voting matters in the nations capital

Running Header: VOTING MATTERS IN THE NATIONS CAPTIAL

Voting Matters in the Nation’s Capital:

A Case Study Analysis of Voter Turnout for the 2014 Spring Primary Election in Washington,

D.C.

Robin Gilbrecht Minter

July 2015

VOTING MATTERS IN THE NATIONS CAPTIAL 1

Abstract

This project is a case study focused on voter turnout for one election in the District of

Columbia (“District”). The April 2014 Primary election had the lowest voter participation of any

election held in the District for over 30 years. This research hypothesized that voter turnout for

this contest was affected by four factors: (1) income inequality; (2) the presence or perception of

corruption; (3) date change of primary; and (4) the competitiveness of the race. The methods

and materials utilized for this research were the collection and analysis of quantitative data from

surveys, campaign finance reports, and board of election results and US Census data. During the

course of the research it was determined that aggregate campaign spending, was a huge factor in

voter turnout, there was a strong correlation between income and voter turnout and that more

studies are needed to determine the impact of perceived corruption on voter behavior. There

were also indications that the date change in the primary was an institutional factor that deterred

broader voter participation.


Introduction

This study explores factors contributing to record low voter turnout in the District of

Columbia (“District”) in the Spring 2014 mayoral primary election. The primary election is

studied because registered Democratic voters comprised an overwhelming majority of District

voters – 76 percent of all registered voters at the time of the Primary election (DC Board of

Elections, 2015). This overwhelming majority of Democratic voters indicate that the victor of

the Democratic primary will more than likely win the election. In addition to the Democratic

Party majority, this particular election is studied because voter turnout for the 2014 Democratic

primary was quite low. An April 2nd

2014 article reporting on the primary election results

described the turnout as “…the worst the city has seen in at least three decades, revealing a broad

public apathy toward the District’s political life in a period of both economic dynamism and

scandal.”(Mellnik & Laris, 2014) The author of this case study hypothesizes that four factors

contributed to low turnout in the spring primary: (1) income inequality; (2) the presence or

perception of corruption; (3) date change of primary; and (4) campaign spending as an indication

of the competitiveness of the race.

Voter turnout is also to measure of representation. Local elections determine who the

elected officials represent; their interests and the demographics of those constituents. The issue

of representation is relevant to social groups historically excluded from voting due to race but

can also an issue of economic interest. For example, many recent articles have explored—and

sought to explain—why elected white officials continue to dominate the political landscape in

Ferguson, Missouri even though a majority of voters there are African American. These reports

include many theories about why voter turnout among African Americans is low, particularly in

mid-term elections (Schaffner, Van Erve, & LaRaja, 2014). More studies that measure


institutional factors such as voter ID laws, access to the polls through early voting, and voter

registration requirements are needed to determine why, when African Americans represent an

electoral majority, voting participation among that group is low. The same studies are needed to

determine income levels and voting in order to determine why low income voters may vote at

lower levels than their high income counterparts.

Statement of Problem

The topic of voter turnout is studied because voting is a central tenant of democracy and

because voter turnout ensures representation of voter economic and social interests.

The attainment of representation through the ballot box in the United States has taken

over 200 years to become realized and is still evolving. The 15th

amendment to the U. S.

Constitution passed in 1870 extended the right to vote to Americans of African ancestry (men).

Women (all but native American and Asian) won that right with the passage of the 19th

amendment to the constitution in 1920.(ACLU Northern Californai, 2002) Women and men of

African ancestry who were residents of the District were not afforded that right until 1961 with

the passage of the 23rd

amendment. The District has a legacy of political disenfranchisement and

to this day does not have a vote in the nation’s congress nor can it pass its own budget without

the approval of the US Congress.(Office of the General Counsel, 1973)

The issue of voter representation in the district is coupled with the flight of many of the

Districts African American and low income residents. The Urban Institute’s web site describing

the Districts changing demographics poses the following question:

High housing costs have helped make DC one of the most expensive places in the

country to live. Even at higher-income levels, many renters are paying more than 30

percent of their income on housing and some find homeownership out of reach. Lower-


income residents, meanwhile, are getting further priced out of the market. Can the city

meet the needs of its new generation of residents while also creating and preserving

affordable housing at all income levels? (“Urban Institute: Our Changing City,” 2015)

