Generally, the voters who typically need rides to the polls include the elderly, people with disabilities, the working poor and/or homeless individuals who do not live or work within walking distance from their registered jurisdiction. The free rides offered by civic engagement groups may be the only opportunity for that person to get to the polls and vote. Occasionally, first time voters request rides because they either don’t know their polling location or they want someone to accompany them and to affirmation their first voting experience. Each ride to the poll has a compelling story that is a powerful tool for further volunteer engagement. Everyone remembers taking a first time voter to the polls, and the volunteer will identify that positive experience with the civic engagement group. Finally, successfully promoting the ride service also promotes the voter engagement organization.

A successful ride program requires three elements: people who need rides, volunteer drivers with safe and reliable cars, and an organized ride coordinator who is familiar with the local geography. This document assumes that the ride coordinator completes or delegates all of the tasks outlined in this document.

First, draft a document that clearly identifies the program’s specific goals. Consider the number of ride requests, the location of those requests, and the number of volunteers required. Then identify all of the volunteer needs. In some cases, you may even want to write job descriptions for volunteers that have significant leadership roles.

Once you know your volunteer needs, then you must promote those needs at every opportunity. Incorporate volunteer outreach into community and organizational meetings, festivals, and other gatherings. Seek out volunteers through canvass operations, Public Service Announcements (radio, TV and the online), relevant blogs, social networks, listservs, and bulletin boards (both traditional cork boards and online postings). Approach your network of allies, community groups, and local businesses. Spread the gospel of Election Day volunteerism so that every phone has a caller, every clipboard has a hand, and every ride has a driver.

As volunteers come forward, it is essential to maintain clear, detailed and updated records. Show their contact information including cell phone number and email address. Ask how they learned about the volunteer opportunity and note for what job they volunteered. For ride program volunteers find out what time they are available on Election Day, how many seats their car holds, if they have special tools or skills (such as a GPS device), needs (cannot drive after sundown), or peeves (does not like children). Consider partnering with a disability rights group that has access to a wheelchair accessible vehicle.

It is helpful to host a few driver trainings to review Election Day expectations and voting rights and election protection procedures. Prepare driver information packets that include voter protection information, maps of the driving region, information about the civic engagement group, and a flyer about the group’s next event after Election Day. Also include a memo that reminds drivers to wear weather appropriate clothes, bring their cell phone, GPS device, and other useful tools. Suggest that they share something about themselves with the riders to help spur conversation. Bring a camera for documentation purposes, a cooler with water and snacks (in some cases this is an opportunity to feed someone who does not eat on a regular basis), reading materials and folding chairs — in anticipation of long voting lines.

Rides are typically requested through phone and door-to-door voter education canvasses, community groups such as senior centers, and ally organizations. Ride request forms should include space for the following information: The rider’s name, phone or other contact information, registration address, pick up location, number of people being picked up, two hour time range for the pick up, and the poll location. Finally, the request form should list the lead coordinator’s name, mobile number, and meet-up address. Quality control is essential. Use online, government databases to confirm that each request comes from a registered voter. If any problems arise it will be identified and solved before Election Day.

Next, print out a Google map that shows directions from the voter pick up location to the polling place and, in some cases, the drop off location if it’s different from the pick up. Make a copy of the completed ride request form and map. One copy will go out with the driver while to other one will stay with the ride coordinator.

The Monday before Election Day, organize the requests by pickup time slot. Within each time slot group the requests by either the pick up point, polling location, and/or drop off point (geographic familiarity is very useful at this point). Set aside rides with special instructions for drivers who have the ability to support those special requests. Identify a support ride coordinator for Election Day who can help verify voter information and print out maps when the lead coordinator is absorbed with other duties. However every leader should know how to fill out and verify the ride request forms.

It is best that volunteers come to the Election Day meeting spot to receive their first batch of rides. Give each driver either a batch of five to seven “easy” rides requests or three to five “special” ride requests with particular notes. Write the driver’s name and mobile phone number on the ride request copy that will stay with the coordinator. This will be very helpful when troubleshooting problems that arise when drivers are on the road.

