AP Syllabus focus:
‘State-controlled election rules—polling hours, voter ID laws, and funding for polling places—can influence voter turnout.’
State governments play a central role in running elections. Variation in administrative rules can raise or lower the practical “costs” of voting, shaping who participates and how consistently different groups turn out.
Federalism and election administration
Under federalism, states have primary responsibility for administering elections (with important federal constraints). This decentralisation means turnout can differ across states even when the same offices are on the ballot.
This choropleth map displays voter turnout rates by state in the 2020 election, illustrating substantial interstate variation in participation. In federalism terms, it provides an accessible visual bridge between state-level election administration and different turnout outcomes across the country. Source
Voter turnout: The proportion of eligible or registered voters who cast a ballot in an election.
State rules influence turnout by changing:
Time costs (how long voting takes, how hard it is to fit into work/family schedules)
Information costs (how much voters must know to comply with procedures)
Compliance costs (documents, travel, or steps required to successfully vote)
Perceived barriers (whether voters expect difficulty or risk being turned away)
Polling hours and turnout
What “polling hours” decisions include
States (often through statutes implemented by local election officials) determine core features of in-person Election Day access, including:
Poll opening and closing times
Whether hours are uniform statewide or vary by county/precinct
Rules for lines at closing time (e.g., whether voters already in line may vote)
How hours shape participation
Polling hours affect turnout by changing how easily voters can vote around fixed obligations.
Longer or more flexible hours can reduce scheduling conflicts for hourly workers, caretakers, and commuters.
Shorter or less flexible hours can increase congestion and waiting times, especially where turnout surges or staffing is limited.
When hours are not well-matched to local work patterns, the result can be unequal access across communities even within the same state.
Distributional effects
Administrative choices rarely burden all groups equally. Constraints on polling hours tend to matter more for voters who:
Have less job flexibility (shift workers, multiple jobs)
Lack reliable transport
Face higher opportunity costs for time spent waiting
Voter ID laws and turnout
What voter ID laws require
Voter ID laws are state rules requiring voters to present specified identification to receive a regular ballot.
Key design choices include:
Strict vs. non-strict enforcement (whether voters without ID must take additional steps after Election Day)
Photo vs. non-photo ID requirements
Which IDs qualify (driver’s licences, student IDs, tribal IDs, etc.)
Availability of alternatives (affidavits, provisional ballots, or other verification methods)
Mechanisms affecting turnout
Voter ID laws can influence turnout through both direct and indirect pathways:
Direct compliance burden: voters lacking acceptable ID may be unable to vote a regular ballot or may not complete follow-up steps.
Administrative friction: inconsistent implementation across polling places can increase error and discourage future voting.
Deterrence and uncertainty: some eligible voters may stay home if they are unsure what ID is required or fear being turned away.
Policy debate relevant to turnout
States justify voter ID rules as promoting election integrity and voter confidence. Critics argue the laws can create disproportionate barriers for groups less likely to possess qualifying ID (for example, lower-income voters, the elderly, students, and some racial/ethnic minorities). Courts have generally allowed voter ID requirements if states can show legitimate interests and voters retain reasonable access, but the practical turnout effects depend heavily on the exact policy design and implementation.
Funding for polling places and turnout
What “funding” shapes on Election Day
States influence turnout by how they fund and resource election administration, including:
Number and location of polling places
Poll worker recruitment, training, and pay
Voting equipment, maintenance, and ballot supplies
Language assistance, accessibility, and compliance support
Turnout effects of under- or uneven funding
Funding determines capacity.
This figure summarizes observed polling-place wait times, showing that most locations have short waits while a minority experience much longer delays. It concretely illustrates how capacity constraints (poll workers, check-in stations, machines, and ballot-processing steps) can translate into higher time costs for voters—and therefore lower turnout for some communities. Source
Capacity constraints often show up as:
Fewer polling sites or reduced service levels, which can increase travel distance
Long lines and wait times, which raise time costs and can cause voters to leave without voting
Greater risk of administrative breakdowns (equipment issues, staffing shortages), which can reduce trust and depress participation over time
Because local election offices frequently implement state rules with varied resources, unequal funding can produce unequal voting experiences, affecting both immediate turnout and longer-run willingness to participate.
How to connect the three rules (what exam answers should show)
To explain how state election rules shape turnout, link each rule to a clear participation mechanism:
Polling hours → scheduling feasibility and waiting times
Voter ID laws → eligibility verification steps, deterrence, and administrative friction
Funding → capacity (polling place supply, staffing, equipment) that determines how costly voting is in practice
FAQ
Acceptable ID lists are set by state law and can include or exclude common documents (e.g., student or tribal IDs). Broader lists reduce compliance burdens; narrower lists increase the chance eligible voters lack qualifying ID.
Strict systems typically require extra post-election steps if a voter lacks ID (often causing ballots not to count). Non-strict systems more often allow alternatives at the polling place, reducing drop-off.
Location affects travel time, transport access, and queue length. If sites are concentrated away from certain neighbourhoods, the time cost rises and some voters may be discouraged from voting.
Funding can increase:
polling stations and check-in points
trained poll workers
functioning equipment and ballot capacity
More capacity reduces bottlenecks that otherwise raise the time cost of voting.
Not always. States often set baseline rules, while counties administer elections with discretion over staffing, site selection, and resource allocation. This can create within-state turnout differences tied to administration quality.
Practice Questions
Explain one way that state-controlled polling hours can influence voter turnout. (2 marks)
1 mark: Identifies a relevant mechanism (e.g., longer hours reduce scheduling conflicts; shorter hours increase waiting times).
1 mark: Applies it to turnout (e.g., fewer conflicts/shorter waits increase likelihood of voting; longer waits reduce likelihood).
Analyse how state voter ID laws and state funding for polling places can each affect voter turnout. (6 marks)
1 mark: Accurate explanation of a turnout mechanism for voter ID laws.
1 mark: Develops voter ID explanation with a specific feature (strictness, acceptable IDs, deterrence/uncertainty, follow-up steps).
1 mark: Connects voter ID to likely turnout change for affected voters.
1 mark: Accurate explanation of a turnout mechanism for funding (capacity/lines/sites/staffing).
1 mark: Develops funding explanation (polling place closures, long queues, equipment, training, unequal local resources).
1 mark: Connects funding to likely turnout change and notes unequal impacts across communities.
