Austin Community College CPPPS Report #5

Early Voting in Texas: What Are the Effects?

In 1987, the Texas legislature passed legislation calling for no-excuse absentee voting and created

the opportunity for Texans to vote in person at any one of each county’s permanent election office

branch locations. In 1991, the law was amended to require a minimum number of early voting locations

in each county and permitted the establishment of temporary early voting locations. As a result of these

actions, Texas became a pioneer in early voting. Originally, the early voting period began twenty days

prior to the election and ended four days prior to the election, providing seventeen days of early voting.

Amendments have reduced the number of days for early voting to either twelve (for general elections

and primary elections) or nine days (for elections held on the May uniform election date).

Since its inception in 1988, the percentage of the vote that is cast early has increased significantly.

From 1988 to 1992, the percentage of the early vote increased from slightly more than 20 percent to

approximately 33 percent (see Gronke 2008: 427). Figure 1 traces the rise of early voting since 1994,

surpassing 50 percent in 2004 and culminating in nearly two-thirds of the vote in 2008. Early voting has

dramatically changed the way Texans and many other Americans cast their ballots.1

Figure 1: Early Voting in Texas, 1994-2008

70%
60%

50%
40%

30%
20%
10%

0%
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Early Voting 29.72% 31.66% 28.10% 38.86% 36.07% 51.14% 39.32% 66.46%

Source: Texas Secretary of State,http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/historical/earlyvotinginfo.shtml

The questions concerning early voting have focused on its effects: Has early voting increased

turnout? Who votes early? Are early voters different from Election-Day voters? What are the benefits and

1
 Austin Community College CPPPS Report #5

liabilities of early voting? This report attempts to answer these questions about early voting in Texas in

recent general elections. In addition, this report describes the counties that had the largest percentage of

early voters and the counties that had the smallest percentage of early voters in 2008. Furthermore, this

report describes the counties that provided the largest number of early voters in 2008. In describing

these counties, this report analyzes the characteristics of counties in each category. Finally, this report

assesses the effects of early voting on political campaigns.

Literature Review

The initial studies of early voting focused on the effects of early voting of voter turnout. Most of the

studies concluded that early voting made voting more convenient for voters, but it did not increase voter

turnout appreciably (Berinsky 2005; Burden et al. 2009; Fitzgerald 2005; Giammo and Brox 2010; Gronke

2004; Gronke 2008; Gronke, Galanes-Rosenbaum, and Miller 2007; Kroft and Cooke 2009; Stein and

Garcia-Monet 1997). Leighley and Nagler (2009: 17) found that “The effectiveness of no-excuse early

voting appears to depend on the length of the voting period. A sufficient voting period appears to lead to

increased turnout.” Stein and Garcia-Monet (1997: 668) note that the number of early voting sites is less

important than the location of those sites. The more convenient those sites are to potential voters—at

grocery stores and malls, for example—the greater the impact on voter turnout. There is no doubt that

the longer early voting is available, the more popular it becomes (see Figure 1). Overall, an increase in

voter turnout of between two and five percent is common.

Researchers also focused considerable resources on determining the characteristics of early voters.

The basis research questions were: Who votes early, and are they different from Election-Day voters?

Stein (1998: 61), who studied early voters and Election-Day voters in the 1994 Texas gubernatorial

election between the incumbent Texas governor, Democrat Ann Richards, and Republican George W.

Bush, summarized the differences that he observed:

As expected, early voters are more likely than election-day voters to be strong partisans and

older. Early voters are also considerably more conservative and more likely to be males than

are election-day voters. Early voters are poorer than election-day voters, though this

difference is slight. Furthermore, I do not observe any significant racial or ethnic differences

2
 Austin Community College CPPPS Report #5

in the makeup of early and election-day voters, and education levels are indistinguishable

between the two populations. Early voters are significantly more likely to report an interest in

politics.

In conclusion, Stein (1998:67) noted that “the sharpest distinctions between election-day voters and

early voters were observed for attitudinal (i.e., interest in politics, partisanship, and ideology) rather than

demographic traits.” Lyons and Scheb (1999) found that early voting in Tennessee was effective in

mobilizing some voters, but they were mainly older voters. Another study of Tennessee voters found few

differences between early voters and Election-Day voters (Neeley and Richardson 2001). Barreto, Streb,

Marks, and Guerra (2006) found absentee voters to be older and better educated than Election-Day

voters. Gronke, Bishin, Stevens, and Galanes-Rosenbaum (2005) found early voters in Florida’s 2004

election to be older and more likely to be female. Hansen (2001:4) notes that early voters are more

interested in politics and more partisan than Election-Day voters: “Strong partisans vote early because

they have already made up their minds and see nothing to gain from waiting.” Gronke, Galanes-

Rosenbaum, Miller and Toffey (2008: 444) maintain that “These studies all suggest the same pattern:

Voters who use convenience voting are more politically aware, more partisan, and more ideologically

extreme.” Thus, they would likely have voted anyway; early voting just made voting more convenient.

If early voters are somewhat older, more partisan, more interested, and more ideologically extreme

than Election-Day voters, then early voting does little to alleviate the socioeconomic bias in voter turnout

in the United States. Berinsky (2005: 482) argues that electoral reforms, which include early voting, “. . .

do not correct the biases inherent in the electorate, and in some cases, reforms may even worsen these

biases.” This conclusion is supported by Gronke, Galanes-Rosenbaum, and Miller (2008), who conclude

that “Early voting reforms, far from equalizing past inequities, instead show some signs of reinforcing

them, encouraging turnout among habitual voters but failing to draw new voters into the system.” More

specifically, Rigby and Springer (2009:22) find that in-person early voting “had a net positive increase in

inequality on average, as well as the potential to more substantially increase inequality in states with

more stratified rolls.” The consensus is that electoral reform does not alleviate the socioeconomic bias in

voter turnout.

3
 Austin Community College CPPPS Report #5

Two additional concerns about early voting are raised by Fortier (2006: 60-61). The first concern

involves the loss of a civic day of election. He notes that contacts by individuals and political parties with

potential voters are important in getting people to vote. His concern is that a long period of early voting

reduces the likelihood of such contacts. The second concern involves the fact that many voters may have

voted before the campaign ends, and, consequently, miss out on important information about the

candidates that becomes available late in the campaign.

The Effects of Early Voting in Texas

In this section, we will consider the effects of early voting in Texas on voter turnout and discuss the

characteristics of early voters and compare them with Election-Day voters.

Voter Turnout

Texans have been able to vote early since the 1988 general election. Early voting was fully

implemented in 1992. What has been the effect of early voting on voter turnout in Texas? The data

Figure 2: Voter Turnout in Presidential Elections, 1976-2010

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008

Turnout Voting Age Population 46.14% 45.55% 47.55% 44.34% 47.64% 40.97% 44.25% 46.11% 45.55%
Turnout Registered Voters 64.83% 68.40% 68.32% 66.17% 72.92% 53.24% 51.81% 56.57% 59.50%

Source: Texas Secretary of State, http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/historical/70-92.shtml

indicate that voter turnout, as a percentage of the voting age population, has remained relatively stable

throughout the period, varying from a high of 47.64 percent in 1992 to a low of 40.97 percent in 1996

(see Figure 2). However, measured as a percentage of registered voters, voter turnout has shown

greater fluctuation, but the trend has not in the direction that one would anticipate. In 1992, the first

election in which early voting procedures were fully implemented, voter turnout peaked at nearly 73

4
 Austin Community College CPPPS Report #5

percent. However, in the 1996 election, voter turnout fell to 53 percent and, in the 2000 election, to 52

percent. In the last two presidential elections, voter turnout has increased slightly to nearly 60 percent,

but that is still more the 10 percent less than in 1992. Since early voting has no effect on voter

registration, the best measure of voter turnout is percentage of registered voters. Although voter turnout

increased in 1992, it declined in the next presidential election and has not increased to its previous

zenith.

