Explaining the Causes of the “Great Poll Close”

• In Event: Poster Session: Elections and Voting Behavior

Abstract

In terms of election administration at the local level, one function that is often over looked is the selection of polling precincts. Local election officials (or LEO’s) are required by law to follow certain regulations (accessibility for those with disabilities) but for the most part, are free to act as they wish on “nuts and bolts” issues such as precinct location. In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in Shelby v. Holder that the 4th provision of the Voting Rights Act was no longer necessary which meant that certain voting jurisdictions who have had a history of voting discrimination were no longer required to receive permission from the Department of Justice when making an election administration change. Ironically, in the two elections following the Shelby ruling (2014 & 2016), there were a significant amount of poll closures in former “pre-clearance” states. Are these closures because of the lack of traditional in-person election day voters? Or are they because local election officials can make changes without repercussions from the Department of Justice? To answer this question, I compare over 3,000 voting jurisdictions between pre & post Shelby elections to ascertain the main causes of poll closures.

Author

• Joshua Squires, West Virginia University