urlscan.io logo urlscan.io
SecurityTrails logo

www.liebertpub.com Open in urlscan Pro
65.156.1.51  Public Scan

Back to summary
Submitted URL: https://email.liebertpub.com/c/1jvfqPx885QYt3HbX3nMsifcV
Effective URL: https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/elj.2023.29004.mkr?utm_campaign=ELJ+FP+June+26+2023&utm_content=Article1-&utm_term=&...
Submission: On June 27 via manual from US — Scanned from DE

Form analysis 7 forms found in the DOM

POST /action/doLogin

<form action="/action/doLogin" method="post"><input type="hidden" name="id" value="119162c4-9551-4055-99fe-48538e2570bc">
  <input type="hidden" name="redirectUri" value="/doi/10.1089/elj.2023.29004.mkr?utm_campaign=ELJ+FP+June+26+2023&amp;utm_content=Article1-&amp;utm_term=&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_source=Adestra">
  <input type="hidden" name="loginUri" value="/doi/10.1089/elj.2023.29004.mkr?utm_campaign=ELJ+FP+June+26+2023&amp;utm_content=Article1-&amp;utm_term=&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_source=Adestra">
  <input type="hidden" name="popup" value="true">
  <div class="input-group">
    <div class="label ">
      <label for="login">Username</label>
    </div>
    <input id="login" class="login" type="text" name="login" value="" size="15" placeholder="">
    <div class="actions">
    </div>
  </div>
  <div class="input-group">
    <div class="label ">
      <label for="password">Password</label>
    </div>
    <input id="password" class="password" type="password" name="password" value="" autocomplete="off" placeholder="">
    <span class="password-eye-icon icon-eye hidden"></span>
    <div class="actions">
      <a href="/action/requestResetPassword" class="link show-request-reset-password">Forgot password?</a>
    </div>
  </div>
  <div class="remember">
    <div class="keepMeLogin">
      <span class="label">Keep me logged in</span>
    </div>
    <div class="switch small-switch">
      <input id="119162c4-9551-4055-99fe-48538e2570bc-remember" class="cmn-toggle cmn-toggle-round-flat" type="checkbox" name="remember" value="true">
      <label class="tgl-btn" for="119162c4-9551-4055-99fe-48538e2570bc-remember"></label>
    </div>
  </div>
  <div class="submit" disabled="disabled">
    <input class="button submit primary" type="submit" name="loginSubmit" value="Login" disabled="disabled">
  </div>
</form>

POST /action/changePassword

<form action="/action/changePassword" method="post">
  <div class="message error"></div>
  <input type="hidden" name="submit" value="submit">
  <div class="input-group">
    <div class="label">
      <label for="32ca9cb2-7bcf-451c-a718-7dacb5e529b9-old">Old Password</label>
    </div>
    <input id="32ca9cb2-7bcf-451c-a718-7dacb5e529b9-old" class="old" type="password" name="old" value="" autocomplete="off">
    <span class="password-eye-icon icon-eye hidden"></span>
  </div>
  <div class="input-group">
    <div class="label">
      <label for="32ca9cb2-7bcf-451c-a718-7dacb5e529b9-new">New Password</label>
    </div>
    <input id="32ca9cb2-7bcf-451c-a718-7dacb5e529b9-new" class="pass-hint new" type="password" name="new" value="" autocomplete="off">
    <span class="password-eye-icon icon-eye hidden"></span>
    <div class="password-strength-indicator" data-min="8" data-max="20" data-strength="3">
      <span class="text too-short">Too Short</span>
      <span class="text weak">Weak</span>
      <span class="text medium">Medium</span>
      <span class="text strong">Strong</span>
      <span class="text very-strong">Very Strong</span>
      <span class="text too-long">Too Long</span>
    </div>
  </div>
  <input class="button primary submit" type="submit" value="Submit" disabled="disabled">
</form>