The turnout figures from non-presidential election years illustrate a similar trend. Voter turnout

Figure 3: Voter Turnout in Non-presidential Elections, 1978-2006

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006

Turnout Voting Age Population 25.29% 29.82% 29.05% 31.08% 33.62% 26.53% 29.35% 26.44%
Turnout Registered Voters 41.71% 49.74% 47.23% 50.55% 50.87% 32.40% 36.40% 33.64%

Source: Texas Secretary of State, http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/historical/70-92.shtml

peaked in the 1994 election, when nearly 34 percent of age-eligible voters voted. However, since 1994,

voter turnout has declined to levels similar to the 1970s. In terms of voter turnout among registered

voters, turnout also increased from 1978 to 1994, but since 1994, voter turnout has declined to levels

that are lower than in the 1970s (see Figure 3).

As others have noted, the effect of early voting on voter turnout in Texas is not significant, resulting

in greater convenience for voters but not necessarily bringing new voters into the electorate.

Who Votes Early?

In Texas, do early voters share the same characteristics as early voters in other states? That is, what

demographic characteristics do early voters exhibit and are they different from early voters in other

states? Comparing the early voter with the Election-Day voter during two recent presidential elections

5
 Austin Community College CPPPS Report #5

(2004 and 2008) and two recent gubernatorial elections (2002 and 2006) provides a partial answer. Our

data include gender, age, and ethnicity for in-person early voters and Election-Day voters in Texas during

these four elections. We will compare in-person early voters and Election-Day voters in each of these

elections.

2008 Election. Figure 4 compares in-person early voters with Election-Day voters during the 2008 general

election.

Figure 4: Early Voters and Election-Day Voters in 2008

100.0%

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%
Primary
African Asian Voted
Male Female 17-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Hispanic Anglo Voter
American American Prior GE
2008

EV 2008 44.2% 55.8% 16.2% 16.1% 22.6% 22.5% 22.6% 15.5% 9.9% 1.6% 73.0% 77.7% 54.6%
E-DVote 2008 50.0% 50.0% 24.5% 21.0% 23.9% 16.8% 13.8% 23.0% 5.4% 1.7% 69.9% 68.1% 39.5%

Source: Data provided by Dr. Jeff Smith, Opinion Analysts, Inc.

2004 Election. Figure 5 compares in-person early voters with Election-Day voters in the 2004 general

election.

6
 Austin Community College CPPPS Report #5

Figure 5: Early Voters and Election-Day Voters in 2004

100.0%

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%
African Asian Voted Prior
Male Female 17-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Hispanic Anglo
American American GE

EV 2004 44.3% 55.7% 9.4% 13.7% 21.9% 24.4% 30.7% 14.2% 8.5% 1.8% 75.5% 94.6%
E-DVote 2004 45.8% 54.2% 14.9% 18.9% 26.0% 20.6% 19.6% 20.7% 8.8% 1.6% 68.9% 89.8%

Source: Data Provided by Dr. Jeff Smith, Opinion Analysts, Inc.

A comparison of the early voters and Election-Day voters in 2004 and 2008 indicates several similarities and

differences. In both 2004 and 2008, early voters were more likely to be female, over 65 years of age, and Anglo.

Election-Day voters, on the other hand, were more likely to be younger than 45 and Hispanic. In 2008, African

Americans were more likely to vote early. Also, females made up a larger percentage of early voters than males,

but the percentages of male and female Election-Day voters were identical. Furthermore, in 2008, new voters

made up a larger component of both early voters (16.2 percent) and Election-Day voters (24.5 percent) than in

2004, when slightly more than five percent of early voters were first-time voters and slightly more than ten

percent of Election-Day voters were first-time voters. In 2004, voters 65 years of age and older made up a larger

percentage of the early vote than in 2008, whereas in 2008, voters 44 years of age and younger made up a

larger percentage of the early voters than in 2004. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is the logical

explanation for these differences as young voters and African Americans were targeted and mobilized by the

campaign. Recent polls suggest that those mobilized in 2008 may not participate in 2010 (Thee-Brenan 2010).

7
 Austin Community College CPPPS Report #5

2006 Election. Figure 6 compares in-person early voters with Election-Day voters in the 2006 general election.

Figure 6: Early Voters and Election-Day Voters in 2006

100.0%

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%
African Asian Voted Prior
Male Female 17-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Hispanic Anglo
American American GE

Early Voter 2006 47.3% 52.7% 5.9% 9.6% 18.8% 25.7% 39.9% 12.1% 1.4% 1.4% 79.7% 98.5%
Election-Day Voter 2006 46.6% 53.4% 10.3% 16.5% 26.3% 23.8% 23.1% 16.1% 8.3% 1.3% 74.3% 97.8%

Source: Data provided by Dr. Jeff Smith, Opinion Analysts, Inc.

2002 Election. Figure 7 compares in-person early voters with Election-Day voters in the 2002 general election.

8
 Austin Community College CPPPS Report #5

Figure 7: Early Voters and Election-Day Voters in 2002

100.0%

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%
African Asian Voted
Male Female 17-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Hispanic Anglo
American American Prior GE

Early Voter 2002 46.7% 53.3% 4.0% 9.8% 19.8% 26.1% 40.3% 16.8% 11.3% 1.1% 70.8% 97.5%
Election-Day Voter 2002 46.3% 53.7% 6.1% 13.7% 25.3% 25.0% 29.9% 18.5% 8.9% 1.3% 71.3% 96.3%

Source: Data provided by Dr. Jeff Smith, Opinion Analysts, Inc.

A comparison of early voters and Election-Day voters reveals the differences in the electorate that

distinguishes presidential elections from midterm, or non-presidential general elections. The electorate tends to

be smaller in midterm elections, and those people who are likely to vote are habitual voters, tending to be older,

to be more highly educated, and to be higher in socioeconomic status. Furthermore, massive voter mobilization

efforts that occur in presidential elections, especially in the so-called battle ground states are not as massive in

midterm general elections. Thus, both in 2002 and 2006, the early voters are older and slightly more likely to be

Anglo than Hispanic, African American, or Asian American. Young and middle-aged voters (under 55 years of age)

make up a larger percentage of Election-Day voters than of early voters. Older voters, aged 55 and older, make

up a larger percentage of early voters than of Election-Day voters. Females make up a larger percentage both of

early and Election-Day voters than males do. Both early voters and Election-Day voters in 2002 and 2006 were

habitual voters, more than 95 percent had voted in a previous general election.

We are also interested in whether in-person early voters in Texas are stronger partisans than Election-Day

voters, which is the finding of most comparisons (see Gronke and Toffey 2008). Since we lack any data on party

9
 Austin Community College CPPPS Report #5

identification by county, we decided to consider voting in either the Democratic or Republican Party’s primary as

an indication of strong partisanship, which is, by the way, how the Texas Election Code defines partisanship.

Figure 8 displays the results of that comparison. The T-test statistic for voting in the 2008 primary is -2.68, which

is significant at the .01 level of confidence. For voting in the 2010 primary, the T-test statistic is -3.04, which is

also significant at the .01 level. In other words, in-person early voters in 2008 were more partisan than Election-

Day voters in 2008. On another indicator of partisanship—straight-ticket voting, there was not a statistically

Figure 8: Early Voters and Election-Day Voters Participation in Primary Elections, 2008 and 2010

60.00%

40.00%

20.00%

0.00%
Early Voter Election-Day Voter
Voted in 2008 Primary 59.65% 47.70%
Voted in 2010 Primary 42.35% 29.89%

Source: Data provided by Dr. Jeff Smith, Opinion Analysts, Inc.

significant difference between in-person early voters and Election-Day voters. In eighteen high vote counties in

2008, 57.6 percent of in-person early voters cast a straight-ticket vote, and 55.7 percent of Election-Day voters

cast a straight-ticket vote. In seventeen high vote counties in 2006, 44.9 percent of in-person early voters cast

straight-ticket ballots, and 44.1 percent of Election-Day voters cast straight-ticket ballots.

In conclusion, as the percentage of voters who take advantage of in-person early voting has increased, the

differences between in-person early voters and Election-Day voters in Texas have become less pronounced. For

example, older voters are still prominent among early voters, but they are not as large a percentage in 2008 as

they were in 2002, 2004, or 2006. In 2008, the differences between early voters and Election-Day voters were

statistically significant in terms of several voter characteristics, but the statistical significance was not as great as

in 2002, for example (see Tables 1-4).

