1. David C. Kimball1 Assessing Polling Places in the St. Louis Area David Kimball University of Missouri-St. Louis April 13, 2005

2. David C. Kimball2 2000 Presidential Election Controversy over ballot recount in Florida. Controversy in St. Louis over voter lists, poll closing time, and registration fraud. Other less publicized incidents

3. David C. Kimball3 What’s Happened Since 2000? Each state and county has asked “Could Florida happen here?” Federal legislation – the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) State legislation and state plans to comply with HAVA. Another competitive presidential election in 2004.

4. David C. Kimball4 Why Study Polling Places? Election reform policies and research are beginning to move beyond voting equipment. HAVA includes provisions for improved voter education and poll worker training. Many states and local governments are consolidating polling places. Socio-economic disparity in voter turnout and unrecorded votes in American elections.

5. David C. Kimball5 Polling Place Conditions Very little systematic research available Recent studies of polling places in Los Angeles (Matt Barreto, UC-Irvine) and other cities. –Student observers (checklist of items) –High-quality polling places are associated with higher voter turnout rates. –Low-quality polling places tended to be concentrated in low-income and minority neighborhoods.

6. David C. Kimball6 St. Louis Study (Nov. 2, 2004) 12 observers (6 teams) –Cassandra Butler, Ryan Coleman, Gene DeSalme, Matt Howard, Matt McLaughlin, Gretchen Miller, Deme Souchleris, Ben Sturdevant, Sarah Van Winkle, Rob Vossmeyer, and Mercedes Wurm. 2-page checklist used to record observations Observers spent about 15 minutes at each polling place Observations made between 9:00 am and 5:00 pm

7. David C. Kimball7 St. Louis Study (continued) 95 polling places visited in St. Louis City and St. Louis County 21 polling places visited by more than one team Covered 4 wards in the city (4 th, 16 th, 17 th, 28 th ) Covered all or parts of 7 townships in the county (Creve Coeur, Clayton, Hadley, Jefferson, Florissant, Normandy, University)

8. David C. Kimball8

9. 9 Polling Place Accessibility Correct address98% Visible from the street63% - Yes 27% - Somewhat Handicap access (entrance)86% Adequate outside lighting73% Signs or banners visible65% Adequate parking63% Address in clear sight60%

10. David C. Kimball10 Polling Place Quality All voting machines working properly98% Sample ballot posted91% Well lit for reading87% Instructions posted in voting booths80% Restroom clearly marked40% Chairs in waiting area33%

11. David C. Kimball11 Polling Place Size Very Large19% Somewhat Large26% Medium24% Somewhat Small18% Very Small12%

12. David C. Kimball12 Voting Booths – St. Louis County

13. David C. Kimball13 Voting Booths – St. Louis City

14. David C. Kimball14 Polling Place Quality Overall polling place quality score created by summing ten items on checklist.

15. David C. Kimball15 Polling Place Quality Average polling place quality was very similar in the city versus the county. Of the polling places we visited, average polling place quality was very similar in north, south, and central corridors.

16. David C. Kimball16 Impact of Polling Place Quality (preliminary results) No correlation between polling place quality and voter turnout. Polling places with a higher ratio of voters to booths had longer lines. Polling places with longer lines tended to have slightly lower voter turnout. Negative but somewhat weak relationship between polling place quality and unrecorded votes for president.

17. David C. Kimball17 Recommendations Continue to improve polling place conditions. Work to equalize number of voting booths and poll workers based on number of likely voters in each polling place. Work to reduce long lines during morning and late day rush.