performance in terms of accuracy, 
ease of use, security, reliability, and efficiency. 

Each of the 50 states and the District has its own election system 
with a somewhat distinct approach. While election systems vary from 
one local jurisdiction to another, all involve people, process, and 
technology, and most have the following elements: 

* Voter registration. Voter registration is not a federal requirement. 
However, except for North Dakota, all states and the District 
generally require citizens to register before voting. The deadline for 
registering and what is required to register varies. At a minimum, 
state eligibility provisions typically require a person to be a U.S. 
citizen, at least 18 years of age, and a resident of the state, with 
some states requiring a minimum residency period. Citizens apply to 
register to vote in various ways, such as at motor vehicle agencies, 
by mail, or at local voter registrar offices. Some states allow 
citizens to register at a polling place on Election Day. Election 
officials process registration applications and compile and maintain 
the list of registered voters to be used throughout the administration 
of an election. 

* Absentee and early voting. Absentee voting is a process that allows 
citizens the opportunity to vote when they are unable to vote at their 
precinct on Election Day and is generally conducted by mail. All 
states and the District have provisions allowing voters to cast their 
ballot before Election Day by voting absentee with variations on who 
may vote absentee, whether the voter needs an excuse, and the time 
frames for applying and submitting absentee ballots.[Footnote 26] In 
addition, some states also allow in-person early voting, as discussed 
later in the report. In general, early voting allows voters from any 
precinct in the jurisdiction to cast their vote in person without an 
excuse before Election Day either at one specific location or at one 
of several locations. Early voting locations have a registration list 
for the jurisdiction and ballots specific to each precinct. The voter 
is provided with and casts a ballot designed for his or her assigned 
precinct. As with absentee voting, the specific circumstances for in-
person early voting--such as the dates, times, and locations--are 
based on state and local requirements. 

* Planning and conducting Election Day activities. Election officials 
perform a range of activities in preparation for and on Election Day 
itself. Prior to an election, officials recruit and train poll workers 
to have the skills needed to perform their Election Day duties, such 
as opening and closing the polls and operating polling place 
equipment. Where needed and required, election officials must also 
recruit poll workers who speak languages other than English.[Footnote 
27] Officials also locate polling places that are to meet basic 
standards for accessibility and have an infrastructure to support 
voting machines as well as voter and poll worker needs.[Footnote 28] 
They design and produce ballots to meet state requirements and voter 
language needs, and that identify all election races, candidates, and 
issues on which voters in each precinct in their jurisdiction will 
vote. Election officials seek to educate voters on topics such as what 
the ballot looks like, how to use a voting machine, and where their 
particular polling place is located. Finally, election officials seek 
to ensure that voting equipment, ballots, and supplies are delivered 
to polling places. 

On Election Day, poll workers set up and open the polling places. This 
can include setting up the voting machines or voting booths, testing 
equipment, posting required signs and voter education information, and 
completing paperwork such as confirming that the ballot is correct for 
the precinct. Before a voter receives a ballot or is directed to a 
voting machine, poll workers typically are to verify his or her 
eligibility. 

* Provisional voting. Federal law requires that an individual 
asserting to be registered in the jurisdiction for which he or she 
desires to vote and is eligible to vote in a federal election--but 
whose name does not appear on the official list of eligible voters for 
the polling place--be provided a provisional ballot. In addition, 
provisional ballots are to be provided in elections for federal office 
to individuals whom an election official asserts to be ineligible to 
vote, and for court-ordered voting in a federal election after the 
polls have closed. If individuals are determined to be eligible 
voters, their provisional ballots are to be counted as votes in 
accordance with state law, along with other types of ballots, and 
included in the total election results. 

* Vote counting and certification. Following the close of the polls, 
election officials and poll workers complete steps to count the votes 
and determine the outcome of the election. Equipment and ballots are 
to be secured, and votes are to be tallied or transferred to a central 
location for counting. The processes used to count or to recount 
election votes vary with the type of voting equipment used in a 
jurisdiction, state statutes, and local jurisdiction policies. Votes 
from Election Day, absentee ballots, early votes (where applicable), 
and provisional ballots are to be counted and consolidated for each 
race to determine the outcome. While preliminary results are available 
usually by the evening of Election Day, the certified results are 
generally not available until days later. 

Most States Provided Early or No-Excuse Absentee Voting as 
Alternatives to Voting on Tuesday in the 2010 General Election: 

For the November 2010 general election, 35 states and the District 
provided voters at least one alternative to casting their ballot on 
Election Day through in-person early voting, no-excuse absentee 
voting, or voting by mail. As shown in figure 2, 33 states and the 
District provided in-person early voting, 29 states and the District 
provided no-excuse absentee voting, and 2 states provided voting by 
mail to all or most voters.[Footnote 29] 

Figure 2: Thirty-Five States and the District Provided at Least One 
Alternative to Voting on Tuesday in the November 2010 General Election: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map] 

In-person early voting: 
Arkansas: 
Indiana: 
Louisiana: 
Tennessee: 
Texas: 
West Virginia: 

In-person early voting and no-excuse absentee voting: 
Alaska: 
Arizona: 
California: 
Colorado: 
District of Columbia: 
Florida: 
Georgia: 
Hawaii: 
Idaho: 
Illinois: 
Iowa: 
Kansas: 
Maine: 
Maryland: 
Montana: 
Nebraska: 
Nevada: 
New Jersey: 
New Mexico: 
North Carolina: 
North Dakota: 
Ohio: 
Oklahoma: 
South Dakota: 
Utah: 
Vermont: 
Wisconsin: 
Wyoming: 

Vote by mail: 
Oregon: 
Washington: 

Source: GAO analysis of alternative voting methods for the November 
2010 general election (data); MapQuest (map). 

Note: The November 2010 election was conducted entirely by mail in 
Oregon and in 38 of 39 counties in Washington. In the remaining 
Washington county (Pierce County), voters were allowed to cast ballots 
in person at polling places on Election Day. Washington and Oregon are 
shown in figure 2 as vote by mail states but also had provisions that 
met our definition of no-excuse absentee voting and are included in 
our no-excuse absentee voting numbers. Both states also allowed voters 
to cast their vote-by-mail ballot in person at designated ballot 
deposit sites prior to Election Day without providing an excuse. 

[End of figure] 

In addition, eight of the states and the District with no-excuse 
absentee voting permitted registered voters to apply for an absentee 
ballot on a permanent basis so those voters automatically receive an 
absentee ballot in the mail prior to every election without providing 
an excuse or reason for voting absentee.[Footnote 30] 

Furthermore, the number of states providing these alternatives has 
increased in recent elections. We previously reported that for the 
2004 general election, 24 states and the District required or allowed 
in-person early voting, 21 states required or allowed no-excuse 
absentee voting, and 1 state--Oregon--required all voters to vote by 
mail.[Footnote 31] Appendix III compares the alternative voting 
methods for the 2004 and 2010 general elections, by state. 

Of the nine states and the District where we conducted interviews, all 
but two states provided voters the option of in-person early voting in 
the November 2010 general election. Five of the seven states and the 
District offered both early voting and no-excuse absentee voting. 
Appendix IV provides additional details of how these seven states and 
the District implemented these two alternative voting methods for the 
2010 general election. The two other states where we conducted 
interviews--Delaware and New Hampshire--did not provide voters with 
either of these alternatives, although they allowed voters to vote by 
absentee ballot if they provided a reason.[Footnote 32] 

Although seven of the nine states and the District where we conducted 
interviews provided voters with some option for in-person early 
voting, as did the 14 jurisdictions we contacted within those states, 
not all characterized their process as early voting. Five states--
California, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, and Texas--as well as the 
District called their process "early voting," but North Carolina 
called it "one-stop absentee voting" and Wisconsin called it "in-
person absentee voting." Moreover, implementation and characteristics 
of early voting also varied among the seven states and, in some cases, 
among the jurisdictions within a state. 

* Method of voting. In three of the seven states (California, North 
Carolina, and Wisconsin) where we conducted interviews, voters were 
allowed to cast their vote in person by using vote-by-mail or absentee 
ballots during a specified period prior to Election Day. In these 
states, voters applied for an absentee or vote-by-mail ballot when 
they went to vote early, received a ballot on the spot, and could then 
cast their ballot. In contrast, in the other four states and the 
District, voters cast their ballots using the method voters generally 
use on Election Day (i.e., DRE or optical scan). 

* Days of early voting. Although the length of the early voting 
periods ranged from 7 to 30 days in the states we contacted, five of 
the seven states and the District required local jurisdictions to 
include at least one Saturday in their early voting period, and two 
states allowed for some jurisdiction discretion to include weekend 
days. Of the 14 jurisdictions we contacted that offered an early 
voting period, 12 included an option for voters to vote on at least 
one Saturday, and 6 of those jurisdictions also included at least one 
Sunday. For example, jurisdictions in Maryland offered a 7-day early 
voting period that ended 4 days before Election Day and included 
Saturday, but not Sunday.[Footnote 33] On the other hand, California 
and Wisconsin allowed voters to cast ballots in person starting about 
1 month before Election Day through Election Day, and it was up to 
local discretion whether to include weekends. 

* Hours of early voting. Although seven of the nine states where we 
conducted interviews included at least 1 day of the weekend in their 
early voting period, in some jurisdictions the hours available to vote 
were the same for weekdays and weekends, whereas in some cases weekend 
hours were fewer. Sometimes the hours varied by the week of the month. 
For example, Louisiana, Maryland, and the District required all of 
their early voting sites to be open the same hours each day--9.5, 10, 
and 10.5 hours, respectively--Monday through Saturday. Four states--
California, Illinois, North Carolina, and Wisconsin--allowed local 
jurisdiction discretion to determine the hours of operation for some 
or all of their early voting sites. Texas used a formula based on 
county population to determine the number of hours, in addition to the 
specific days, during which early voting sites must be open.[Footnote 
34] In the two Texas jurisdictions where we conducted interviews, 
early voting sites were open Monday through Friday for 9 or 10 hours 
(depending on the county) during the first week of early voting; 12 
hours the second week; 12 hours on Saturday; and 5 hours or 6 hours on 
Sunday (depending on the county). 

* Number of early voting sites. The number of sites where voters could 
cast their ballots early, in person, also varied among the states and 
local jurisdictions where we conducted interviews. For example, in 
North Carolina there were 297 early voting sites across 100 counties, 
whereas in Illinois there were 180 early voting sites across 110 
counties. Half of the 14 local jurisdictions we contacted that offered 
early voting provided voters with a single early voting site, with the 
size of these jurisdictions varying in terms of both registered voter 
population and square miles. In the 7 jurisdictions that offered more 
than one early voting site, voters from any precinct in the 
jurisdiction could cast their ballot at any of that jurisdiction's 
early voting sites. 

* Types of early voting sites. The 14 local jurisdictions we contacted 
also used a variety of facilities as early voting sites. In 7 of these 
jurisdictions, early voting locations included county clerk or 
election offices, schools, libraries, and community centers, as well 
as mobile locations. For example, in an effort to make early voting 
convenient, one county in Illinois provided 30 of the 180 total early 
voting sites used in the state, consisting of 2 permanent sites and 28 
temporary sites. The 2 permanent early voting sites were county clerk 
offices and the remaining 28 temporary sites included community 
centers, libraries, senior living communities, and grocery stores, 
some of which were serviced by "vote mobiles"--mobile units on wheels 
that moved from one location to another every few days. In contrast, 
in the 5 local jurisdictions we contacted in California and Wisconsin, 
their sole early voting site was located at the local election office. 

See appendix V for additional details on how the local jurisdictions 
we contacted implemented in-person early voting for the November 2010 
general election. 

Most Election Officials We Interviewed Expect Greater Difficulty and 
Costs Associated with a Weekend Election: 

State and local election officials we interviewed about implementing a 
weekend election most often identified challenges they would 
anticipate facing in planning and conducting Election Day activities--
specifically, finding poll workers and polling places and securing 
ballots and voting equipment. Election officials told us that they 
expected few changes to how they register voters, conduct early 
voting, and provide voting with provisional ballots, but they did 
identify other challenges with implementing federal elections on a 
weekend. 

Most Election Officials Anticipate Finding Poll Workers for a Weekend 
Election Would Be Difficult and Costly: 

Election officials we interviewed in all nine states, the District, 
and all 17 local jurisdictions said they would expect more poll 
workers would be needed for a 2-day weekend election than for a 
Tuesday election and related costs would increase. Further, officials 
in 13 of those jurisdictions and the District expected it would be 
more difficult to recruit a sufficient number of poll workers for a 
weekend election.[Footnote 35] We reported in 2006 that even though 
the number of poll workers needed varies by jurisdiction, having 
enough qualified poll workers on Election Day is crucial to ensuring 
that voters are able to successfully cast a vote. Nationwide, the 
majority of jurisdictions rely on poll workers from past elections to 
meet their needs, but for each election, officials also recruit new 
poll workers from other sources such as high schools and colleges, 
local businesses and organizations, and government agencies.[Footnote 
36] 

Election officials in three jurisdictions described how changing the 
day for federal elections to a weekend would negatively affect their 
ability to draw from the poll workers and sources they have relied on 
in the past.[Footnote 37] For example, election officials in one local 
jurisdiction said that about one-fourth of their approximately 23,000 
poll workers for the 2010 general election were county employees and 
students. A weekend election would essentially end the incentives--
paying county employees their salary and excusing students from 
classes--that the jurisdiction successfully used in the past to 
attract them to work at the polls on a Tuesday when they would 
normally be at work or at school. Similarly, election officials from 
two other jurisdictions that are required by law to provide language 
assistance to certain groups of voters said that they rely on younger 
volunteers, such as high school students, to make up the majority of 
their bilingual poll workers. These officials were concerned that 
these poll workers would be less likely to volunteer during a weekend 
election because the incentives used to attract them in the past--
exemption from classes--would no longer be viable. 

Officials from 13 jurisdictions and the District discussed other 
reasons why it would be difficult to recruit poll workers on one or 
both days of a weekend rather than on a Tuesday. For example, 
officials in 6 jurisdictions--including 3 jurisdictions with 
experience conducting weekend elections--and the District explained 
that some poll workers would be less willing to work on the weekend 
because they attend religious services or participate in church-
related activities. Similarly, officials in 7 jurisdictions said they 
would expect other priorities, such as family obligations, sporting 
events, and weddings, to keep some poll workers from volunteering to 
work during a weekend election. Officials from one jurisdiction said 
that, based on their past experience with conducting an election on a 
Saturday, poll worker volunteers are less likely to report to work on 
the morning of a weekend election than they do for a Tuesday Election 
Day. Further, officials from 12 jurisdictions and the District said 
they would expect poll workers to be less willing or able to work 2 
consecutive days of a weekend election due to fatigue, noting that 
many poll workers are elderly. Officials from one of these 
jurisdictions stated that many of the 2,350 poll workers who 
volunteered during the 2010 general election were elderly and unlikely 
to have the stamina to work 2 consecutive days that could each be 14 
or 15 hours long. These officials further voiced concern that poll 
worker fatigue can lead to increased mistakes. 