Over the past 15 years the process of gentrification has created conflict and controversy

over who benefits from real estate development and escalating real estate prices. For example, a

recent public radio segment which focused on the Districts real estate development included the

following comments: “They’re not bringing reinvestment to Anacostia but instead to places like

Georgetown, K Street or Chinatown,” said Greg Leroy, executive director of Good Jobs First, an

economic subsidies watchdog. We’ve got to think strategically about where areas really need

help. We can’t just think about who is writing the biggest checks."(Patel, 2013)

Finally the problem of the Districts income level changes are described as follows by the

DC Fiscal Policy Institute’s web site: “An analysis of data from the 2010 American Community

Survey suggests that while the District’s economy has led to economic growth and prosperity for

many on the middle and higher rungs of the ladder, residents on the bottom of the income scale

largely are being left behind.”(DC Fiscal Policy Institute, 2012)

Background Material

The District held its mayoral election on November 3rd

, 2014. On April 1st, 2014, the

Democratic Party held a primary election to select its candidate for that office. The April election

had the lowest voter participation of any election held in the District for over 30 years.(Mellnik

& Laris, 2014)

In their monthly voter registration statistics report dated March 31, 2014, the DC Board

of Elections show that, at the time of the April 1, 2014 election, over 76percent of DC registered

voters belonged to the Democratic Party and were eligible to vote in the primary. Because


registered Democrats comprise the overwhelming majority of District voters, the winner of the

Democratic primary is virtually assured of being elected to the post for which they are

competing.(DC Board of Elections, 2015)

There were no exit polls or follow up surveys conducted directly following the vote;

however, a Washington Post article (Mellnik & Laris, 2014) attributed the low voter turnout to

voter apathy following a series of corruption scandals involving both the incumbent Mayor

Vincent Grey and several other members of the District Council. While the impact of

corruption on the electorate is difficult to ascertain and measure, it is an important variable to

consider in assessing voting behavior.

The data collected and analyzed for this study includes publicly available data collected

from the District Board of Elections and Ethics, the District Office of Campaign and Finance,

and the United States Census categorized by DC Neighborhood Info.org. The study also includes

quantitative data gleaned from surveys which were conducted via interview method on the day of

the General Election November 4, 2014. (see appendix)

Political analyst for the Washington Wire, Dante Chinni suggested that the District’s

record low voter turnout was affected by economic inequality. An April 4th

, 2014 article in the

Wall Street Journal (Chinni, 2014) he observed that even in this predominantly Democratic city,

a review of the voting results for incumbent Mayor Vince Grey and challenger Muriel Bowser

(who emerged with an overwhelming majority of the vote) reflects a deep split in the party along

income and racial lines.

Theoretical Framework


While there is scant literature focused on voter turnout in state and local elections, the

research conducted by Holbrook and Weinschenk (2014) is a notable exception. Their 2014

article, Campaigns, Mobilization, and Turnout in Mayoral Elections, published in the Political

Research Quarterly synthesized the findings from data sets of 144 large U.S. cities and 340

separate mayoral elections. Among other variables, Holbrook and Weinschenk especially

focused on the use of campaign spending and its impact on voter turnout.

Even though this study is local in scope, literature that discusses national and

international voting trends using the variables of both corruption and income disparity are

helpful additions to the field and were utilized in this research

The literature on corruption as a variable in voter turnout is not widespread, and the

theories about how corruption might affect voter turnout are in conflict. The journal article

“Bribes and Ballots: The impact of corruption on voter turnout in democracies” (Stockemer,

Scruggs, & LaMontange, n.d.) assert that corruption in government should be a considered a

variable in any study on voter turnout in democracies. While this variable was included in the

survey, the low response to the question indicated that it did not appear to be a major factor.1

In terms of the effects of income disparity and voting behavior, three distinct schools of

thought emerge. These three schools are summarized by Solt, 2008, as follows: the relative

power theory asserts that income disparity has a negative effect on voter participation across the

board, but especially among the poor. Proponents of this theory argue a strong correlation

between wealth concentrated in the hands of a few and lowered voter participation on the part of

the poorest of voters, whose political issues never reach the ballot. Second, the conflict theory

