Election administration and the wide variance in election policies and methods of voting across the states likely received more media and public attention in 2020 than in any year since 2000. In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, states were forced to make decisions about how, when, and where voters would be able to cast a ballot. States that traditionally only allowed in-person voting were looking to states that had long used vote-by-mail (VBM) to help them develop policies quickly. Politicians and pundits argued that changing the way voters were allowed to cast a ballot, especially increasing voting hours or sending everyone a mail ballot, could have an effect on the results, increasing turnout among voters who may not have turned out otherwise. Released just before the 2020 election, Accessible Elections: How the States Can Help Americans Vote, by Michael Ritter and Caroline J. Tolbert, shows that this is certainly possible and demonstrates that similar voting reforms over the past two decades have had positive effects on turnout, including among traditionally disadvantaged groups. Their book provides important insights and empirical evidence of how, through policy, states can help Americans vote—if that is their goal.

Ritter and Tolbert begin by candidly discussing how American elections reinforce two-tiered pluralism through a system of exclusionary voting laws and norms; they note that state election practices can pose barriers to historically disadvantaged groups based on race and ethnicity as well as economic class (p. 4), while also acknowledging that over the last 50 years states have been quietly (and sometimes not so quietly) adopting election reforms aimed at making voting easier and more accessible. A few states stand out as early adopters or innovators of election reforms, such as Minnesota, which adopted same-day voter registration in 1974, and Oregon, which moved to all VBM elections in 2000. These two states also routinely lead the nation in voter turnout. Is it because they have created more accessible elections? And has that turnout been high across all demographic groups and turned nonvoters into voters, or do these reforms actually exaggerate preexisting voting gaps? Those are some of the key questions motivating this research.

Most existing analyses of state election reforms (especially voter convenience reforms, which include same-day voter registration, in-person early voting, and VBM or no-excuse absentee voting) focus on a single state or on a single reform or set of reforms across states, thereby ignoring the quality of election administration across the states. Ritter and Tolbert add to our understanding of the effects of election reforms by combining or “bundling” measures of election reforms and the quality of election administration for each state. This combination is what they call their measure of “accessible elections” (p. 17). They create an index of election reforms using the three voter convenience reforms mentioned earlier and the MIT/Pew Election Performance Index (EPI) to account for the quality of election administration within each state. To study turnout and predict individual-level voting decisions, they use a sample of 2.4 million registered voters and nonvoters drawn from the 50-state national voter file compiled by Catalist. They also include Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) data from 2010–14 to understand the role of mobilization in increasing turnout. The quality and variety of data sources, using verified vote history, strengthen the reliability and generalizability of the results.

The analysis begins in chapter 4 by looking at the impact of voting laws and election administration on turnout in midterm and presidential elections. The panel data with vote history allow the use of lagged models, or “change” models, by election type for the 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016 elections, thereby accounting for both midterm and presidential years. Because the adoption of many voting reforms occurred during these years, Ritter and Tolbert can test whether a change in state policy results in turning a nonvoter into a voter and whether the results are consistent across states. They find that same-day registration is likely to draw in new voters, regardless of the type of election, and that early voting and absentee/VBM can increase turnout even among previous nonvoters in midterm elections, though it may be conditional on the election performance in the state. This is an interesting and important contribution to the academic literature, but it is also useful information for election officials and policy makers who have to consider the potential effects of adopting new policies, especially in traditionally low-turnout midterm elections.

In chapters 5 and 6, Ritter and Tolbert add significantly to our understanding of whether election reforms and the quality of election administration increase turnout for those who have historically been disenfranchised or disadvantaged when it comes to voting. In chapter 5 they examine turnout among the poor, who traditionally turn out at lower rates than upper- or middle-income individuals, and in chapter 6 they examine impacts on racial and ethnic minorities. They present many interesting findings and show that there are mixed results, but one result that stands out and is consistent across all groups is that same-day registration has a significant, positive impact on turnout.

In their final substantive chapter, they move away from verified voting data and turnout to examine how voting and election reforms might influence the mobilization efforts of campaigns in the states. Ritter and Tolbert find that “election reform laws and election administration influence campaign decisions to recruit more citizens to become voters” (p. 134); however, there is variance by election type and by which types of reforms are adopted. This is an interesting and important contribution to the election administration literature, which often ignores the role of campaigns.

Although the book answers important questions about turnout, especially in the examination of historically low-turnout or disadvantaged groups, there are some questions that remain. One major voter convenience reform that is left out of the analysis is the adoption and use of voter convenience centers, which replace the precinct model. Vote centers make elections more accessible by allowing voters to vote anywhere in their county, not limiting them to one specific location. It is possible this reform was left out because there is often (but not always) within-state variation; however, this would have been a useful addition, because there are mixed results on their effect on turnout. There is also no examination of how convenience reforms might have unequal or contrasting impacts among rural and urban voters. Finally, there are several variables such as age and gender that are included in the models but are not examined in detail.

Overall, Accessible Elections advances our knowledge on the effects of voter convenience reforms in important ways, making it a must read for anyone already working in elections or election administration. This book would also be an excellent choice for someone who wants to learn more about the extant literature on election administration or election reform: it offers a comprehensive review of existing scholarship and a good overview of this body of work for those unfamiliar with some of the existing terms and measures, such as the Election Performance Index. Finally, the writing is straightforward and clear, which would make it a terrific addition to any election administration syllabus.