2016 state election agency accessibility report
Aspiring political candidates must interact with state election agencies, which administer state election laws and determine whose names will be printed on election ballots. These agencies differ significantly from state to state, particularly with regard to accessibility. In order to determine how accessible state election agencies are to political candidates, Ballotpedia conducted an analysis of agency websites in all 50 states, grading states according to three distinct criteria: ease of access, quality of information, and response speed.
Scoring methodology
States were graded in three distinct categories:
- Ease of access: Did election agencies present the information candidates needed in an easy-to-find and easy-to-understand manner? (24 points)
- Quality of information: Did agencies disclose precise filing fee and signature requirement figures, or did agencies require candidates to calculate these figures themselves? (18 points)
- Response speed: Did agencies respond to email queries in a timely manner? (8 points)
The maximum score a state could receive was 50 points. For further details about methodology, consult the sections below.
Total scores
Total scores and rankings
See the table below for total scores and rankings for each state. Because several states share the same score, there are 25 total rankings (one being the highest).
| Total scores and rankings, 2016 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Response speed score | Ease of access score | Quality of information score | Total score | Ranking |
| Alabama | 0 | 14 | 6 | 20 | 22 |
| Alaska | 8 | 11 | 18 | 37 | 13 |
| Arizona | 0 | 21 | 18 | 39 | 11 |
| Arkansas | 0 | 22 | 12 | 34 | 15 |
| California | 0 | 18 | 18 | 36 | 14 |
| Colorado | 8 | 20 | 12 | 40 | 10 |
| Connecticut | 0 | 14 | 12 | 26 | 18 |
| Delaware | 0 | 14 | 6 | 20 | 22 |
| Florida | 8 | 19 | 18 | 45 | 5 |
| Georgia | 0 | 18 | 6 | 24 | 19 |
| Hawaii | 8 | 22 | 18 | 48 | 2 |
| Idaho | 0 | 21 | 18 | 39 | 11 |
| Illinois | 6 | 15 | 18 | 39 | 11 |
| Indiana | 8 | 21 | 12 | 41 | 9 |
| Iowa | 8 | 18 | 18 | 44 | 6 |
| Kansas | 0 | 16 | 0 | 16 | 24 |
| Kentucky | 8 | 16 | 18 | 42 | 8 |
| Louisiana | 8 | 14 | 18 | 40 | 10 |
| Maine | 8 | 17 | 18 | 43 | 7 |
| Maryland | 0 | 17 | 6 | 23 | 20 |
| Massachusetts | 6 | 21 | 18 | 45 | 5 |
| Michigan | 6 | 18 | 18 | 42 | 8 |
| Minnesota | 8 | 19 | 18 | 45 | 5 |
| Mississippi | 8 | 18 | 18 | 44 | 6 |
| Missouri | 0 | 18 | 12 | 30 | 16 |
| Montana | 8 | 19 | 18 | 45 | 5 |
| Nebraska | 0 | 21 | 6 | 27 | 17 |
| Nevada | 8 | 18 | 18 | 44 | 6 |
| New Hampshire | 8 | 16 | 18 | 42 | 8 |
| New Jersey | 8 | 14 | 0 | 22 | 21 |
| New Mexico | 0 | 6 | 0 | 6 | 25 |
| New York | 6 | 18 | 12 | 36 | 14 |
| North Carolina | 8 | 22 | 12 | 42 | 8 |
| North Dakota | 8 | 14 | 12 | 34 | 15 |
| Ohio | 6 | 17 | 18 | 41 | 9 |
| Oklahoma | 8 | 16 | 18 | 42 | 8 |
| Oregon | 8 | 19 | 12 | 39 | 11 |
| Pennsylvania | 8 | 11 | 0 | 19 | 23 |
| Rhode Island | 8 | 20 | 18 | 46 | 4 |
| South Carolina | 0 | 20 | 6 | 26 | 18 |
| South Dakota | 8 | 18 | 18 | 44 | 6 |
| Tennessee | 8 | 19 | 18 | 45 | 5 |
| Texas | 8 | 20 | 12 | 40 | 10 |
| Utah | 8 | 18 | 18 | 44 | 6 |
| Vermont | 8 | 23 | 18 | 49 | 1 |
| Virginia | 0 | 14 | 6 | 20 | 22 |
| Washington | 8 | 21 | 18 | 47 | 3 |
| West Virginia | 8 | 24 | 6 | 38 | 12 |
| Wisconsin | 8 | 19 | 18 | 45 | 5 |
| Wyoming | 6 | 23 | 18 | 47 | 3 |
Ease of access
Ease of access
Methodology
In the "ease of access" portion of the analysis, mouse clicks were used to gauge accessibility. For example, if an individual could access a state's election calendar with a single click, the state would receive the full six points allotted for that item. If an individual had to click twice to access the calendar, the state would receive five points for that item, and so on. If a state did not publish a particular document, the state received zero points for that item. If a state included two items within a single document (e.g., an election calendar included within a candidate guide), the state was given the same score for each individual item. Four items were included in this portion of the analysis, resulting in a maximum score of 24 points: candidate guides, election calendars, campaign finance guides, and campaign finance calendars. See the rubric below for further details.
| Ease of access rubric | |
|---|---|
| 1 click | 6 points |
| 2 clicks | 5 points |
| 3 clicks | 4 points |
| 4 clicks | 3 points |