1 See appendix for survey


holds that the bigger the disparity in income, the more substantial the class conflict, resulting in

more competition and bigger voter turnout. Finally, the resource theory holds that society’s wide

wealth inequities are not as determinate as individual resources. This theory suggests that

individual voter resources like spare time, transportation, and money to contribute to campaigns

and skills will most impact voting behavior. (Solt, 2008)

Utilizing the frameworks described above, this research focused on the disparity in voter

turnout between the Spring 2014 primary and the two prior primary elections and sought to test

the hypothesis that there were four contributing factors to this low voter turnout. The first factor

considered was that according to Board of Election data - voters in lower income wards of the

District (wards 7 & 8) voted at much lower levels than usual. Secondly, statements in the press

suggested a link between voter participation and pending criminal investigations into prior

election behavior of on the part of one of the Mayoral candidates (Mellnik & Laris, 2014). The

third factor explored was the possibility that District voters were unaware of the fact that an

election was being held. The District Board of Elections changed the date from September to

April. The Spring 2014 was the first local Primary held in April. The fourth factor explored was

that voter turnout was low because there was not sufficient competition as expressed in voter

spending on the part of the top two candidates running for office.

Because the District has a significant majority (In their March 31st, 2014 monthly report

of DC registration statistics the DC Board of Election and Ethics reported that 76.37 percent of

District voters were registered Democrats) of registered Democratic voters, this study focused on

historical voter turnout for the Primary election.

Methodology


The research questions used in this study were as follows: Did low income voters vote at

lower levels than their higher income counterparts? Did voters respond to widespread reports of

campaign irregularities by not voting? Were voters aware of the date of the Primary election?

And finally, did voters respond to the lack of competition between the top two candidates by not

voting?

In order to answer the first and the last questions this study analyzed data collected from

the District Board of Elections and Ethics, the District Office of Campaign and Finance, and the

United States Census. In order to determine voters views on corruption and the date of the

primary a survey was conducted via interview method on the day of the General Election

November 4, 2014.

Income levels and voter participation was assessed by comparing voter turnout per voting

precinct and average household income levels also by precinct. A scatter plot analysis was

conducted to determine a correlation between the percentages of those registered precinct voters

and the mean household income of that precinct.

The study then analyzed campaign finance spending among the top two candidates in the

Democratic primary in 2014 and the campaign finance expenditures for two prior campaigns in

2006 and in 2010. Our analysis looked at per voter spending (calculated by looking at total

expenditures divided by the total number of registered democratic voters at the time) by

candidate and total campaign spending from contest to contest. Our research applied the similar

analytics described in the Holbrook & Weinschenk study to see if we could see any corollaries.

According to their study, “campaign effort measured [here] with spending - data translates into

higher levels of turnout through two mechanisms: indirect and direct mobilization of


voters.”(Holbrook & Weinschenk, 2014) They compared campaign spending on the part of the

top two vote getters to determine if there was a substantial gap in spending between the

incumbent and the challenger. The expectation is that contests with smaller spending gaps are

more competitive and likely to generate more interest on the part of voters. Spending on the part

of the incumbent is thought to contribute less to voter engagement than spending on the part of

the challenger. (Holbrook & Weinschenk, 2014)

Further data used in this research was generated using survey instruments (see appendix).

The surveys contained questions designed to determine whether or not voters were affected by

the factors of corruption or date change in the election for voters who did not vote in the spring

2014 primary. Sample subjects were identified using a stratified sampling method. The

researcher utilized US Census neighborhood data to identify mean household incomes across the

District. The surveys were conducted by administrators who interviewed subjects. The

administrators were asked to select polling locations at random within broad income level areas.

276 surveys were collected at 7 polling places across the District on November 4th

, 2014. The

seven polling places were located in Wards 1, 3, 5, 6 and 8. Subjects were asked to participate in

a brief survey as they were either arriving or exiting their polling place. Participants were asked

if they had voted or intended to vote that day - 100percent of those surveyed indicated in the

affirmative. Respondents were also asked whether or not they voted in the April 1, 2014 primary

and if not, why they did not. Demographic variables collected included race, age and gender of

the survey participants. Of those surveyed only 7 respondents indicated that the reason they did

not vote in the April 2014 primary was because they were not eligible to vote in the primary.