10
 Austin Community College CPPPS Report #5

Table 1: T-test of Differences between Early Voters and Election-Day Voters, 2008.

Gender Age Ethnicity

Male Female 17-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Hispanic African Asian Anglo
Am Am
Early Voter 44.2% 55.8% 16.2% 16.1 22.6% 22.5% 22.6% 15.5% 9.9% 1.6% 73.0%
E-D Voter 50.0% 50.0% 24.5% 21.0 23.9% 16.8% 13.8% 23.0% 5.4% 1.7% 69.9%
T-stat 1.82 2.01* 0.63 1.09 1.71 2.62** 3.72*** .064 1.83 1.11 2.16*
*=Significant at the .05 level **=Significant at the .01 level ***=Significant at the .001 level

Table 2: T-test of Differences between Early Voters and Election-Day Voters, 2004

Gender Age Ethnicity

Male Female 17-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Hispanic African Asian Anglo
Am Am
Early Voter 44.3% 55.7% 9.4% 13.7% 21.9% 24.4% 30.7% 14.2% 8.5% 1.8% 75.5%
E-D Voter 45.8% 54.2% 14.9% 18.9% 26.0% 20.6% 19.6% 20.7% 8.8% 1.6% 68.9%
T stat -0.74 -0.54 -1.77 -1.51 -1.12 -0.09 0.93 -1.47 -0.43 -0.13 -0.35
*=Significant at the .05 level **=Significant at the .01 level ***=Significant at the .001 level

Table 3: T-test of Differences between Early Voters and Election-Day Voters, 2006

Gender Age Ethnicity

Male Female 17-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Hispanic African Asian Anglo
Am Am
Early Voter 47.3% 52.7% 5.9% 9.6% 18.8% 25.7% 39.9% 12.1% 1.4% 1.4% 79.7%
E-D Voter 46.6% 53.4% 10.3% 16.5% 26.3% 23.8% 23.1% 16.1% 8.3% 1.3% 74.3%
T stat -1.42 -1.50 -2.57* -2.62** -2.25* -1.21 0.42 -1.90 -1.14 -0.73 -1.32
*=Significant at the .05 level **=Significant at the .01 level ***=Significant at the .001 level

Table 4: T-test of Differences between Early Voters and Election-Day Voters, 2002

Gender Age Ethnicity

Male Female 17-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Hispanic African Asian Anglo
Am Am
Early Voter 46.7% 53.3% 4.0% 9.8% 19.8% 26.1% 40.3% 16.8% 11.3% 1.1% 70.8%
E-D Voter 46.3% 53.7% 6.1% 13.7% 25.3% 25.0% 29.9% 18.5% 8.9% 1.3% 71.3%
T stat -3.39*** -3.38*** -3.36*** -3.41*** -3.48*** -3.24** -3.31*** -2.98** -1.77 -1.90 -3.55***
*=Significant at the .05 level **=Significant at the .01 level ***=Significant at the .001 level

To this point in the report, we have compared in-person early voters to Election-Day voters in all 254 Texas

counties. Now, we are going to concentrate on three subsets of counties: (1) the top twenty-five counties in

percentage of in-person early voters in the 2008 general election, (2) the bottom twenty-five counties in

percentage of in-person early voters in the 2008 general election, and (3) the eighteen counties that cast the

largest number of in-person early votes in 2008. There are two research questions: Do these subsets of counties

differ significantly from all in-person early voters and Election-Day voters in terms of differences between in-

11
 Austin Community College CPPPS Report #5

person early voters and Election-Day voters? Second, are there differences in the counties that are associated

with the percentage of in-person early voters? In other words, does the composition of the county’s population

affect the percentage of in-person early votes cast in the county?

In 2008, the twenty-five counties with the largest percentage of in-person early voters averaged nearly 73

percent of their votes cast during in-person early voting. The percentage of votes cast early ranged from a high

of 80.3 percent in Wichita County to a low of 69.6 percent in Howard County. Most of these counties were

metropolitan or urban counties, with few rural counties. Figure 9 compares in-person early voters and Election-

Day voters in those counties. On the other hand, the twenty-five counties with the smallest percentage of in-

person early voters averaged 30.2 percent of their votes cast during in-person early voting. The percentage of

votes cast early ranged from a low of 1.7 percent in Dickens County to a high of 37.7 percent in Borden County.

Nearly all of these counties were rural counties. Figure 10 compares in-person early voters and Election-Day

voters in those counties. The eighteen counties with the largest number of in-person early voters provided 69

percent of all in-person early votes cast in 2008. Figure 11 compares in-person early voters and Election-Day

voters in those counties.

Figure 9: Early Voters and Election-Day Voters in the High Percentage Counties, 2008

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%
A f rican A sian
Male Female 17-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Hispanic A nglo
A merican A merican

EV 44.8% 55.2% 13.4% 14.2% 21.7% 22.8% 28.0% 9.5% 5.9% 1.2% 83.4%
E-D V ote 47.1% 52.8% 24.3% 21.1% 24.3% 16.7% 13.7% 16.2% 4.2% 1.5% 78.2%

Source: Data provided by Dr. Jeff Smith, Opinion Analysts, Inc.

12
 Austin Community College CPPPS Report #5

Figure 10: Early Voters and Election-Day Voters in the Low Percentage Counties, 2008

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%
African Asian
Male Female 17-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Hispanic Anglo
American American

EV 46.6% 53.4% 12.3% 9.1% 16.2% 23.7% 38.7% 18.0% 2.2% 0.2% 79.5%
E-DVote 46.3% 53.7% 15.7% 15.4% 22.9% 21.2% 24.7% 27.8% 2.2% 0.2% 69.7%

Source: Data provided by Dr. Jeff Smith, Opinion Analysts, Inc.

Figure 11: Early Voters and Election-Day Voters in the Counties with the Largest Number of Early

Votes, 2008

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%
A f r ic an A s ian
Male Female 17- 34 35- 44 45- 54 55- 64 65+ His panic A nglo
A mer ic an A mer ic an

EV 44.3% 55.7% 16.6% 17.0% 23.2% 22.2% 21.0% 19.2% 9.2% 1.6% 69.4%
E- D V ote 46.5% 53.4% 27.5% 23.2% 24.2% 14.9% 10.2% 26.9% 5.2% 2.1% 65.8%

13
 Austin Community College CPPPS Report #5

The gender differences between in-person early voters and Election-Day voters were greatest in the low

percentage early vote counties and largest in the high percentage early vote counties. In terms of age, early

voters made up a smaller percentage of the 17-54 year old voters in all three subsets, and early voters made up

a larger percentage of the 55 and older categories. In terms of ethnicity, Hispanics made up a greater percentage

of Election-Day voters than of early voters. On the other hand, African Americans made up a greater percentage

of early voters than of Election-Day voters. Anglos made up the larger percentage of early voters than of

Election-Day voters, with the greatest difference in counties with the lowest percentage of early voters.

To determine whether the composition of a county’s population affects early voting, county profile data were

used to compute a correlation between each county characteristic and the percentage of early voters for each set

of counties in the subset. The results are displayed in Tables 5-7. The interesting result is the fact that the

correlations between the various factors that were examined and the percentage of in-person early votes were

significant in only a few cases. Although a definitive interpretation of the data is not possible, the results suggest

that county characteristics have little influence on the percentage of in-person early votes cast in the county. The

data do suggest that mobilization efforts by political parties and candidates and potential voters’ interest in the

campaign are more important than county characteristics (Karp and Balducci 2001; Stein, Owens, and Leighley

2005).

Early Voting and Political Campaigns

How has the growth of early voting affected political campaigns? As Nordlinger (2003: 27) notes, “Early

voting is perhaps the single most important change in the administration of U.S. elections in decades.” Political

campaigns are now faced with two electorates—those who vote early and those who vote on Election-Day, and

they must adjust the timing and sequence of campaign activities as well as tactics accordingly. As Stein, Leighley,

and Owens (2004: 12-13) note, “. . . voters who ballot early are significantly more likely to base their vote

choices on partisan affiliation and ideology and that election day voters are less likely to base their choices on

partisan affiliation and ideology and rely more on candidate evaluations, issue positions and group affiliations. . . .