In contrast, election officials we interviewed in 4 local 
jurisdictions did not anticipate difficulties finding the poll workers 
that would be needed for a weekend election. According to election 
officials in 3 of these jurisdictions, it might be easier to recruit 
poll workers for a weekend than for a Tuesday because a larger pool of 
volunteers who work Monday through Friday might be available. In a 
fourth jurisdiction with experience conducting state and local 
elections on Saturdays, officials said that while they may need to 
replace some poll workers that are only able or willing to work one 
day of a weekend election, they would expect that the compensation 
they offer would be sufficient to attract the number of poll workers 
needed to work over a weekend. 

However, election officials from all 17 jurisdictions and the District 
stated that the costs associated with poll worker pay would increase 
for a 2-day election, and in all but one jurisdiction, officials 
anticipated such costs would at least double what they spent in the 
2010 general election. In that one jurisdiction, the election official 
anticipated poll worker costs might increase by about half--but not 
double--because she expected voter activity would be spread over the 
course of Saturday and Sunday and, thus, she would need fewer poll 
workers each day than for a single-day election. Moreover, election 
officials from 10 of these jurisdictions noted that poll worker costs 
represented their greatest cost in administering the 2010 general 
election. For example, officials from one local jurisdiction expected 
the number of needed poll workers and the related costs to double for 
a weekend election. They added that poll worker costs were already 
their greatest election expense, and that such an increase would 
significantly affect their overall election budget. Furthermore, 
election officials in this state said that a weekend election would at 
least double the $2.6 million the state incurred to help jurisdictions 
pay for nearly 54,000 poll workers statewide in the 2010 general 
election. Given its financial constraints, these officials questioned 
whether the state would be able to provide these payments to 
jurisdictions for the second day of a weekend election. 

In addition, election officials in three states and 4 jurisdictions 
noted that they might have to increase the compensation they provide 
poll workers or consider paying overtime to attract a sufficient 
number to work during a weekend election. For example, officials from 
a jurisdiction with less than 20 poll workers in the 2010 general 
election said that their costs for poll worker pay might double or 
triple for a weekend election because they would expect needing more 
poll workers as well as needing to increase compensation to 
successfully recruit them. 

Most Election Officials Expect Difficulty and Some Increased Costs 
Finding Polling Places for a Weekend Election: 

Election officials we interviewed in 14 of the 17 local jurisdictions--
including 5 jurisdictions with experience conducting elections on a 
Saturday--and the District expected that at least some of the polling 
places they used in past elections would not be available for a 
weekend election, and officials in all of those jurisdictions and the 
District anticipated difficulty finding replacements. Local election 
officials are responsible for selecting and securing a sufficient 
number of polling places that meet basic requirements and standards 
that include ensuring polling places are easily accessible to all 
voters, including voters with disabilities. They should also have a 
basic infrastructure capable of supporting voting machines and be 
comfortable for voters and poll workers, including offering sufficient 
indoor space and parking.[Footnote 38] The types of facilities used as 
polling places varied in the jurisdictions where we conducted 
interviews and included public and private facilities such as places 
of worship, schools, government buildings, fire departments, community 
centers, libraries, and residential facilities. 

Election officials noted potential challenges associated with relying 
on commonly used polling places on the weekend. Of the 12 
jurisdictions and the District that relied on churches or synagogues 
for at least some of their polling places, election officials in all 
but one said they would need to find other locations for a weekend 
election because the places of worship they have relied on as polling 
places for Tuesday elections are used for religious services or 
activities on the weekend and, thus, would not be available. For 
example, in 2 jurisdictions where about half of the 3,067 and 200 
polling places, respectively, were churches and synagogues, election 
officials said that they would not expect those facilities to be 
available on a weekend, and it would be difficult to find 
replacements. In contrast, in one jurisdiction with experience 
conducting state and local elections on a Saturday where about 15 
percent of its 127 polling places were churches, election officials 
said they would expect the majority of those churches to remain 
available as polling places for a weekend election by using areas of 
the church not needed for religious services. However, they 
anticipated that churches would need to make special parking 
arrangements, as church goers and voters would be competing for 
parking spaces. 

Officials from 9 jurisdictions and the District explained that other 
polling places, such as schools and community centers, would also be 
more difficult to use on the weekend because of scheduled events, such 
as athletic events, dances, or fairs. For example, officials from one 
jurisdiction with past experience conducting federal elections on a 
Saturday stated that they had a harder time finding enough polling 
places for Saturday voting because fewer locations, such as community 
centers, were available. Officials stated that due to conflicts that 
prevented the use of some facilities, some polling place locations had 
to change from the presidential primary to the general election in the 
same election year. They added that, as a result, voters had to be 
assigned to a different polling place for the general election which 
caused a problem on Election Day when some of those voters went to the 
wrong location. In another jurisdiction where almost 70 percent of the 
249 polling places in the 2010 general election were schools, 
officials said they would anticipate problems using schools as weekend 
polling places because of activities, such as athletic events, that 
might compete with a weekend election for space and parking. 
Furthermore, they found it difficult to think of any facilities that 
they might be able to use as replacements. 

In contrast, election officials from 5 jurisdictions with past 
experience conducting state or local elections on Saturdays noted that 
they might find it easier to use schools as polling places on a 
weekend than a Tuesday because students would not be attending classes 
and having students present on Election Day when campuses are open to 
the public has raised security concerns for some schools and 
jurisdictions. Officials from 2 of these jurisdictions acknowledged 
that schools would still have competing activities on the weekend, but 
anticipated they could use a different part of the school and employ 
additional staff to assist with parking and traffic. 

Regardless of the type of facility that might be unavailable as a 
weekend polling place, officials in 14 jurisdictions and the District 
said that finding alternatives would be challenging if not impossible. 
In all but one of these jurisdictions, officials pointed out the 
difficulty in locating alternative polling places that would be 
accessible to voters with disabilities. For example, according to one 
local election official, in some precincts the only building that is 
accessible to voters with disabilities is a church that is already 
used as a polling place for Tuesday elections, but would not be 
available on a weekend. Officials in 4 jurisdictions and the District 
said that in order to provide for a sufficient number of polling 
places they might need to consolidate precincts, in which case some 
voters would likely need to travel further to vote. 

However, in the three smallest jurisdictions in which we held 
interviews, election officials said they would expect the same polling 
places they used in past elections to still be available if the day of 
federal elections were moved to a weekend. In two cases, the 
jurisdictions had a single polling place--a municipal building--and 
officials would expect to use that building for a weekend election. 
Officials from the third jurisdiction that had experience conducting 
state and local elections on Saturdays, similarly stated that a 
weekend election would not present a challenge with respect to polling 
places, and they would expect to use the same 10 facilities--mostly 
public buildings--as polling places regardless of the day of the week 
the election is held. 

Election officials from 13 jurisdictions--including 5 jurisdictions 
with experience conducting elections on a Saturday--said they would 
expect costs associated with polling places to increase with a weekend 
election. Officials in 8 jurisdictions that pay for at least some of 
the facilities they use as polling places anticipated rental fees 
would double because of the 2-day aspect of a weekend election. Other 
officials said they would expect at least some of the facilities that 
are available at no cost for a Tuesday election to charge a rental fee 
on the weekend to compensate for potential revenue losses by, for 
example, not being able to rent their spaces for weddings or other 
private events. For example, officials from one jurisdiction said that 
to replace many of their 249 polling places that would be unavailable 
for a weekend election, they might need to offer higher compensation 
to attract private facilities that have not previously served as 
polling places. Furthermore, officials in 11 jurisdictions stated that 
other costs might increase with a weekend election if facilities that 
are normally closed on a weekend were opened for a weekend election. 
This might include charges for electricity or custodial and 
maintenance staff, who would need to be available or on the premises. 
In 6 of these jurisdictions, officials stated that paying for 
custodial or maintenance personnel might further entail overtime pay 
because they would be working on a weekend. 

Most Election Officials Said Ensuring Overnight Security of Ballots 
and Equipment Would Also Be Challenging and Costly: 

According to election officials we interviewed in all nine states, the 
District, and 15 of the 17 local jurisdictions, ensuring the security 
of ballots and voting equipment over the Saturday night of a weekend 
election would be both challenging and expensive. We have previously 
reported that secure voting systems are essential to maintaining 
public confidence in the election process.[Footnote 39] EAC election 
management guidelines further articulate that physical security 
safeguards are required for all voting equipment and ballots while 
stored, transported, and in place at polling places on Election Day, 
and until the time the vote is certified. Officials we interviewed in 
5 of the 7 states and the District that conducted early voting and 
provided security over multiple days explained that the level of 
planning and challenges needed for overnight security for a weekend 
election would be on a scale that would far surpass that of early 
voting due to the greater number and variety of polling places used on 
Election Day. For example, election officials in one state observed 
that for the 2010 general election, the entire state had fewer than 
300 early voting sites compared to more than 2,750 polling places on 
Election Day, and the early voting sites were selected with the need 
for overnight security in mind. In contrast, Election Day polling 
places are precinct-based and generally selected based on factors that 
include availability and proximity to voters rather than overnight 
security. 

In 15 of the local jurisdictions and the District, election officials 
said they anticipated challenges regarding the overnight security 
aspect of a weekend election and described the following approaches 
they would envision taking to ensure the security of ballots and 
voting equipment: 

* Transporting and securing ballots at another location. Election 
officials in 8 jurisdictions said that to ensure the security and the 
integrity of the election results, they would likely have ballots 
transported from polling places to a secure location on the Saturday 
night of a weekend election and back again on Sunday morning. An 
election official from one jurisdiction stated that municipal law 
requires that deputy sheriffs pick up ballots at the polling places 
and bring them to the clerk's office to secure them overnight during 
the jurisdiction's early voting period. This official stated that the 
jurisdiction's elections office currently employs approximately 120 
deputy sheriffs to do this on Tuesday night of Election Day, and they 
would likely be required to do the same on Saturday night in addition 
to Sunday night of a weekend election. 

* Safeguarding voting equipment at polling places. Officials from 10 
jurisdictions and the District said that to ensure overnight security 
during a weekend election, they would likely hire security personnel 
for each polling place to safeguard voting equipment from the close of 
polls on Saturday night until they reopen on Sunday morning. For 
example, an election official in one jurisdiction explained that 
because some of the jurisdiction's 27 polling places are located up to 
100 miles from the election office, there is not enough time between 
polls closing Saturday night and reopening Sunday morning to transport 
the voting equipment to and from each polling place and the secure 
county office. Thus, this official said hiring security personnel and 
posting them at each polling place overnight would be the only viable 
option to ensure the security of the equipment. Officials in 3 other 
jurisdictions explained that two security personnel would likely be 
needed at each polling place not only to secure the equipment, but to 
provide a check and balance and safeguard the integrity of the 
election results. Although these officials believed that on-site 
security personnel would be needed, some questioned whether a 
sufficient number would be available. For example, officials in one 
jurisdiction said that even if they were to hire every off-duty police 
officer in their jurisdiction, they did not think they would have 
enough officers to secure all of their 249 polling places over the 
Saturday night of a weekend election. Officials from another 
jurisdiction anticipated that, rather than hiring security personnel, 
they would likely secure the voting machines on-site in a locked room 
to prevent tampering, vandalism, or theft, but they would need to 
change the locks at all of their 23 polling places. 

We have previously reported that larger, diverse jurisdictions can 
face more challenges than smaller jurisdictions, as the complexity of 
administering an election and the potential for challenges increase 
with the number of people and places involved and the scope of 
activities and processes that must be conducted.[Footnote 40] This 
might be the case with respect to ensuring overnight security during a 
weekend election. For example, at one extreme, election officials in 
the largest jurisdiction where we held interviews said they would 
likely employ some combination of on-site security and transporting of 
ballots to ensure overnight security if elections were held over 2 
days. Officials explained that in their jurisdiction, which had more 
than 3,000 polling places on Election Day for the 2010 general 
election, ensuring the chain of custody of ballots on election night 
involved a complex logistical operation that included transporting 
ballots by helicopters to an estimated 70 to 80 secure locations. 
Given the size of their jurisdiction and the enormity of the task, 
these officials said they would need to assemble a task force and 
devote considerable resources to determine how to address Saturday 
night security during a weekend election since it would involve a 
completely new model for them and a fundamental change in procedures. 

In contrast, election officials in the two smallest jurisdictions 
where we held interviews did not anticipate overnight security would 
be a challenge during a weekend election, as they use a single polling 
place--a municipal building--on Election Day. These officials said 
they would expect that ballot boxes would be secured in a safe located 
in the county office over the Saturday night of a weekend election, 
just as they are at the end of a Tuesday Election Day. They added that 
they might consider implementing additional security measures for a 
weekend election, such as having police patrol the building during the 
weekend, but they did not anticipate this would present a challenge or 
represent additional costs. 

In addition to presenting planning and logistical challenges, election 
officials in all nine states, the District, and 15 of the 17 local 
jurisdictions where we conducted interviews said they expected the 
costs associated with implementing these overnight security measures 
to increase the cost of a weekend election. For example, in the 
jurisdiction that would employ deputy sheriffs to transport the 
ballots to the clerk's office both nights of a weekend election, the 
election official said this would double the more than $210,000 in 
security-related costs incurred for the 2010 general election. In one 
of the jurisdictions where officials anticipated posting two overnight 
security guards at each polling place, officials estimated this would 
add about $100,000 to their cost of administering an election. 
[Footnote 41] 

Election Officials Expected Other Challenges with Implementing Federal 
Elections on a Weekend: 

In all 17 local jurisdictions and the District, election officials 
reported that they would expect few changes to how they register 
voters, conduct early voting, and provide voting with provisional 
ballots. However, election officials with whom we spoke identified 
other challenges related to operating voting systems and reconciling 
ballots in preparation for counting and certifying the total number of 
ballots cast over a 2-day election, as well as concerns with the 
effect of a weekend election on workload and the election calendar. 

Voting technology challenges and related costs. Election officials we 
interviewed in 7 of the 17 local jurisdictions discussed technology-
related challenges they foresaw with using their voting systems for a 
2-day weekend election, and officials from 4 of these jurisdictions 
said they would expect addressing this to result in significantly 
higher costs than for a Tuesday election. According to officials, 
their voting systems are designed for all voting to take place in a 
single day and for equipment to be closed when polling places close 
that night. Officials explained that, to preserve the integrity of the 
vote in a weekend election, they would have to leave voting machines 
open Saturday night where polls are closed; however, the equipment 
could not simply be suspended Saturday night and started up again 
Sunday morning for a second day of voting.[Footnote 42] Rather, once 
closed, the equipment would, in effect, consider the election to be 
over and could not record additional votes. According to officials, to 
conduct a second day of voting, their equipment would either need to 
be (1) reprogrammed by the vendor in advance of the election and 
recertified or (2) reprogrammed Saturday night and retested before 
Sunday morning, which involves a lengthy process that cannot be 
completed in a single night. Alternatively, they could purchase 
additional memory cards or even a second set of voting machines. 