POST /action/registration

<form action="/action/registration" class="registration-form" method="post"><input type="hidden" name="redirectUri"
    value="/doi/10.1089/elj.2023.29004.mkr?utm_campaign=ELJ+FP+June+26+2023&amp;utm_content=Article1-&amp;utm_term=&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_source=Adestra">
  <div class="input-group">
    <div class="label">
      <label for="4e824763-0b45-4b53-bcb3-79723a798efa.email">Email</label>
    </div>
    <input id="4e824763-0b45-4b53-bcb3-79723a798efa.email" class="email" type="email" name="email" value="">
  </div>
  <div class="submit">
    <input class="button submit primary" type="submit" value="Register" disabled="disabled">
  </div>
</form>

POST /action/requestResetPassword

<form action="/action/requestResetPassword" class="request-reset-password-form" method="post"><input type="hidden" name="requestResetPassword" value="true">
  <div class="input-group">
    <div class="label">
      <label for="d08ba088-273c-4e80-a5d6-e71647cef18b.email">Email</label>
    </div>
    <input id="d08ba088-273c-4e80-a5d6-e71647cef18b.email" class="email" type="text" name="email" value="" size="15">
  </div>
  <div class="password-recaptcha-ajax"></div>
  <input class="button primary submit" type="submit" name="submit" value="Submit" disabled="disabled">
</form>

POST /action/requestUsername

<form action="/action/requestUsername" method="post"><input type="hidden" name="requestUsername" value="requestUsername">
  <div class="input-group">
    <div class="label">
      <label for="2b3925a2-1b57-45ab-a1cc-e6eb17123bf9.email">Email</label>
    </div>
    <input id="2b3925a2-1b57-45ab-a1cc-e6eb17123bf9.email" class="email" type="text" name="email" value="" size="15">
  </div>
  <div class="username-recaptcha-ajax"></div>
  <input class="button primary submit" type="submit" name="submit" value="Submit" disabled="disabled">
  <div class="center">
    <a href="#" class="cancel">Close</a>
  </div>
</form>

Name: thisJournalQuickSearch — GET /action/doSearch

<form action="/action/doSearch" name="thisJournalQuickSearch" method="get">
  <fieldset>
    <legend class="sr-only">Quick Search in Journals</legend>
    <div class="input-group option-0 option-journal"><label for="AllField374c2551-8302-4bf6-989c-6e4d27b968c20" class="sr-only">Enter words / phrases / DOI / ISBN / keywords / authors / etc</label>
      <div class="autoComplete_wrapper" role="combobox" aria-owns="autoComplete_list_1" aria-haspopup="true" aria-expanded="false"><input type="search" autocomplete="off" id="AllField374c2551-8302-4bf6-989c-6e4d27b968c20" name="AllField"
          placeholder="Enter words / phrases / DOI / ISBN / keywords / authors / etc" data-auto-complete-max-words="7" data-auto-complete-max-chars="32" data-contributors-conf="3" data-topics-conf="3" data-publication-titles-conf="3"
          data-history-items-conf="3" value="" class="auto-complete" aria-controls="autoComplete_list_1" aria-autocomplete="both"></div><input type="hidden" name="SeriesKey" value="elj">
    </div>
    <ul id="autoComplete_list_1" role="listbox" hidden="" class="autoComplete rlist"></ul><button type="submit" title="Search" class="btn quick-search__button icon-search"><span class="sr-only">Search</span><span>Search</span></button>
  </fieldset>
</form>