Definitions and Limitations


For the purposes of this study voter turnout is measured by the total number of votes cast

compared to the number of registered voters at the time of the election. In addition to absentee

voting, the District allows same-day registration and conducts early voting at locations across the

District. While the District’s voter eligibility regulations bar incarcerated individuals from

voting, ex-felons and individuals convicted in the past of misdemeanors, are not stopped from

voting in the District, as they are in many other jurisdictions.(DC Board of Elections, 2015)

During the course of this research campaign spending data was obtained by the District

Office of Campaign Finance. These data were easily accessible. This study was unable to

determine how much was spent by the District Department of Elections and Ethics on voter

education to notify voters of the changed primary date. Budget reports for the Department of

Elections do not clearly articulate expenditures related to voter education about the changes in

dates of elections or scheduling.

Findings

This section will be broken down into four sections corresponding to the four research

questions under headings which summarize the hypothesis tested.

Income Inequality

This study conducted a correlation analysis comparing average household income by

precinct (DC Neighborhood Info, 2015) and voter turnout for the Spring Primary Election (DC

Board of Elections, 2015) and found a distinct positive relationship between income and voter

turnout. The corollary analysis showed that lower income constituents vote at lower rates than

their higher income counterparts. There was a correlation (r=.66245) of income level and voter

behavior in this particular election. This correlation is considered statistically significant using an


alpha level of .05 – with a probability level of <.0001. This finding indicates that fewer low

income voters turned out to vote in the Spring primary confirming that income was a factor in

voter turnout for this election. Further study is required to determine which element of the

theoretical framework (relative power – conflict - resource) should be attributed as the cause for

this disparity.

Corruption

The D.C. Neighborhood Info study did not find a significant relationship between low

voter turnout and public perceptions of corruption. In fact less than 6 percent of those surveyed,

who did not vote, indicated that they did not vote because of the perception of corruption. The

use of this category in this study was helpful and may prove a baseline for future studies having

to do with voter turnout.

Date Change of Primary

In contrast to the response rate regarding corruption, 25 percent of those surveyed who

did not vote in the Primary election indicated that they did not vote because they were unaware

of the date of the primary. The District’s mayoral primary elections have traditionally been held

in the month of September. The change in date to early April was first instituted in 2011

following the 2010 mayoral primary.(Austermuhle, 2014) On December 17, 2014 District

Council members voted to change the date of the primary back to September, with the exception

of the June 2016 Presidential election. 2016. According to a WAMU (District Public Radio

station) segment describing the reasons for the return to the September date council members felt

that “the early primary also depressed voter turnout, as a result of…. The April 1 primary, in


which Mayor-elect Muriel Bowser defeated Mayor Vincent Gray, saw turnout of only 27

percent” (Austermuhle, 2014)

Competitiveness as Measured by Campaign Spending

This study demonstrated that over the last three Democratic primary contests; combined

campaign spending has had a significant impact on voter turnout. The correlation between per

voter spending for campaigns and turnout indicate a strong (r = .9905) relationship. (see table #).

In addition to the strong correlation between campaign spending and voter turnout, it was

discovered that overall (combined spending on behalf of the top two candidates) campaign

spending was significantly higher in previous mayoral contests than in the record low turnout in

April 2014. Per voter spending, by the top two candidates, was $ 20.53 in 2006 and $ 22.80 in

2010. This is in stark contrast to campaign spending for the 2014 contest of $ 7.92 per voter.

This low spending on campaigns could have contributed to lower voter interest and lack of

awareness about the election.

Analysis

This study suggests that there is a positive relationship between household income and

voter participation. The metric used in this study compared precinct income levels and the voter

participation rates at those precincts. The chart below shows the results of this analysis and

indicates the correlation between income and voting in the Spring Primary election. These data

are represented in the chart below (chart 1) and indicate that lower income voters voted at lower

rates than higher income voters in this election. However, it is important to note that the

relationship was only examined for this particular election. Further, a longitudinal study is


required in order to determine whether or not the correlation between income and voting has

become more pronounced over time.