Elections officials in the City and County of San Francisco 
anticipated facing such a challenge in planning for a November 2011 
municipal election that was to take place on 2 days--a Saturday and 
the following Tuesday.[Footnote 43] In consultation with the 
California Secretary of State's office, they determined that their 
voting equipment could not be closed on Saturday night and restarted 
on Tuesday morning. Therefore, to address this issue, they intended to 
borrow voting machines from other jurisdictions and use different 
machines each day. However, they explained that borrowing voting 
equipment would not be an option if the day of general elections were 
moved to a weekend since every jurisdiction in the country would be 
using its own voting equipment on the same days. Thus, they stated 
that if federal elections were moved to a weekend, they would likely 
have to purchase a second set of voting equipment to use on Sunday at 
over 550 polling places, at an estimated cost of over $5.9 million. 
This alone would represent about 88 percent of the total costs the 
county incurred in administering the November 2010 general election. 

Officials from another jurisdiction said they anticipate their voting 
machines would need significant changes, including changes to 
software, to suspend the election Saturday night and resume it on 
Sunday morning--changes that the officials expected would require EAC 
recertification.[Footnote 44] They estimated that the recertification 
process could take as long as 1 year and cost the manufacturer of 
their voting system hundreds of thousands of dollars, some of which 
might be passed on to them in the form of required software upgrades. 
Election officials in another state that used different voting 
equipment said they thought their equipment could suspend voting 
Saturday night and resume on Sunday morning if careful steps were 
taken by trained poll workers or technical staff on how to temporarily 
turn off voting machines without closing them and ending the vote. 
However, they would need technical staff or poll workers with more 
technical skills than those they have used in the past to accomplish 
this without ending the entire voting process by mistake. 

In addition, election officials in all nine states expected other 
related costs, such as for technology support--either in-house or 
contracted--would be greater for a weekend election. They stated that 
cost increases would primarily be due to securing these services for a 
second day and potentially having to pay overtime or premium pay on a 
weekend. For example, based on their experience conducting nonfederal 
elections on a Saturday, officials from Louisiana said that they would 
expect to incur significant additional costs because they would need 
to hire more part-time election staff to load and reprogram a second 
set of memory cards into their electronic voting machines on Sunday 
morning at approximately 3,000 polling places statewide. Moreover, the 
state normally pays to have technology vendors on call to troubleshoot 
equipment-related problems at polling places on Election Day, and 
would anticipate these costs would at least double with a 2-day 
election as premium pay might be involved for a weekend. 

Ballot reconciliation on Saturday and Sunday nights. Election 
officials from six states, the District, and 12 of the 17 local 
jurisdictions said that they would likely need to reconcile ballots--
the process of accounting for the numbers of ballots issued, unused, 
and spoiled and ensuring that the number of ballots cast matches the 
number of voters who cast ballots--on both Saturday and Sunday night 
of a weekend election. Officials in three of these states and 2 of 
these jurisdictions anticipated challenges with having to do this on 2 
consecutive nights. For example, officials from one state said that in 
jurisdictions that use paper ballots, reconciling them on Saturday 
night might be difficult because it takes more time to reconcile paper 
ballots than other voting methods and there might not be sufficient 
time to complete the process before opening the polls again on Sunday 
morning. Election officials from another state and 2 local 
jurisdictions added that the work associated with reconciling ballots 
both nights would lengthen what is already a long day for poll 
workers, contribute to their fatigue, and might result in more errors 
in the reconciliation process. 

Increased election and temporary staff workload and costs. Officials 
from all 17 jurisdictions and the District said that the workload of 
local election staff would increase with a 2-day weekend election and, 
in all but one of the jurisdictions, said this would significantly 
increase personnel costs.[Footnote 45] For example, officials from one 
jurisdiction that employs eight full-time and one part-time election 
staff said that a 2-day election would require that the staff work an 
additional 24 hours or more with a weekend election than a Tuesday 
election. Further, because staff are paid a premium for weekend 
overtime, the $10,500 incurred in overtime costs in the November 2010 
general election would at least double. Election officials in 12 of 
the 13 jurisdictions and the District that used temporary workers for 
the 2010 general election anticipated they would either need to hire 
more temporary workers for a weekend election or have their temporary 
staff work more hours, which would also result in increased costs. 

Effect on election calendar. Election officials in three states, the 
District, and all 17 jurisdictions also noted that moving the day of 
federal elections to a weekend could affect certain aspects of their 
entire election calendar--that is, dates associated with administering 
elections (e.g., candidates' declarations, printing ballots, voter 
registration, absentee ballot deadlines, and certification of the 
vote). Officials in 12 jurisdictions did not anticipate this would 
create a particular problem in administering elections in their 
jurisdiction. However, a state election official in New Hampshire was 
concerned that a weekend election might, in effect, compel his state 
to move its congressional primaries earlier in the year. New 
Hampshire's congressional primaries take place in September--
relatively late in the primary season. According to the state 
official, if a weekend election resulted in congressional elections 
being scheduled earlier than the Tuesday Election Day, the amount of 
time between the state's congressional primary and Election Day would 
not be sufficient for election officials to create the Election Day 
ballot. 

Also, officials in 3 jurisdictions and the District noted the effect 
that existing absentee ballot deadlines might have on voters if the 
day of federal elections were changed to a weekend. These officials 
explained that limited weekend post office hours and concerns that the 
U.S. Postal Service might further reduce weekend days or hours, could 
result in some voters--more than with a weekday election--not mailing 
their absentee ballots in time to be counted. For example, election 
officials in the District said they would expect mailed absentee 
ballots would need to be postmarked no later than the Saturday of a 
weekend election since post offices are closed on Sunday. They 
anticipated that under this scenario, some ballots mailed on the 
weekend might not be postmarked until after the election, resulting in 
rejected ballots. 

Weekend Elections Have Not Been Studied, but Studies of Other Voting 
Alternatives Suggest That Voter Turnout May Not Be Strongly Affected: 

Limited U.S. Experience with Weekend Elections Makes Evaluating Effect 
on Voter Turnout Challenging: 

Because nationwide federal elections have never been held on a weekend 
and we could identify few U.S. jurisdictions that have held weekend 
elections for state or local offices, it is difficult to draw valid 
conclusions about how moving federal elections to a weekend would 
affect voter turnout. In principle, a persuasive analysis of weekend 
elections would involve comparing voter turnout in jurisdictions that 
had moved their elections to a weekend to turnout in similar 
jurisdictions that continued to hold the same type of election on a 
Tuesday. However, since federal law requires federal elections in the 
United States be held on a specific Tuesday, it is not possible to use 
national data to estimate whether voter turnout would be different if 
voting took place on a weekday or weekend without making assumptions 
that cannot be verified.[Footnote 46] 

The experiences of certain state and local jurisdictions with weekend 
elections, as well as the experiences of other countries, might lead 
to speculation about how voter turnout in a weekend election in the 
United States would compare to turnout elsewhere. In fact, the 
experiences of state, local, and foreign jurisdictions do not provide 
good proxies for the likely U.S. experience with weekend elections for 
the following reasons: 

* State and local elections. According to the EAC, the states of 
Delaware, Louisiana, and Texas have had experience holding nonfederal 
elections or federal primaries on Saturday. However, these states' 
experiences do not allow for an expedient and persuasive evaluation. 
Historical data on state and local elections in Delaware and Texas 
were not easily accessible in a reliable, electronic format for the 
periods before, during, and after weekend elections occurred. In 
addition, comparing the experiences of these three states with other 
states would risk confusing differences in election schedules with 
other unobserved differences, such as state culture or campaign 
mobilization efforts. Further, the many unique features of each 
election jurisdiction limit the usefulness of this type of analysis 
for predicting the national effect of weekend elections. 

* Elections in other countries. Although other countries have had 
experience conducting national elections on weekends, comparisons 
between the United States and these countries have limited value 
because of differences in election laws, requirements, and civic 
responsibilities.[Footnote 47] For example, Australia and Brazil, 
which have held federal elections during the weekend in the past 5 
years, generally require all eligible citizens to participate in the 
election process,[Footnote 48] whereas the United States makes voting 
optional. Differences in turnout between U.S. elections and elections 
in these countries may reflect different civic responsibilities in 
addition to different election schedules; however, it is difficult to 
assess which factor is actually responsible. 

Several other methodological challenges exist in evaluating the effect 
of alternative voting methods (e.g., in-person early voting, no-excuse 
absentee voting, and vote by mail), including weekend voting, on voter 
turnout. 

* Voting alternatives cannot easily be evaluated using randomized 
controlled trials that often provide the most persuasive evidence of 
program effect. Jurisdictions likely would not randomly assign 
citizens to one set of election laws without first examining potential 
equal-protection-type issues. 

* Political representatives and voters choose to adopt voting 
alternatives for various reasons, which might include increasing low 
turnout or maintaining high turnout. Consequently, the difference in 
turnout between jurisdictions that have or have not adopted a 
particular alternative could be caused by the alternative itself or by 
the reasons that led the jurisdiction to adopt it. 

* The limited number of jurisdictions that have used a particular 
voting alternative, or the length of time it had been in use, limit 
evaluations to the elections in which these alternatives have been 
tried. For example, researchers have evaluated vote by mail in Oregon, 
Washington, and selected precincts in California, because these 
jurisdictions have regularly used vote by mail in recent years. 

* Distinguishing the effect of a voting alternative from other factors 
that affect turnout can be challenging. These other factors include 
demographic, social, and psychological differences across voters; 
other election practices, such as registration closing dates and 
distance to polling places; the intensity or closeness of a campaign; 
and the activities of political campaigns and the news media. For 
example, voters in jurisdictions with highly educated, older citizens 
might have higher turnout and a higher propensity to use voting 
alternatives designed to increase turnout. Turnout might be higher in 
these jurisdictions, but it is unclear whether the difference is 
caused by the voting alternative or by the citizen characteristics 
that are associated with a greater motivation to vote. Further, it is 
difficult to assess the effect of a specific change in election 
practices when more than one change is made at the same time. Thus, 
should states make several new changes concurrently, such as 
implementing voter identification requirements and allowing citizens 
to vote in early voting periods, it would be difficult to assess the 
unique effect of any one change on voter turnout. 

Research Finds Effect of Alternative Voting Methods on Turnout Are 
Small and Citizen Demographics Are More Consequential: 

Our review of 24 studies found that alternative voting methods have 
small and inconsistent effects on voter turnout, as compared to 
demographic differences among citizens.[Footnote 49] With the 
exception of vote by mail, each of the alternative voting methods we 
reviewed was estimated to increase or decrease turnout by no more than 
4 percentage points. The studies disagreed about whether the methods 
would increase or decrease turnout, however, as the estimates for all 
methods except vote by mail varied from an increase of 2.8 percentage 
points to a decrease of 4 percentage points, depending on the voting 
method and the study, as shown in table 1.[Footnote 50] 

Table 1: Estimated Effects of Alternative Voting Methods on Voter 
Turnout: 

Alternative voting method[A]: In-person early voting[C]; 
Number of studies reviewed[B]: 8; 
Range of years studied: 1972 to 2008; 
Elections studied: Presidential and congressional; 
Estimated effects of using the voting method on turnout (percentage 
points): -2.4 to 2.8. 

Alternative voting method[A]: Vote by mail; 
Number of studies reviewed[B]: 11; 
Range of years studied: 1960 to 2008; 
Elections studied: Presidential, congressional, state, primary, and 
special; 
Estimated effects of using the voting method on turnout (percentage 
points): -2.7 to 10.2. 

Alternative voting method[A]: No-excuse absentee; 
Number of studies reviewed[B]: 6; 
Range of years studied: 1972 to 2008; 
Elections studied: Presidential and congressional; 
Estimated effects of using the voting method on turnout (percentage 
points): -4.0 to 2.7. 

Alternative voting method[A]: Vote centers; 
Number of studies reviewed[B]: 2; 
Range of years studied: 2003 to 2006; 
Elections studied: Presidential, congressional, and state; 
Estimated effects of using the voting method on turnout (percentage 
points): -2.0 to -0.6. 

Alternative voting method[A]: Longer poll hours; 
Number of studies reviewed[B]: 1; 
Range of years studied: 2000; 
Elections studied: Presidential; 
Estimated effects of using the voting method on turnout (percentage 
points): 1.0 to 1.7. 

Source: GAO analysis of studies. 

[A] Whereas in-person early voting, vote by mail, and no-excuse 
absentee voting provide voters with alternatives for voting prior to 
Election Day, vote centers and longer poll hours seek to make voting 
more convenient on Election Day. We viewed the latter as alternatives 
to traditional precinct-place voting and, thus, included them in our 
review of academic research. 

[B] Six of the 24 studies we reviewed assessed the effect of more than 
one alternative voting method. Eighteen of the 24 studies provided 
enough detail to identify an estimated effect on turnout in percentage 
points. 

[C] No study of early voting assessed whether turnout was higher in 
jurisdictions that provided weekend polling hours, even though certain 
jurisdictions gave voters this option in the 2010 general election for 
federal offices. Some portion of the overall effect of early voting 
might be due to the provision of weekend polling hours, but the 
available research did not allow us to directly quantify this effect. 

[End of table] 

The maximum estimated increase suggests that alternative voting 
methods other than vote by mail do not increase turnout by large 
amounts, contrary to the goals of these policy reforms.[Footnote 51] 
In contrast, the estimated effects of vote by mail were larger and 
less consistent, ranging from a 2.7 percentage point decrease to a 
10.2 percentage point increase. The maximum effect of vote by mail 
decreased to 6.8 percentage points when we excluded one study whose 
results were challenged by another study.[Footnote 52] We were unable 
to identify any study that directly estimated the effect of weekend 
elections on voter turnout in United States elections. 

The 24 studies showed that citizen demographics--age, education, race, 
income, and residential mobility--had stronger and more consistent 
associations with turnout than jurisdictions' use of alternative 
voting methods. More specifically, the studies showed the following: 

* A 10 percentage point increase in the percentage of a jurisdiction's 
population between the ages of 35 and 54 (in one study) and 45 to 64 
(in another study) increased turnout by 1 to 10 percentage points. 

* A 10 percentage point increase in a jurisdiction's population with 4-
year college degrees increased turnout by 1 to 6 percentage points. 

* A 10 percentage point increase in a jurisdiction's nonwhite 
population decreased turnout by 2 to 11 percentage points. 

* A $40,000 increase in a jurisdiction's median income increased 
turnout by 0 to 4 percentage points. 

* A 10 percentage point increase in a jurisdiction's renter 
population--a measure of residential mobility--decreased turnout by 8 
percentage points. 

The broader academic research on voter turnout has drawn conclusions 
that are consistent with those of the studies we reviewed. These 
studies have concluded that individual differences among citizens and 
electoral competition are more strongly and consistently associated 
with the decision to vote than interventions that seek to make voting 
more convenient for registered voters.[Footnote 53] As a 
representative example, one study concluded that the association 
between voter age and turnout in presidential elections from 1956 
through 1988 was more than five times larger than the association 
between voter registration closing dates prior to Election Day and 
turnout.[Footnote 54] 

Our review found that alternative voting methods have not mobilized 
groups of citizens who are typically less likely to vote. Five of the 
24 studies examined how the effect of alternative voting methods 
varied across particular groups of citizens. Four of those studies 
showed that the methods either did not increase turnout for citizens 
who were typically less likely to vote, or that the methods increased 
turnout for citizens who were already more likely to vote. For 
example, one study concluded that longer poll hours did not 
disproportionately benefit any demographic group, including farmers 
and employed people working more than 40 hours per week.[Footnote 55] 
Another study concluded that vote by mail methods increased turnout 
among citizens who were well educated, older, and more interested in 
political campaigns.[Footnote 56] These findings suggest that 
alternative voting methods are more effective at retaining existing 
voters than mobilizing citizens who do not vote. 