Sometime between the Wednesday after Election Day and the following Monday, document the outcome of the ride program and thank all volunteers. Also hold a debrief with the staff and (if possible) the lead volunteers. Talk about what worked, what could be done better, and assign next steps. Write it all down and refer to it next Election Day so that the program constantly improves. Finally, share all of your Election Day outcomes with members, volunteers, coalition partners, funders, and the media.

When coordinating a ride program, flexibility is key. Pairing riders and drivers is an art, not a science. However, instituting a good system will almost organically pair the riders and drivers. A successful ride to the polls program will boost voter turnout. It will also increase the voter engagement group’s name recognition and mission with potential volunteers, community leaders, the media, civic engagement funders and most important, the people the program directly serves.

Maude D. Bauschard
Political Organizer

Mobile: 202-256-2446
Web: http://www.Maude-Bauschard.info

* Domestic discretionary budget & appropriations
* Field & online program management
* Research & writing for grassroots audiences

One way to avoid train wrecks here is to eliminate as much confusion as possible regarding what the law is and what considerations are key to enforcement decisions. In June 2007, the IRS issued some pretty clear guidelines in the form of 21 “situations” or enforcement scenarios where 501(c)(3) organizational activities either complied with or violated IRS rules. Presumably, these situations were selected because they clarify IRS rules that 501(c)(3) groups often perceive as unclear or confusing. Although we strongly recommend that you read all of the “situations” in the Internal Revenue Bulletin, we present four excerpted examples here to give you a sense of the value of this bulletin. Excerpted text from the Internal Revenue Bulletin is italicized below.

Voter Education, Voter Registration and Get Out the Vote Drives

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are permitted to conduct certain voter education activities (including the presentation of public forums and the publication of voter education guides) if they are carried out in a non-partisan manner. In addition, section 501(c)(3) organizations may encourage people to participate in the electoral process through voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, conducted in a non-partisan manner. On the other hand, voter education or registration activities conducted in a biased manner that favors (or opposes) one or more candidates is prohibited.

. . . Situation 2. C is a section 501(c)(3) organization that educates the public on environmental issues. Candidate G is running for the state legislature and an important element of her platform is challenging the environmental policies of the incumbent. Shortly before the election, C sets up a telephone bank to call registered voters in the district in which Candidate G is seeking election. In the phone conversations, C’s representative tells the voter about the importance of environmental issues and asks questions about the voter’s views on these issues. If the voter appears to agree with the incumbent’s position, C’s representative thanks the voter and ends the call. If the voter appears to agree with Candidate G’s position, C’s repres entative reminds the voter about the upcoming election, stresses the importance of voting in the election and offers to provide transportation to the polls. C is engaged in political campaign intervention when it conducts this get-out-the-vote drive.

Individual Activity by Organization Leaders

The political campaign intervention prohibition is not intended to restrict free expression on political matters by leaders of organizations speaking for themselves, as individuals. Nor are leaders prohibited from speaking about important issues of public policy. However, for their organizations to remain tax exempt under section 501(c)(3), leaders cannot make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official functions of the organization.

. . . Situation 6. Chairman D is the chairman of the Board of Directors of M, a section 501(c)(3) organization that educates the public on conservation issues. During a regular meeting of M shortly before the election, Chairman D spoke on a number of issues, including the importance of voting in the upcoming election, and concluded by stating, “It is important that you all do your duty in the election and vote for Candidate W.” Because Chairman D’s remarks indicating support for Candidate W were made during an official organization meeting, they constitute political campaign intervention by M.

Issue Advocacy vs. Political Campaign Intervention

. . . A communication is particularly at risk of political campaign intervention when it makes reference to candidates or voting in a specific upcoming election. Nevertheless, the communication must still be considered in context before arriving at any conclusions.

