Exclusive: Latest Presidential Primary Vote Totals in Florida

As of this morning, which accounts for all early in-person ballots cast through the final day (Sunday, March 13) of early voting as well as all absentee ballots processed by the state’s 67 SOEs this morning, over 2 million votes have been cast ahead of Florida’s 2016 presidential preference primaries.  Roughly 2.038m, to be more precise.

Over 1.136m Republicans have voted, including 657.1k absentee ballots and 479.2k early in-person voters.

Nearly 846.8k Democrats have voted, including 481.1k absentee ballots and 365.7k early in-person voters..

Not surprisingly, Florida’s electorate is old. Over 61.5% of the total votes cast have been by voters over the age of 60.  Less than 6% of the total votes cast (GOP, Dem, and NPA/3rd parties) have cast by voters under the age of 30.

White Republicans over the age of 60 still dominate the GOP presidential primary electorate: over 635k white Republicans have cast ballots, or nearly 65% of the total Republican ballots cast thus far. Hispanics registered as Republicans have cast a total of 117.3k ballots, or roughly 10% of the total Republican votes cast.

On the Democratic side, older white voters also make up a majority of those who have voted in advance of tomorrow’s election. White Democrats have cast 535.9k ballots, or 63% of all Democratic ballots cast thus far.  Of those 535.9k ballots cast by white Democrats, nearly 67% have been cast by voters over the age of 60.  Hispanics registered as Democrats have cast 85.3k ballots (10%), and blacks registered as Democrats have cast nearly 187.0k ballots (22%).

Be very weary of pollsters who haven’t been weighting their early votes (early in-person and absentee) by these figures. They might be heavily #Skewed.

PPP Early In-Person Voting begins (for some) Floridians on Feb. 29

Registered voters in 17 Florida counties — Baker, Calhoun, Charlotte, DeSoto, Duval, Hendry, Hillsbourough, Lake, Levy, Liberty, Miami-Dade, Monroe, Okeechobee, Orange, Polk, Santa Rosa, and Taylor — will have the opportunity to cast their early in-person ballots beginning on Monday, February 29, 2016.  Voters in five of those counties — Charlotte, Duval, Hillsborough, Miami-Dade, and Orange — are afforded the opportunity to vote on any of the 14 days of early in-person voting (February 29-March 13) that county Supervisors of Elections may provide under state law. This includes the final Sunday (March 13) of early in-person voting prior to the March 15, 2016 PPP.  At the other extreme, 42 SOEs are only allocating 8 days of early in-person voting (March 5 -12), the least amount of early voting permitted under state law.

 

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission risks Elections and Ethics Reform in the American States

In his review of the oral argument transcript in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission heard by the U.S. Supreme Court today, election law scholar Rick Hasen writes, “The worst part is that the initiative process is the best way to deal with legislative self-interest in the political process.”

Indeed, it is.

As I write in my 2008 essay, “Direct Democracy and Elections and Ethics Reform,” in Democracy in the States: Experiments in Elections Reform edited by Bruce Cain, Todd Donovan, and Caroline Tolbert (Washington, DC: Brookings), “State legislators are likely to alter institutions so as to keep power and win elections. As such, we should not expect lawmakers to adopt either election or ethics reforms that may diminish their chances of winning and holding office.”  The chapter offers “a comparative and historical examination of the popular adoption and policy impact of a variety of election and ethics ballot initiatives in the American states,” and it also “examines recent efforts by state legislatures to regulate and restrict the use of the initiative.”

 

“A Principle or a Strategy? Voter Identification Laws and Partisan Competition in the American States”

William D. Hicks, Seth C. McKee, Mitchell D. Sellers, and Daniel A. Smith
Forthcoming in Political Research Quarterly.
Available here.
Abstract
We undertake a comprehensive examination of restrictive voter ID legislation in the American states from 2001 through 2012. With a dataset containing approximately one thousand introduced and nearly one hundred adopted voter ID laws, we evaluate the likelihood that a state legislature introduces a restrictive voter ID bill, as well as the likelihood that a state government adopts such a law. Voter ID laws have evolved from a valence issue into a partisan battle, where Republicans defend them as a safeguard against fraud while Democrats indict them as a mechanism of voter suppression. However, voter ID legislation is not uniform across the states; not all Republican-controlled legislatures have pushed for more restrictive voter ID laws. Instead, our findings show it is a combination of partisan control and the electoral context that drives enactment of such measures. While the prevalence of Republican lawmakers strongly and positively influences the adoption of voter ID laws in electorally competitive states, its effect is significantly weaker in electorally uncompetitive states. Republicans preside over an electoral coalition that is declining in size; where elections are competitive, the furtherance of restrictive voter ID laws is a means of maintaining Republican support while curtailing Democratic electoral gains.