Chart 1 Potting Voter turnout and Average Family Income by Precinct Data provided by DC Board of Elections and

DC Neighborhood Info http://neighborhoodinfodc.org/about.html

In addition to the correlation of voter income and voter turnout findings further suggest

that a major driver in low voter turnout may have been lack of voter awareness that the date of

the primary had changed. Twenty four percent of those surveyed who did not vote in the

primary claimed that they were not aware of the change in date of the primary. This is an

institutional factor which may have contributed to low voter turnout. Recent moves on the part of

the District Councilmembers to change the date yet again (see above) require that voter

information about the dates of elections may again become a factor. Equal access to information

provided to District residents and the dissemination of voter information requires further study.

y = 524829x - 37415 R² = 0.4389

$-

$50,000.00

$100,000.00

$150,000.00

$200,000.00

$250,000.00

$300,000.00

$350,000.00

$400,000.00

$450,000.00

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Ave

rage

Fam

ily In

com

e o

f P

reci

nct

% of Registered Democrats Casting Ballots for 2014 Spring Primary

2014 Spring Primary Voter Turnout by Income by Precinct

http://neighborhoodinfodc.org/about.html


The analysis of the quantitative campaign spending data confirms the findings of

Holbrook and Weinschenk’s mayoral studies, which cite the strong correlation between

campaign spending and voter turnout. This project demonstrated that over the last three Primary

elections; combined campaign spending has had a significant correlation (r = .9905) with voter

turnout (Chart 2) and that overall spending for 2014 Primary was quite low by comparison (chart

3).

Chart 2 per voter spending and voter turnout spending data from 2006, 2010 and 2014

y = 0.0074x + 0.2264 R² = 0.9905

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

$5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00 $25.00

Vo

ter

Turn

ou

t R

ate

s

Per Voter Spending


Chart 3 Combined campaign spending past three primaries

The data collected in this study strongly corroborated the thesis that campaign spending

is a major factor in getting out the vote and has a direct relationship on voter turnout.

The data also supported the thesis that lack of awareness of the changed primary date

played a significant role in depressing voter turnout. In this case, however, the efforts

undertaken by government agencies to inform voters were difficult to ascertain from public

budget reports. Further study is needed to determine if the District’s institutional efforts to

maintain a high level of public awareness about the importance of voting and to widely publicize

changed voting dates are adequate.

The date change and lower campaign spending data, when taken together require further

analysis. It would be useful to examine the extent to which the District Board of Elections and

Ethics is relying on private campaign spending, including ‘Get Out The Vote’ activities, to

publicize institutional changes in voting process. As noted earlier, financial data from the

District Board of Elections and Ethics does not track voter information costs.

$-

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

$8,000,000

$9,000,000

2006 Primary 2010 Primary 2014 Primary

Total Campaign Spendiing


Recommendations

In order to provide continued access to the franchise, when institutional rules change

there is an onus on government agencies to ensure the voters are made aware of these changes. In

that spirit this study presents the following recommendations.

District Election Officials should document their efforts to educate the public about

changes in the dates of elections and any other institutional factors surrounding access to the

polls. These efforts should be itemized in the agency budget for the DC Board of Elections.

When District Council Members decide to change the date of an election there should be

a cost of voter communication factored into the decision making. This cost should be allocated to

the Board of Elections as a one-time budgetary adjustment to the department.

Finally, voter participation as it relates to income inequality over time should be studied

at length. This longitudinal approach was beyond the scope of this effort.


References

ACLU Northern Californai (Ed.). (2002). U.S. Voting Rights Timeline. ACLU of Northern

California.

Austermuhle, M. (2014, December 17). WAMU 88.5 : News. Retrieved June 9, 2015, from

Chinni, D. (2014, April 4). Politics Counts: D.C. Voting Spotlights Divide Among Democrats.