Situation 14. University O, a section 501(c)(3) organization, prepares and finances a full page newspaper advertisement that is published in several large circulation newspapers in State V shortly before an election in which Senator C is a candidate for nomination in a party primary. Senator C represents State V in the United States Senate. The advertisement states that S. 24, a pending bill in the United States Senate, would provide additional opportunities for State V residents to attend college, but Senator C has opposed similar measures in the past. The advertisement ends with the statement “Call or write Senator C to tell him to vote for S. 24.” Educational issues have not been raised as an issue distinguishing Senator C from any opponent. S. 24 is scheduled for a vote in the United States Senate before the election, soon after the date that the advertisement is published in the newspapers. Even though the advertisement appears shortly before the election and identifies Senator C’s position on the issue as contrary to O’s position, University O has not violated the political campaign intervention prohibition because the advertisement does not mention the election or the candidacy of Senator C, education issues have not been raised as distinguishing Senator C from any opponent, and the timing of the advertisement and the identification of Senator C are directly related to the specifically identified legislation University O is supporting and appears immediately before the United States Senate is scheduled to vote on that particular legislation. The candidate identified, Senator C, is an officeholder who is in a position to vote on the legislation.

Business Activity

The question of whether an activity constitutes participation or intervention in a political campaign may also arise in the context of a business activity of the organization, such as selling or renting of mailing lists, the leasing of office space, or the acceptance of paid political advertising.

…Situation 18. Theater L is a section 501(c)(3) organization. It maintains a mailing list of all of its subscribers and contributors. Theater L has never rented its mailing list to a third party. Theater L is approached by the campaign committee of Candidate Q, who supports increased funding for the arts. Candidate Q’s campaign committee offers to rent Theater L’s mailing list for a fee that is comparable to fees charged by other similar organizations. Theater L rents its mailing list to Candidate Q’s campaign committee. Theater L declines similar requests from campaign committees of other candidates. Theater L has intervened in a political campaign. VCM

For the complete text of Internal Revenue Bulletin: 2007-25 please see: http://www.irs.gov/irb/2007-25_irb/ar09.html

Winnett Hagens is the Executive Director of Democracy South and Managing Editor of Voter Contact Magazine.

The U.S. Census Bureau gives some insight into the varying registration and voting rates for various demographic segments of the population. They provide this insight through a supplement of the Current Population Survey (CPS). The CPS is a monthly survey of about 50,000 households conducted by the Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. After every presidential and congressional election year the Census Bureau performs a special survey and creates a useful supplement known as the Current Population Survey Voting and Registration Supplement. The CPS Voting and Registration Supplement , which surveys the civilian noninstitutional population in the United States — both voting and non-voting persons.

Although the supplement captures several interesting socioeconomic rates related to voting, we have decided to present you with several excerpts from the most recent supplement. It is important to note that this particular supplement comes from the November 2004 election. Therefore, the survey was taken after a presidential election and, consequently, the voting rates most likely will not be compatible with the voting rates of off-year elections. Excerpted text from the supplement is italicized below.

Race and Hispanic Origin

The likelihood of registering and voting differed among racial groups and Hispanics. Non-Hispanic Whites had the highest registration rate at 75 percent. Sixty-nine percent of Blacks, 52 percent of Asians, and 58 percent of Hispanics were registered to vote in 2004.

Non-Hispanic White citizens had the highest level of voter turnout in the November 2004 election — 67 percent, followed by Black citizens at 60 percent, Hispanic citizens at 47 percent, and Asian citizens at 44 percent.

Citizenship is especially important in the consideration of racial and ethnic differences in voting rates. Immigration has contributed to different proportions of noncitizens in various groups — 2 percent of non-Hispanic Whites were not citizens, compared with 6 percent of Blacks, 33 percent of Asians, and 41 percent of Hispanics (of any race) in 2004. Thus, voting rates based on the voting-age population and the voting-age citizen population differ the most for the latter two groups… The voting rate for both Asians and Hispanics was about 28 percent of the voting-age population, and 44 percent and 47 percent, respectively, of the voting-age citizen population in each group.

A key to voter turnout is registration, as the majority of registered voters among all racial and ethnic groups voted in the 2004 election. Among the registered citizen population—89 percent of non-Hispanic Whites, 87 percent of Blacks, 85 percent of Asians, and 82 percent of Hispanics voted.

Age

A key difference between these age groups was registration. While 79 percent of citizens 55 years and older were registered to vote in 2004, 58 percent of the younger citizens were. Young adults, especially people in their twenties, are the most transient, which may lead to lower levels of registration because moving usually requires re-registering.

While young adults had the lowest voting and registration rates in 2004, they had the largest increase in both rates since the 2000 presidential election compared with all other age groups. The registration rate for 18- to 24-year-old citizens increased 7 percentage points and the voting rate increased 11 percentage points between the 2000 and 2004 elections.

