Memorandum To: Linda Lamone, Ross Goldstein, and Nikki Trella ...

CENTER FOR AMERICAN POLITICS AND CITIZENSHIP
Memorandum
3140 Tydings Hall
College Park, Maryland 20742
Paul S. Herrnson, Director
301.405.4123 Tel.
301.314.2532 Fax.
herrnson@umd.edu
To: Linda Lamone, Ross Goldstein, and Nikki Trella, Maryland State Board of Elections
From: Paul Herrnson and Michael Hanmer, Center for American Politics and Citizenship
Date: 6/30/12
Re: Report on survey results among users of EABDS and registrants who used other methods of
voting or did not vote
Beginning with the 2010 primary election, the State of Maryland offered voters the option of
receiving their official blank absentee ballot, accompanying documentation, and pre-addressed
mailing label via a secure website. This new voting option, known as the Electronic Absentee Ballot
Delivery System (EABDS), was developed by the Maryland State Board of Elections (MSBE) and
the Center for American Politics and Citizenship (CAPC). As part of its evaluation process, CAPC
conducted several surveys shortly after the 2010 election to examine the effectiveness of the new
system. This memo summarizes the results from CAPC’s survey of citizens who used the new
system and a separate survey of registrants who used the other methods of voting or did not vote:
voting on Election Day, early voting, mail-delivered absentee ballot, and in some cases, registered
nonvoters. Overall, voters reported a high level of satisfaction, and confidence.
The research population for the survey of EABDS users consists of all those who requested to
receive an electronically delivered blank absentee ballot for the 2010 general election. The
population consisted of 9,179 individuals. CAPC sent each of these 9,179 individuals an email after
the November 2010 general election inviting them to participate in a survey about their experiences
with EABDS; 169 of these emails bounced back as undeliverable. Those who did not respond were
sent up to 5 additional email reminders. A total of 4,319 individuals took the survey. The research
population for the survey of registrants who did not use EABDS consists of all those who were listed
as registered in the Maryland voter file and who had a phone number that could be located using
information contained in the Maryland voter file (name, address, and date of birth). CAPC staff drew
a stratified random sample based on the method of voting individuals used (including nonvoters) in
the 2010 general election and whether the individual was contacted by CAPC about the election.
CAPC staff then sent the background information from this sample to Eastern Research Services,
who used a matching procedure to obtain phone numbers. Eastern Research Services then conducted
the interviews by phone. A total of 1,089 Maryland registrants completed the survey.
When asked how confident they were that their ballots were counted, a majority of voters said they
were either somewhat confident or very confident (see Figure 1). Added together, the confidence
level was 96.2% for Election Day and early voters, 92.6% for those who received their ballot in the
mail (regular absentee), and 85.8% for EABDS users. The majority of respondents who voted on

Election Day, early, or via regular absentee were very confident that their vote was counted. These
percentages were 77.9%, 79.9%, and 61.1%, respectively. Among EABDS users, the proportion of
those who were very confident was lower, at 39.3%.
Voters also expressed a high level of confidence when asked how confident they were that their
ballots were counted as intended (see Figure 2). For Election Day, early, and regular absentee voters,
the answers to this measure of confidence were quite similar to the more general question. The
confidence level for EABDS users, however, increased to 88.9%, driven by a larger proportion who
said they were very confident (48.9%).
Figure 1. How confident are you that your ballot was counted?
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1.7% 2.1% 1.7% 2.0% 1.9%
5.6%
4.6%
18.3%
16.3%
9.6%
77.9%
79.9%
31.5%
61.1%
46.5%
39.3%
Election Day Early Regular Absentee Electronic
Absentee
Method of Voting Used
Figure 2. How confident are you that your ballot was counted as intended?
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1.4% 1.7% 1.0% 2.8% 1.8%
6.1%
3.6%
7.2%
20.0% 19.7%
24.5%
76.9% 76.6%
67.5%
40.3%
48.9%
Election Day Early Regular Absentee Electronic
Absentee
Method of Voting Used
Not At All Confident
Not Too Confident
Somewhat Confident
Very Confident
Not At All Confident
Not Too Confident
Somewhat Confident
Very Confident