| 5 clicks | 2 points |
| 6 clicks | 1 point |
| Not available | 0 points |
Findings
In this portion of the analysis, West Virginia ranked first, earning the full 24 points allotted. New Mexico, meanwhile, ranked last, earning six total points. The average score in this portion of the analysis was 17.8. The only document made available by every state was a campaign finance reporting calendar; however, nine states did not publish a campaign finance reporting guide. See the table below for further details.
| Ease of access scores by state, 2016 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Number of clicks required | Total score | |||
| Candidate guide | Election calendar | Campaign finance guide | Campaign finance calendar | ||
| Alabama | 3 | N/A | 2 | 2 | 14 |
| Alaska | 5 | 4 | N/A | 1 | 11 |
| Arizona | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 21 |
| Arkansas | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 22 |
| California | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 18 |
| Colorado | 2 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 20 |
| Connecticut | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 14 |
| Delaware | N/A | 2 | 3 | 2 | 14 |
| Florida | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 19 |
| Georgia | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 18 |
| Hawaii | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 22 |
| Idaho | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 21 |
| Illinois | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 15 |
| Indiana | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 21 |
| Iowa | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 18 |
| Kansas | 2 | 2 | N/A | 1 | 16 |
| Kentucky | N/A | 2 | 1 | 2 | 16 |
| Louisiana | 2 | 3 | N/A | 2 | 14 |
| Maine | 2 | N/A | 1 | 1 | 17 |
| Maryland | 1 | 1 | N/A | 2 | 17 |
| Massachusetts | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 21 |
| Michigan | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 18 |
| Minnesota | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 19 |
| Mississippi | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 18 |
| Missouri | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 18 |
| Montana | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 19 |
| Nebraska | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 21 |
| Nevada | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 18 |
| New Hampshire | 3 | 1 | N/A | 1 | 16 |
| New Jersey | N/A | 3 | 3 | 1 | 14 |
| New Mexico | N/A | N/A | N/A | 1 | 6 |
| New York | 1 | 1 | N/A | 1 | 18 |
| North Carolina | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 22 |
| North Dakota | 3 | 2 | N/A | 2 | 14 |
| Ohio | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 17 |
| Oklahoma | 2 | N/A | 1 | 2 | 16 |
| Oregon | 4 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 19 |
| Pennsylvania | N/A | 1 | 4 | 5 | 11 |
| Rhode Island | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 20 |
| South Carolina | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 20 |
| South Dakota | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 18 |
| Tennessee | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 19 |
| Texas | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 20 |
| Utah | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 18 |
| Vermont | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 23 |
| Virginia | 3 | 2 | N/A | 2 | 14 |
| Washington | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 21 |
| West Virginia | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 24 |
| Wisconsin | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 19 |
| Wyoming | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 23 |
Quality of information
Quality of information
Methodology
In this portion of the analysis, states were scored on the quality of the information presented. Two items were included: signature requirements and filing fees. In order to receive the full 18 points allotted in this portion of the analysis, a state needed to publish precise signature requirements and filing fees for all offices. If a state only provided formulas and required candidates to calculate requirements and fees themselves, the state received zero points. In states where filing fees were not applicable, the fees were excluded from the score. If a state published partial signature requirements or filing fees, it received partial credit. See the rubric below for further details.