Similarly, our review showed that citizens who were typically more 
likely to vote were also more likely to take advantage of early voting 
when it was an option. Six of the 24 studies assessed which 
demographic groups were more likely to vote early. These studies 
showed that early voters are more likely to be older, better educated, 
more interested in politics, and more strongly identified with a 
political party, as compared to voters who used other voting methods. 
Because these groups of citizens are typically more likely to vote, 
the research suggests that alternative voting methods have been more 
popular among citizens who need less encouragement to vote. 

Election officials in the nine states and the District where we 
conducted interviews said that they expected moving Election Day from 
a Tuesday to a Saturday and Sunday would have little to no effect on 
total voter turnout. In four of the states, officials said that a 
weekend election might lead to more voters voting early or absentee, 
but they did not think total turnout would be affected. This view was 
shared by officials in states that had experience in early voting, 
including weekend early voting, as well as states with considerable 
experience in holding local elections on Saturday. Their comments are 
generally consistent with the studies we reviewed, which assessed the 
effects of alternative voting methods on turnout using larger, more-
representative samples of elections, jurisdictions, and time periods. 

Turnout Did Not Increase during the Weekend Early Voting Period in 
Maryland's 2010 General Election: 

Our analysis of voter turnout data from the early voting period during 
the 2010 general election in Maryland showed that voters were not very 
likely to vote on the weekend days provided. Maryland offered early 
voting for the first time in the 2010 primary and general elections. 
Of the voters we analyzed, 1.1 percent cast ballots on the weekend 
during the early voting period when they had this option during the 
primary election, and 1.5 percent of voters did so during the general 
election.[Footnote 57] The turnout rate for the general election did 
not increase during weekend periods of early voting, as compared to 
weekday periods and Election Day. About 81 percent of voters voted in 
person on Election Day and about 6 percent voted by absentee ballot. A 
total of about 11.8 percent of voters voted in person on a weekday 
during the state's 7-day early voting period (the second Friday 
through the first Thursday prior to Election Day), and about 1.5 
percent voted on the Saturday of that period.[Footnote 58] 

Those who voted early on Saturday were generally more likely to be 
members of demographic groups who, according to academic research, are 
typically more likely to vote--that is, those who are older, less 
mobile, and more politically engaged. The length of registration and 
prior voting experience approximate a voter's residential mobility and 
long-term level of political engagement, respectively. However, the 
youngest and least experienced voters were relatively more likely to 
vote on Saturday, compared to voters who were slightly older and more 
experienced. 

As shown in table 2, voters who were older than 40, had been 
registered for at least 10 years, and voted in at least 6 of the past 
10 primary and general elections were more likely to vote on Saturday 
in Maryland's 2010 general election than voters in other subgroups. 
For example, 1.4 percent of the registrants who were older than 65 and 
voted, voted on Saturday, compared to 1 percent of the registrants 
between the ages of 25 and 39 who voted. Although this change is small 
on an absolute scale, it is larger when expressed as a ratio of 
turnout rates for the two groups--a proportional difference of 45 
percent. In addition to these differences, registered Democrats were 
0.4 percentage points more likely than registered Republicans to have 
voted on the weekend--a proportional difference of 33 percent--but 6.3 
percentage points less likely to have voted at all. 

Table 2: Turnout and Use of Saturday Poll Hours in the 2010 Maryland 
General Election: 

Voter characteristic: Age: Younger than 25; 
Percent of registrants voting: 26.6%; 
Percent voting on Saturday, among registrants who voted: 1.31%. 

Voter characteristic: Age: 25-39; 
Percent of registrants voting: 35.2%; 
Percent voting on Saturday, among registrants who voted: 0.96%. 

Voter characteristic: Age: 40-64; 
Percent of registrants voting: 59.1%; 
Percent voting on Saturday, among registrants who voted: 1.75%. 

Voter characteristic: Age: 65 or older; 
Percent of registrants voting: 63.6%; 
Percent voting on Saturday, among registrants who voted: 1.39%. 

Voter characteristic: Years registered: Less than 2; 
Percent of registrants voting: 36.3%; 
Percent voting on Saturday, among registrants who voted: 1.87%. 

Voter characteristic: Years registered: 2-9; 
Percent of registrants voting: 38.9%; 
Percent voting on Saturday, among registrants who voted: 1.33%. 

Voter characteristic: Years registered: 10-29; 
Percent of registrants voting: 57.8%; 
Percent voting on Saturday, among registrants who voted: 1.59%. 

Voter characteristic: Years registered: 30 or more; 
Percent of registrants voting: 75.1%; 
Percent voting on Saturday, among registrants who voted: 1.55%. 

Voter characteristic: Number of elections voted, 2000-2008: 0; 
Percent of registrants voting: 14.2%; 
Percent voting on Saturday, among registrants who voted: 1.73%. 

Voter characteristic: Number of elections voted, 2000-2008: 2; 
Percent of registrants voting: 35.9%; 
Percent voting on Saturday, among registrants who voted: 1.14%. 

Voter characteristic: Number of elections voted, 2000-2008: 4; 
Percent of registrants voting: 59.7%; 
Percent voting on Saturday, among registrants who voted: 1.20%. 

Voter characteristic: Number of elections voted, 2000-2008: 6; 
Percent of registrants voting: 77.9%; 
Percent voting on Saturday, among registrants who voted: 1.36%. 

Voter characteristic: Number of elections voted, 2000-2008: 8; 
Percent of registrants voting: 87.7%; 
Percent voting on Saturday, among registrants who voted: 1.75%. 

Voter characteristic: Number of elections voted, 2000-2008: 10; 
Percent of registrants voting: 95.0%; 
Percent voting on Saturday, among registrants who voted: 2.56%. 

Voter characteristic: Party registration: Democrat; 
Percent of registrants voting: 52.0%; 
Percent voting on Saturday, among registrants who voted: 1.69%. 

Voter characteristic: Party registration: Other; 
Percent of registrants voting: 35.0%; 
Percent voting on Saturday, among registrants who voted: 1.28%. 

Voter characteristic: Party registration: Republican; 
Percent of registrants voting: 58.3%; 
Percent voting on Saturday, among registrants who voted: 1.27%. 

Source: GAO analysis of Maryland early voting turnout data for the 
November 2010 general election. 

Note: Turnout statistics here may not match certified vote totals for 
Maryland jurisdictions because we analyzed a custom database of 
citizens registered for the 2010 general election. 

[End of table] 

Saturday turnout was slightly higher among the youngest and least-
experienced subgroups of voters, as compared to voters in the 
subgroups immediately above them, and the most recently registered had 
the highest Saturday turnout of all registration groups. Because 
academic research has generally found that older, less mobile, and 
more politically engaged citizens are more likely to vote, early 
weekend voting appears to have been slightly more popular among 
Maryland citizens who need the most encouragement to vote in the first 
place. However, the small size of this increase suggests that Saturday 
poll hours did not meaningfully increase overall turnout or draw a 
large number of new or infrequent voters to the polls. Apart from this 
group, the likelihood of voting on Saturday generally increased with 
age, length of registration, and prior voting experience. Appendix II 
describes our more-detailed statistical analysis of voter turnout in 
Maryland. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 
committees and the EAC. In addition, the report will be available at 
no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please 
contact me at (201) 512-8777 or jenkinswo@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs can be found 
on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are 
listed in appendix VI. 

Signed by: 

William O. Jenkins, Jr. 
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Selected Characteristics of States and Local Election 
Jurisdictions We Contacted: 

States are responsible for the administration of their own elections 
as well as federal elections, and states regulate various aspects of 
elections including registration procedures, absentee voting 
requirements, alternative voting methods, establishment of polling 
places, provision of Election Day workers, testing and certification 
of voting equipment, and counting and certification of the vote. 
However, local election jurisdictions--counties and subcounty 
governmental units, such as cities, villages, and townships--have 
primary responsibility for managing, planning, and conducting 
elections. We conducted interviews with election officials in a 
nonprobability sample of nine states and the District of Columbia 
(District), and a nonprobability sample of 17 local jurisdictions 
within those states, about if and how they implemented alternative 
voting methods and their views on how election administration and 
voter turnout would likely be affected in their state or jurisdiction 
if the day for regularly scheduled federal elections were moved to a 
weekend. To obtain a range of perspectives, we selected states that 
varied according to, among other things, geographic region, 
alternative voting methods provided in federal elections, experience 
with voting on weekends, and the level of local government responsible 
for administering elections (e.g., county or township) as shown in 
table 3. 

Table 3: Selected Information about the States and the District We 
Contacted: 

State: California; 
Alternative voting method provided in 2010 elections: 
Early voting[A]: Yes; 
No-excuse absentee voting[B]: Yes; 
Vote by mail only[C]: No; 
Experience with voting on weekends: 
Experience with a weekend election[D]: No; 
Weekend voting offered during early voting period[E]: Yes; 
Local election responsibility[F]: County; 
Provides same-day voter registration[G]: No; 
Election Day is a state holiday: No. 

State: Delaware; 
Alternative voting method provided in 2010 elections: 
Early voting[A]: No; 

No-excuse absentee voting[B]: No; 
Vote by mail only[C]: No; 
Experience with voting on weekends: 
Experience with a weekend election[D]: Yes. Primaries held on 
Saturday, 1978-2006; 
Weekend voting offered during early voting period[E]: N/A; 
Local election responsibility[F]: State administration at county level; 
Provides same-day voter registration[G]: No; 
Election Day is a state holiday: Yes. 

State: District of Columbia; 
Alternative voting method provided in 2010 elections: 
Early voting[A]: Yes; 
No-excuse absentee voting[B]: Yes; 
Vote by mail only[C]: No; 
Experience with voting on weekends: 
Experience with a weekend election[D]: No; 
Weekend voting offered during early voting period[E]: Yes; 
Local election responsibility[F]: N/A; 
Provides same-day voter registration[G]: Yes; 
Election Day is a state holiday: No. 

State: Illinois; 
Alternative voting method provided in 2010 elections: 
Early voting[A]: Yes; 
No-excuse absentee voting[B]: Yes; 
Vote by mail only[C]: No; 
Experience with voting on weekends: 
Experience with a weekend election[D]: Yes. Special congressional 
election held on Saturday, 2008; 
Weekend voting offered during early voting period[E]: Yes; 
Local election responsibility[F]: County; 
Provides same-day voter registration[G]: No; 
Election Day is a state holiday: Yes. 

State: Louisiana; 
Alternative voting method provided in 2010 elections: 
Early voting[A]: Yes; 
No-excuse absentee voting[B]: No; 
Vote by mail only[C]: No; 
Experience with voting on weekends: 
Experience with a weekend election[D]: Yes. All nonfederal elections 
held on Saturday since 1959; 
Weekend voting offered during early voting period[E]: Yes; 
Local election responsibility[F]: County; 
Provides same-day voter registration[G]: No; 
Election Day is a state holiday: Yes. 

State: Maryland; 
Alternative voting method provided in 2010 elections: 
Early voting[A]: Yes; 
No-excuse absentee voting[B]: Yes; 
Vote by mail only[C]: No; 
Experience with voting on weekends: 
Experience with a weekend election[D]: No; 
Weekend voting offered during early voting period[E]: Yes; 
Local election responsibility[F]: County; 
Provides same-day voter registration[G]: No; 
Election Day is a state holiday: Yes. 

State: New Hampshire; 
Alternative voting method provided in 2010 elections: 
Early voting[A]: No; 
No-excuse absentee voting[B]: No; 
Vote by mail only[C]: No; 
Experience with voting on weekends: 
Experience with a weekend election[D]: No; 
Weekend voting offered during early voting period[E]: N/A; 
Local election responsibility[F]: Subcounty; 
Provides same-day voter registration[G]: Yes; 
Election Day is a state holiday: No. 

State: North Carolina; 
Alternative voting method provided in 2010 elections: 
Early voting[A]: Yes; 
No-excuse absentee voting[B]: Yes; 
Vote by mail only[C]: No; 
Experience with voting on weekends: 
Experience with a weekend election[D]: No; 
Weekend voting offered during early voting period[E]: Yes; 
Local election responsibility[F]: County; 
Provides same-day voter registration[G]: No; 
Election Day is a state holiday: No. 

State: Texas; 
Alternative voting method provided in 2010 elections: 
Early voting[A]: Yes; 
No-excuse absentee voting[B]: No; 
Vote by mail only[C]: No; 
Experience with voting on weekends: 
Experience with a weekend election[D]: Yes. Some statewide elections 
held on Saturday; 
Weekend voting offered during early voting period[E]: Yes; 
Local election responsibility[F]: County; 
Provides same-day voter registration[G]: No; 
Election Day is a state holiday: No. 

State: Wisconsin; 
Alternative voting method provided in 2010 elections: 
Early voting[A]: Yes; 
No-excuse absentee voting[B]: Yes; 
Vote by mail only[C]: No; 
Experience with voting on weekends: 
Experience with a weekend election[D]: No; 
Weekend voting offered during early voting period[E]: Yes; 
Local election responsibility[F]: Subcounty; 
Provides same-day voter registration[G]: Yes; 
Election Day is a state holiday: No. 

Sources: GAO analysis of state statutes and data. 

Notes: N/A = Not applicable. 

Some of the data are from GAO synthesis of documents provided by and 
interviews with state election officials. 

[A] In general, early voting allows voters from any precinct in the 
jurisdiction to cast their vote in person without providing a reason 
before Election Day either at one specific location or at one of 
several locations. 

[B] No-excuse absentee voting is a process that allows citizens to 
cast an absentee ballot, usually by mail, without providing a reason. 

[C] Voting by mail only is a process in which all elections are 
conducted solely by mail. Oregon and 38 of the 39 counties in 
Washington administered the 2010 general election solely by mail. 

[D] Indicates states that have experience in conducting a federal 
(primary) or state election during the weekend. 

[E] Indicates states that offered early voting in the November 2010 
general election on a Saturday, Sunday, or both. 

[F] In most states, election responsibility resides at the county 
level, although some states have delegated election responsibility to 
subcounty governmental units, such as cities, villages, and townships. 

[G] Indicates states that allowed voters to register to vote at their 
polling place on Election Day. 

[End of table] 

In addition, we conducted interviews with election officials in a 
nonprobability sample of 17 local election jurisdictions within the 
nine states. We selected jurisdictions to reflect variation in factors 
including demographics, applicable bilingual voting assistance 
requirements,[Footnote 59] and voting methods used, as shown in table 
4. In addition, we considered other factors specific to the 
jurisdiction--such as for Los Angeles County, which is the largest 
election jurisdiction in the United States, or for San Francisco, 
which had developed an implementation plan for a Saturday voting pilot 
program for a November 2011 municipal election--in making our 
selections. 