Marital Status

Marital status is also associated with registration and voting patterns. In 2004, married individuals had the highest rate of voter registration at 78 percent. Married individuals had a higher voting rate (71 percent) than widowed (62 percent), divorced (58 percent), separated (48 percent), or never married individuals (52 percent). Separated and never married individuals are generally younger, which may influence their voting patterns.

While married women had virtually the same registration rate as married men (about 77 percent), they had a higher voting rate (71 percent compared with 70 percent). Women who were not married had higher registration and voting rates (69 percent and 59 percent, respectively) than men who were not married (61 percent and 50 percent, respectively).

Educational Attainment

At each successive level of educational attainment, registration and voting rates increased. The voting rate of citizens who had a bachelor’s degree (78 percent) was about twice as high as that of citizens who had not completed high school (40 percent).

Younger adults overall had low voting rates; however, some subgroups of this population had relatively high voting rates… young adults with at least a bachelor’s degree had a higher voting rate (67 percent) than young adults with lower levels of educational attainment (25 percent to 57 percent). Young adults with at least a bachelor’s degree also had a higher voting rate than 25- to 44-year-old adults with some college education (64 percent) and 45- to 64-year-old adults whose highest level of attainment was high school graduate (63 percent).

Income and Employment Status

Citizens with higher incomes were more likely to register and to vote. The voting rate among citizens living in families with annual incomes of $50,000 or more was 77 percent, compared with 48 percent for citizens living in families with incomes under $20,000.

Employment status is another key indicator of voting participation. In the 2004 presidential election, 66 percent of employed citizens reported voting, compared with 51 percent of those who were in the labor force but not employed. Citizens who were not in the labor force, a group that included many retired people, had a voter participation rate of 61 percent.

For the complete Census Bureau’s CPS Voting and Registration Supplement report visit:

http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voting.html

Anthony E. Fairfax is Senior Technical Consultant for Democracy South, and Associate Editor of Voter Contact Magazine and cofounder of AdCast Inc, a target marketing company specializing in digital signage.

Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) in 1993 to make voter registration more accessible and to increase the number of eligible citizens voting in U.S. elections. The most well-known of its provisions, “motor voter,” requires states to offer voter registration in conjunction with driver’s license applications. Importantly however, a lesser known provision of the NVRA requires voter registration to be offered to clients of public assistance agencies. Specifically, the opportunity to register must be offered to all individuals applying for, recertifying, or changing their address with respect to federal benefits such as Food Stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid, and the nutritional program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). Congress included the agency-based registration requirements to reach those least likely to visit motor vehicle departments. The NVRA remains the only federal law requiring the government to affirmatively offer voter registration to low-income and disabled citizens.

Unfortunately, recent research indicates that states across the country are failing to offer voter registration at public assistance agencies. According to a new report by Dēmos and Project Vote, registrations from public assistance agencies declined by 79 percent since 1995, when the law was first implemented. Field investigations, client surveys, and statistical analysis strongly indicate that this decline is largely due to the states’ non-compliance with the law.

The good news is that, by implementing simple procedures, states can dramatically increase the number of low-income citizens registering to vote at public assistance agencies. For example, working with Dēmos and its partners, North Carolina’s State Board of Elections advised agencies of their responsibilities, identified NVRA coordinators for each county office, enhanced the training program, and instituted a system for tracking and monitoring agency compliance. As a result of the change in procedures, public assistance agencies experienced a five-fold increase in the average number of clients completing voter registration applications each month – increasing from 484 to 2,529. Thus, between January and August 2007, North Carolina’s agencies collected voter registration applications from more than 20,000 low-income individuals – more than these agencies registered in the preceding two years combined. Like North Carolina, Tennessee also improved its procedures (after a lawsuit by the U.S. Department of Justice) and remains a national leader in public assistance voter registration. In the two-year period 2005-2006, for example, Tennessee public assistance agencies submitted over 120,900 voter registration applications.