Moreover, the reliance of early voters on partisan affiliation in making their vote choices appears to have grown

since the adoption of early voting in Texas.” The cost of campaigns is also increased as the campaign starts

earlier, requires increased efforts to track voters, and elongated periods of media, phoning, and block-walking

14
 Austin Community College CPPPS Report #5

(Broder 2006). Whereas a campaign’s get-out-the-vote (GOTV) effort was reserved for the final days before

Election Day just a few years ago, the spread of early voting requires that a campaign’s field program must begin

much earlier—identifying community activists, getting their ideas for the campaign, and preparing them for

campaign activities—sometimes more than a year before the election (McPike 2009). Although early voting

increases the cost of campaigns, it also allows campaigns to “bank” votes and to use supporters to help activate

Election-Day voters.

Some political observers are concerned that early voters may have already voted when important information

about a candidate surfaces—the so-called “October surprise.” In Texas, with a shorter period for early voting than

in some states, this concern is less likely to materialize. Also, tracking early voting in the 2008 and 2006 general

elections indicates that few voters are likely to have voted when new information about a candidate appears (see

Figures 12 and 13). In both 2006 and 2008, the heaviest early voting occurred during the last few days of early

Figure 12: Percentage of Early Vote by Day, 2006

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
10/23 10/24 10/25 10/26 10/27 10/28 10/29 10/30 10/31 11/1 11/2 11/3

10/23 10/24 10/25 10/26 10/27 10/28 10/29 10/30 10/31 11/1 11/2 11/3
Percentage of Early Voting 6.0% 6.5% 5.7% 6.3% 7.3% 7.7% 3.2% 8.7% 8.7% 9.3% 11.8% 18.8%
Cumulative Percentage 6.0% 12.6% 18.3% 24.6% 32.0% 39.6% 42.8% 51.5% 60.2% 69.4% 81.2% 100.0

Source: Texas Secretary of State,http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/earlyvoting/index.shtml

15
 Austin Community College CPPPS Report #5

Figure 13: Percentage of Early Vote by Day, 2008

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
10/20 10/21 10/22 10/23 10/24 10/25 10/26 10/27 10/28 10/29 10/30 10/31

10/20 10/21 10/22 10/23 10/24 10/25 10/26 10/27 10/28 10/29 10/30 10/31

Percentage of Early Vote 7.1% 7.6% 7.3% 7.1% 7.5% 8.0% 3.6% 8.6% 9.3% 10.1% 11.0% 12.8%
Cumulative Percentage 7.1% 14.7% 22.0% 29.1% 36.7% 44.7% 48.2% 56.8% 66.1% 76.2% 87.2% 100.0

Source: Texas Secretary of State, http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/earlyvoting/index.shtml

voting, just a week before Election Day. This was especially true in 2006 when nearly 40 percent of early votes

were cast during the final three days of early voting. In 2008, about one-third of the early votes were cast during

the last three days of early voting. In both 2006 and 2008, the lowest percentage of early voting occurred on the

Sunday during the early voting period.

Conclusions

Early voting has not yet increased voter turnout in Texas, but there are advantages to early voting that

commend it. As a larger percentage of Texans vote early, the differences between early voters and Election-Day

voters have lessened, although they have not disappeared. Perhaps the differences will never be eliminated, but

the concerns that the biases in the electoral system are exacerbated by early voting may be unfounded. In 2008,

new voters were more common among early voters in Texas than in the past. Also, African Americans were more

prevalent among early voters than in previous elections (see Figures 4-7). Of course, the 2008 election may have

16
 Austin Community College CPPPS Report #5

been an anomaly rather than the beginning of a trend. Nevertheless, we know that what motivates people to

vote early are the candidates, campaign contacts, and the location of early voting sites (Stein and Vonnahme

2006). All of these can increase the percentage of new voters who are persuaded to participate in elections and,

in the process, expand the electorate. That would result in a more vibrant and participatory democracy in Texas.

17
 Austin Community College CPPPS Report #5

Table 5: Counties with the Highest Percentage of Early Voters, 2008

%
Voting %
Early % % African % Asian Poverty Median HH VTO as R/U/Metro
County 2008 Anglo Hispanic American American % 18-65 % 65+ Rate Income % RV County
Wichita 80.3% 68.4% 15.1% 10.7% 1.2% 62.2% 12.8% 13.9% $44,392 54.6% Metro
Lubbock 76.7% 58.5% 30.6% 7.6% 1.4% 63.5% 11.2% 15.7% $44,389 59.6% Metro
Bexar 76.3% 29.2% 57.9% 7.7% 2.2% 61.6% 10.1% 17.1% $45,794 56.5% Urban
Fort Bend 76.0% 38.5% 23.9% 20.9% 14.7% 65.4% 6.5% 8.0% $83,968 67.8% Metro
Llano 75.0% 89.1% 8.2% 1.0% 0.4% 53.3% 29.5% 12.8% $44,370 66.5% Rural
Travis 74.8% 50.1% 32.9% 8.8% 5.6% 68.4% 6.6% 14.4% $55,650 65.1% Urban
Denton 74.5% 66.6% 17.1% 8.1% 5.6% 66.8% 5.6% 6.5% $73,678 66.3% Metro
Gregg 74.4% 63.5% 13.4% 20.1% 0.9% 60.1% 13.4% 14.1% $45,792 57.9% Metro
Collin 74.1% 65.4% 14.3% 8.0% 9.8% 65.0% 6.8% 6.4% $81,875 69.8% Metro
Brazoria 73.9% 55.8% 26.4% 11.2% 4.6% 63.1% 9.0% 9.6% $63,959 61.0% Metro
Tarrant 72.5% 52.8% 26.0% 14.2% 4.3% 63.4% 8.4% 12.1% $38,918 65.1% Urban
Jefferson 72.3% 46.6% 14.4% 34.6% 2.8% 62.2% 13.3% 17.3% $44,155 58.2% Metro
Young 72.3% 81.2% 14.4% 1.9% 0.4% 57.8% 18.5% 15.2% $39,898 63.1% Rural
Kerr 72.2% 84.7% 14.3% 0.4% 0.0% 53.2% 25.4% 11.4% $35,804 65.6% Rural
Aransas 71.9% 71.0% 22.6% 1.8% 2.5% 47.8% 23.2% 19.3% $40,789 59.8% Rural
Taylor 71.3% 67.9% 21.0% 6.8% 1.5% 60.4% 13.3% 16.0% $41,232 59.5% Metro
Rockwall 71.3% 73.2% 16.4% 6.3% 2.4% 63.8% 8.4% 6.2% $79,703 70.5% Metro
Williamson 71.2% 65.7% 21.2% 6.5% 4.2% 62.9% 8.5% 6.2% $69,745 68.1% Metro
Kendall 71.2% 76.5% 20.1% 1.2% 0.7% 60.8% 15.2% 7.7% $71,262 70.6% Rural
Midland 70.8% 53.2% 36.9% 7.0% 1.0% 60.2% 11.7% 10.1% $56,320 62.1% Metro
Guadalupe 70.4% 55.0% 34.9% 6.5% 1.4% 62.2% 11.9% 10.6% $61,979 64.2% Metro
Martin 70.1% 52.7% 42.8% 2.0% 0.4% 56.9% 13.0% 15.9% $43,492 58.9% Rural
Bell 69.8% 50.7% 19.7% 21.5% 2.9% 59.7% 9.0% 13.4% $49,448 55.7% Metro
Polk 69.7% 72.7% 11.5% 12.2% 0.6% 58.5% 19.7% 15.5% $36,930 52.5% Rural
Howard 69.6% 50.4% 42.0% 4.8% 0.8% 62.4% 14.4% 21.2% $38,661 54.5% Rural
Pearson r 0.013 -0.098 -0.063 0.122 0.304 0.268 -0.146 -0.061 0.100

Source: Texas County Profiles, http://www.txcip.org/tac/census/CountyProfiles.php.