Name: defaultQuickSearch — GET /action/doSearch

<form action="/action/doSearch" name="defaultQuickSearch" method="get">
  <fieldset>
    <legend class="sr-only">Quick Search anywhere</legend>
    <div class="input-group option-1 "><label for="AllField374c2551-8302-4bf6-989c-6e4d27b968c21" class="sr-only">Enter words / phrases / DOI / ISBN / keywords / authors / etc</label>
      <div class="autoComplete_wrapper" role="combobox" aria-owns="autoComplete_list_2" aria-haspopup="true" aria-expanded="false"><input type="search" autocomplete="off" id="AllField374c2551-8302-4bf6-989c-6e4d27b968c21" name="AllField"
          placeholder="Enter words / phrases / DOI / ISBN / keywords / authors / etc" data-auto-complete-max-words="7" data-auto-complete-max-chars="32" data-contributors-conf="3" data-topics-conf="3" data-publication-titles-conf="3"
          data-history-items-conf="3" value="" class="auto-complete" aria-controls="autoComplete_list_2" aria-autocomplete="both"></div>
    </div>
    <ul id="autoComplete_list_2" role="listbox" hidden="" class="autoComplete rlist"></ul><button type="submit" title="Search" class="btn quick-search__button icon-search"><span class="sr-only">Search</span><span>Search</span></button>
  </fieldset>
</form>

Text Content

Back to Top


LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username

Password
Forgot password?
Keep me logged in


OpenAthens
New User
Institutional Login


CHANGE PASSWORD

Old Password
New Password
Too Short Weak Medium Strong Very Strong Too Long


PASSWORD CHANGED SUCCESSFULLY

Your password has been changed


CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT

Email

Returning user

Can't sign in? Forgot your password?

Enter your email address below and we will send you the reset instructions


Email

Cancel

If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with
instructions to reset your password.

Close


REQUEST USERNAME

Can't sign in? Forgot your username?

Enter your email address below and we will send you your username


Email

Close

If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with
instructions to retrieve your username

 * This Journal
    * This Journal
    * Anywhere
   
   Quick Search in Journals
   Enter words / phrases / DOI / ISBN / keywords / authors / etc
   
   SearchSearch
   Quick Search anywhere
   Enter words / phrases / DOI / ISBN / keywords / authors / etc
   
   SearchSearch
   Advanced Search
 * 
 * Institutional Access
 * 0

Home
 * About Us
 * Publications
   Journal Collections
   Biomedical ResearchBiotechnology and Regenerative MedicineMedicine and
   SurgeryEnvironmental Research and PolicyIntegrative MedicineLaw and
   PolicyNursingPublic Health Research and PolicySurgeryTechnology and
   Engineering
   Publications by Type
   Journals (Print/Online)Journals (Open Access)Journals
   (Video)Books/eBooksTrade MagazineseNewsletters
   All Publications
   A to ZRecommend a Title to Your Library
 * For Authors
 * Librarians
 * Open Access
 * Advertising
 * Custom


Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and PolicyVol. 22, No. 2
IntroductionFree Access


ACADEMIC SCHOLARSHIP AND ELECTION OFFICIAL PERSPECTIVES AT THE ELECTION SCIENCE,
REFORM, AND ADMINISTRATION CONFERENCE

 * Martha Kropf

Martha Kropf

Address correspondence to: Martha Kropf, Department of Political Science &
Public Administration, Fretwell 435L, University of North Carolina, Charlotte,
North Carolina, 28223-0001, USA

E-mail Address: mekropf@uncc.edu



Martha Kropf is a Professor in the Department of Political Science & Public
Administration at the University of North Carolina in Charlotte, North Carolina,
USA.

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:16 Jun 2023https://doi.org/10.1089/elj.2023.29004.mkr
About
 * Figures
 * References
 * Related
 * Details

PDF/EPUB
 * PDF/EPUB

 * Permissions & Citations
    * Permissions
    * Download Citations
    * Track Citations
    * Add to favorites
    * Back To Publication

 * Share
   
   Share on
    * Facebook
    * Twitter
    * Linked In
    * Reddit
    * Email
      

Election administration—and arguably democracy in the United States—faced a
turning point with the 2020 elections. What characterized the pandemic election
was not just the worldwide health emergency, but also how political elites
responded to it. President Donald Trump's harmful rhetoric about both election
security and election officials themselves cast doubt in the minds of voters.
The pandemic election also saw record-breaking votes by mail. The Current
Population Survey (Census, 2020) found that approximately 43 percent of voters
cast by-mail ballots, more than double the amount that voted by-mail in 2016.