When asked to rate the security of EABDS compared to the regular absentee ballot, the results varied
quite a bit by the method of voting actually used. As Figure 3 shows, 93.6% of EABDS users rated
EABDS as secure, somewhat more secure, or much more secure than the other methods of voting.
That number drops to 58.8% among regular absentee voters, and to 47.4% and 53.7% among early
voters and Election Day voters. Notably, the majority of EABDS users (51.1%) thought EABDS
was as secure as the mail-delivered absentee ballot. Though lower overall, the largest proportion of
Election Day voters and regular absentee voters rated EABDS as secure as a mail-delivered ballot,
29.2% and 35.3%, respectively.
Figure 3. How would you rate the security of EABDS compared to the mail-delivered absentee
ballot?
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
23.3% 23.5%
23.0%
29.2%
16.3%
29.2%
26.2%
15.4%
18.3%
22.9%
35.3%
15.7%
8.2% 5.8% 7.8%
1.2%
5.1%
51.1%
23.3%
19.2%
Election Day Early Regular Absentee Electronic
Absentee
Method of Voting Used
Much Less Secure
Somewhat Less Secure
As Secure
Somewhat More Secure
Much More Secure
We also asked voters to rate their satisfaction with the voting method they used. The question for
EABDS users was slightly different in that they were asked how satisfied they were with receiving
their ballot electronically. The vast majority of respondents across all four methods of voting said
they were very satisfied. Figure 4 shows that those who voted early were most satisfied (86.1%),
followed by those who voted on Election Day (83.8%), those who received a mail ballot (81.8%),
and EABDS users (80.0%). When the percentages of those who were very satisfied and somewhat
satisfied are added together, the overall satisfaction level breaks 90% across each voting method.
The highest was, again, early voters at 97.0%, followed by Election Day voters at 95.5%, regular
absentee voters at 93.9%, and EABDS users at 93.0%. The extremely high overall satisfaction levels
suggest that almost all voters’ experiences matched their expectations for the voting method they
chose.

Figure 4. How satisfied were you with having voted/receiving absentee ballot this way?
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
11.7%
10.9%
12.1% 13.0%
83.8% 86.1% 81.8% 80.0%
Election Day Early Regular
Absentee
Method of Voting Used
Electronic
Absentee
Very Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Neither Satisfied nor Unsatisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Very Satisfied
When asked how comfortable they would feel accessing an absentee ballot via the State Board’s
website, people who did not vote and people who voted via mail-delivered ballot were the most
likely to somewhat or strongly agree that they would be comfortable, at 57.0% and 61.7%
respectively (see Figure 5). Early and Election Day voters were less likely to agree, with just below
50% agreeing they would be comfortable using this voting method. When EABDS users were
surveyed, 95% agreed that they felt comfortable accessing their ballot via the State Board’s website,
with 81.1% reporting that they strongly agreed that they were comfortable with the system.
Figure 5. I would feel comfortable accessing my absentee ballot via the State Board’s website.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
19.9% 21.4%
13.2% 13.5%
17.4% 17.4%
25.3%
24.2%
20.6%
27.0%
11.1%
9.9%
17.3%
22.8%
38.9%
Election Day Early Regular
Absentee
15.4%
13.3%
14.3%
26.6%
30.4%
Nonvoters
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree

When asked to rate their voting experience in this election compared to past elections, the majority of
respondents rated it as either about the same or more positive (see Figure 6). In regards to Election
Day and regular absentee voting, the majority of respondents rated their experience as about the same
(74.6% and 64.4%, respectively), while respondents who used the newer voting methods rated their
experience as more positive. The percentage of early voters who rated their experience as about the
same was 44.9%, with about 50% rating it as somewhat or much more positive. The percentage of
EABDS users who rated their experience as about the same was 39.0%, with 55.4% rating it as
somewhat or much more positive. Only 20.8% of Election Day voters and 29.5% of regular absentee
voters rated their voting experience as somewhat or much more positive, though voters using these
methods were less likely to report that their experience was more negative than previous elections.
We also asked respondents about the possibility of using EABDS in the future. Among voters who
used EABDS in 2010, 65.5% said they were very likely to use it again, with 90.7% of users being at
least somewhat likely to use it again, suggesting they had a positive experience with the system (see
Figure 7). Those who voted early or on Election Day were not as likely to say they would use
EABDS in the future, while 59.6% of regular absentee voters were at least somewhat likely to use
EABDS in the future. Only 45.8% of registered nonvoters said they were likely to use EABDS in the
future.
Figure 6. How would you rate your voting experience in this election compared to prior voting
experiences?
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3.9%
0.7% 3.1% 1.8% 0.9%
2.4% 4.3% 4.7%
74.6%
10.2%
10.6%
44.9%
17.0%
32.7%
64.4%
11.7%
17.8%
39.0%
28.0%
27.4%
Election Day Early Regular Absentee Electronic
Absentee
Method of Voting Used
Much more negative
Somewhat more negative
About the same
Somewhat more positive
Much more positive

Figure 7. How likely are you to use an absentee ballot posted to the State Board’s website to
vote in future elections?
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
44.0%
23.7%
22.7%
51.3%
21.5%
18.8%
9.6% 8.4%
24.0%
16.4%
26.3%
33.3%
Election Day Early Regular
Absentee
Method of Voting Used
3.3%
6.0%
25.2%
65.5%
Electronic
Absentee
37.8%
16.4%
28.0%
17.8%
Nonvoters
Very unlikely
Somewhat unlikely
Somewhat likely
Very likely
Finally, we asked Election Day, early, and regular absentee voters which of the four methods of
voting would be most convenient (polling place, early, absentee with mail request, and absentee with
EABDS). Not surprisingly, the ratings show a strong relationship between the methods of voting
voters chose in 2010 and their views about convenience (see Figure 8A). For example, 72.0% of
Election Day voters reported that voting on Election Day was the most convenient method of voting.
Similarly, 66.7% of early voters rated early voting as most convenient and 40.7% of regular absentee
voters rated the method they used as the most convenient. Among nonvoters, Election Day voting
was most likely to be selected as the most convenient method, with 45.2% of nonvoters responding
that Election Day voting would be the most convenient. For all but early voters, the second highest
percentage of respondents selected EABDS as the most convenient method.
When EABDS users were asked if voting via the absentee ballot posted to the State Board’s website
was more convenient than other methods of voting, 62.5% of EABDS voters strongly agreed that
their method was the most convenient; overall, 82.6% agreed, suggesting a positive experience (see
Figure 8B).

Figure 8: Comparing Convenience
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Figure 8A. Phone Survey: Of the following four methods of voting, which would
be the most convenient?
15.0%
3.8%
9.2%
72.0%
11.1%
6.7%
66.7%
15.5%
27.3%
40.7%
10.5%
21.5%
Election Day Early Regular
Absentee
Method of Voting Used
22.3%
18.0%
14.4%
45.2%
Nonvoters
Absentee with EABDS
Absentee with mail request
Early
Polling Place
Figure 8B. EABDS users: Voting using the absentee ballot posted to the SBE’s
website was more convenient than other methods of voting.
Somewhat Disagree,
3.5%
Neither Agree nor
Disagree, 12.2%
Somewhat Agree,
20.1%
Strongly Disagree,
1.7%
Strongly Agree,
62.5%

Overall, voters were confident that their ballot was counted and counted as intended, in addition to
being satisfied with the voting process across all methods of voting. Respondents also reported that
they are highly likely to use EABDS in the future and rate it as convenient, especially if they had
voted via EABDS or regular absentee. Voters who did not use EABDS were not especially likely to
rate it as secure as an absentee ballot delivered via regular mail. This suggests that more outreach is
necessary to inform the public about this new method of voting.