18
 Austin Community College CPPPS Report #5

Table 6: Counties with the Lowest Percentage of Early Voters, 2008

%
Voting %
Early % % African % Asian Poverty Med HH VTO as R/U/Metro
County 2008 Anglo Hispanic American American % 18-65 % 65+ Rate Income % RV County
Dickens 1.7% 58.2% 29.9% 9.7% 0.2% 64.4% 18.9% 26.8% $30,343.00 66.0% Rural
Knox 15.7% 61.0% 26.3% 9.1% 0.5% 53.4% 21.8% 21.1% $31,469.00 54.1% Rural
Carson 18.1% 88.0% 8.4% 1.4% 0.2% 59.1% 16.8% 8.5% $50,493.00 64.6% Rural
Concho 21.4% 54.0% 43.4% 1.2% 0.1% 73.7% 13.6% 25.4% $37,505.00 59.7% Rural
Lipscomb 24.6% 67.2% 29.5% 0.6% 0.1% 57.9% 15.7% 12.2% $46,490.00 64.0% Rural
Parmer 26.6% 39.1% 56.2% 1.9% 0.6% 56.6% 13.4% 14.2% $40,346.00 74.3% Rural
Clay 28.6% 91.2% 5.0% 1.1% 0.1% 64.7% 14.5% 11.0% $48,445.00 66.5% Rural
Newton 30.6% 72.6% 4.1% 20.9% 0.6% 63.2% 14.9% 22.3% $35,524.00 57.0% Rural
Willacy 30.7% 9.6% 86.4% 2.6% 0.4% 57.6% 12.5% 30.6% $29,079.00 43.5% Rural
Haskell 31.0% 68.8% 24.5% 4.0% 0.3% 53.8% 26.2% 22.2% $32,817.00 54.7% Rural
Hudspeth 31.2% 21.1% 75.4% 1.0% 0.2% 58.9% 13.3% 30.1% $26,625.00 55.1% Rural
Oldham 32.4% 81.4% 13.0% 2.7% 0.5% 56.3% 11.2% 13.5% $44,765.00 62.8% Rural
Falls 33.0% 52.3% 19.0% 27.0% 0.2% 58.7% 16.1% 24.2% $32,844.00 58.0% Rural
McMullen 33.1% 61.0% 36.7% 1.2% 0.8% 63.7% 19.5% 13.6% $40,033.00 74.7% Rural
Jones 34.0% 61.5% 23.4% 12.9% 0.5% 66.7% 13.8% 23.6% $37,797.00 56.6% Rural
Jim Hogg 34.3% 8.6% 89.4% 0.6% 0.2% 56.8% 16.2% 22.8% $33,104.00 46.6% Rural
Bosque 34.7% 80.5% 14.8% 2.8% 0.2% 57.5% 19.9% 13.8% $41,871.00 60.6% Rural
Atascosa 35.2% 36.0% 60.5% 1.3% 0.6% 60.0% 11.4% 18.2% $41,883.00 40.5% Rural
Frio 35.9% 18.6% 73.9% 5.5% 0.8% 61.5% 11.7% 28.2% $31,072.00 38.6% Rural
Karnes 36.3% 37.4% 49.0% 11.6% 0.4% 66.0% 13.8% 27.5% $33,394.00 55.7% Rural
Red River 36.3% 75.1% 5.8% 17.0% 0.1% 59.2% 19.7% 18.8% $32,902.00 62.2% Rural
Zapata 36.3% 10.1% 88.3% 0.6% 0.3% 54.0% 13.1% 26.2% $32,249.00 39.7% Rural
Archer 37.4% 89.1% 7.3% 1.4% 0.1% 51.4% 14.7% 8.5% $51,616.00 67.3% Metro
Lavaca 37.6% 76.7% 15.1% 7.1% 0.2% 56.0% 21.7% 13.1% $43,814.00 61.0% Rural
Borden 37.7% 82.1% 15.9% 0.2% 0.0% 68.2% 16.4% 9.0% $44,822.00 82.4% Rural
Pearson r -0.114 0.115 0.000 0.092 -0.145 -0.196 -0.101 0.106 -0.177

Source: Texas County Profiles, http://www.txcip.org/tac/census/CountyProfiles.php.

19
 Austin Community College CPPPS Report #5

Table 7: Counties with the Largest Number of Early Voters, 2008

% %
Voting % % African % Asian % Poverty Med HH VTO as
County Early Anglo Hispanic American American % 18-65 65+ Rate Income % RV R/U/Metro
Harris 62.0% 34.2% 39.3% 18.7% 5.6% 63.4% 7.8% 15.3% $52,393 59.8% Urban
Dallas 68.8% 33.6% 38.9% 20.7% 4.6% 63.4% 8.4% 17.3% $47,155 61.2% Urban
Tarrant 72.5% 52.8% 26.0% 14.2% 4.3% 63.4% 8.4% 12.1% $56,265 65.1% Urban
Bexar 76.3% 29.2% 57.9% 7.7% 2.2% 61.6% 10.1% 17.1% $45,794 56.5% Urban
Travis 74.8% 50.1% 32.9% 8.8% 5.6% 68.4% 6.6% 14.4% $55,650 65.1% Urban
Collin 74.1% 65.4% 14.3% 8.0% 9.8% 65.0% 6.8% 6.4% $81,875 69.8% Metro
Denton 74.5% 66.6% 17.1% 8.1% 5.6% 66.8% 5.6% 6.5% $73,678 66.3% Metro
Fort Bend 76.0% 38.5% 23.9% 20.9% 14.7% 65.4% 6.5% 8.0% $83,968 67.8% Metro
El Paso 61.2% 10.8% 81.8% 3.6% 1.2% 58.4% 10.5% 25.2% $36,519 47.7% Urban
Williamson 71.2% 65.7% 21.2% 6.5% 4.2% 62.9% 8.5% 6.2% $69,745 68.1% Metro
Montgomery 65.4% 73.0% 18.3% 5.0% 1.8% 63.3% 9.3% 9.4% $65,801 64.8% Metro
Hidalgo 66.3% 7.1% 89.6% 1.2% 0.9% 54.6% 9.5% 34.8% $30,513 42.8% Metro
Brazoria 73.9% 55.8% 26.4% 11.2% 4.6% 63.1% 9.0% 9.6% $63,959 61.0% Metro
Lubbock 76.7% 58.5% 30.6% 7.6% 1.4% 63.5% 11.2% 15.7% $44,389 59.6% Metro
Galveston 66.4% 59.3% 21.5% 14.4% 2.8% 63.3% 10.8% 11.9% $57,950 55.5% Metro
Nueces 64.9% 32.5% 59.5% 4.4% 1.4% 61.4% 11.6% 17.4% $45,371 50.9% Metro
Jefferson 72.3% 46.6% 14.4% 34.6% 2.8% 62.2% 13.3% 17.3% $44,155 58.2% Metro
McLennan 61.4% 59.9% 21.8% 14.9% 1.5% 61.9% 12.3% 20.1% $40,223 59.1% Metro
Pearson r 0.312 -0.380 0.110 0.460* 0.518* -0.382 -0.482* 0.479* 0.532*

*= Significant at the .05 level

Source: Texas County Profiles, http://www.txcip.org/tac/census/CountyProfiles.php.

20
 Austin Community College CPPPS Report #5

REFERENCES

Barreto, Matt A., Matthew J. Streb, Mara Marks, and Fernando Guerra. 2006. “Do Absentee Voters Differ
From Polling Place Voters?” Public Opinion Quarterly 70: 224-234.

Berinsky, Adam J. 2005. “The Perverse Consequences of Electoral Reform in the United States.” American
Politics Research 33: 471-491.

Broder, John M. 2006. “Growing Absentee Voting Is Reshaping Campaigns.” The New York Times,
October 22.

Burden, Barry C., David T. Canon, Kenneth R. Mayer, and Donald R. Moynihan. 2009. “The Turnout
Effects of Early Voting, Election Day Registration, and Same Day Registration in the 2008
Presidential Election.” Paper prepared for the Conference on the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election at
the Ohio State University Mershon Center for International Security Studies, October 2-3, 2009.

Early Voting Information Center. Reed College. http://www.earlyvoting.net.

Fitzgerald, Mary. 2005. “Greater Convenience But Not Greater Turnout.” American Politics Research 33:
842-867.

Fortier, John C. 2006. Absentee and Early Voting. Washington, D.C.: The AEI Press.