What did the pandemic mean for elections? The Sixth Annual (2022) Conference in
Election Sciences, Reform, and Administration (ESRA), hosted by the University
of North Carolina at Charlotte, gave scholars and election administrators both a
chance to meet face-to-face (for the most part) to reflect on the elections and
discuss how to improve elections into the future. The conference included
election administrators, allowing interaction between science and policy. The
exchange provided improvement in the validity of election research, but scholars
were also able to disseminate the research directly to those who will use it in
the trenches of public policy.

Thus, Election Law Journal (ELJ) is publishing some of the best papers from the
conference, and aside from introducing the scholarly articles, I also list some
of the research ideas generated by the many local and state election officials
who participated in the conference.

In this issue of ELJ and the next issue, we present the articles from the
conference—all of which have gone through ELJ's rigorous peer reviewed process.
The reader will notice that these are not simply applied policy pieces, but also
strongly methodological and theoretically based research. The reader will also
see that scholars are analyzing what happened during the pandemic, helping us to
understand how to handle future public health emergencies, but also the negative
rhetoric surrounding the elections. And scholars continue to work on research
making voting more efficient, secure, and well-run.

A case in point is the first piece in this issue: Michael Greenberger analyzes
the optimality of early voting locations in the state. “A Method to Detect
Whether Countywide Vote Centers Are Located Optimally” is a sophisticated
analysis of voting locations utilizing a number of different measures. While
polling place location decisions are certainly a function of a variety of
factors (e.g., parking, voting equipment security), Greenberger's work most
certainly represents a tool in the toolbelt of election officials and academics
who advise them. As Greenberger notes, more and more local election
jurisdictions use vote centers (see also Manion et al., 2023, in Election Law
Journal; Manion et al., In press). This work is most timely as vote centers
represented one of the responses to pandemic voting (see Kropf, In press); as
indicated by Anita Manion and colleagues (Manion et al. 2023) who analyze the
use of vote centers in St. Louis during the pandemic.

Of course, the pandemic did not just affect the United States. Holly Garnett,
Jean-Nicolas Bordeleau, Laura Stephenson, and Allison Harell herein present
research examining the course of voting in Canada analyzing how voters voted
during the public health emergency. Garnett and colleagues note that the
“research helps practitioners evaluate the effectiveness of the alternative
voting measures brought forward during pandemic elections, specifically whether
they were successful in alleviating concerns about safety at the polls.” This
Canadian case study also shows how election officials can affect voters'
“comfort” in voting and their decisions about how to participate in
elections—advance voting, by post, or in person on election day.

In planning for potential future catastrophic events, an understanding of
participation methods is key. Fortunately, there has been an existing evaluative
literature in election science examining the effects of voting by mail and early
in person voting. Paul Herrnson and Charles Stewart tap into that literature to
analyze how United States voters participated in our pandemic elections.
Examining individual-level data merged with state-level policy and contextual
variables, Herrnson and Stewart find that “existing or new convenience voting
options did not boost voter turnout. More important, these policies appeared to
structure how voters chose to participate. Universal VBM [vote by mail]
elections and NEAV [no-excuse absentee voting] policies increased the use of
mail voting. EIPV [early in person voting] policies resulted in larger numbers
using that method. Equally important, these policies reduced crowds at polling
places on Election Day.”

