Political analyst Bob Stein, Baker Institute fellow in urban politics, shows that it matters when Houstonians vote a straight ticket, but fail to vote for referendums at the bottom of the ballot:
After every election the press reports how many of us voted — that is, they report the number of persons who showed up at a polling place on or before Election Day or mailed in a ballot. This, however, does not fully represent how many of us really voted. Many voters who show up at the polls on or before Election Day under vote; we fail to vote for a significant number of contests, ballot initiatives and referendums. In this year’s election, Harris County voters will be asked to vote on bond initiatives for the Houston Community College, city of Houston, Houston Independent School District, and METRO’s proposal to continue sharing its mobility fund with area governments. All of the initiatives will appear at the bottom of the ballot. In midterm 2010, congressional election voters in the city of Houston were asked to approve a drainage fee, which was narrowly adopted by less than 1 percent of the total vote cast. The ballot initiative appeared at the bottom of the ballot after dozens of federal, state and county candidate contests. Nearly 15 percent (56,016 voters) of all city of Houston voters who showed up at the polls in the November 2010 election did not cast a ballot on the city’s proposed drainage fee. Why? And did it matter?
One explanation is that many voters did not have a preference on the proposed drainage fee and consequently passed on this ballot item. Another explanation is that these voters overlooked this ballot initiative because they voted a straight ticket. Voters in Texas and 13 other states have the option to select “vote straight ticket Democrat, Republican or Libertarian” instead of voting for each race on the ballot. In 2010, 66 percent of all voters in Harris County voted a straight ticket (in 2006 only 47 percent voted a straight ticket), either Democratic, Republican or Libertarian. Voting a straight ticket is an efficient way to cast a ballot for dozens of candidate contests in which the voter may not know much, if anything, about the contesting candidates, other than their party affiliation. This is particularly true of the dozens of judicial contests that appear on the ballot.
Voters cannot cast a “straight ticket” vote on bond initiatives and other non-candidate contests. When Harris County voters cast their ballot on the e-slate voting machine, they are prompted with a screen that shows them the races in which they voted and did not vote, allowing the voter to cast a vote for these latter contests. In spite of this helpful reminder, a nontrivial number of voters still failed to cast a ballot for many contests and issues at the bottom of 2010 ballot.
The incidence of “under voting” in 2010 had significant consequences. In precincts that voted against the drainage fee proposal, the percent of voters in these precincts that did not vote on the drainage proposal averaged 25 percent compared to only 8 percent under votes in precincts that voted to adopt the drainage. Can we assume that those voters in precincts that voted against the drainage and did not cast a ballot on the drainage fee would have also voted against the drainage fee? How confident can we be that the source of under votes on down ballot initiatives and referendums is due to straight ticket voting? And are all straight ticket voters vulnerable to under voting, or is this just true for supporters of one party?
The figures below report the percent of votes cast for a straight ticket by party (Democratic and Republican), and the percent of voters who did not cast a vote on the 2010 drainage fee proposal. Straight ticket voting for Republican candidates significantly decreased the under vote on the drainage fee, while straight ticket voting for Democratic candidates significantly increased the under vote on the drainage fee. Why? There are several good explanations, but one that seems most relevant to this year’s election is that many more Democratic than Republican straight ticket voters did not know about the down ballot initiatives and thus missed voting for the drainage fee proposal. But why? An answer seems related to how long these voters have lived at their current address. On average, Republican straight ticket voters reported in several surveys having “lived at their current address” for 20 or more years. Democratic straight ticket voters reported in the same surveys having on average “lived at their current address” for 10 or fewer years. Voters who are residentially stable are more likely to be called, mailed and visited by the campaigns for bond and ballot initiatives. These votes are more likely to get information from advocates for bond and other ballot initiatives. Residentially mobile voters are a moving target and more difficult for candidates and campaigns to reach by mail, in-person or by phone. A possible consequence of not receiving a campaign message is that the voter, even a straight ticket voter, may not know there are initiatives to vote on at the bottom of the ballot.
With heavy straight ticketing voting expected in this November’s election, advocates and opponents of this year’s bond and local issue initiatives will be trying to encourage their supporters not to miss these bottom-of-the-ballot contests. Does it matter? The 2010 city of Houston drainage fee initiative was adopted with by 6,264 votes from a total of 389,412 persons who showed up at the polls on or before Election Day. Among these voters, however, were 56,016 who did not vote on the drainage fee. Two-thirds of these voters lived in precincts where voters rejected the drainage by a margin of 60 percent or more. Can we assume the “under voters” in these anti-drainage fee precincts would also have voted “no”? Probably, which might have resulted in the defeat of the drainage fee.
Robert Stein, Ph.D., is the fellow in urban politics at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy. He is also Rice University’s Lena Gohlman Fox Professor of Political Science and a nationally recognized political analyst and expert on elections.