Giammo, Joseph D. and Brian J. Brox. 2010. “Reducing the Costs of Participation: Are States Getting A
Return on Early Voting?” Political Research Quarterly 63: 295-303.

Greenberg, Stan, James Carville, Anna Greenberg, and John Brach. 2009. “The 2008 Early Vote.”
Democracy Corps. http://www.democracycorps.com.

Gronke, Paul. 2004. “Early Voting Reforms and American Elections.” Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, September 2-5, 2004.

Gronke, Paul. 2008. “Early Voting Reforms and American Elections.” William and Mary Bill of Rights
Journal 17: 423-451.

Gronke, Paul and Daniel Krautz Toffey. 2008. “The Psychological and Institutional Determinants of Early
Voting.” Journal of Social Issues 64: 503-524.

Paul Gronke and Eva Galanes-Rosenbaum. 2008. "The Growth of Early and Non-Precinct Place Balloting:
When, Why, and Prospects for the Future." In America Votes! A Guide to Election Law and Voting
Rights, ed. Ben Griffith. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.

Gronke, Paul, Benjamin Bishin, Daniel Stevens, and Eva Galanes-Rosenbaum. 2005. “Early Voting in
Florida, 2004.” Paper prepared for the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science
Association, Washington, D.C., September 1, 2005.

Gronke, Paul, Eva Galanes-Rosenbaum, and Peter A. Miller. 2007. “Early Voting and Turnout.” P.S.:
Political Science and Politics 40: 639-645.

Gronke, Paul, Eva Galanes-Rosenbaum, Peter A. Miller, and Daniel Toffey. 2008. “Convenience Voting.”
Annual Review of Political Science 11: 437-455.

21
 Austin Community College CPPPS Report #5

Hansen, John Mark. 2001. “Early Voting, Absentee Voting, and Voting by Mail.” Chapter 5. Report to the
Federal Task Force on the Federal Election System.

Karp, Jeffrey A. and Susan Balducci. 2001. “Absentee Voting, Mobilization, and Participation.” American
Politics Research 29: 183-195.

Kroft, Martha and Angela Cooke. 2009. “Early Voting and the 2008 Elections.” Paper presented at the
Ninth Annual State Politics and Public Policy Conference Hosted by the University of North
Carolina–Chapel Hill and Duke University.

Leighley, Jan and Jonathan Nagler. 2009. “The Effects of Non-Precinct Voting Reforms on Turnout, 1972-
2008.” Paper Prepared for Pew Charitable Trust’s Making Voting Work, a project of Pew Center on
the States. http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/elections/

Lyons, William, and John M. Scheb II. 1999. “Early Voting and the Timing of the Vote: Unanticipated
Consequences of Electoral Reform.” State and Local Government Review 31: 147-152.

McDonald, Michael. 2008. “The Return of the Voter: Voter Turnout in the 2008 Presidential Election.” The
Forum 6.4 article 4. http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol6/iss4/art4.

McPike, Erin. 2009. “72 Hours Is So 5 Years Ago.” Campaigns & Elections 30: 50-56.

Neeley, Grant and Lilliard Richardson. 2001. “Who is Early Voting: An Individual-Level Examination.”
Social Science Journal 38: 381-392.

Nordlinger, Gary. 2003. “Early Voting: How It’s Changing Campaign Strategies, Timing and Costs.”
Campaigns & Elections 24: 27-29.

Rigby, Elizabeth and Melanie J. Springer. 2009. “Does Electoral Reform Increase (or Decrease) Political
Equality” Forthcoming in Political Research Quarterly. August 2010.

Secretary of State. Voter Registration Figures. This Web page contains early voting totals for Texas
counties from 1988-2008. http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/historical/counties.shtml.

_____. Turnout and Voter Registration Figures (1970-Current).

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/historical/70-92.shtml

Stein, Robert M. 1998. “Early Voting.” Public Opinion Quarterly 62: 57-69.

Stein, Robert M., Chris Owens, and Jan Leighley. 2005. “Early Voting in Texas: Electoral Reform, Party
Mobilization, and Voter Turnout.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political
Science Association. Washington, D.C., September 1, 2005.

Stein, Robert M., Jan Leighley, and Christopher Owens. 2004. “Voting, Early Voting and the Determinants
of the Vote Choice.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science
Association, Chicago, IL, April 15-19.

Stein, Robert M. and Patricia A. Garcia-Monet. 1997. “Voting Early But Not Often.” Social Science
Quarterly 78: 657-671.

Stein, Robert M. and Greg Vonnahme. 2006. “Election Day Vote Centers and Voter Turnout.” Paper
prepared for presentation at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association,
Chicago, IL, April 20-23, 2006.

22
 Austin Community College CPPPS Report #5

Thee-Brenan, Megan. 2010. “Obama’s Youthful Voters More Likely to Skip Midterms.” New York Times.
August 10.

Texas County Profiles. http://www.txcip.org/tac/census/CountyProfiles.php.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the support of Peck Young, Director, ACC Center for Public Policy and
Political Studies, who suggested this study, provided comments on a draft of the report, and made
available data that he possessed on early voting. Also, I would like to thank Dr. Jeff Smith and Opinion
Analysts, Inc. for providing data on early voting in recent elections in Texas. Dr. Gary Keith, Assistant
Professor, University of the Incarnate Word, supported this project by reading a draft of the report and
making comments. Their comments improved the report; however, I am responsible for any errors of
omission or commission.
Stefan D. Haag
Adjunct Professor, Austin Community College

ENDNOTES
1
The literature on early voting, or convenience voting, is large and growing. For more information, the
place to start is Paul Gronke’s excellent Web site entitled “The Early Voting Information Center.”
http://www.earlyvoting.net and Greenberg, Stan, James Carville, Anna Greenberg, and John Brach. 2009.
“The 2008 Early Vote.” Democracy Corps. http://www.democracycorps.com.

23
 Austin Community College CPPPS Report #5
Appendix of Maps

Dallam Sherman HansfordOchiltree Lipscomb

Hutchinson
Hartley Moore Roberts Hemphill

Oldham Potter Carson Gray W heeler

Deaf Smith RandallArmstrong Donley Collingsworth

Castro Briscoe Hall Childress

Texas
Parmer Swisher
Hardeman

Bailey Lamb Hale Floyd Motley Cottle W ilbarger

Foard W ichita
Clay
Montague Lamar
Archer Red River
Cochran Hockley LubbockCrosby Dickens King Knox Baylor Cooke Grayson Fannin
Delta Bowie
Throckmorton Titus
Yoakum Terry Lynn Stonewall Jack W ise Denton Collin
Garza Kent Haskell Young Hunt HopkinsFranklin Cass
Morris
Camp
Palo Rockwall Rains
Parker Tarrant Dallas W ood Marion
Gaines Dawson Borden Scurry Fisher Jones
Shackelford
Stephens Pinto Upshur
Kaufman Van
Harrison
Zandt
Hood Johnson Ellis Smith Gregg
Andrews Martin Howard Mitchell Nolan Taylor Callahan Eastland Erath
Somervell Henderson Panola
Rusk
Hill Navarro
Cherokee
Loving W inkler Ector Midland Glasscock Coke Comanche Bosque
El Paso Runnels Anderson Shelby
Sterling ColemanBrown
Hamilton Freestone Nacogdoches
Hudspeth Upton Reagan Tom Green McLennanLimestone San
W ard Concho Mills Houston
Crane Coryell Augustine
Culberson Irion McCulloch Leon
Falls Angelina Sabine
San Lampasas
Reeves Trinity
Saba Bell Robertson Newton
Crockett Schleicher Menard Burnet Madison Tyler
Polk Jasper
Jeff Davis Mason Milam W alker
Pecos Llano
W illiamson Brazos San Jacinto
Grimes
Sutton Kimble Burleson
Terrell Hardin
Gillespie Blanco Travis Lee Montgomery
W ashington Liberty
Val Verde Bastrop Orange
Kerr Hays W aller
Presidio Edwards Kendall Fayette Austin Harris Jefferson
Brewster Real Comal Caldwell
Bandera Chambers
Guadalupe Colorado Ft Bend
Bexar Gonzales
Medina Galveston
Kinney Uvalde Lavaca
W harton Brazoria
W ilson
De W itt
Maverick Jackson
Zavala Frio Atascosa Matagorda
Karnes Victoria
Goliad
La Salle Live Calhoun
Dimmit Bee
Oak Refugio
McMullen Aransas