The record-breaking use of voting by mail also prompted other scholars at the
conference to examine the use of vote by mail; other scholarship has slightly
different results. Michael Ritter not only analyzes the effects of VBM laws on
individuals (using Catalist, 2021 data and the Cooperative Election Study,
2021), but also examines whether USPS mail delivery moderates the effect of the
laws, and “whether several unique election administration features connected to
absentee and mail voting (cure laws, notary or witness signature requirements
and voter ID requirements) shape outcomes connected to these laws” (Ritter 2023,
p.167). As Ritter (Ritter 2023, p.173) points out, “… the direction of the new
Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, there was an inordinately high reduction in the
number of mail sorting machines and mail ballot drop boxes at a time when mail
voting was expected to reach record high-levels during the coronavirus
pandemic.” The USPS, he argues, should be considered part of an accessible
voting framework (see also Ritter & Tolbert, 2020; Ritter, In press).

Voting by mail, Ritter finds, increases turnout, and when the Post Office
performs well, it can enhance the impact of these laws, even those with the most
restrictive laws. The reader should note that one of the requests of local
election officials for scholarly study is the problem that they cannot count
some mail ballots because they do not have a postmark.

In a future issue, McDonald, Mucci, Shino, and Smith (2023) take yet another
approach to the examination of voting by mail. McDonald and colleagues write,
“[r]ather than relying on binary categories to measure a state's offerings of
convenience voting … we rely on the actual usage of mail balloting, the share of
all votes cast in a state in a given year that are mail ballots.” The reason?
The “nuances” of state laws make it difficult to classify all the individual
state changes into neat categories. They find that the states that made mail
voting easier did not see lower turnout; “Convenience voting—specifically,
allowing voters to fill out mail ballots privately in their own homes and return
them to election officials well before Election Day—enhanced turnout in the
November 2020 election” (McDonald et al. 2023). This method of operationalizing
mail voting does not allow scholars to predict voter turnout, but it does show
that greater ease in voting by mail results in greater turnout.

The pandemic also affected how local election officials were able to process
ballots. The first line of Marc Meredith and Lucy Kronenberg's article
(appearing in a future issue) is an understatement, “The massive increase in the
use of mail balloting in the United States during the 2020 election raised the
salience of rules and regulations structuring the verification of mail ballots”
(Meredith and Kronenberg, In press). Another project using North Carolina as a
case study, these two scholars obtain the lists of North Carolina ballots
eligible for curing during the 2020 election cycle. They find that a combination
of state policy and the electoral (battleground) environment made it possible
for 82 percent of eligible voters to “cure” their ballots. The curing process
has, to my knowledge, never been studied systematically before, hence this study
is pathbreaking and important.

While the 2022 conference featured much research examining various operations of
elections, the conference also highlighted Trump's harmful and false rhetoric
about the election that occurred in the wake of the 2020 election (“The Big
Lie”). Gross, Baltz, and Stewart (2023) document the attacks on election
administrators via Twitter. They collect every reply to Twitter accounts managed
by the chief election official in a state or the agency in charge of elections
over a ten-year period. Collecting almost a half million Tweets, they are able
to show that the negativity is not new, but since the 2020 election, “it has
persisted, grown worse, and spread beyond the individuals most prominently
targeted in that one election period” (Gross et al 2023, p.186). They are able
to measure the ideology of the people who reply; generally, more left-leaning
people respond than right-leaning people respond to election administrators, but
when there is a “sudden pile-on” of negative tweets, they typically come from
right-leaning individuals.

Ironically, it is social media which serves as an important vehicle for voter
education according to the article by Suttmann-Lea and Merivaki (this issue).
Suttmann-Lea and Merivaki have been conducting examining the role of social
media in educational efforts on the part of local election officials (Merivaki
and Suttmann-Lea, 2022, 2023; Suttmann-Lea and Merivaki, 2022). In this article,
they analyze individual level voter confidence as a function of resources used
to educate voters, as well a direct measure of Facebook posts. Some of their
findings are that The Center for Tech and Civic Life grants (also known as
Zuckerbucks) are related to higher voter confidence, as are consistent Facebook
posts on the part of state election officials. Importantly, these scholars note,
“We do not believe these efforts are changing voters' minds on ballot counting,
but rather that they serve to insulate against the factors that commonly dictate
lower confidence, such as selecting a losing candidate, and the more pernicious
elements of mis/disinformation about election fraud within the election
information ecosystem.” (Suttmann-Lea and Merivaki 2023, p.147). Their
perspective is that local officials can inoculate voters and create an
environment of transparency.

