PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — It’s nearly as certain as Oregon’s rainy season. When there’s an election, voters in the state respond with an enthusiasm that’s rare in most other places in America.
They did it again this year.
Average voter turnout across the country was horrible during this year’s midterms: about a third of those eligible to cast ballots did so, according to an Associated Press tabulation of preliminary data from local officials and state election authorities. That’s the lowest turnout in at least five decades.
But turnout surpassed 50 percent in a handful of states: Maine, Wisconsin, Colorado, Alaska, Minnesota and Oregon. During each election over the past 10 years, these states have often been among the top performers.
Trying to explain the phenomenon can be elusive. Each state is different — some lean Republican, some lean Democrat, for example — and experts say there’s no precise equation that results in higher voter turnout. A few things, though, tie Oregon to its fellow high voter turnout states: A century-old tradition of civic-mindedness that dates to the Progressive Era, convenient voting procedures and especially contentious races or ballot issues.
“There is something about our civic culture in this state that rewards civic participation of all kinds,” said Minnesota’s recently elected secretary of state, Steve Simon. “We are doers and joiners and voters in Minnesota.”
The states with consistently high turnout tend to make it easy to cast ballots. Maine, Minnesota and Wisconsin allow voters to register on Election Day. Colorado, Oregon and Washington state hold elections exclusively by mail. Washington often has high turnout but was closer to the middle of the pack this year at 41 percent.
Though experts say convenience alone doesn’t necessarily mean higher turnout, in Oregon, residents like voting by mail. Ballots are sent by mail to registered voters three weeks before the election, and voters can take time making their election choices. Filling in ballots at the dining room table has become an Oregon tradition.
An especially contentious race or ballot issue also drives voters to weigh in, and this year, several of the top voter-turnout states had closely watched races.
Wisconsin has long been a battleground state in presidential elections, and most recently, it’s had a string of hotly contested campaigns following Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s push to weaken bargaining rights for public employee unions.
“People see their votes as making a difference,” said Kevin Kennedy, Wisconsin’s chief elections official. “The fact that it’s had a very sharp partisan divide the past few years probably focuses to engage voters.”
Maine’s turnout this month was boosted by contested races for governor and U.S. House, Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap said. And it also got a bruin boost. A ballot question that sought to ban the use of dogs, bait and traps to hunt bears drew out residents in rural parts of the state in large numbers to vote it down.
Oregon voters also turned out in droves to vote on a ballot measure asking whether they wanted to legalize recreational marijuana. It drew 40,000 more votes than the hotly contested race for governor.
It was nothing new. Oregon has a long history of contentious ballot-measure fights over taxes, property rights, crime, abortion and a host of other topics. They have been used to enact many a law that has given Oregon a reputation for having no fear of going its own way, such as a statute allowing terminally ill people to hasten their lives through the use of doctor-provided medication.
The fervor for ballot measures and the enthusiasm for voting is a legacy of the state’s embrace of the Progressive movement in the early 20th century, which was also active in other states with high voter turnout, said Jim Moore, director of the Tom McCall Center for Policy Innovation at Pacific University outside Portland.
Oregon was among the first states to let women own businesses and keep their money. The state allowed women to vote before the 19th Amendment extended the right nationwide. And it gave citizens the ability to go around their elected leaders and take a direct role in making laws.
“It was putting power in the hands of the voters, and it’s basically continued over the last 100 years,” Moore said.
___
Associated Press senior research coordinator Cliff Maceda in New York City, AP writers Rachel La Corte in Olympia, Washington; Kyle Potter in St. Paul, Minnesota; and Alanna Durkin in Augusta, Maine, contributed.
Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
In most countries, election day is a holiday. Everything’s closed, so voters aren’t faced with the choice between voting on the way to work or school, thereby running the risk of being late, or voting on the way home, when lines are long, and someone needs to pick up the kids and make dinner. That’s how you get higher voter participation.
Of course, since this makes voting easier for working-class people, in particular, I’m sure our G.O.P.-controlled Congress would embrace national legislation to make this happen.
Why do people keep saying that Colorado holds elections exclusively by mail? Some single-item special elections may be mail-only, but general elections still give the voter the option to go to a voting center and vote in person. The voting centers also provide same-day registration service. Neighborhood precincts may be gone, but it’s not mail-only.
It would have to be different from a national holiday to help the working class. It would require a forced closure instead of being an optional one.
I would love to see that along with a refundable tax credit for voting and a ‘sin tax’ for not voting.
A third post from Emiliano ( who said he was done posting for an extended period of time)
Maybe the Democrats are planning on doing this. Judging from what I have seen, probably not.
It is absolutely clear that Democrats haven’t a clue as to how to engage Americans under 45 AS A GROUP to vote in off-year elections.
Yes, some exceptional youth are active in the Democratic Party. Many are also working in a vast number of projects designed for social justice.
However, too many are simply not engaged. Whatever means that Democrats have used to get higher turnout for them are ineffective and, make no mistake, the system we have requires voting against the Republican Party as the only viable means to neutralize the agenda of the 0.01%.
I grew up in Europe with political leanings which would make the average U.S. “Progressive” seem like a Gerald Ford Republican. BUT, upon re-entering the U.S. I became aware that the Democrats, while not being as “pure” or Bernie Sanders-esque as I would like, must be supported. It’s a PROCESS. Get more Democrats IN and then work from there.
But I digress.
The point I would like to make here is this:
The Democratic Party needs to spend whatever is necessary to hire a consultant firm–pay 'em whatever they want!!!–and task it with this:
“Your job is to devise a strategy to get people under 45 to the polls in ALL elections: state, national, off-year and Presidential”
If Madison Avenue can wind up sticking a cellphone in everyone’s ear in the space of 10-15 years, some firm should be smart enough to induce those under 45 to save themselves (and their future) from the Republican Party and the 0.01%.
Agreed. Allow only drug stores and grocery stores to stay open, or something along those lines. Otherwise, it would just turn into a big “SALE!!!” day.