| Quality of information rubric | |
|---|---|
| Both signature requirements and cost of filing fees included | 18 points |
| Signature requirements included and cost of filing fees not applicable | 18 points |
| Partial signature requirements and cost of filing fees included | 12 points |
| Partial signature requirements and cost of filing fees not applicable | 12 points |
| Only signature requirements included | 6 point |
| Only cost of filing fees included | 6 point |
| No signature requirements or cost of filing fees included | 0 points |
Findings
Twenty-eight states earned the full 18 points available in this portion of the analysis. Four states (Kansas, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania) earned zero points. See the table below for further details.
Note: In the table below, "N/A" indicates that filing fees are not charged in the state and are therefore not applicable; "No," meanwhile, indicates that filing fees are charged, but specific information about those fees could not be located.
| Quality of information scores, 2016 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| State | Signature requirements | Filing fees | Points |
| Alabama | Partial | No | 6 |
| Alaska | Yes | Yes | 18 |
| Arizona | Yes | N/A | 18 |
| Arkansas | Partial | Partial | 12 |
| California | Yes | Yes | 18 |
| Colorado | Partial | N/A | 12 |
| Connecticut | Partial | N/A | 12 |
| Delaware | No | Yes | 6 |
| Florida | Yes | Yes | 18 |
| Georgia | No | Yes | 6 |
| Hawaii | Yes | Yes | 18 |
| Idaho | Yes | Yes | 18 |
| Illinois | Yes | N/A | 18 |
| Indiana | Partial | N/A | 12 |
| Iowa | Yes | N/A | 18 |
| Kansas | No | No | 0 |
| Kentucky | Yes | Yes | 18 |
| Louisiana | Yes | Yes | 18 |
| Maine | Yes | N/A | 18 |
| Maryland | No | Yes | 6 |
| Massachusetts | Yes | N/A | 18 |
| Michigan | Yes | Yes | 18 |
| Minnesota | Yes | Yes | 18 |
| Mississippi | Yes | Yes | 18 |
| Missouri | Partial | Yes | 12 |
| Montana | Yes | Yes | 18 |
| Nebraska | No | Yes | 6 |
| Nevada | Yes | Yes | 18 |
| New Hampshire | Yes | Yes | 18 |
| New Jersey | No | No | 0 |
| New Mexico | No | No | 0 |
| New York | Partial | N/A | 12 |
| North Carolina | Partial | Partial | 12 |
| North Dakota | Partial | N/A | 12 |
| Ohio | Yes | Yes | 18 |
| Oklahoma | N/A | Yes | 18 |
| Oregon | Partial | Yes | 12 |
| Pennsylvania | No | No | 0 |
| Rhode Island | Yes | N/A | 18 |
| South Carolina | No | Yes | 6 |
| South Dakota | Yes | N/A | 18 |
| Tennessee | Yes | N/A | 18 |
| Texas | Partial | Yes | 12 |
| Utah | Yes | Yes | 18 |
| Vermont | Yes | N/A | 18 |
| Virginia | Yes | No | 6 |
| Washington | Yes | Yes | 18 |
| West Virginia | No | Yes | 6 |
| Wisconsin | Yes | N/A | 18 |
| Wyoming | Yes | Yes | 18 |
Speed of access
Speed of access
Methodology
In this portion of the analysis, states were graded according to how quickly they responded to email inquiries. A state that responded within 24 hours received the full eight points allotted in this portion of the analysis. If a state failed to respond within 96 hours, it received zero points. See below for further details.