Election Day Registration (EDR) is another reform that eases the burden of voter registration and can help produce a more representative electorate. EDR allows eligible citizens to both register and vote on Election Day. Recent state-specific studies commissioned by Dēmos have projected substantial increases in voter turnout with EDR. In North Carolina, voting among African Americans could increase by almost 6 percentage points; a 9 percentage point increase was estimated for voters who have moved within the last six months. In Iowa, Latino turnout was projected to increase by 9 percentage points under EDR. In Colorado, turnout among the poorest citizens was estimated to increase by almost 7 percentage points.

Currently, the states of Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Wyoming all have some form of EDR. The opportunity for Americans to participate in the electoral process is greatly enhanced in these states. The six states with substantial Election Day Registration experience have consistently boasted turnout rates that are 10 to 12 percentage points higher than non-EDR states. In the 2006 mid-term election, over three-quarters of a million voters took advantage of EDR in the then-seven states that offered it.

Momentum for the passage of EDR has been growing in state legislatures across the country. Iowa, Montana, and North Carolina have all enacted Election Day Registration or similar procedures since 2005, and at least 19 other states saw legislative activity on EDR in 2006-2007. Election Day Registration is a proven and effective reform to reduce barriers to participation and increase voter turnout among historically disfranchised populations.

The requirement in most states that citizens must proactively register prior to an election is a significant burden most Americans must overcome to cast a ballot. Even more unfortunate is that registration requirements seem to disproportionately inhibit participation by low-income individuals and persons of color. A strong democracy requires equal access to voter registration across all segments of the population. State election and public assistance officials are encouraged to voluntarily adopt changes to improve compliance with the NVRA, state legislators are encouraged to support EDR legislation, and local advocacy organizations are encouraged to mount campaigns (1) to ensure that their local agencies are adequately complying with the NVRA, and (2) to pass EDR in their state legislatures. Full implementation of the National Voter Registration Act and adoption of Election Day Registration are two reforms with a proven potential to reduce barriers to participation and dramatically increase the participation of low-income citizens and persons of color in the political process.

On its face, voter ID seems like a sensible, modern update to the way we vote. After all, many of us are asked show photo ID to buy beer, rent a movie, or board a plane, so why not for something as important as voting?

First and foremost, voting is a fundamental right and not a mere luxury like the activities above. What is more, even beer, movies and airplanes don’t really require photo IDs. Although you may be asked to show a photo ID, many people can still engage in those activities if they don’t have it. As of July 2007, only one state (Tennessee) requires every customer, no matter how old, to show ID to purchase alcohol. Unmanned kiosks at several movie rental chains permit DVD rental without showing photo ID. And according to federal regulations, if you don’t have photo ID, you can still board an airplane if you submit to extra screening.

In the case of voting, restrictive requirements like Indiana’s have virtually no alternatives for citizens who don’t have IDs. Indiana claims that voters can always cast absentee ballots, where no ID is required, but absentee ballots are not a perfect substitute to voting on Election Day. In Indiana last year, absentee ballots from legitimate voters were not counted because an election official forgot to initial the envelopes before sending them out. In 2004, Florida mailed thousands of ballots too late for voters to cast them in time. And as many absentee voters in this year’s presidential primaries have found out, their votes are not as meaningful and effective as they intended because they voted for candidates who have since dropped out of the race.

Ultimately, if you don’t have the kind of ID requested and if you don’t get it on time, you can’t cast a ballot that will count – that is the core of the fight about voter ID.

One study found that 13 percent of registered Hoosiers do not have the ID required by state law. According to a national survey sponsored by the Brennan Center for Justice in 2006, more than 21 million people – 11 percent of voting-age citizens – lack government-issued photo ID. Low-income, elderly, and minority voters are less likely to have it. One quarter of African American voting-age citizens do not have current government-issued photo ID, and as many as 18 percent of citizens aged 18 to 24 – almost 4.5 million eligible voters – do not have their current name and address on their photo IDs.

Contrary to popular belief, obtaining such ID is no easy task. The underlying documents required to obtain photo ID can be expensive. Birth certificates cost $10 to $15. A U.S. passport – which only 25 to 27 percent of Americans currently possess – costs $100. Naturalization papers, if lost or damaged, cost $380. By contrast, the poll tax, when it was declared unconstitutional in 1966, was worth $9.57 in today’s dollars. In addition to all these costs, there’s no telling if you’ll get an ID in time to vote.

An amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court put faces to the disenfranchising impact of Indiana’s ID law. For Kim Tilman, a stay-at-home mother of seven whose husband provides the family’s sole source of income working as a janitor, Indiana’s ID law made voting unaffordable. Unable to use her expired Michigan driver’s license, it would have cost Ms. Tilman $26 to $50 to get an Indiana ID to vote – not an insubstantial expense for the Tilmans.

Ninety-two year old Mary Wayne Montgomery Eble was blocked from voting at the polling place she had visited for decades because of Indiana’s law – she had allowed her driver’s license to expire years ago when she stopped driving. Before Ms. Eble could even visit the nearest Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles office forty-five minutes away from her rural home to get an ID, she would have to get a certified record of her birth – but born at home, she was not certain any record exists.

The eligibility of Ms. Tilman and Ms. Eble are not in question; they simply cannot afford or are unable to obtain the ID required by Indiana law to vote. So for what reason could the state possibly justify imposing such an onerous requirement?

The fear of fraud.

The push for restrictive forms of ID has been accompanied by efforts to fan fears of voter fraud. The truth of the matter is that impersonation fraud – the only type of misconduct that photo ID requirements would address – is exceedingly rare. The reason is clear: what rational person would show up at the polls and pretend to be another registered voter for one incremental vote at the risk of up to $10,000 in fines and five years in prison? Unsurprisingly, not a single case of impersonation fraud at the polls was found in Indiana. Proven cases of impersonation fraud at the polls similarly fail to exist nationwide. However, the people who are blocked from voting by restrictive ID? They exist. The phantom fear of voter fraud is insufficient justification to make it more difficult to vote.

Crawford is a case to watch closely, as the Supreme Court’s ruling will have implications for voters and voter advocates. The very people assisted by voter advocates and targeted by get-out-the-vote efforts are the most likely to be turned away from the polls due to ID requirements. If the Supreme Court upholds the most restrictive ID requirement in the country, it will legitimize the use of the fear of voter fraud to enact other measures that restrict the right to vote. Restrictive measures will have a disproportionate negative impact on people who already face the greatest barriers to the ballot box and undo decades of voting rights advancement. Let’s hope that the Court recognizes what is at stake when ruling on the constitutionality of Indiana’s law. VCM

Margaret Chen is a Research Associate in the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.

A client subscribing to the Popvox service designates an administrator who receives 60 to 90 minutes of online training on the mechanics of uploading targeting lists, providing their survey scripts and contact result reporting forms, retrieving lists updated (enhanced) with contact results, and getting performance reports on each call agent. A trained administrator can create a questionnaire for any campaign where agents are able to collect information on each call. This makes it easy to gather all sorts of critical campaign information and append to the record of each voter contacted. In nonpartisan civic engagement campaigns, the system can be used to build very valuable lists of undecided or reluctant voters, voters needing registration forms or absentee ballots, voters needing rides to the polls, and voters wanting to volunteer for the campaign. Agents can also easily record email addresses.

One of the attractive features of the Popvox system is that it’s so easy for a computer literate person to become a call agent. Only four things are needed: (1) a computer, (2) Internet access, (3) a phone, and (4) some quiet space. No more scrambling for office space with enough phones to do a serious phone canvass. The virtual phone bank is as large as the number of agents or volunteers the campaign can recruit and support.

Call agents with computers and phones can simply log in to their online Popvox account from wherever they are. Building a network of volunteer call agents all working from the comfort of their homes is easy. The interface is so user-friendly that call agents need little or no preliminary training. After logging in, they connect to the Popvox call center by entering their 10 digit phone number. The call agent’s phone rings and, as they pick up, they are connected automatically to the call center – ready to place their first call with a click of the mouse. When a call is connected, the voter’s name and address appears on their computer monitor along with a campaign-specific script and questionnaire that the agent can use to record the voter’s responses when canvassing, recruiting, or surveying. If an answering machine or voicemail answers, agents can save time by leaving a pre-recorded celebrity message, or can start the voicemail off with their own personal introduction. During the USAction EF GOTV campaign one volunteer was overheard saying, “I love Popvox!”