Table 4: Selected Information about the Local Election Jurisdictions 
and the District We Contacted: 

Local jurisdiction: Los Angeles County, California; 
Population: 9,785,295; 
Percent nonwhite population[A]: 71%; 
Median income as a percent of national median income[B]: 107%; 
Bilingual voting assistance requirements[C]: Yes--Asian (Asian-Indian, 
Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese and Other Asian-Not 
specified), Hispanic; 
Voting method(s) used[D]: Optical scan. 

Local jurisdiction: Modoc County, California; 
Population: 9,162; 
Percent nonwhite population[A]: 20%; 
Median income as a percent of national median income[B]: 66%; 
Bilingual voting assistance requirements[C]: No; 
Voting method(s) used[D]: Optical scan. 

Local jurisdiction: City and County of San Francisco, California; 
Population: 797,271; 
Percent nonwhite population[A]: 55%; 
Median income as a percent of national median income[B]: 136%; 
Bilingual voting assistance requirements[C]: Yes--Asian (Chinese), 
Hispanic; 
Voting method(s) used[D]: Optical scan. 

Local jurisdiction: New Castle County, Delaware; 
Population: 527,774; 
Percent nonwhite population[A]: 35%; 
Median income as a percent of national median income[B]: 123%; 
Bilingual voting assistance requirements[C]: No; 
Voting method(s) used[D]: DRE. 

Local jurisdiction: District of Columbia; 
Population: 588,433; 
Percent nonwhite population[A]: 68%; 
Median income as a percent of national median income[B]: 110%; 
Bilingual voting assistance requirements[C]: No; 
Voting method(s) used[D]: DRE & Optical Scan. 

Local jurisdiction: Kane County, Illinois; 
Population: 494,371; 
Percent nonwhite population[A]: 37%; 
Median income as a percent of national median income[B]: 133%; 
Bilingual voting assistance requirements[C]: Yes--Hispanic; 
Voting method(s) used[D]: DRE. 

Local jurisdiction: Shelby County, Illinois; 
Population: 21,854; 
Percent nonwhite population[A]: 2%; 
Median income as a percent of national median income[B]: 88%; 
Bilingual voting assistance requirements[C]: No; 
Voting method(s) used[D]: DRE & Optical Scan. 

Local jurisdiction: Orleans Parish, Louisiana; 
Population: 328,669; 
Percent nonwhite population[A]: 71%; 
Median income as a percent of national median income[B]: 71%; 
Bilingual voting assistance requirements[C]: No; 
Voting method(s) used[D]: DRE. 

Local jurisdiction: Tensas Parish, Louisiana; 
Population: 5,798; 
Percent nonwhite population[A]: 59%; 
Median income as a percent of national median income[B]: 59%; 
Bilingual voting assistance requirements[C]: No; 
Voting method(s) used[D]: DRE. 

Local jurisdiction: Montgomery County, Maryland; 
Population: 946,172; 
Percent nonwhite population[A]: 47%; 
Median income as a percent of national median income[B]: 179%; 
Bilingual voting assistance requirements[C]: Yes--Hispanic; 
Voting method(s) used[D]: DRE. 

Local jurisdiction: Town of Charlestown, New Hampshire; 
Population: 4,872; 
Percent nonwhite population[A]: 2%; 
Median income as a percent of national median income[B]: 104%; 
Bilingual voting assistance requirements[C]: No; 
Voting method(s) used[D]: Hand-counted paper ballot. 

Local jurisdiction: City of Concord, New Hampshire; 
Population: 42,397; 
Percent nonwhite population[A]: 7%; 
Median income as a percent of national median income[B]: 102%; 
Bilingual voting assistance requirements[C]: No; 
Voting method(s) used[D]: Optical Scan. 

Local jurisdiction: Mecklenburg County, North Carolina; 
Population: 861,189; 
Percent nonwhite population[A]: 45%; 
Median income as a percent of national median income[B]: 108%; 
Bilingual voting assistance requirements[C]: No; 
Voting method(s) used[D]: DRE. 

Local jurisdiction: Sampson County, North Carolina; 
Population: 62,996; 
Percent nonwhite population[A]: 46%; 
Median income as a percent of national median income[B]: 68%; 
Bilingual voting assistance requirements[C]: No; 
Voting method(s) used[D]: DRE & Optical Scan. 

Local jurisdiction: Bexar County, Texas; 
Population: 1,584,817; 
Percent nonwhite population[A]: 68%; 
Median income as a percent of national median income[B]: 89%; 
Bilingual voting assistance requirements[C]: Yes--Hispanic; 
Voting method(s) used[D]: DRE & Optical Scan. 

Local jurisdiction: Webb County, Texas; 
Population: 231,035; 
Percent nonwhite population[A]: 95%; 
Median income as a percent of national median income[B]: 70%; 
Bilingual voting assistance requirements[C]: Yes--Hispanic; 
Voting method(s) used[D]: DRE & Optical Scan. 

Local jurisdiction: City of Madison, Wisconsin; 
Population: 229,051; 
Percent nonwhite population[A]: 21%; 
Median income as a percent of national median income[B]: 100%; 
Bilingual voting assistance requirements[C]: No; 
Voting method(s) used[D]: Optical Scan. 

Local jurisdiction: Town of Minocqua, Wisconsin; 
Population: 4,935; 
Percent nonwhite population[A]: 2%; 
Median income as a percent of national median income[B]: 84%; 
Bilingual voting assistance requirements[C]: No; 
Voting method(s) used[D]: Optical Scan. 

Sources: Statutes, states and local jurisdictions, and GAO analysis of 
U.S. Census Bureau data. 

Notes: Bilingual voting assistance coverage determinations under 
sections 4(f)(4) and 203 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 
are reflected at 28 C.F.R. Part 55, Appendix (Jurisdictions Covered 
Under Sections 4(f)(4) and 203(c) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as 
amended) with the most recent section 203 coverage determinations 
published in October 2011 at 76 Fed. Reg. 63,602-63,607 (2011); state 
or local jurisdiction election data are from their websites; U.S. 
Census Bureau data are from the American Community Survey. 

[A] Based on analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community 
Survey data. Indicates the percentage of the population that is either 
(1) Hispanic and any race, or (2) non-Hispanic and any race other than 
white. 

[B] Represents the median household income of the jurisdiction as a 
percentage of the national median household income. 

[C] Indicates whether or not a jurisdiction is required under section 
203 or 4(f)(4) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, to 
provide bilingual election materials and assistance and, if so, the 
language minority group(s) covered. 

[D] In general, there are five methods for casting votes: paper 
ballots, lever machines, punch cards, optical scan, and direct 
recording electronic (DRE) machines. An optical scan voting system is 
composed of computer-readable ballots, appropriate marking devices, 
privacy booths, and a computerized tabulation machine. Voters record 
their choices using an appropriate writing instrument to fill in boxes 
or ovals or to complete an arrow next to the candidate's name or the 
issue. Voters make their selection on DREs by pressing a button or 
touching the screen next to the candidate's name or ballot issue. When 
they are finished, they cast their votes by pressing a final "vote" 
button on the machine or screen. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Analysis of Weekend Voting in the 2010 Maryland State 
Elections: 

The state of Maryland provided its citizens the option of in-person 
early voting for the first time in the 2010 primary and general 
elections. Polls were open for early voting on a total of 6 days, 
beginning the second Friday prior to Election Day (September 14 or 
November 2, respectively, for the primary and general elections) and 
extending through the first Thursday prior to Election Day. Early 
voting hours were provided on Saturday, but not on Sunday, of each 7-
day early voting period. State statute required counties to establish 
early voting centers, with the number of early voting locations based 
on the county's number of registered voters. Each county had at least 
one location, plus three to five additional locations if they had more 
than 150,000 registered voters[Footnote 60]. Early voting hours were 
the same across counties, beginning at 10:00 a.m. and ending at 8:00 
p.m. each day. 

Maryland's experience with early voting allowed us to analyze how 
voters used weekend poll hours when they were available. Voter 
registration and turnout data in Maryland are sufficiently detailed 
and reliable to allow for statistical analysis of citizens who were 
registered for the 2010 general election. This appendix presents our 
analysis of (1) whether the turnout rate during the early voting 
period was higher or lower on Saturday as compared to weekdays and (2) 
which groups of citizens used weekend poll hours in the 2010 general 
election. Specifically, we assessed whether citizens who belonged to 
groups that typically vote less frequently, such as younger and more-
recently registered voters, were more likely to use weekend poll 
hours. While our analysis describes the use of weekend poll hours, it 
does not seek to estimate the causal effect of providing these voting 
methods or holding Election Day on Saturday and Sunday. 

Turnout Did Not Substantially Increase during Weekend Poll Hours: 

Our analysis of voter turnout data showed that only 1.5 percent of 
voters used Saturday poll hours during the early voting period of the 
2010 general election.[Footnote 61] To further examine how the turnout 
rate changed between the weekend and weekday periods, we analyzed the 
voting times for early voters. According to state officials, all 
counties in Maryland used the same computerized voter registration and 
election administration system in 2010, which recorded the date and 
time when each voter received a ballot. By estimating the turnout rate 
within small intervals during the early voting period, we assessed 
whether turnout meaningfully changed between the weekday and weekend 
periods. 

As shown in figure 3, the proportion of Maryland voters--categorized 
into groups by age, length of registration, and participation in prior 
elections--who cast ballots on a certain "poll day" during the early 
voting period did not substantially increase on Saturday. In our 
analysis, a poll day is a 24-hour period when the polls were open 
during the early voting period. It equals the calendar days prior to 
Election Day when citizens were able to vote minus the subsequent time 
when the polls were closed.[Footnote 62] For example, figure 3 shows 
that the first citizen to receive a ballot when the polls opened on 
Saturday of the early voting period voted 2.9 poll days prior to 
Election Day, even though Saturday, October 23, was the 10th calendar 
day prior to Election Day on Tuesday, November 2. 

Figure 3: Early Voting in Maryland's November 2010 General Election: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 3 multiple line graphs] 

Graphs depict early voting in poll days prior to election as follows: 

Proportion Voting Prior to Election day by Age; 
Age 18-24l 
Age 25-39; 
Age 40-64; 
Age 65+. 

Proportion Voting Prior to Election day by Length or registration; 
0-1 years registered; 
2-9 years registered; 
10-29 years registered; 
30+ years registered. 

Proportion Voting Prior to Election day by Participation in prior 
elections; 
0 prior elections voted; 
1-3 prior elections voted; 
4-6 prior elections voted; 
7+ prior elections voted. 

Source: GAO analysis of Maryland early voting turnout data for the 
November 2010 general election. 

Note: A "poll day" is a 24-hour period when polls were open for early 
voting before Election Day. The dashed vertical lines in the figure 
show the start of each new calendar day, with the 1 day of Saturday 
voting in the early voting period labeled in the second interval. 

[End of figure] 

In figure 3, the turnout rate is roughly equal to the slope of the 
curves plotted, with a steeper curve meaning that more voters cast 
ballots at a certain time.[Footnote 63] If the appeal of voting on 
Saturday were much higher than voting on a weekday, we would expect a 
sharp, discontinuous change in the turnout rate between Friday and 
Saturday and Saturday and Monday, respectively. The data show no such 
pattern. The turnout rate was approximately the same when the polls 
closed on Friday afternoon as when they opened on Saturday morning. 
Turnout increased at the start of the next weekday period on Monday, 
and then it steadily increased until Election Day. This suggests that 
voters were not relatively more eager to take advantage of Saturday 
voting as compared to weekday voting. 

Voters from different demographic groups used the Saturday voting 
period somewhat differently. Figure 3 plots turnout separately by age, 
length of registration (a proxy for residential mobility), and the 
number of statewide primary and general elections since 2000 in which 
the citizen voted. These are three variables typically associated with 
greater turnout. If citizens with different propensities to vote were 
equally likely to take advantage of weekend hours, the turnout curves 
should be roughly parallel on Saturday and across the boundaries 
between the weekday and weekend. In fact, the least-experienced 
citizens--those who were between the ages of 17 and 24, registered for 
no more than 1 year, or had never voted before--turned out at a 
slightly higher rate on Saturday than the other groups, and their 
turnout increased somewhat discontinuously between Friday and 
Saturday. However, the small size of this increase suggests that 
Saturday poll hours did not meaningfully increase overall turnout or 
draw a large number of new or infrequent voters to the polls. In 
subsequent days, however, the trend was reversed, with more-
experienced citizens voting at higher rates until the middle of the 
final day of early voting. Less-experienced voters lagged behind and 
were much more likely to vote on the last day of early voting, 
particularly in the last half of the day. 

An alternative way to analyze how voters used early poll hours is to 
estimate the "hazard" of voting prior to Election Day for those 
citizens who voted early. In this case, we interpret the hazard to be 
the number of voters casting ballots within a small interval of time, 
or the instantaneous turnout rate. A larger hazard at a certain time 
in the early voting period means that a citizen had a higher 
probability of voting in a small interval around that time. We 
estimated the hazard function for citizens who voted during the early 
voting period for each of the subgroups in figure 3, using 
Epinechnikov kernel-smoothed estimates of the Kaplan-Meier hazard 
function. 

Estimates of hazard functions for each age group generally support 
similar conclusions as the simpler distributions of voting times shown 
in figure 3--the turnout rate was low until the fourth day of early 
voting, on Tuesday. At that time, the rates began to increase for all 
age groups, and then increased at a much larger rate on the final two 
days of early voting, on Wednesday and Thursday. There is no evidence 
that turnout increased by a large amount on Saturday. However, turnout 
for citizens younger than 25 increased by a slightly larger amount 
between Friday and Saturday than it did for citizens between the ages 
of 25 and 64, consistent with the evidence in figure 3. 

Multivariate Statistical Analysis of Saturday Voting across Groups 
Produces Similar Results: 

In order to describe the patterns in figure 3 more precisely, we used 
several statistical methods to estimate how turnout and the use of 
Saturday voting varied across groups of citizens with different 
characteristics. These methods allowed us to estimate the association 
between a certain characteristic and outcomes of interest, such as age 
and prior turnout, while holding constant other characteristics, such 
as the length of registration. 

In particular, we estimated two types of statistical models of the 
registrant's decision to vote and the voter's decision to vote on 
Saturday. The models were given by: 

E(Votei); =; (ß0 + Agei ß1 + Tenurei ß2 + Sexi ß3 + Partyi ß4 + 
Countyi ß5). 

E(Weekendi | Votei = 1); =; (0 + Agei 1 + Tenurei 2 + Sexi 3 + Partyi 
4 + Countyi 5), 

where Votei is a Bernoulli random variable indicating whether 
registrant i voted; is the logistic function; Weekendi indicates 
whether a voter voted on Saturday; and the remaining terms are vectors 
of parameters and indicator covariates as specified in table 5. 
(Countyi is a vector of indicators for each county.) [Footnote 64] 

Table 5: Turnout and Use of Weekend Poll Hours in 2010 Maryland 
General Election, by Demographic Group: 

Variable: Age; 

Age: Younger than 25; 
Raw data: 
Probability of registrant voting: 26.6%; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: 1.31%; 
Model estimates: 
Probability of registrant voting: 34.0%; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: 1.20%. 

