Overall, voter turnout among the eligible citizen population in the United States has been declining since the 1980's and, in New Mexico, average registration rates and turnout among eligible citizens remain well below the national average.[i] While some may actively choose not to register or participate in elections, not all are left out of the political process by choice. Reaching those eligible but unregistered voters is key to improving participation in New Mexico.
Turnout declines are often driven by low participation among young, racially-diverse, and low-income populations. For example, in New Mexico 18-34 year-olds register and vote at the lowest rates, and Hispanics show a 10 percentage point lower rate of participation than white citizens as a whole. For many people, there is concern that “voting and choosing elected officials just isn’t viewed as essential to their lives” because they may doubt that the political process works to their benefit and may think that voting doesn't improve their well-being. [ii]
Considering that young and Hispanic voters are especially prevalent in New Mexico, improving voter participation among diverse demographics is essential to closing the gap in participation between New Mexico and the U.S. Voting is especially important for vulnerable populations who often feel ignored by the current system; without their participation, election outcomes will be inequitable and ineffective at protecting the interests of a large portion of the state's population. Below are 4 potential policies aimed at addressing participation in New Mexico:
Compulsory (Mandatory) Voting
Voting in the U.S. is often encouraged, but is completely voluntary. Mandating participation, though, is not a new idea; 27 countries such as Brazil and Australia have compulsory voting laws requiring all citizens to register and vote in national elections. Not only that, but the difference in turnout between those countries with and without these laws was 7.3% in 2010.[iii] Studies have also demonstrated that countries with compulsory voting laws often see higher participation even if there is little enforcement. [iv]
To improve participation, New Mexico could mandate all citizens to register and vote in elections and implement a fine for non-compliance. Implementing practices known to work in a place demographically similar to the U.S., policy makers could use Australia’s current enforcement policies as an example. Australia is a country with 95% turnout and similar age distributions as the U.S., and the fine for non-compliance would equal $17 USD. A $17 fine should not disproportionately affect low-income individuals and would help generate revenue for the state.
Compulsory voting could bring up to an additional 480,224 registrants and 630,992 voters with full compliance based on the numbers of non-registered, non-voting citizens in NM. This policy would encourage increases in participation long-term as people develop habits from continued compliance. However, cost per registrant is extremely high and difficult to estimate. Administratively, it would require an extreme amount of work to implement and enforce, and politically the U.S. would see opposition by those who highly value freedom of choice. Some even suggest that compulsory voting would go against many of the principles of American democracy. To address this concern, voters could choose "no candidate" on the ballot to limit random votes, but it would still not likely be accepted and remains a politically infeasible solution to low participation in the U.S.
Expanding Automatic Voter Registration
It's important to make participation as easy as possible; difficult registration processes can lead to procrastination and ultimately demobilize voters. Oregon was the first state to implement stream-lined automatic voter registration in 2016 and has experienced increases in turnout as a result.[v] Governor Michelle Lujan-Grisham of New Mexico has also made strides to improve voter registration processes, helping to pass Senate bill 672 in 2019 allowing same-day voter registration and automatic voter information updates when visiting the Motor Vehicle Division, unless the person decides to opt out at the agency. [vi]
The state could benefit from adopting an additional method of automatic voter registration (AVR) based on Oregon’s “postcard via mail” model. This model works by informing residents through mail of the intent to auto-register them at a certain date unless they opt-out by returning a postcard or visiting a state agency. Adopting mailings will help reach more voters than what is currently implemented at physical agencies like the MVD. This would especially help pre-register eligible 16- and 17 year-olds - as they are eligible to register in New Mexico - and those who aren't planning to go to the MVD anytime soon.
Auto-registration has low costs per registrant ($7.67) based on Oregon's model,[vii] should be relatively easy to implement considering current AVR efforts, and should help to register all eligible, un-registered citizens in New Mexico (480,224) if widely implemented. If turnout increases proportionately, we would see 400,652 additional voters as a result. However, opposition stems from concerns over freedom violations and possible voter fraud. For example, in California many ineligible voters and “at least one non-citizen" were registered accidentally. [viii] Still, 18 states have already implemented forms of AVR as of 2018 and the push for easier registration processes seem to be making headway despite opposition.
Campus Outreach
Young people register to vote at lower rates than the rest of the population, so getting more youth to the polls is essential. Dr. Gabriel Sanchez, Professor of Political Science and Executive Director of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Center for Health Policy at the University of New Mexico, points out that efforts to improve youth turnout would naturally help improve turnout for Hispanics, simply because the Hispanic population is so much younger on average.[ix] Therefore, campus outreach for college-aged and high-school students should be especially useful at improving turnout among younger, more racially-diverse demographics.
The state could implement and expand campus outreach to include mandatory, 15 minute, in-class presentations teaching students the importance of voting and offering on-site registration. These presentation were found to increase participation among college students, but should also be provided for high school students approaching voting-age.[x] For example, the Campus Vote Project offers “Student Voting Guides” in classrooms that outline important voter information like registration deadlines, I.D. requirements, and youth voting rights. Knowing this information increases student confidence when students know their rights and what to expect in advance. Best practices suggest following up these presentations with Spring registration drives for interested high-school students.