At the 2022 conference, we invited approximately 30 local and state election
officials who attended the conference to provide ideas for future scholarly
research. They provided several suggestions, many of which can provide important
insights for practitioner planning, but also richly theoretical scholarly
pursuits:

 * North Carolina is just one state where officials consolidated elections, but
   there are others. Does that result in more voter fatigue? Did consolidation
   result in more voter participation? Were there more or different candidate
   activities because of consolidation?

 * Given consolidated elections, is there a cost savings? When considering
   budgeting and trade-offs, what are the considerations for consolidated
   elections?

 * The pandemic fundamentally changed how people worked. Jobs are typically much
   more flexible. As a result, is there a new group of pollworkers that local
   election officials can recruit?

 * What are the characteristics of election deniers?

 * What is the relationship between election officials and vendors?

 * How has the field of election administration evolved? One answer: now, we are
   public information officers and cyber security experts.

 * How do we use local schools as polling places? Should schools be in session
   or not?

 * What really builds trust? How do I build a personal connection with voters?

 * How do we enforce campaign finance laws?

 * We need more research that helps us secure funding from local government.

 * A number of concerns around voting by mail, but mostly, making sure that
   voters who worked to get their ballots in on time had their ballots count.
   Postmark requirements. Many ballots come through the USPS system with no
   postmark. (Lack of postmark leads to ballots not counted that were mailed in
   a timely manner.) In North Carolina, ballots must be postmarked election day
   and received three days later! Ballot Trax tracks ballots. Some never arrive
   at Board of Elections (BOE).



The conference provided an exciting intellectual environment, as suggested by
these many papers, but it also provided an opportunity for election officials to
learn about the effectiveness of many election processes.