Best of all, by minimizing the up-front investment required to use the Popvox predictive dialer system, Popvox is making predictive dialing both practical and affordable for campaigns. The Popvox service requires only a minimum start-up deposit of $500. This deposit stands as a credit line for subsequent calls priced at 15 cents per minute.

We contacted Maude Bauschard, who administered Popvox services for USAction EF in 2006 and asked her how well it worked. Her reply was that “it worked really well.” Popvox is expanding its infrastructure for a re-launch of services in Fall 2007. It’s good to see them growing, as somehow we think that in 2008 they will likely need the added capacity. Anyone interested in using Popvox should contact Direct Leap at www.directleap.com or call 416.405.8073 ext. #3 (sales). VCM

Dr. Donald Green

Our book GET OUT THE VOTE!: How To Increase Voter Turnout is designed to help partisan and nonpartisan voter mobilization campaigns make smart decisions when deciding how to allocate their resources. Campaigns have devised many tactics for encouraging voters to cast ballots: door-to-door canvassing, live and pre-recorded phone calls, leaflets, direct mail, e-mail, televised advertisements, Election Day festivals — the list goes on and on. Some, like pre-recorded phone calls and mass email, are inexpensive and reach large numbers of people instantly. Other tactics, like door-to-door canvassing and televised commercial messages, require advance planning and sometimes large start-up costs. The question is, which tactics actually work? And among those tactics that produce votes, which ones produce the most votes per dollar spent?

What sets this book apart from other campaign guides is the type of evidence used to answer these questions. The book is a compilation of experiments, each of which compares the turnout rates of two groups, one that was randomly assigned to receive a campaign’s treatment (direct mail, for example) and another that received nothing from the campaign. This style of evaluation has grown rapidly since the publication of the first edition, and the new edition summarizes the results of more than 100 randomized experiments.

Many of the conclusions from the first edition have been bolstered by the new wave of experimental evidence. Randomized experiments on the effectiveness of GOTV tactics such as door-to-door canvassing, phone calls, mail, and email suggest that the more personal a tactic, the more effective it is. Face-to-face contact seems to be the most effective tactic, raising turnout by 7-12 percentage points among those who are contacted. Email and robotic calls, on the other hand, are impersonal tactics that seem to have no detectable effect on turnout, even among those who listen to the call or open email from a campaign.

Not all of the earlier conclusions remain intact. Leaflets, which looked potentially promising in the first edition based on a very small set of experiments, now appear to be just another ineffective impersonal tactic. Partisan direct mail, for which there was a glimmer of hope in the first edition, seems on average to be ineffective.

The new edition also breaks new ground with two additional chapters. The first looks at a variety of media campaigns - television, radio, and newspapers. The second examines the effects of campaign events, such as Election Day festivals, candidate debates, and voter education seminars. Although much experimental testing lies ahead, the studies conducted to date suggest that properly crafted outreach campaigns may be cost-effective.

Finally, readers will for the first time find a synopsis of the emerging literature on voter persuasion, as opposed to voter mobilization. Although the relative cost-effectiveness of persuasion and mobilization remains an unsettled question, studies of campaigns that seek to change voters’ minds seem to suggest that it is often difficult and expensive.

The 2004 election will be remembered as an election in which both parties emphasized voter mobilization rather than voter persuasion. The campaigns sensed early on that there were relatively few swing voters. They focused their energies on energizing their respective activist bases, which in turn supplied armies of canvassers and volunteer callers. The 2008 election may prove to be another mobilization-centered competition, fought during the final weeks in battleground states. Both parties and nonpartisan groups will look to rigorous scientific studies as they plan their campaigns. GET OUT THE VOTE! strives to provide them an accessible, objective, and up-to-date summary of what works and what doesn’t. VCM

Donald P. Green is Director of Institution for Social and Policy Studies and A. Whitney Griswold Professor of Political Science at Yale University. Alan S. Gerber is Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for the Study of American Politics at Yale University

The publisher of Voter Contact Magazine is Democracy South. Democracy South is a regional network of nonprofit, 501(c)(3) organizations that work to re-engage historically marginalized peoples in the political process that shapes their destiny.

Again, welcome to the first edition of Voter Contact Magazine. We hope that you will find this an educational as well as enjoyable endeavor.

The Editors of VCM