These efforts would increase participation among young, racially-diverse populations in the state. Administering presentations, if using current infrastructure and technology on campuses, should be relatively simple to do. Politically, we already see current nation-wide efforts to register students and advocate-led support for pre-registering teens. Encouraging youth participation should encourage good voting habits over time and has modest effects - 27,738 new voters among 74,182 registrants using a 40% registration rate among 16-24 year-olds. However, mandating participation in outreach efforts may be opposed by students not wishing to participate and has a moderate cost per voter ($100.57) compared to other policy options. Increases to participation apply only to those enrolled in school, but could be effective at creating long-term increases in turnout as new generations develop good voting habits and would assist in reaching the large Hispanic youth population in New Mexico.
Civic Honor Roll
In a randomized study, residents were mailed a civic honor roll listing 10 of their neighbors with good voting records, allowing residents to see how their voting behavior stacks up to others.[xi] The mailing positively encouraged recipients to participate in the next election and that their own name would then be added to the honor roll and shared with neighbors and community members. This was found to increase voting among those who got the mailings.
Voting records are already public, but this nudge towards participation psychologically motivates individuals to participate by making them feel like they should jump on the bandwagon; if everyone else is voting, maybe I should too. Implementing a similar practice in New Mexico, these mailings would come with the reminder that the recipient's name was not included on the list because they did not have a perfect voting record, reminding them to vote so they can be included on the honor roll list. Including individuals on the honor roll only after the individuals have established a consistent pattern - 4 years of participation as done in the study - encourages people to remain active and develop good habits of voting over time. Maintaining current lists of voters is feasible using MVD records. Costs per additional registrant would be low ($9.70) and effects are moderate, with an expected increase of 17,980 new voters among 21,532 registrants. Existing ‘voter violations’ sent out by political candidates like Ted Cruz, giving recipients a letter grade to be compared with neighbors, were highly opposed, but mostly because they were portrayed as negative and coercive.[xii] An honor roll would be positively framed and encourage participation rather than coerce it, improving feasibility. However, the effects are limited to voters who have accurate addresses on record, and privacy concerns limit how easily the policy could be implemented. Opponents of "social pressure" mailings and advertisements have cited invasions of privacy, saying their records should not be shared, even though voter records are publicly available. By including opt-out provisions for the mailings, it would improve privacy concerns while keeping the intention of the mailings intact.
Recommendation
To improve participation in New Mexico, we should implement a combination of expanded automatic registration and campus outreach. In combination, these policies will help eligible citizens become better informed, more engaged civic participants and will allow more individuals in New Mexico to make their voices heard at the polls.
In combination, turnout is expected to increase by almost 30 percentage points to 85.4%, effectively closing the gap between New Mexico and the U.S. These policies combined cost $108.24 per voter transaction and effectively increase participation among young, racially-diverse, and low-income populations for a total cost of $60 million (or about $2 million per percentage-point increase in turnout). Is this a price worth paying for encouraging good voting habits? If it helps to close the gap between New Mexico and the United States, I would propose that the cost is small considering that each percentage-point increase equates to over 15,000 new New Mexican voters. The total cost, then, of $133 per voter must be weighed against the costs of continued underrepresentation of a large number of New Mexicans who are eligible but who are left out of the political system.
Of course, the state does have the option to do nothing and continue to maintain the status quo in which participation gaps persist and rates of participation continue to be too low. Currently, the status quo is being challenged by New Mexico governor Michelle Lujan-Grisham who has pushed to simplify voting for all New Mexicans and has made strides in improving access to participation. The actions taken by the governor to enact same-day voter registration and streamline registration processes show an active opposition to the status quo in New Mexico. Doing nothing to improve access to our democracy would be foolish, and additional actions should be taken now to improve participation while there is likely support from the current administration.
Endnotes:
[i] Desilver, D. (2017). U.S. trails most developed countries in voter turnout. Pew Research Center.
[ii] US Census Bureau. (2019, April 2). Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2016 (Table 4.a.).
Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/voting-and-registration/p20-580.html
[ii] Fulwood III, S. (2015, August 5). Why Young, Minority, and Low-Income Citizens Don't Vote. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2014/11/06/100627/why-young-minority-and-low-income-citizens-dont-vote/
[iii] Compulsory Voting. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/voter-turnout/compulsory-voting
[iv] See Desilver. D. (2017)
[v] Griffin, R., Gronke, P., Wang, T., & Kennedy, L. (2017, June). Who Votes With Automatic Voter Registration? Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2017/06/07/433677/votes-automatic-voter-registration/
[vi] Senate Bill 672RUS, PUBLIC PEACE, HEALTH, SAFETY & WELFARE EARLY & AUTO VOTER REGISTRATION 2019 Reg. Sess. (NM 2019).
[vii] The Real Cost of Voter Registration: An Oregon Case Study. (2010). Pew Research Center.
[viii] Vasilogambros, M. (2019, October). Glitches in California Embolden Automatic Voter Registration Foes. Retrieved from https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2019/10/17/glitches-in-california-embolden-automatic-voter-registration-foes
[ix]Patten, E. (2019, December 30). The Nation's Latino Population Is Defined by Its Youth. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2016/04/20/the-nations-latino-population-is-defined-by-its-youth/
[x]Underhill, W. (2019, February). Preregistration for Young Voters. Retrieved from https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/preregistration-for-young-voters.aspx
[xi]Panagopoulos, C. (2013). Positive Social Pressure and Prosocial Motivation: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment on Voter Mobilization. Political Psychology, 34(2), 265–275. doi: 10.1111/pops.12007
[xii] Lizza, R., & Wallace-Wells, B. (n.d.). Ted Cruz's Iowa Mailers Are More Fraudulent Than Everyone Thinks. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ted-cruzs-iowa-mailers-are-more-fraudulent-than-everyone-thinks
Comentários