Jim San Patricio

W ells
W ebb
Duval Nueces
Kleberg

Jim Hogg Kenedy

Zapata Brooks

Starr W illacy
Hidalgo
Cameron

9/17/20105:41 AM2424232424246 24 24 2324

 Austin Community College CPPPS Report #5
Appendix of Maps

38.2% 43.2% 45.1% 49.2% 24.6%

52.5% 49.3% 58.5% 40.5% 39.6%

32.4% 57.0% 18.1% 56.5% 39.7%

59.7% 68.3% 47.9% 53.4% 64.4%

Texas 26.6% 39.5% 44.5% 45.2% 44.5% 57.4%

45.1%
59.8% 45.3% 55.4% 66.2% 58.1% 47.0% 54.1% 57.7% 80.3%
28.6%
58.9% 44.7% 54.8%
44.3% 61.8% 76.7% 49.3% 1.7% 57.1% 15.7% 54.9% 37.4% 43.9% 51.6% 36.3%
47.1%
45.6%
65.8% 66.3% 42.0% 60.3%56.7% 45.4% 31.0% 42.4% 72.3% 55.9% 45.4% 74.5% 74.1% 45.1% 55.7% 54.9%
48.0%
42.1%51.4%
63.2%
71.3% 57.9%
57.5% 58.5% 37.7% 60.6% 40.2% 34.0% 50.3% 61.7% 44.0% 68.0% 72.5% 68.8% 52.0%54.1% 44.9%
65.5% 44.9% 74.4%67.7%
63.9% 64.3% 67.4%
58.4% 70.1% 69.6% 51.9% 45.2% 71.3% 53.3% 52.0% 55.2% 68.3%
59.4% 55.1% 56.1%45.5%
46.4% 49.0%
58.2% 47.4% 63.1% 70.8% 49.9% 47.2% 34.7%
61.2% 63.0% 53.8% 49.3% 56.0% 56.7%
61.1% 53.0% 43.2%
54.6%
31.2% 51.9% 61.4% 51.4% 64.6%
60.7%
45.1% 56.5% 56.5% 54.6% 45.3% 57.1% 21.4% 64.0% 38.6% 53.2% 59.3%
41.7%55.7%
55.7% 62.2% 48.4% 64.0% 33.0%
51.4%
69.8% 51.9% 55.3% 54.1%
59.9% 56.2% 69.7% 46.3%
61.5% 58.7% 66.4% 64.6% 54.7% 62.9% 57.4% 30.6%
61.5% 75.0% 71.2% 51.0%
55.2% 56.8% 48.5% 46.7%
62.2% 74.8% 50.4% 65.4% 50.2%
62.8% 51.9% 60.5% 53.5% 58.8%
62.8% 72.2% 66.4% 67.6%
52.6% 67.5% 71.2% 58.5%
66.2% 63.6% 62.8% 57.8% 40.5% 46.5% 62.0% 72.3%
65.2% 68.2%
70.4% 42.0% 76.0%
76.3% 59.9% 66.4%
60.7% 61.9% 65.2% 37.6% 67.0%
48.7% 46.1% 73.9%
36.3% 44.5%
59.5% 35.9% 35.2% 60.9% 51.7%
50.3% 68.5%
50.0%
50.8% 41.2%54.8%
43.6% 33.1%
County Early Vote Percentages, 2008 52.0%
71.9%
62.1%
0.0% to 25.0% 58.8% 64.9%
51.8% 40.3%
25.0% to 50.0% 55.8%
34.3%
43.0%
50.0% to 75.0% 36.3% 38.1%

75.0% to 100.0% 40.1%

66.3% 30.7%
51.2%
No data 9/17/20105:41 AM2425232525256 25 24 2324
 Austin Community College CPPPS Report #5
Appendix of Maps

25.8% 21.8% 27.3% 34.0% 11.1%

34.4% 32.5% 40.2% 26.1% 37.3%

21.2% 39.7% 28.2% 39.8% 27.1%

43.2% 51.7% 56.5% 38.7% 45.1%

Texas 22.0% 26.1% 26.3% 27.7% 35.6% 31.7%

39.6%
44.8% 29.5% 43.5% 57.1% 36.7% 34.6% 34.2% 50.9% 42.5%
17.8%
20.0% 27.1% 34.8%
27.5% 48.9% 54.1% 37.6% 4.9% 43.5% 11.1% 33.1% 17.1% 28.6% 32.1% 24.4%
25.6%
34.2%
49.0% 45.8% 29.2% 50.9%40.9% 27.6% 25.9% 23.4% 51.2% 45.0% 28.9% 42.6% 45.1% 29.6% 33.5% 39.8%
32.2%
24.3%18.3%
45.0%
33.5% 36.0%
41.3% 50.3% 21.9% 37.8% 28.4% 26.9% 28.6% 42.7% 25.2% 38.9% 38.4% 40.0% 31.1%30.9% 23.2%
44.2% 31.7% 47.1%49.4%
44.4% 41.2% 34.8%
48.2% 43.1% 60.7% 38.9% 33.7% 51.0% 31.3% 31.1% 46.8% 40.1%
42.5% 33.2% 39.7%27.3%
32.6% 32.9% 35.4%
58.9% 52.9% 43.9% 47.5% 35.5%34.8% 42.1% 23.7% 23.1% 38.0% 42.0%
50.8% 38.9% 30.0% 35.5%
40.3% 40.7%
26.8% 40.5% 33.7% 41.9%
38.6% 43.4% 37.5%33.5%
33.0% 49.7% 32.4% 47.2% 30.4%0.0% 12.6% 45.3% 18.6% 41.7%
45.6% 30.6% 44.8% 24.4% 49.4%
53.5% 43.0%
46.7% 34.8% 43.6%
45.1% 28.2% 38.3%
51.7% 4.4% 33.2% 32.9%
54.2% 53.1% 42.6% 55.2% 46.7% 36.1% 39.4%17.6%
38.9%
53.7% 41.3% 36.6% 22.2%
44.0% 43.7% 22.6% 38.9% 25.6%
76.4% 29.4% 36.3% 39.8%
41.8% 35.3% 37.8%
56.5% 35.1%
45.8% 53.4% 48.2% 40.7% 24.0% 29.5% 46.1%
54.6% 49.7% 41.0% 28.5%
55.2% 48.0% 36.0%
43.9% 21.1% 39.4%
44.5% 48.4% 48.2% 47.0%
59.0% 40.3% 21.2% 35.6%
33.5% 27.2% 41.9%
25.0%
41.8% 24.8% 30.5% 41.8%
31.2%
32.7%
30.5% 48.7%
36.9%
30.2% 24.0%53.2%
40.3% 35.0% 27.9%
53.8%
30.3%
County Early Voting Percentage, 2006 52.9% 48.6%
56.3% 41.8%
34.7%
0.0% to 25.0%
37.0%32.6%
25.0% to 50.0% 32.9% 33.3%

50.9%
50.0% to 75.0% 43.5% 21.4%
42.0%
75.0% to 100.0% 9/17/20105:41 AM2426232626266 26 24 2324

