DOWNLOAD

This report was prepared for the Virginia General Assembly’s Joint Subcommittee to Study the Consolidation and Scheduling of General Elections in Virginia (“the Joint Subcommittee”) by the University of Virginia’s Karsh Institute of Democracy. With the goal of providing information to the Joint Subcommittee, a multidisciplinary collaboration of faculty and researchers based at UVA engaged in the following activities to prepare this report:

• Examined the social and political science literature on the expected impacts of state and federal election consolidation
• Compared different state approaches to consolidation and available turnout data from recent consolidations
• Reviewed Virginia’s constitutional and election history behind the current statewide election calendar
• Conducted a public opinion survey of 1,000 Virginia residents
• Engaged in qualitative discussions with state and local election officials and administrators
• Provided options to the Joint Subcommittee as it considers whether to recommend state and federal election consolidation

Our goal in preparing this report is not to recommend a particular path forward, but to provide useful information as the Joint Subcommittee makes important decisions on election scheduling.

After engaging in our own multipronged research effort focused on the potential consolidation of Virginia state elections with the federal election cycle and reviewing other research findings on the topic, we found clear evidence that consolidating elections will lead to greater voter turnout. Relatedly, the survey we conducted shows that bipartisan majorities of Virginia residents support consolidation for reasons of increased convenience and the expectation that it would increase voter participation, especially in state elections. On the other hand, our research identified some concerns about how consolidating elections could impact elderly and rural voters, and might dilute focus and attention on both state and local issues.

Bipartisan majorities of Virginia residents support consolidation for reasons of increased convenience and the expectation that it would increase voter participation.

In developing this report, our group identified a series of key questions (including those raised in prior Joint Subcommittee meetings) pertinent to the committee’s decision about consolidating elections. For the sake of framing this report, we highlight these key questions:

• Does the Joint Subcommittee recommend consolidating statewide and federal elections?
• If so, which consolidation option does it choose?
• What are the next steps in terms of research and Joint Subcommittee action to further develop an implementation plan for the identified choice(s)?
• If the Joint Subcommittee recommends consolidating statewide and federal elections, does it also recommend aligning local elections with the
  federal election calendar?
• If so, does it recommend consolidating the elections of local constitutional officers (e.g. the Commonwealth’s attorney, clerk of the circuit court, treasurer) or all locally elected officials (including constitutional officers)?
• If the Joint Subcommittee recommends consolidation, does it also want to recommend changing the current budget cycle?

We reviewed existing social and political science research on the consolidation of elections in the United States. There are three key takeaways from this literature: First, the consolidation of state or local elections with the federal election cycle is strongly associated with increases in voter turnout, including among young adults, minorities, and low-income voters. Second, the consolidation of these elections tends to diminish the strength of single-issue, organized interests in state and local elections. Finally, consolidating elections can dilute focus and attention on local issues, leading voters to concentrate on national politics when casting votes for state and local offices.

 The consolidation of state or local elections with the federal election cycle is strongly associated with increases in voter turnout.

We conducted a review of state approaches to consolidation. As members of the Joint Subcommittee know, Virginia is one of only five states that have not aligned their state elections with the federal election calendar. We also looked at states that have consolidated elections to determine how they aligned their state elections with the federal cycle and found that the vastmajority held their gubernatorial elections during federal midterms. 

Virginia is one of only five states that have not aligned their state elections with the federal election calendar.

Finally, we reviewed turnout data for states, including Virginia, that have consolidated local and statewide elections to determine the potential impact on voter turnout—cases that seemed to be analogous to the consolidation question the Joint Subcommittee is considering. In every instance, including in Virginia, turnout increased from pre-consolidation elections to post-consolidation elections.

One might assume that Virginia’s election schedule is the product of an intentional choice. But a look at Virginia’s history reveals that it is a consequence of the timing of previous constitutional reforms. Virginia’s Constitution of 1851 introduced direct popular election of the governor for the first time, which was ratified in October of that year. The first gubernatorial election was then held that December, setting the off-cycle pattern. The post–Civil War Constitutional Convention reinforced the pattern when disputes over a disenfranchisement provision again delayed ratification and elections until an odd-numbered year (1869).

Virginia has considered altering the timing of elections before. In 1978, the General Assembly formed a commission to study consolidation. That commission found that yearly elections generate voter apathy, inflate campaign costs, and overtax volunteer participation. Despite these findings, the commission produced no concrete proposals and generated no subsequent legislative or constitutional reforms.

In 1978, the General Assembly formed a commission to study consolidation and found that yearly elections generate voter apathy, inflate campaign costs, and overtax volunteer participation.

The Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service’s Center for Survey Research conducted a survey of Virginia residents to assess support or opposition to election consolidation, anticipated impacts on voting behavior, and differences in preference and behavior among subsets of the population. One thousand responses were collected from a representative statewide sample of Virginia residents. 

Key findings from the survey show:

• Overall, the majority of Virginians surveyed support election consolidation. High levels of support are reported comparably across Republican and Democratic respondents.
• A bipartisan majority consider the leading potential benefits of consolidated elections to be the increased convenience for voters and expected greater turnout for state elections, especially among those who face barriers to regularly voting.
• A minority of respondents express concerns, however, that consolidating elections could overwhelm voters with the number of ballot measures at one time and could increase the risk that national races would dilute the focus and attention on state and local issues.
• Self-reports of likelihood to vote increase overall under consolidated elections, particularly among younger respondents, individuals who work full-time, and those with children. However, based on self-reports, voting behaviors are not expected to change for those who are the least politically engaged.

The majority of Virginians surveyed support election consolidation. High levels of support are reported comparably across Republican and Democratic respondents.

In addition to surveying Virginia residents, we also spoke with local government administrators and registrars to get qualitative observations on the potential impacts of consolidation at the local level. While these conversations are ongoing and not generalizable, they have illuminated some recurrent perspectives across local stakeholders, which are divided in their support for and apprehension about consolidation. For those who view consolidation favorably, the leading anticipated benefits are greater voter turnout and increased administrative efficiencies with fewer general elections. For those who expressed reservations with consolidation, the driving concern is the increased informational burden required of voters when multiple races are condensed into one ballot. This concern was specifically flagged for rural communities and older voters.

Based on this research and a review of the Joint Subcommittee meetings over the last year, we also concluded that it would be useful for the Joint Subcommittee to more explicitly determine what kind of consolidation it would want to pursue. 

We also understand that this does not include whether the Joint Subcommittee wants to consider or recommend consolidating local elections with state and federal elections, and here too we identified options:

• Consolidating only state constitutional officer elections (e.g., the Commonwealth’s attorney, clerk of the circuit court, treasurer) with federal elections
• Consolidating all local elections (including constitutional officers) with federal elections.

Last, we also briefly discuss the interaction between the budget cycle and the election calendar and highlight the impact of consolidation on the current cycle.