Wall Street Journal. Wall Street Journal Capital Bureau. Retrieved from

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/04/04/politics-counts-d-c-voting-spotlights-divide-

among-democrats/

DC Board of Elections. (2015, June 9). DC Board of Elections [DC Government]. Retrieved

from https://www.dcboee.org/search/search_results.asp

DC Fiscal Policy Institute. (2012, March 7). A BIG GAP: INCOME INEQUALITY IN THE

DISTRICT REMAINS ONE OF THE HIGHEST IN THE NATION. Retrieved from

http://www.dcfpi.org/a-big-gap-income-inequality-in-the-district-remains-one-of-the-

highest-in-the-nation

DC Neighborhood Info. (2015, June 8). Neighborhood Info DC [Public Access Data source].

Retrieved June 8, 2015, from http://neighborhoodinfodc.org/about.html

Holbrook, T., & Weinschenk, A. (2014). Campaigns, Mobilizatin, and Turnout in Mayoral

Elections. Political Science Research Quarterly, 67, 42–55.

http://doi.org/10.177/1065912913494018

Mellnik, T., & Laris, M. (2014, April 2). Voter turnout for D.C. primary lowest in three decades.

The Washington Post, p. online. Washington DC.


Office of the General Counsel. District of Columbia Home Rule Act, â€ ™ 1-201.01 et seq. D.C.

Official Code § 738 78 – 79 (1973).

Patel, J. (2013, May 22). Empty Promises: Developers Often Don’t Deliver Day 3: Deals for

Developers, Cash for Campaigns. PoliticsFollow The MoneyD.C. Corruption-Ethics.

WAMU 88.5FM. Retrieved from

http://wamu.org/news/13/05/22/empty_promises_developers_often_dont_deliver

Schaffner, Van Erve, & LaRaja. (2014, August 15). How Ferguson exposes the racial bias in

local elections. The Washington Post. Retrieved from

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/08/15/how-ferguson-

exposes-the-racial-bias-in-local-elections/

Solt, F. (2008). Economic Inequality and Democratic Political Engagement. American Journal of

Political Science, 52(1), 48–60. http://doi.org/10.2307/25193796

Stockemer, D., Scruggs, L., & LaMontange, B. (n.d.). Bribes and Ballots: The impact of

corruption on voter turnout in democracies. School of Political Studies, Univ. of Ottawa;

Dept. of Political Science, Univ. of Connecticut; Dept. of Political Science, Univ. of

Connecticut, Respec. Retrieved from http://sp.uconn.edu/~scruggs/ipsr11.pdf

Urban Institute: Our Changing City. (2015, June). [Public Access Data source]. Retrieved from

http://datatools.urban.org/features/OurChangingCity/housing/index.html


Appendices List

Appendix # Description

I. Survey Instrument

II. Chart 4 Why voters didn’t vote survey results

III. Chart 5 Other reasons survey respondents didn’t vote


Appendix 1

DC Voter Turnout Survey Interviewer Name: ______________________

November 4, 2014 Polling Location: __________________________

1) Did you vote today or are you planning on voting today?

a) Yes

b) No

2) Did you vote in the April Primary?

a) Yes

b) No

3) If no, which of the following reasons best describes why you did not vote in the Primary?

a) I did not know that the primary was in April.

b) I wasn’t interested in the top two candidates who were running for Mayor in the

Primary.

c) I don't think that my vote counts.

d) I was discouraged by corruption in our local government.

e) Some other reason (Please specify) __________________________

Survey respondent Information:

Age (please circle range)

(18 – 30) (31 – 45) (46 – 65) (Over 65)

Gender M/F/Does not specify

Racial Identity (please ask the survey respondent how they identify):

Black African American White Caucasian Latino Asian American Indian

Other:

______________________________________________________________________________


Appendix II

Chart 4 Survey responses of those who did not vote in DC’s April 1, 2014 Democratic Primary

42%

25%

20%

8% 5% 0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Other Didn't Know Not Interested Doesn't Matter Corruption

Why DC Voters Didn't Vote


Appendix III

Chart 5 Detailed breakdown of “other” category used in Chart 4

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Too busy Was not livingin DC

Illness, Forgot Out of town No Candidate NotRegistered

In Prison

Other Reasons DC Voters Didn't Vote

voting matters in the nations capital

Documents