No data
 Austin Community College CPPPS Report #5
Appendix of Maps

Dallam Sherman HansfordOchiltree Lipscomb

Hutchinson
Hartley Moore Roberts Hemphill

Oldham Potter Carson Gray Wheeler

Deaf Smith RandallArmstrong Donley Collingsworth

Castro Childress

Texas
Parmer Briscoe Hall
Swisher
Hardeman

Bailey Lamb Hale Floyd Motley Cottle Wilbarger

Foard Wichita
Clay
Montague Lamar
Archer Red River
Cochran Hockley 76.7% Crosby Dickens King Knox Baylor Cooke Grayson Fannin
Delta Bowie
Throckmorton Titus
Yoakum Terry Lynn Stonewall Jack Wise
Garza Kent Haskell Young 74.5% 74.1% Hunt HopkinsFranklin Cass
Morris
Camp
Palo Rockwall Rains
Parker Wood Marion
Gaines Dawson Borden Scurry Fisher Jones
Shackelford
Stephens Pinto 72.5% 68.8% Kaufman Van
Upshur
Harrison
Zandt
Hood Johnson Ellis Smith Gregg
Andrews Martin Howard Mitchell Nolan Taylor Callahan Eastland Erath
Somervell Henderson Panola
Rusk
Hill Navarro
Cherokee
Loving Winkler Ector Midland Glasscock Coke Comanche Bosque
Runnels Anderson Shelby
Sterling ColemanBrown
61.2% Hamilton Freestone Nacogdoches
Hudspeth Ward Upton Reagan Tom Green
Mills
61.4% Limestone San
Concho Coryell Houston Augustine
Culberson Crane McCulloch Leon
Irion Falls Sabine
San Lampasas Angelina
Reeves Trinity
Saba Bell Robertson Newton
Crockett Schleicher Menard Burnet Madison Tyler
Polk Jasper
Jeff Davis Mason Milam Walker
Pecos Llano
71.2% Brazos San Jacinto
Grimes
Sutton Kimble Burleson
Terrell Hardin
Gillespie Blanco 74.8% Lee 65.4%
Washington Liberty
Val Verde Bastrop Orange
Kerr Hays Waller
Presidio Edwards Kendall Fayette Austin
Brewster Real Comal Caldwell 62.0% 72.3%
Bandera Chambers
Guadalupe Colorado
Gonzales 76.0%
Kinney Uvalde Medina 76.3% Lavaca 66.4%
Wharton
Wilson 73.9%
De Witt
Maverick Jackson
Zavala Frio Atascosa Matagorda
Karnes Victoria
Goliad
La Salle Live Calhoun
Dimmit Bee
Oak Refugio
McMullen Aransas

High Percentage Early Vote, 2008 Jim San Patricio

Wells
Webb 64.9%
Duval
61.2% to 65.2% Kleberg

Jim Hogg Kenedy

65.2% to 69.2% Zapata Brooks

69.2% to 73.2% Starr Willacy

66.3%
73.2% to 77.2% Cameron

9/17/20105:41 AM2427232727276 27 24 2324

 Austin Community College CPPPS Report #5
Appendix of Maps

Dallam Sherman HansfordOchiltree

24.6%

Hutchinson
Hartley Moore Roberts Hemphill

32.4% Potter 18.1% Gray Wheeler

Deaf Smith RandallArmstrong Donley Collingsworth

Castro Childress

Texas
Briscoe Hall
26.6% Swisher
Hardeman

Bailey Lamb Hale Floyd Motley Cottle Wilbarger

Foard Wichita
28.6%Montague Lamar
Cochran Hockley LubbockCrosby 1.7% King 15.7% Baylor 37.4% Cooke Grayson Fannin 36.3%
Delta Bowie
Throckmorton Titus
Yoakum Terry Lynn Stonewall Jack Wise Denton Collin
Garza Kent Young Hunt HopkinsFranklin Cass
31.0% Morris
Camp
Palo Rockwall Rains
Parker Tarrant Dallas Wood Marion
Gaines Dawson 37.7%Scurry Fisher Shackelford
34.0% Stephens Pinto Upshur
Kaufman Van
Harrison
Zandt
Hood Johnson Ellis Smith Gregg
Andrews Martin Howard Mitchell Nolan Taylor Callahan Eastland Erath
Somervell Henderson Panola
Rusk
Hill Navarro
Cherokee
Loving Winkler Ector Midland Glasscock Coke Comanche
El Paso
Sterling
Runnels
ColemanBrown
34.7% Anderson Shelby
Hamilton Freestone Nacogdoches
Upton Reagan Tom Green McLennanLimestone San
31.2% Ward Mills Houston
Crane Coryell Augustine
Culberson Irion 21.4% McCulloch Leon
33.0% Angelina Sabine
San Lampasas
Reeves Trinity
Saba Bell Robertson
Crockett Schleicher Menard Burnet Madison Tyler
Polk Jasper
Jeff Davis Mason Milam Walker
Pecos Llano 30.6%
Brazos
Williamson San Jacinto
Grimes
Sutton Kimble Burleson
Terrell Hardin
Gillespie Blanco Travis Lee Montgomery
Washington Liberty
Val Verde Bastrop Orange
Kerr Hays Waller
Presidio Edwards Kendall Fayette Austin Harris Jefferson
Brewster Real Comal Caldwell
Bandera Chambers
Guadalupe Colorado Ft Bend
Bexar Gonzales
Medina Galveston
Kinney Uvalde 37.6% Wharton Brazoria
Wilson
De Witt
Maverick Jackson
Zavala 35.9% 35.2% 36.3% Victoria
Matagorda
Goliad
La Salle Live Calhoun
Dimmit Bee
33.1% Oak Refugio
Aransas

Low Percentage Early Vote, 2008 Jim San Patricio

Wells
Webb
Duval Nueces
0.0% to 28.6% Kleberg

Kenedy
28.6% to 33.0% 36.3%
34.3% Brooks

33.0% to 35.9% Starr

30.7%
Hidalgo

35.9% to 38.7% 9/17/20105:41 AM2428232828286

Cameron

28 24 2324
 Austin Community College CPPPS Report #5
Appendix of Maps

Dallam Sherman HansfordOchiltree Lipscomb

Hutchinson
Hartley Moore Roberts Hemphill

Oldham Potter Carson Gray Wheeler

Deaf Smith RandallArmstrong Donley Collingsworth

Castro Childress

Texas
Parmer Briscoe Hall
Swisher
Hardeman

Bailey Lamb Hale Floyd Motley Cottle Wilbarger

Foard Wichita
Clay
Montague Lamar
Archer Red River
Cochran Hockley 76.7% Crosby Dickens King Knox Baylor Cooke Grayson Fannin
Delta Bowie
Throckmorton Titus
Yoakum Terry Lynn Stonewall Jack Wise
Garza Kent Haskell Young 74.5% 74.1% Hunt HopkinsFranklin Cass
Morris
Camp
Palo Rockwall Rains
Parker Wood Marion
Gaines Dawson Borden Scurry Fisher Jones
Shackelford
Stephens Pinto 72.5% 68.8% Kaufman Van
Upshur
Harrison
Zandt
Hood Johnson Ellis Smith Gregg
Andrews Martin Howard Mitchell Nolan Taylor Callahan Eastland Erath
Somervell Henderson Panola
Rusk
Hill Navarro
Cherokee
Loving Winkler Ector Midland Glasscock Coke Comanche Bosque
Runnels Anderson Shelby
Sterling ColemanBrown
61.2% Hamilton Freestone Nacogdoches
Hudspeth Ward Upton Reagan Tom Green
Mills
61.4% Limestone San
Concho Coryell Houston Augustine
Culberson Crane McCulloch Leon
Irion Falls Sabine
San Lampasas Angelina
Reeves Trinity
Saba Bell Robertson Newton
Crockett Schleicher Menard Burnet Madison Tyler
Polk Jasper
Jeff Davis Mason Milam Walker
Pecos Llano
71.2% Brazos San Jacinto
Grimes
Sutton Kimble Burleson
Terrell Hardin
Gillespie Blanco 74.8% Lee 65.4%
Washington Liberty
Val Verde Bastrop Orange
Kerr Hays Waller
Presidio Edwards Kendall Fayette Austin
Brewster Real Comal Caldwell 62.0% 72.3%
Bandera Chambers
Guadalupe Colorado
Gonzales 76.0%
Kinney Uvalde Medina 76.3% Lavaca 66.4%
Wharton
Wilson 73.9%
De Witt
Maverick Jackson
Zavala Frio Atascosa Matagorda
Karnes Victoria
Goliad
La Salle Live Calhoun
Dimmit Bee
Oak Refugio
McMullen Aransas

Jim San Patricio

Wells
Webb 64.9%
Duval
High Early Vote, 2008 Kleberg

61.2% to 65.2% Zapata

Jim Hogg Kenedy
Brooks

65.2% to 69.2%
Starr Willacy
69.2% to 73.2% 66.3%
Cameron
73.2% to 77.2% 9/17/20105:41 AM2429232929296 29 24 2324