| Response speed rubric | |
|---|---|
| Replied within 24 hours | 8 points |
| Replied within 48 hours | 6 points |
| Replied within 72 hours | 4 points |
| Replied within 96 hours | 2 point |
| No reply (or replied after more than 96 hours) | 0 points |
Findings
Fifteen states failed to respond within the 96-hour period specified. Of the 35 states that did respond within that time period, 29 responded within 24 hours, and six responded within 48 hours. See the table below for further details
| Response speed scores, 2016 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Duration between inquiry and response (in hours) | Score | ||
| Alabama | No reply / no reply within 96 hours | 0 | ||
| Alaska | 2.52 | 8 | ||
| Arizona | No reply / no reply within 96 hours | 0 | ||
| Arkansas | No reply / no reply within 96 hours | 0 | ||
| California | No reply / no reply within 96 hours | 0 | ||
| Colorado | 0.07 | 8 | ||
| Connecticut | No reply / no reply within 96 hours | 0 | ||
| Delaware | No reply / no reply within 96 hours | 0 | ||
| Florida | 0.15 | 8 | ||
| Georgia | No reply / no reply within 96 hours | 0 | ||
| Hawaii | 4.55 | 8 | ||
| Idaho | No reply / no reply within 96 hours | 0 | ||
| Illinois | 47.10 | 6 | ||
| Indiana | 0.10 | 8 | ||
| Iowa | 2.68 | 8 | ||
| Kansas | No reply / no reply within 96 hours | 0 | ||
| Kentucky | 0.80 | 8 | ||
| Louisiana | 4.33 | 8 | ||
| Maine | 2.95 | 8 | ||
| Maryland | No reply / no reply within 96 hours | 0 | ||
| Massachusetts | 25.35 | 6 | ||
| Michigan | 46.83 | 6 | ||
| Minnesota | 1.65 | 8 | ||
| Mississippi | 5.10 | 8 | ||
| Missouri | No reply / no reply within 96 hours | 0 | ||
| Montana | 1.38 | 8 | ||
| Nebraska | No reply / no reply within 96 hours | 0 | ||
| Nevada | 1.67 | 8 | ||
| New Hampshire | 1.45 | 8 | ||
| New Jersey | 23.60 | 8 | ||
| New Mexico | No reply / no reply within 96 hours | 0 | ||
| New York | 30.43 | 6 | ||
| North Carolina | 0.90 | 8 | ||
| North Dakota | 1.10 | 8 | ||
| Ohio | 30.98 | 6 | ||
| Oklahoma | 6.15 | 8 | ||
| Oregon | 5.38 | 8 | ||
| Pennsylvania | 3.87 | 8 | ||
| Rhode Island | 1.93 | 8 | ||
| South Carolina | No reply / no reply within 96 hours | 0 | ||
| South Dakota | 0.77 | 8 | ||
| Tennessee | 1.40 | 8 | ||
| Texas | 1.43 | 8 | ||
| Utah | 0.35 | 8 | ||
| Vermont | 0.13 | 8 | ||
| Virginia | No reply / no reply within 96 hours | 0 | ||
| Washington | 0.30 | 8 | ||
| West Virginia | 0.23 | 8 | ||
| Wisconsin | 4.22 | 8 | ||
| Wyoming | 28.80 | 6 | ||
Complete results
Complete results
The spreadsheet below provides the complete results for each state. Use the tabs at the bottom of the spreadsheet to navigate to different portions of the analysis. For more information, contact us.
See also
- Accessibility of state election agencies
- 2014 state election agency accessibility report
- State election agencies
| |||||||||||
