Over the course of the past 30 years, states across the nation have adopted early in-person voting laws. The bulk of academic literature on early in-person voting revolves around the policy’s effect on turnout. This research was conducted over the course of several decades, in different electoral contexts, measuring a diverse array of laws, and remains inconclusive. Meanwhile, the political discussion of voting rights and electoral reform has become increasingly polarized. The divisive views on early voting both in the academic community and in the political realm are indicators of a distinctive evolution of early voting. I argue that early voting reforms were implemented in three unique eras, characterized by different political motivations and an evolving early electorate. I use case studies in Texas, Florida, Missouri, and Massachusetts to explain this theory and provide a framework for more ordered future research.

Proponents claim that the convenience of early voting increases voter turnout by reducing the time and effort to vote through expanded opportunities for participation beyond "traditional" in-person voting at polling places on election day. Yet, anecdotal evidence suggests that reforms intended to make the voting process easier do not have the same effect throughout the electorate. Instead, early voting is likely to exacerbate the lack of ability to meaningfully participate in the electoral process for those particularly vulnerable to the costs of voting. Fundamentally, early voting requires access to postal services to receive and return an early ballot by-mail, as well as the ability to travel to an early in-person voting site. The irregular mail delivery operations and long traveling distances common throughout Indian Country suggests that systems of early voting lack viability on reservation lands. This research asks how the costs of voting for Native Americans affects their participation in systems of early voting. To investigate this relationship, I elucidate the social, economic, cultural, political, and geographic factors that render political participation more difficult for Native Americans. By comparing voter turnout in the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections among reservation voters on the Navajo Nation to non-reservation voters in Apache, Navajo, and Coconino counties in Arizona, I find that reservation voters prefer to vote in-person on election day while non-reservation voters prefer to vote early. I also find that early voting turnout among reservation voters increased between 2012 and 2016, however, further analysis demonstrated that turnout was higher in reservation precincts with greater access to postal services. These findings illuminate our knowledge of the convenience of early voting and add to our specific understanding of the factors that affect Native American political participation. / Master of Arts / Early voting has become a popular alternative to the civic tradition of voting in-person at polling places on election day. During the 2016 presidential election, millions of American voters cast their ballots early, either by-mail or at early voting sites. These expanded opportunities for participation allow voters to avoid the hassle of large crowds and restrictive hours at the polls. Proponents claim that by making the voting process easier, early voting also increases voter turnout, yet anecdotal evidence suggests that the convenience of early voting is not enjoyed equally by all voters. Instead, Native American voters are at a likely disadvantage with regard to early voting due to the irregular mail delivery operations and long traveling distances common on reservation lands. Of course, access to mail and transportation are required to vote by-mail and early in-person. This research asks how the costs of voting for Native Americans affects their participation in systems of early voting. To investigate this question, I examine the costs of voting and voter turnout for reservation voters on the Navajo Nation compared to non-reservation voters in Apache, Navajo, and Coconino counties in Arizona. I find that political participation manifests differently for both groups; reservation voters prefer to vote in-person on election day and non-reservation voters prefer to vote early. Although it was significantly higher among non-reservation voters, early voting turnout increased among reservation voters between the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections. However, further analysis demonstrated that turnout is affected by proximity to post offices or other postal service providers. These findings suggest that Native American political participation is made more difficult by social, economic, cultural, political, and geographic barriers and that reforms to make the voting process easier do not reduce these costs of voting.

Public bureaucracy finds itself in a strange place at the intersection of political science and public administration. Political science finds that, within representative democracy, discretion granted to bureaucrats threatens the nature of democracy by subverting politicians who represent the will of the people – bureaucracy vs democracy. At the same time, public administration holds that, in the interest of promoting democracy, bureaucracy should be objective in its implementation of policy in a way that eliminates the influence of politics from decision-making – politics vs bureaucracy. Those positions are seemingly contradictory in nature. From one perspective, bureaucracy is undemocratic because it is outside of politics, yet an overreach of politics into the bureaucracy yields undemocratic outcomes. Bureaucracy can facilitate democracy outside of politics. This study looks to empirically test whether local bureaucrats, who should be willing to act in-line with influential co-partisans, might still promote democratic outcomes for their constituents with their discretionary decision-making. Florida provides an empirical backdrop for testing bureaucracy’s impact on democracy with a natural experimental scenario created with the passing of new early voting limitations in 2011. Florida’s Republican (R) lawmakers passed House Bill 1355 (HB 1355), which was signed into law by Governor Scott (R), that dramatically limited the early voting days allowed for federal elections. HB 1355 changed the early voting (EV) period from fourteen (14) days to eight (8) days and eliminated the last Sunday before Election Day as well. The move was widely seen as a political calculation aimed at stifling the participation of Democrats in the 2012 General Election. In seeming lockstep, local Supervisors of Elections (SOEs) from both parties utilized their statutory discretion over the location of early voting sites to alter the distribution of sites before the 2012 General Election. I find that Republican SOEs did not distribute early voting locations in a way that negatively impacted early voting participation rates (EVPR) for their local precincts. Furthermore, I find that, all else equal, their decisions did not statistically impact EVPR differently than the EVPR in communities managed by Democrats. Republican SOEs did not add new costs to voters in their communities. I provide new evidence that demonstrates that bureaucrats can indeed limit the impact of undue politics from their influential co-partisans to promote more democratic outcomes.