 * Figures
 * References
 * Related
 * Details


REFERENCES

 * Catalist. 2021. <https://catalist.us/> (accessed May 29, 2023). Google
   Scholar
 * Census Bureau. 2020. “Census Bureau Releases 2020 Presidential Election
   Voting Report.”
   <https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/2020-presidential-election-voting-report.html#:~:text=More%20voters%20(154.6%20million)%20turned,CPS%20voting%20supplement%20in%201964>
   (accessed May 30, 2023). Google Scholar
 * Cooperative Election Study. 2021.
   <https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi%3A10.7910/DVN/OPQOCU>
   (accessed May 29, 2023). Google Scholar
 * Gross , Joelle, Samuel Baltz , and Charles Stewart . 2023. “What happens when
   the president calls you an ‘enemy of the people’?” Election Law Journal
   22(2):185–204; doi: 10.1089/elj.2022.0058. Link, Google Scholar
 * Kropf , Martha. “The Pandemic Voting Experience,” in Pandemic at the Polls:
   How the Politics of COVID-19 Played into American Elections, ed. Dari Tran,
   Lexington Books. (In Press). Google Scholar
 * Manion , Anita, David Kimball , Joseph Anthony , Adriano Udani , and Ryan
   Pritchard. 2023. “Vote at Any Polling Place: A Case Study of St. Louis
   County, Missouri.” Election Law Journal 22 [Epub ahead of print]; doi:
   10.1089/elj.2022.0056. Crossref, Google Scholar
 * Manion , Anita, David Kimball , Joseph Anthony , and Adriano Udani. “Missouri
   Degree of Difficulty: Implementing Vote Centers During a Pandemic,” in
   Pandemic at the Polls: How the Politics of COVID-19 Played into American
   Elections, ed. Dari Tran, Lexington Books. (In Press). Google Scholar
 * McDonald , Michael, Juliana Mucci , Enrijeta Shino , and Daniel Smith. 2023.
   “Mail Voting and Turnout.” Election Law Journal [Epub ahead of print]; doi:
   10.1089/elj.2022.0078. Link, Google Scholar
 * Meredith , Marc and Lucy Kronenberg. “Who Cures Ballots? Evidence from North
   Carolina's 2020 General Election.” Election Law Journal. (In Press) (the
   other conference issue.) Google Scholar
 * Merivaki , Thessalia, and Mara Suttmann-Lea . 2023. “Can Electoral Management
   Bodies Expand the Pool of Registered Voters? Examining the Effects of
   Face-to-Face, Remote, Traditional, and Social Media Outreach.” Policy Studies
   44(3): 377–407. Crossref, Google Scholar
 * Merivaki , Thessalia, and Mara Suttmann-Lea . 2022. “Designing Voter
   Education Across the States: State Responses to the Help America Vote Act.”
   Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy 21(1): 46–59. Link, Google
   Scholar
 * Suttmann-Lea , Mara and Thessalia Merivaki. 2022. “Don't Drown the Message:
   The Effects of Voter Education on Mail Ballot Acceptance in North Carolina.”
   Journal of Election Administration Research and Practice 1(2). Google Scholar
 * Ritter , Michael. “The Pandemic, The U.S. Postal Service and Mail Voting Laws
   and Voting in American Elections” in Pandemic at the Polls: How the Politics
   of COVID-19 Played into American Elections, ed. Dari Tran, Lexington Books.
   (In Press). Google Scholar
 * Ritter , Michael and Caroline Tolbert. 2020. Accessible Elections: How the
   Sates can Help Americans Vote. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
 * Ritter , Michael. 2023. “Assessing the Impact of the United States Postal
   System and Election Administration on Absentee and Mail Voting in U.S.
   Elections.” Election Law Journal 22(2): 166–184; doi: 10.1089/elj.2022.0060.
   Link, Google Scholar

 * 

Volume 22Issue 2
Jun 2023
Information

Copyright 2023, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To cite this article:
Martha Kropf.Academic Scholarship and Election Official Perspectives at the
Election Science, Reform, and Administration Conference.Election Law Journal:
Rules, Politics, and Policy.Jun
2023.101-104.http://doi.org/10.1089/elj.2023.29004.mkr
 * Published in Volume: 22 Issue 2: June 16, 2023

PDF download

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



back

Close Figure Viewer
Browse All FiguresReturn to FigureChange zoom levelZoom inZoom out

Previous FigureNext Figure

Caption

Back to Top
 * 
 * 
 * 

PUBLICATIONS

 * Publications A-Z
 * Journal Collections
 * Publications by Type
 * Recommend a Title

FOR AUTHORS

   
 * Fees and Options
 * Publishing Open Access
 * Submission Guidelines
 * Policies

LIBRARIANS

   
 * Our Journals
 * Account Support
 * Archive
 * Terms & Conditions
 * Resources
 * Liebert Link Newsletter
 * Contact

OPEN ACCESS

   
 * Open Option
 * Open Access Journals
 * Publishing Services
 * FAQs
 * Contact

CORPORATE CAPABILITIES

   
 * Custom Publications
 * Interactive Media
 * Other Opportunities
 * Reprints & ePrints

ADVERTISING

COMPANY

CUSTOMER SUPPORT

CONTACT US

PRIVACY POLICY

© 2023 Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers. All rights reserved, USA and
worldwide.
Call us toll free at (800) M-LIEBERT (800-654-3237).


We use cookies to give you a better experience on liebertpub.com. By continuing
to use our site, you are agreeing to the use of cookies as set in our Cookie
Policy.OK

✓
Thanks for sharing!
AddToAny
More…

Close crossmark popup