Age: 25-39; 
Raw data: 
Probability of registrant voting: 35.2%; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: 0.96%; 
Model estimates: 
Probability of registrant voting: 40.6%; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: 1.03%. 

Age: 40-64; 
Raw data: 
Probability of registrant voting: 59.1%; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: 1.75%; 
Model estimates: 
Probability of registrant voting: 57.9%; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: 1.80%. 

Age: 65 or older; 
Raw data: 
Probability of registrant voting: 63.6%; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: 1.39%; 
Model estimates: 
Probability of registrant voting: 54.8%; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: 1.37%. 

Variable: Years registered: 

Years registered: Less than 2; 
Raw data: 
Probability of registrant voting: 36.3%; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: 1.87%; 
Model estimates: 
Probability of registrant voting: 45.7%; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: 2.23%. 

Years registered: 2-9; 
Raw data: 
Probability of registrant voting: 38.9%; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: 1.33%; 
Model estimates: 
Probability of registrant voting: 43.5%; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: 1.45%. 

Years registered: 10-29; 
Raw data: 
Probability of registrant voting: 57.8%; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: 1.59%; 
Model estimates: 
Probability of registrant voting: 53.6%; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: 1.54%. 

Years registered: 30 or more; 
Raw data: 
Probability of registrant voting: 75.1%; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: 1.55%; 
Model estimates: 
Probability of registrant voting: 68.7%; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: 1.58%. 

Variable: Number of elections voted, 2000-2008: 

Number of elections voted, 2000-2008: 0; 
Raw data: 
Probability of registrant voting: 14.2%; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: 1.73%; 
Model estimates: 
Probability of registrant voting: N/A; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: N/A. 

Number of elections voted, 2000-2008: 1; 
Raw data: 
Probability of registrant voting: 26.6%; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: 1.05%; 
Model estimates: 
Probability of registrant voting: N/A; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: N/A. 

Number of elections voted, 2000-2008: 2; 
Raw data: 
Probability of registrant voting: 35.9%; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: 1.14%; 
Model estimates: 
Probability of registrant voting: N/A; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: N/A. 

Number of elections voted, 2000-2008: 3; 
Raw data: 
Probability of registrant voting: 48.4%; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: 1.05%; 
Model estimates: 
Probability of registrant voting: N/A; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: N/A. 

Number of elections voted, 2000-2008: 4; 
Raw data: 
Probability of registrant voting: 59.7%; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: 1.20%; 
Model estimates: 
Probability of registrant voting: N/A; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: N/A. 

Number of elections voted, 2000-2008: 5; 
Raw data: 
Probability of registrant voting: 71.6%; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: 1.32%; 
Model estimates: 
Probability of registrant voting: N/A; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: N/A. 

Number of elections voted, 2000-2008: 6; 
Raw data: 
Probability of registrant voting: 77.9%; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: 1.36%; 
Model estimates: 
Probability of registrant voting: N/A; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: N/A. 

Number of elections voted, 2000-2008: 7; 
Raw data: 
Probability of registrant voting: 83.9%; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: 1.48%; 
Model estimates: 
Probability of registrant voting: N/A; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: N/A. 

Number of elections voted, 2000-2008: 8; 
Raw data: 
Probability of registrant voting: 87.7%; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: 1.75%; 
Model estimates: 
Probability of registrant voting: N/A; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: N/A. 

Number of elections voted, 2000-2008: 9; 
Raw data: 
Probability of registrant voting: 91.8%; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: 1.98%; 
Model estimates: 
Probability of registrant voting: N/A; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: N/A. 

Number of elections voted, 2000-2008: 10; 
Raw data: 
Probability of registrant voting: 95.0%; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: 2.56%; 
Model estimates: 
Probability of registrant voting: N/A; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: N/A. 

Variable: Party Registration: 

Party Registration: Democrat; 
Raw data: 
Probability of registrant voting: 52.0%; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: 1.69%; 
Model estimates: 
Probability of registrant voting: 52.1%; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: 1.71%. 

Party Registration: Other; 
Raw data: 
Probability of registrant voting: 35.0%; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: 1.28%; 
Model estimates: 
Probability of registrant voting: 40.0%; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: 1.30%. 

Party Registration: Republican; 
Raw data: 
Probability of registrant voting: 58.3%; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: 1.27%; 
Model estimates: 
Probability of registrant voting: 54.8%; 
Probability of voting on Saturday, given that registrant voted: 1.31%. 

Source: GAO analysis of Maryland early voting turnout data for the 
November 2010 general election. 

N/A = Not applicable. 

[End of table] 

To assess marginal effects, we estimated the in-sample mean predicted 
probabilities for each level of each covariate (though table 5 
includes estimates only for the covariates of interest). We estimated 
robust standard errors of the parameters and predicted probabilities 
but do not report them here for simplicity. The standard errors were 
no more than 5 percent of the estimated probabilities, which partially 
reflects sample sizes of 1,857,675 for the model of turnout and 
927,774 for the model of weekend voting. For ease of computation, we 
estimated the models on a 50 percent simple random sample of the 
population of registrants. 

The model estimates support the patterns in the raw data. Relatively 
fewer young citizens chose to vote, and most of those who did were not 
more likely to have voted on Saturday. Similarly, the most recently 
registered voters were also less likely to vote; however, in contrast, 
they were more likely to vote on Saturday, holding constant 
differences associated with age. On an absolute scale, however, few 
voters used Saturday poll hours, and a far greater proportion of less-
experienced voters either did not vote, voted late in the early voting 
period, or waited until Election Day. 

Specifically, although our model estimates that no more than 2.2 
percent of any subgroup of voters cast their ballots on Saturday, 
holding constant other group memberships, older voters were relatively 
more likely to do so than younger voters. The adjusted probability of 
voting on Saturday for voters who were between the ages of 40 and 64 
was 1.8 percentage points, as compared to 1.2 percentage points for 
voters who were younger than 25--a difference of 50 percent expressed 
as a ratio. The analogous probabilities for voters registered less 
than 2 years ago and between 2 and 9 years ago were 2.2 and 1.5 
percentage points, respectively, or a difference of 47 percent. The 
probability of voting on Saturday was slightly lower among citizens at 
least 65 years old, as compared to citizens between the ages of 40 and 
64. 

Less-experienced citizens were much less likely to have voted in the 
first place. Citizens younger than 25 were 37 percentage points less 
likely to vote than citizens 65 and older. Similarly, citizens who 
first registered within the past 2 years were 39 percentage points 
less likely to vote than citizens who had been registered for 30 years 
or more. 

The national experience with holding regular elections on Saturday and 
Sunday might differ in meaningful ways from Maryland's experience with 
allowing early voting on the weekend. Maryland citizens are not 
necessarily representative of the nation, and in 2010 the state's 
early voting program was in its first year of operation. Voters may 
use weekend poll hours differently as they continue to learn about 
this option. Moreover, early voter behavior may not resemble voter 
behavior in elections where Election Day falls on Saturday and Sunday. 
In the latter system, political campaigns and the news media may 
increase voter awareness of weekend poll hours, and voters would not 
be forced to choose between voting on the weekend and voting before 
the political campaigns have ended. 

Despite these limitations, our analysis suggests that relatively few 
voters used weekend poll hours when they were offered in the 2010 
Maryland general election, and that most of the citizens in subgroups 
typically less likely to vote did not turn out at vastly higher rates 
during this period. If voters' behavior can accurately reveal their 
preferences for different voting methods, the demand for weekend poll 
hours appeared to be modest in this election. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Alternative Voting Methods Provided in 50 States and the 
District for the 2004 and 2010 November General Elections: 

The number of states providing alternative voting methods--that is, in-
person early voting and no-excuse absentee voting--has increased, as 
shown in figure 4. Specifically, in 2006, on the basis of results from 
a survey of 50 states and the District of Columbia (District), we 
reported that 24 states and the District required or allowed in-person 
early voting and 21 states allowed or required no-excuse absentee 
voting by mail in the November 2004 general election.[Footnote 65] For 
the November 2010 general election, 33 states and the District 
provided in-person early voting and 29 states and the District 
provided no-excuse absentee voting by mail. 

Figure 4: In-person Early Voting and No-excuse Absentee Voting in 50 
States and the District for the 2004 and 2010 General Elections: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 4 illustrated U.S. maps] 

2004 In-person early voting: 
Alaska: 
Arizona: 
Arkansas: 
California: 
Colorado: 
District of Columbia: 
Florida: 
Georgia: 
Hawaii: 
Idaho: 
Iowa: 
Kansas: 
Louisiana: 
Montana: 
Nebraska: 
Nevada: 
New Mexico: 
North Carolina: 
North Dakota: 
Oklahoma: 
Tennessee: 
Texas: 
Utah: 
Vermont: 
West Virginia: 

2010 In-person early voting: 
Alaska: 
Arizona: 
Arkansas: 
California: 
Colorado: 
District of Columbia: 
Florida: 
Georgia: 
Hawaii: 
Idaho: 
Illinois: 
Indiana: 
Iowa: 
Kansas: 
Louisiana: 
Maine: 
Maryland: 
Montana: 
Nebraska: 
Nevada: 
New Jersey: 
New Mexico: 
North Carolina: 
North Dakota: 
Ohio: 
Oklahoma: 
South Dakota: 
Tennessee: 
Texas: 
Utah: 
Vermont: 
West Virginia: 
Wisconsin: 
Wyoming: 

2004 No-excuse absentee voting by mail: 
California: 
Colorado: 
District of Columbia: 
Florida: 
Hawaii: 
Idaho: 
Iowa: 
Kansas: 
Maine: 
Montana: 
Nebraska: 
Nevada: 
New Mexico: 
North Carolina: 
North Dakota: 
Oklahoma: 
South Dakota: 
Utah: 
Vermont: 
Washington: 
Wisconsin: 
Wyoming: 

2010 No-excuse absentee voting by mail: 
Alaska: 
Arizona: 
California: 
Colorado: 
Delaware: 
District of Columbia: 
Florida: 
Georgia: 
Hawaii: 
Idaho: 
Illinois: 
Iowa: 
Kansas: 
Maine: 
Maryland: 
Montana: 
Nebraska: 
Nevada: 
New Jersey: 
New Mexico: 
North Carolina: 
North Dakota: 
Ohio: 
Oklahoma: 
Oregon: 
South Dakota: 
Utah: 
Vermont: 
Washington: 
Wisconsin: 
Wyoming: 

Source: GAO, and GAO analysis of state statutes (data); MapQuest (map). 

Notes: Data for 2004 are from GAO-06-451SP and data for 2010 are from 
state statutes. 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Selected Details of Early and No-Excuse Absentee Voting 
for the 2010 General Election in States We Contacted: 

Of the nine states and the District of Columbia (District) we 
contacted, seven states and the District provided early voting. Of 
those seven states, five states and the District provided both early 
voting and no-excuse absentee voting. Two of the nine states where we 
conducted interviews--Delaware and New Hampshire--did not provide 
voters with either of these alternatives, although they allowed voters 
to vote by absentee ballot if they provided a reason. Table 6 provides 
selected details on how early and no-excuse absentee voting were 
implemented during the November 2010 general election. 

Table 6: Selected Details of Early and No-Excuse Absentee Voting 
Implementation for the November 2010 General Election in States We 
Contacted: 

State: California; 
Early voting: 
Year early voting began[A]: 1978; 
Early voting calendar days: 29; 
Include Saturday or Sunday: Up to local discretion; County determines 
specific days and hours; 
Number of locations: 58 locations (one per county); 
Absentee voting: 
No-excuse absentee voting: Yes; 
Absentee ballot deadline[B]: Received by close of polls on Election 
Day. 

State: District of Columbia; 
Early voting: 
Year early voting began[A]: 2010; 
Early voting calendar days: 14; 
Include Saturday or Sunday: Yes, two Saturdays; District determines 
specific days and hours; 
Early voting: 
Number of locations: 5 locations across 143 precincts; 
Absentee voting: 
No-excuse absentee voting: Yes; 
Absentee ballot deadline[B]: Postmarked on or by Election Day. 

State: Illinois; 
Early voting: 
Year early voting began[A]: 2006; 
Early voting calendar days: 18; 
Include Saturday or Sunday: Yes, state requires permanent locations to 
be open weekends and holidays. Days for temporary locations are up to 
local discretion; 
Number of locations: 180 locations across 110 counties; 
Absentee voting: 
No-excuse absentee voting: Yes; 
Absentee ballot deadline[B]: Postmarked by the day prior to Election 
Day. 

State: Louisiana; 
Early voting: 
Year early voting began[A]: 2006; 
Early voting calendar days: 8; 
Include Saturday or Sunday: Yes, Saturday. State required the number 
of days and hours; 
Number of locations: 85 locations across 64 parishes; 
Absentee voting: 
No-excuse absentee voting: No; 
Absentee ballot deadline[B]: Received by 4:30 p.m. the day prior to 
Election Day. 

State: Maryland; 
Early voting: 
Year early voting began[A]: 2010; 
Early voting calendar days: 7; 
Include Saturday or Sunday: Yes, Saturday; State required the number 
of days and hours; 
Number of locations: 46 locations across 24 counties; 
Absentee voting: 
No-excuse absentee voting: Yes; 
Absentee ballot deadline[B]: Postmarked on or by Election Day. 

State: North Carolina; 
Early voting: 
Year early voting began[A]: 2000; 
Early voting calendar days: 17; 
Include Saturday or Sunday: Yes, state requires early voting be 
available the last Saturday prior to Election Day. Other days and 
hours up to local discretion; 
Number of locations: 297 locations across 100 counties; 
Absentee voting: 
No-excuse absentee voting: Yes; 
Absentee ballot deadline[B]: Postmarked on or by Election Day. 

State: Texas; 
Early voting: 
Year early voting began[A]: 1988; 
Early voting calendar days: 12; 
Include Saturday or Sunday: Yes, Saturday and Sunday; State 
requirement based on county population size; 
Number of locations: 938 locations across 254 counties; 
Absentee voting: 
No-excuse absentee voting: No; 
Absentee ballot deadline[B]: Received by close of polls on Election 
Day. 

State: Wisconsin; 
Early voting: 
Year early voting began[A]: 2000; 
Early voting calendar days: 30; 
Include Saturday or Sunday: Up to local discretion; Municipality 
determines specific days and hours; 
Number of locations: 1,850 locations (one per municipality); 
Absentee voting: 
No-excuse absentee voting: Yes; 
Absentee ballot deadline[B]: Received by close of polls on Election 
Day. 

Source: GAO analysis of state statutes and data as well as GAO 
synthesis of state data. 

Notes: GAO synthesized data from documents provided by and interviews 
with state election officials. 

[A] Represents the year early voting was first implemented. 

[B] Indicates when domestic absentee ballots are due. Variation exists 
among states on how absentee ballots are delivered, such as by mail, 
in person, or by facsimile, among others. Absentee ballots must be 
either received or postmarked on or by Election Day. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Selected Details of Early Voting for the 2010 General 
Election in Local Jurisdictions We Contacted: 

Of the 17 local jurisdictions and the District of Columbia (District) 
we contacted, 14 jurisdictions and the District provided in-person 
early voting. Table 7 provides selected details regarding how early 
voting was implemented during the November 2010 general election. 

