AP Syllabus focus:
‘Structural barriers—such as polling hours and access to absentee ballots—can help explain differences in voter turnout in the United States.’
Voting in the United States is not equally convenient everywhere. Differences in election administration can raise or lower the practical “cost” of voting, producing predictable gaps in turnout across places and populations.
Structural barriers: what they are and why they matter
Structural barriers: Institutional and logistical features of election administration (how, when, and where voting occurs) that make voting more or less accessible, apart from a voter’s preferences or motivation.
Structural barriers matter because voting is time-sensitive and procedure-bound. When the process becomes slower, farther away, less predictable, or less available outside a narrow window, more eligible voters fail to cast a ballot—even if they want to participate.
Key structural barriers that shape turnout
Polling hours and timing constraints
Polling hours determine how much flexibility voters have to vote outside work, school, caregiving, or commuting schedules.
This chart shows when precincts most often experience their longest lines relative to the time polls open, with a large spike at “Hour 0” (opening time). The pattern helps explain why limited polling windows can create congestion: many voters arrive at the same time, producing delays that raise the time cost of voting. It also visualizes a secondary peak later in the day that can coincide with after-work voting surges. Source
Limited hours concentrate voting into shorter windows, increasing congestion and wait times.
Election Day-only emphasis can disadvantage voters with inflexible schedules, unpredictable shifts, or multiple jobs.
Few evening/weekend options heighten the opportunity cost of voting for hourly workers and caregivers.
Physical access to in-person voting
Where voting occurs affects both travel time and the likelihood of long lines.
Fewer polling places can increase average distance to vote and produce overcrowding.
Poor public transportation access can function as an indirect barrier in urban and suburban areas.
Accessibility obstacles (parking, building access, inadequate disability accommodations) can disproportionately reduce participation among elderly and disabled voters.
Wait times and administrative capacity
This figure compares average in-person Election Day wait times across states in 2014 and 2018, illustrating how administrative capacity can shape the voting experience. States with longer average waits signal higher time costs for voters, which can discourage participation among those with less flexible schedules. The two-year comparison highlights that these burdens can shift substantially between election cycles. Source
Even with legal access, practical access depends on capacity.
Understaffing and insufficient voting machines increase wait times.
Inadequate funding can reduce the number of locations, workers, or language assistance resources.
Unplanned disruptions (machine breakdowns, ballot shortages, last-minute site changes) create uncertainty that deters participation, especially for voters with tight schedules.
Access to absentee ballots (and related alternatives)
The syllabus highlights access to absentee ballots as a core example of how structure affects turnout.
This map summarizes which states allow no-excuse absentee/mail voting versus states with more restrictive absentee eligibility. Because absentee access affects how easily voters can participate when they cannot vote in person, the map visualizes a major structural barrier that varies across the federal system. It helps connect policy design (rules and eligibility) to likely differences in turnout across states. Source
Restrictive eligibility rules (requiring specific excuses) can exclude voters who cannot easily appear in person but do not meet formal categories.
Complex request procedures (multiple forms, narrow application windows) add steps where voters may drop off.
Delivery and return constraints (deadlines, limited drop-off options) can raise the risk that a ballot is never received or not counted in time.
How structural barriers translate into lower turnout
Structural barriers reduce turnout by raising the “costs” of voting in practical, predictable ways:
Time costs: travel time, line length, and time spent navigating procedures.
Financial costs: transportation, childcare, or lost wages for taking time off.
Uncertainty costs: fear of being turned away, missing deadlines, or arriving at the wrong place.
Cognitive load: keeping track of requirements and steps when rules or locations change.
Even small increases in these costs can shift marginal voters (those least able to spare time or money) from voting to not voting, widening turnout gaps between communities.
Unequal effects across voters and communities
Because structural barriers interact with people’s resources, they often produce unequal turnout:
Lower-income and hourly workers are more sensitive to long waits and limited polling hours because time away from work is costly.
Students and highly mobile populations are more affected by location changes and logistical complexity.
Rural voters may face longer travel distances when polling locations are consolidated.
Voters with disabilities or limited mobility are especially affected by physical access and transportation constraints.
Caregivers are more impacted by narrow voting windows and unpredictable line lengths.
These patterns help explain why turnout differs across states, counties, and even neighborhoods, independent of partisan preferences or campaign intensity.
FAQ
They compare similar voters across different administrative settings and use natural experiments (e.g., polling-place changes) to isolate process costs from attitudes.
Not always. Effects depend on whether added hours occur when constrained voters can use them, and whether staffing and equipment prevent queues during peak times.
Rules and procedures can add required steps, deadlines, and eligibility limits; these features determine whether absentee voting is realistically available to eligible voters.
Common methods include voter surveys, administrative reports, and time-stamped observational data; studies often model how average wait time correlates with participation rates.
Yes. Reducing a single friction point (extra form, limited drop-off sites, poor signage) can increase completion rates among marginal voters who are most sensitive to time and uncertainty.
Practice Questions
Identify two structural barriers that can reduce voter turnout, and briefly explain how each barrier can lower turnout. (2 marks)
1 mark: Identifies a valid structural barrier (e.g., limited polling hours; limited access to absentee ballots; long queues due to few polling places).
1 mark: Explains how it lowers turnout (e.g., increases time cost; creates scheduling conflicts; makes voting physically harder; adds procedural steps).
A county reduces the number of polling places and keeps polling hours unchanged, while also tightening access to absentee ballots. Explain two likely effects on turnout and analyse which groups are most likely to be affected. Propose one administrative change that could mitigate the turnout decline. (6 marks)
2 marks: Two effects explained (1+1), e.g., longer travel/queues; higher opportunity costs; more voters unable to vote due to time constraints.
2 marks: Group analysis (1+1), e.g., hourly workers, low-income voters, disabled voters, rural voters, caregivers—linked to the barrier.
2 marks: One mitigation proposed and justified, e.g., extend polling hours, add polling sites, expand absentee eligibility, increase staffing—explains how it reduces the barrier.