Table 7: Selected Details of Early Voting Implementation for the 
November 2010 General Election in Local Jurisdictions We Contacted: 

Jurisdiction: Los Angeles County, California; 
Number of locations: 1 (election/main office); 
Include Saturday or Sunday: Yes. Both Saturdays and Sundays were 
included during the last 2 weekends prior to Election Day; 
Early voting hours: 
Election/main office: 9 hours on weekdays; 8 hours on weekends; 
Other locations[A]: N/A. 

Jurisdiction: Modoc County, California; 
Number of locations: 1 (election/main office); 
Include Saturday or Sunday: No; 
Early voting hours: 
Election/main office: 8 hours on weekdays; 
Other locations[A]: N/A. 

Jurisdiction: San Francisco County, California; 
Number of locations: 1 (election/main office); 
Include Saturday or Sunday: Yes. Both Saturdays and Sundays were 
included during the last 2 weekends prior to Election Day; 
Early voting hours: 
Election/main office: 9 hours on weekdays; 6 hours on weekends; 
Other locations[A]: N/A. 

Jurisdiction: District of Columbia; 
Number of locations: 5; 
Include Saturday or Sunday: Yes. Included Saturday; 
Early voting hours: 
Election/main office: 10.5 hours on weekdays and Saturday[B]; 
Other locations[A]: Same as main office. 

Jurisdiction: Kane County, Illinois; 
Number of locations: 30; 
Include Saturday or Sunday: Yes. Included Saturdays and Sundays; 
Early voting hours: 
Election/main office: For permanent locations, 8 or more hours on 
weekdays and 3 hours on weekends. For temporary locations, up to local 
discretion; 
Other locations[A]: Hours varied. 

Jurisdiction: Shelby County, Illinois; 
Number of locations: 1 (election/main office); 
Include Saturday or Sunday: Yes. Included Saturday; 
Early voting hours: 
Election/main office: 8 hours on weekdays; 4 hours on Saturday; 
Other locations[A]: N/A. 

Jurisdiction: Orleans Parish, Louisiana; 
Number of locations: 3; 
Include Saturday or Sunday: Yes. Included Saturday; 
Early voting hours: 
Election/main office: 9.5 hours on weekdays and Saturday; 
Other locations[A]: Same as main office. 

Jurisdiction: Tensas Parish, Louisiana; 
Number of locations: 1 (election/main office); 
Include Saturday or Sunday: Yes. Included Saturday; 
Early voting hours: 
Election/main office: 9.5 hours on weekdays and Saturday; 
Other locations[A]: N/A. 

Jurisdiction: Montgomery County, Maryland; 
Number of locations: 5; 
Include Saturday or Sunday: Yes. Included Saturday; 
Early voting hours: 
Election/main office: 10 hours on weekdays and Saturday; 
Other locations[A]: Same as main office. 

Jurisdiction: Mecklenburg County, North Carolina; 
Number of locations: 16; 
Include Saturday or Sunday: Yes. Included 2 Saturdays and 1 Sunday; 
Early voting hours: 
Election/main office: 9-11 hours on weekdays; 3 hours on Saturdays and 
Sunday; 
Other locations[A]: 8 hours on weekdays; 
3 hours on Saturdays and Sunday. 

Jurisdiction: Sampson County, North Carolina; 
Number of locations: 4; 
Include Saturday or Sunday: Yes. Included 3 Saturdays; 
Early voting hours: 
Election/main office: 11 hours on weekdays; 5-7 hours on Saturdays; 
Other locations[A]: 6 hours on weekdays; 
5-7 hours on Saturdays. 

Jurisdiction: Bexar County, Texas; 
Number of locations: 40; 
Include Saturday or Sunday: Yes. Included Saturday and Sunday; 
Early voting hours: 
Election/main office: 10-12 hours on weekdays; 12 hours on Saturday; 
6 hours on Sunday; 
Other locations[A]: Same as main office. 

Jurisdiction: Webb County, Texas; 
Number of locations: 9; 
Include Saturday or Sunday: Yes. Included Saturday and Sunday; 
Early voting hours: 
Election/main office: 9-12 hours on weekdays; 12 hours on Saturday; 
5 hours on Sunday; 
Other locations[A]: Hours varied with temporary and mobile locations. 

Jurisdiction: City of Madison, Wisconsin; 
Number of locations: 1 (election/main office); 
Include Saturday or Sunday: Yes. Included Saturday; 
Early voting hours: 
Election/main office: 8.5-11 hours on weekdays; 3 hours on Saturday; 
Other locations[A]: N/A. 

Jurisdiction: Town of Minocqua, Wisconsin; 
Number of locations: 1 (election/main office); 
Include Saturday or Sunday: No; 
Early voting hours: 
Election/main office: 8 hours on weekdays; 
Other locations[A]: N/A. 

Source: GAO interviews of local election jurisdiction officials. 

Note: N/A = not applicable. 

[A] Includes temporary or satellite locations, such as schools, 
libraries, and community centers, among others, that allowed early 
voting. 

[B] Early voting was provided for 8 hours and 15 minutes at the main 
election office the last day of the early voting period (the day 
before Election Day). 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

William O. Jenkins, Jr., (202) 512-8777 or jenkinswo@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Mary Catherine Hult, Assistant 
Director; David Alexander; Josh Diosomito; Geoffrey Hamilton; Lara 
Miklozek; Hugh Paquette; Jeff Tessin; and Lori Weiss made key 
contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Bibliography: 

Bergman, Elizabeth, Philip Yates, and Elaine Ginnold. "How Does Vote 
by Mail Affect Voters? A natural experiment examining individual-level 
turnout." The PEW Center on the States, Make Voting Work project. 
Accessed May 19, 2011. [hyperlink, 
http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/report_detail.aspx?id=58252]. 

Berinsky, Adam J., Nancy Burns, and Michael W. Traugott. "Who Votes By 
Mail? A Dynamic Model of the Individual-Level Consequences of Voting-
By-Mail Systems." The Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 65 (2001): 178-
197. 

Burden, Barry C., David T. Canon, Kenneth R. Mayer, and Donald P. 
Moynihan. "Election Laws, Mobilization, and Turnout: The Unanticipated 
Consequences of Election Reform," April 12, 2011. Social Science 
Research Network eLibrary. Accessed May 19, 2011. [hyperlink, 
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1690723]. 

Fitzgerald, Mary. "Greater Convenience but Not Greater Turnout--the 
Impact of Alternative Voting Methods on Electoral Participation in the 
United States." American Politics Research, vol. 33 (2005): 842-867. 

Giammo, Joseph D., and Brian J. Brox. "Reducing the Costs of 
Participation: Are States Getting a Return on Early Voting?" Political 
Research Quarterly, vol. 63 (2010): 295-303. 

Gronke, Paul, and Daniel Krantz Toffey, "The Psychological and 
Institutional Determinants of Early Voting." Journal of Social Issues, 
vol. 64 (2008): 503-524. 

Gronke, Paul, Eva Galanes-Rosenbaum, and Peter A. Miller. "Early 
Voting and Turnout." PS: Political Science and Politics, vol. 40 
(2007): 639-645. 

Gronke, Paul, Eva Galanes-Rosenbaum, and Peter A. Miller. "Early 
Voting and Voter Turnout." In Democracy in the States: Experiments in 
Election Reform. Ed. Bruce E. Cain, Todd Donovan, and Caroline J. 
Tolbert. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2008. 

Gronke, Paul, and Peter A.M. Miller. "Voting by Mail and Turnout: A 
Replication and Extension." Paper presented at the 2007 Annual Meeting 
of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, Ill. 

Hanmer, Michael J., and Michael W. Traugott. "The Impact of Voting by 
Mail on Voter Behavior." American Politics Research, vol. 32 (2004): 
375-405. 

Hill, David, and Michael D. Martinez. "The Interactive Effects of 
Electoral Reform, Competitiveness and Age on Turnout." Paper presented 
at the 2008 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science 
Association, Boston, Mass. 

Juenke, Eric Gonzalez, and Juliemarie Shepherd. "Vote Centers and 
Voter Turnout." In Democracy in the States: Experiments in Election 
Reform. Ed. Bruce E. Cain, Todd Donovan, and Caroline J. Tolbert. 
Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2008. 

Karp, Jeffrey A., and Susan A. Banducci. "Going Postal: How All-Mail 
Elections Influence Turnout." Political Behavior, vol. 22 (2000): 223-
239. 

Kousser, Thad and Megan Mullin. "Does Voting by Mail Increase 
Participation? Using Matching to Analyze a Natural Experiment." 
Political Analysis, vol. 15 (2007): 428-445. 

Leighley, Jan E., and Jonathan Nagler. "Electoral Laws and Turnout, 
1972-2008." Paper presented at the 4th Annual Conference on Empirical 
Legal Studies, Los Angeles, Calif., November 2009. 

Magleby, David B. "Participation in Mail Ballot Elections." The 
Western Political Quarterly, vol. 40 (1987): 79-91. 

Miller, Peter A., and Neilan S. Chaturvedi. "Get Out the Early Vote: 
Minority Use of Convenience Voting in 2008." Paper presented at the 
2010 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 
Washington, D.C. 

Miller, Peter A.M., and Paul Gronke. "The Effect of Voting by Mail in 
Washington: 1960-2008." Portland, Ore.: The Early Voting Information 
Center, Reed College. Accessed May 19, 2011. [hyperlink, 
http://www.earlyvoting.net/research]. 

Patterson, Samuel C. and Gregory A. Caldeira. "Mailing in the Vote: 
Correlates and Consequences of Absentee Voting." American Journal of 
Political Science, vol. 29 (1985): 766-788. 

Southwell, Priscilla L., and Justin I. Burchett. "The Effect of All-
Mail Elections on Voter Turnout." American Politics Quarterly, vol. 28 
(2000): 72-79. 

Stein, Robert M. "Early Voting." The Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 62 
(1998): 57-69. 

Stein, Robert M., and Greg Vonnahme. "Engaging the Unengaged Voter: 
Voter Centers and Voter Turnout." The Journal of Politics, vol. 70 
(2008): 487-497. 

Stein, Robert M., and Patricia A. Garcia-Monet. "Voting Early but Not 
Often." Social Science Quarterly, vol. 78 (1997): 657-671. 

Wolfinger, Raymond E., Benjamin Highton, and Megan Mullin. "How 
Postregistration Laws Affect the Turnout of Citizens Registered to 
Vote." State Politics and Policy Quarterly, vol. 5 (2005): 1-23. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Elections: DOD Can Strengthen Evaluation of Its Absentee Voting 
Assistance Program. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-476]. Washington, D.C.: June 17, 
2010. 

Elderly Voters: Information on Promising Practices Could Strengthen 
the Integrity of the Voting Process in Long-term Care Facilities. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-6]. Washington, D.C.: 
November 30, 2009. 

Voters with Disabilities: Additional Monitoring of Polling Places 
Could Further Improve Accessibility. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-941]. Washington, D.C.: September 
30, 2009. 

Voters With Disabilities: More Polling Places Had No Potential 
Impediments Than in 2000, but Challenges Remain. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-685]. Washington, D.C.: June 10, 
2009. 

Elections: States, Territories, and the District Are Taking a Range of 
Important Steps to Manage Their Varied Voting System Environments. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-874]. Washington, D.C.: 
September 25, 2008. 

Elections: Federal Program for Certifying Voting Systems Needs to Be 
Further Defined, Fully Implemented, and Expanded. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-814]. Washington, D.C.: September 
16, 2008. 

Bilingual Voting Assistance: Selected Jurisdictions' Strategies for 
Identifying Needs and Providing Assistance. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-182]. Washington, D.C.: January 18, 
2008. 

Elections: Action Plans Needed to Fully Address Challenges in 
Electronic Absentee Voting Initiatives for Military and Overseas 
Citizens. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-774]. 
Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2007. 

Elections: The Nation's Evolving Election System as Reflected in the 
November 2004 General Election. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-450]. Washington, D.C.: June 6, 
2006. 

Elections: Absentee Voting Assistance to Military and Overseas 
Citizens Increased for the 2004 General Election, but Challenges 
Remain. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-521]. 
Washington, D.C.: April 7, 2006. 

Elections: Views of Selected Local Election Officials on Managing 
Voter Registration and Ensuring Eligible Citizens Can Vote. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-997]. Washington, D.C.: 
September 27, 2005. 

Elections: Additional Data Could Help State and Local Elections 
Officials Maintain Accurate Voter Registration Lists. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-478]. Washington, D.C.: June 10, 
2005. 

Elections: Perspectives on Activities and Challenges Across the 
Nation. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-3]. Washington, 
D.C.: October 15, 2001. 

Voters With Disabilities: Access to Polling Places and Alternative 
Voting Methods. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-107]. 
Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001. 

Elections: Voting Assistance to Military and Overseas Citizens Should 
Be Improved. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-1026]. 
Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2001. 

Elections: The Scope of Congressional Authority in Election 
Administration. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-470]. 
Washington, D.C.: March 13, 2001. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Voter turnout varies, and in general is lower in midterm election 
years than in presidential election years. These turnout rates reflect 
total turnout (or total ballots counted) divided by the voting-
eligible population. U.S. Elections Project. 

[2] More specifically, the 1845 federal law first established a 
uniform date--the Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month of 
November of the year in which they are to be appointed--for the 
appointment of Presidential and Vice Presidential electors. (January 
23, 1845, ch. 1, 5 Stat. 721. The current provision is codified at 3 
U.S.C. § 1.) 

[3] In 1872, the same (Tuesday after the first Monday in November) 
date was established as the day for the election of Representatives to 
the Congress. (February 2, 1872, ch. 11, § 3, 17 Stat. 28. The current 
provision is codified at 2 U.S.C. § 7.) After ratification of the 
Seventeenth Amendment establishing the direct popular election of 
Senators, a federal law in 1914 established the same date for the 
election of Senators to the Congress. (June 4, 1914, ch.103, § 1, 38 
Stat. 384. The current provision is codified at 2 U.S.C. § 1.) 

[4] See, for example, H.R. 254, 111TH Cong. (2009); S. 149, 111TH 
Cong. (2009); H.R. 7034, 110TH Cong. (2008); H.R. 6240, 110TH Cong. 
(2008); S. 2638, 110TH Cong. (2008); S. 144, 109TH Cong. (2005); S. 
1320, 107TH Cong. (2001); S. 1463, 105TH Cong. (1997); and H.R. 1367, 
104TH Cong. (1995). 

[5] H.R. Rep. No. 111-202, at 60 (2009). 

[6] See for example, GAO, Elections: The Nation's Evolving Election 
System as Reflected in the November 2004 General Election, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-450] (Washington, D.C.: June 6, 
2006). See the Related GAO Products list for reports issued on 
elections since 2001. 

[7] The EAC is an independent, bipartisan commission created by the 
Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) to assist state and local 
election officials with the administration of federal elections. See 
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Alternative Voting Methods 
(Washington, D.C.: September 2008) and U.S. Election Assistance 
Commission, 2010 Statutory Overview (Washington, D.C.: May 2011). 

[8] Center for Democracy and Election Management, Election 
Administration Profiles of All Fifty States (Washington, D.C.: July 
15, 2009). 

[9] The 9 states are California, Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, 
Maryland, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin. 

[10] Throughout this report, we use the term "voting by mail" to refer 
to a process where all votes are cast by mail. 

[11] We previously reported the results of web-based survey we 
conducted in 2005 of the 50 states and the District regarding the 
November 2004 general election. See GAO, Elections: 2005 Survey of 
State Election Officials, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-451SP] (Washington, D.C.: June 6, 
2006). 

[12] Why Tuesday? is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization 
founded in 2005 to find solutions to increase voter turnout and 
participation in elections. 

[13] We selected 1985 because alternative voting methods, such as no-
excuse absentee voting and in-person early voting, were generally not 
available prior to this time. Thus, applicable research on their 
effect on voter turnout was not widely conducted. 

[14] Specifically, we conducted an initial search of political science 
journals and conference proceedings for research on alternative voting 
methods. Senior social scientists with training and experience in 
evaluation research methods or political science subsequently assessed 
the studies found to determine whether the methods used met generally 
accepted social science standards. We then used a data collection 
instrument to systematically collect information from the 24 
identified studies about their methods and conclusions. Each study was 
read and coded by a senior social scientist and a second senior social 
scientist then reviewed each completed data collection instrument to 
verify the accuracy of the information included. See the bibliography 
of this report for a listing of the studies we reviewed. 

[15] As described by the Supreme Court, "the States have evolved 
comprehensive, and in many respects, complex, election codes 
regulating in most substantial ways, with respect to both federal and 
state elections, the time, place, and manner of holding primary and 
general elections, the registration of voters, and the selection and 
qualification of candidates." Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 
(1974). 

[16] States can be divided into two groups according to how election 
responsibilities are delegated. The first group contains 41 states 
that delegate election responsibilities primarily to the county level, 
with a few of these states delegating election responsibilities to 
some cities, and 1 state that delegates these responsibilities to 
election regions. The second group contains 9 states that delegate 
election responsibility principally to subcounty governmental units. 

[17] See GAO, Elections: The Scope of Congressional Authority in 
Election Administration, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-470] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 13, 
2001). 

[18] Article II, Section 1, Clause 4, pertains to Congress' power to 
set the time of choosing of presidential electors: "The Congress may 
determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they 
shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the 
United States." Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, known as the Elections 
Clause, provides Congress with broad authority to regulate 
congressional elections: "The Times, Places, and Manner of holding 
Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in 
each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any 
time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of 
choosing Senators." 

[19] 2 U.S.C. §§ 1, 7. 

[20] 3 U.S.C. § 1. 

[21] U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Alternative Voting Methods. 

[22] Jurisdictions call their poll workers by different titles, 
including clerks, wardens, election judges, inspectors, captains, and 
precinct officers. 

[23] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-450]. 

[24] An optical scan voting system is composed of computer-readable 
ballots, appropriate marking devices, privacy booths, and a 
computerized tabulation machine. Voters record their choices using an 
appropriate writing instrument to fill in boxes or ovals or to 
complete an arrow next to the candidate's name or the issue. 

[25] Voters make their selection on DREs by pressing a button or 
touching the screen next to the candidate's name or ballot issue. When 
they are finished, they cast their votes by pressing a final "vote" 
button on the machine or screen. 

[26] Examples of excuses a voter may provide for not voting on 
Election Day include being sick, having a disability, being out of the 
country, or having religious commitments. 

[27] Known as the language minority provisions of the Voting Rights 
Act of 1965, sections 203 and 4(f)(4) of the act are designed to help 
members of applicable language minority groups to participate 
effectively in the electoral process. In general, under these 
provisions, covered jurisdictions must provide bilingual election 
materials and other assistance to protect the voting rights of U.S. 
citizens of certain ethnic groups whose command of the English 
language may be limited. For more on this subject, see GAO, Bilingual 
Voting Assistance: Selected Jurisdictions' Strategies for Identifying 
Needs and Providing Assistance, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-182] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 18, 
2008). 

[28] The Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act 
requires that, with a few exceptions, political subdivisions 
responsible for conducting elections ensure that polling places used 
in federal elections are accessible to voters with disabilities. HAVA 
established additional requirements. 

[29] In addition, other states might have had provisions that allowed 
certain counties or precincts to administer elections entirely by 
mail. For example, in California--one of nine states in which we 
conducted interviews--state law authorizes election officials to 
designate precincts with 250 or fewer registered voters as "mail 
ballot precincts," where citizens who want to vote can only do so by 
mail. In California's two least populous counties, all of the 
precincts contain fewer than 250 registered voters and, thus, all 
elections in these counties are conducted entirely by mail. All three 
of the local jurisdictions where we conducted interviews in California 
had some precincts that were mail ballot precincts in the November 
2010 general election. 

[30] These eight states were Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, 
Montana, New Jersey, Utah, and Washington. 

[31] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-450]. This 
information was based on the result of web-based surveys we conducted 
in 2005 of the 50 states and the District. See [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-451SP] for additional survey 
results. 

[32] According to state election officials we interviewed from both of 
these states, there has been minimal interest by either state's 
legislature in considering implementation of these alternative voting 
methods. According to a senior Delaware official, the state would face 
challenges conducting early voting or handling an increase in no-
excuse absentee ballots because of limitations in their current voting 
technology. According to a senior New Hampshire official, the state's 
culture supports the idea that election intensity (i.e., limiting 
voting options to Election Day) produces higher voter participation 
than other alternatives. 

[33] Maryland early voting statutory provisions require the inclusion 
of Sunday hours between 12:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. in the early voting 
period for the 2012 presidential primary and general election. 

[34] For example, in counties with populations of 100,000 or more, 
Texas early voting statutory provisions outline the minimum number of 
hours that early voting must be provided on both the last Saturday and 
Sunday of the early voting period. 

[35] In this section of the report, we discuss together responses from 
election officials we interviewed in the District and local election 
jurisdictions because the District's responsibilities for conducting 
federal elections are generally similar to those of local 
jurisdictions. 

[36] In 2006 we reported that, based on a nationwide survey of local 
election jurisdictions we conducted in 2005, an estimated 89 percent 
of jurisdictions relied in part on lists or rosters of poll workers 
from past elections to recruit poll workers for the November 2004 
general election. For more information, see GAO-06-450. 

[37] Election officials from the other 14 local jurisdictions we 
interviewed did not express views or provide information specifically 
on how moving the date of federal elections might affect their ability 
to recruit from the poll workers and sources they have relied on in 
the past. Although we asked election officials in nine states, the 
District, and 17 local jurisdictions about whether or not various 
aspects of the election process might be affected by changing Election 
Day to a weekend, not all expressed views or provided information on 
every specific issue discussed throughout this report. 

[38] According to EAC, the following requirements apply to all polling 
places: (1) buildings should be located in close proximity to the 
voters who are served by the location; (2) property owners must grant 
permission for the use of their building for voting purposes on 
Election Day; (3) the buildings selected for use as polling places 
must meet federal and state accessibility requirements; (4) buildings 
must have an adequate-sized room or hallway sufficient to meet the 
needs for setting up equipment and voter check-in stations, including 
adequate space for voters to wait in line; (5) property owners may be 
requested to open the building for poll worker use the evening prior 
to Election Day, and must be willing to open the building in the early 
morning hours of Election Day until after the close of the polls; (6) 
the property must have sufficient parking available for voters' use; 
and (7) traffic ingress/egress must be evaluated, based on the number 
of expected voters on Election Day. 

[39] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-450]. 

[40] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-450]. 

[41] Election officials arrived at this estimate based on hiring two 
private security guards for each of their 183 polling places for 9 
hours (at a rate of $30 per hour) over the Saturday night of an 
election weekend, when they would expect polls would be closed. 

[42] Under the provisions of H.R. 254, for presidential and 
congressional general elections, polling places would have been 
required to be open beginning on Saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern 
standard time and ending on Sunday at 6:00 p.m. eastern standard time. 
H.R. 254 would have additionally authorized a polling place to close 
between the hours of 10:00 p.m. local time on Saturday and 6:00 a.m. 
local time on Sunday as provided by the law of the state in which the 
polling place is located. 

[43] In the November 2, 2010, Consolidated General Election, San 
Francisco voters adopted a ballot measure creating a Saturday Voting 
Pilot Program that required the Department of Elections to open voting 
locations for each precinct on Saturday, November 5, 2011, prior to 
Election Day on Tuesday, November 8, 2011, if sufficient funds to 
cover all Saturday costs were raised from private donations. Since no 
contributions were received by the set deadline, the Saturday portion 
of the election was canceled. The department had estimated the cost of 
the 2-day election would be about $7.5 million, with the cost 
associated with opening all polling places on Saturday to be about 
$2.4 million. 

[44] EAC, among other things, is responsible for testing, certifying, 
decertifying, and recertifying voting system hardware and software. In 
2007, EAC established and began implementing its voting system 
certification program. State participation in this certification 
program is optional. According to EAC, some states, through 
legislation or administrative rules, mandate participation to varying 
degrees. EAC certification means that a voting system has been 
successfully tested by an accredited voting system test laboratory, 
meets requirements set forth in a specific set of federal voting 
system standards, and performs according to the manufacturer's 
specifications. A previously certified voting system must be 
recertified when a modification is made that would require further 
testing and review by the EAC. 

[45] Officials from one jurisdiction with two election staff said that 
while a weekend election would increase their workload, their 
associated costs would not increase because both staff are elected 
positions and therefore not eligible for overtime pay. 

[46] One could make predictions about the possible effect by making 
assumptions about whether weekend elections would make voting more 
convenient, but the accuracy of these assumptions could not be 
directly verified using evidence from actual federal elections. 

[47] According to a 2007 study commissioned by the Canadian 
government, at least 20 countries, including Brazil, held federal 
elections on Sunday and at least 3 countries, including Australia, 
held federal elections on Saturday. See "Potential Impacts of Extended 
Advance Voting on Voter Turnout," a report prepared at the request of 
Elections Canada (September 2007). 

[48] These two countries, among others, are often referred to as 
having "compulsory voting." In Australia, for example, under the 
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, an elector is required to, among 
other things, attend a voting place and receive and cast a ballot. 

[49] The studies we reviewed are listed in the bibliography to this 
report. 

[50] The variety of methodologies used, in addition to chance 
variation, helps explain why the estimated effects varied across 
studies. The 24 studies used varied elections, jurisdictions, and time 
periods to evaluate the effect of alternative voting methods. 
Researchers analyzed turnout in elections for President, Congress, and 
state and local offices held in various periods from 1960 through 
2008. Some researchers studied many elections across all 50 states, 
while others studied many voters or precincts in a smaller number of 
states or shorter time periods. 

[51] For reviews of studies making similar conclusions, see Paul 
Gronke, et al., "Convenience Voting," Annual Review of Political 
Science (2008), 437-455, and "Potential Impacts of Extended Advance 
Voting on Voter Turnout," a report prepared at the request of 
Elections Canada, 25. 

[52] See Priscilla L. Southwell and Justin I. Burchett, "The Effect of 
All-Mail Elections on Voter Turnout," American Politics Quarterly, 
vol. 28 (2000), 72-79, and Paul Gronke and Peter A.M. Miller, "Voting 
by Mail and Turnout: A Replication and Extension," paper presented at 
the 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 
Chicago, Ill. 

[53] See, for example, Raymond E. Wolfinger and Stephen J. Rosenstone, 
Who Votes? (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1980); Steven J. 
Rosenstone and John Mark Hansen, Mobilization, Participation, and 
Democracy in America (New York, N.Y.: Macmillan Publishing, 1993); and 
Sidney Verba, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady, Voice and 
Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics (Cambridge, Mass.: 
Harvard University Press, 1995). 

[54] Rosenstone and Hansen, Mobilization, 273-275. 

[55] Raymond E. Wolfinger, Benjamin Highton, and Megan Mullin, "How 
Postregistration Laws Affect the Turnout of Citizens Registered to 
Vote," State Politics and Policy Quarterly, vol. 5 (2005), 1-23. 

[56] Adam J. Berinsky, Nancy Burns, and Michael W. Traugott, "Who 
Votes By Mail? A Dynamic Model of the Individual-Level Consequences of 
Voting-By-Mail Systems," The Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 65 (2001), 
178-197. 

[57] The turnout statistics discussed here may not match certified 
vote totals for Maryland jurisdictions because we analyzed a custom 
database of citizens registered for the 2010 general election. 

[58] These comparisons do not account for the fact that Maryland 
offered 5 days of weekday voting but only 1 day of weekend voting in 
2010. See app. II for a more-detailed analysis of how the turnout 
varied through the voting period. 

[59] Known as the language minority provisions of the Voting Rights 
Act, sections 203 and 4(f)(4) of the act are designed to help members 
of applicable language minority groups to participate effectively in 
the electoral process. In general, under these provisions, covered 
jurisdictions must provide bilingual election materials and other 
assistance to protect the voting rights of U.S. citizens of certain 
ethnic groups whose command of the English language may be limited. 

[60] Section 10.301.1(b) of the Maryland Election Law Code specifies 
the number of early voting centers for each county. If a county has 
less than 150,000 registered voters, the county shall have one early 
voting center. If a county has more than 150,000 but fewer than 
300,000 registered voters, the county shall have three early voting 
centers. If a county has more than 300,000 registered voters, the 
county shall have five early voting centers. 

[61] The turnout statistics discussed here may not match certified 
vote totals for Maryland jurisdictions because we analyzed a custom 
database of citizens registered for the 2010 general election. 

[62] We rescaled calendar time to poll days to avoid analyzing periods 
when the polls were closed. In effect, this adjusts the voting 
duration times for the time "at risk" of voting. While Maryland 
standardized early voting poll hours across counties, we included 
voting times outside of the official poll hours, which may have 
represented citizens who were in line to vote when the polls closed. 
As a result, we defined the start and end of each poll day as the 
earliest and latest recorded voting time on a particular calendar day 
of early voting. 

[63] The data represent the empirical cumulative distribution function 
of the voting times. This implies that the first derivative of the 
curve at voting time t equals the density, which can be interpreted as 
the instantaneous turnout rate at t or the probability of voting 
within an arbitrarily small neighborhood of t. 

[64] Instead of using hierarchical and multinomial models of the 
turnout and voting method decisions, we used simpler models with 
flexible response functions to simply quantify descriptive patterns in 
the raw data, in part due to the limited number of covariates 
available. For similar reasons, we did not include prior turnout as a 
covariate to avoid complications associated with lagged response 
variables. 

[65] See GAO, Elections: The Nation's Evolving Election System as 
Reflected in the November 2004 General Election, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-450] (Washington, D.C.: June 6, 
2006). This information was based on the result of web-based surveys 
we conducted in 2005 of the 50 states and the District. See GAO, 
Elections: 2005 Survey of State Election Officials, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-451SP] (Washington, D.C.: June 6, 
2006) for additional survey results. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select “E-
mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, DC 20548.